Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare
by Chuck Norris


While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?

Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?

Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.

Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That's why we've spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit KICKSTART program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents' choice.

How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?

Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.

It's all part of my plan

it takes a village.....??????

"The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

What bill?

There's a Parents As Teachers program, btw.

You can read the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 here, all 1018 pages of it.

I don't care if he's right or wrong

I'm not arguing with Chuck Norris

Ugh!!

Due respect to Mr Norris, but there is no need for laws regulating health care, especially FERDERAL laws. Health care is a business and free market forces will watch it, same as any other business.

This is tantamount to tyranny-an "elected" elite issuing royal dictates to the masses. :P

While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.

You bet there is..Transparency? I don't see it.

Our system is currently the best in the world. Also the most expensive. So lets scrap it and start over? I don't think that is a good idea. Improve what we have now.jmo

Would it concern you at all if there were secrets on the other side, like the drug companies and the insurers or are you so sure there are dirty little secrets in this bill that you would ignore the possibility? While I think there is a lot to know here, I do think there is a good side to all this craziness going on with people screaming and yelling. It insures that the leaders know we are concerned and mad as hell even if we aren't all together sure what we are mad at. Also I think that those who are so against it, should actually listen to what Obama is saying and look into the associations behind the rhetoric, on both sides. If I said that right.

I want a public option just like millions of others, but I also have some of the same concerns the so called mob has, so I was very interested to hear the responses to some of those in the so called mob. I am not completely convinced of anything yet, but I am concerned that those so dead set against it are not seeing both sides either.

Thanks for the link.

I didn't see anything in there about that. It was pertaining to medical facilities, nursing facilities, ERs, and more.

i see no reason people shouldn't be educated on parenting. I became a Mom at 23, and took parenting classes. Money, class all that jazz does not make a parent. And as sad as it is lots of times lower income does need a hand up. I agree with the "it takes a village" comment. If the mandate keeps one child from being abused its worth it. Where was the outrage with Daddy Bush's No Child left behind? when that was snuck in and left for years??? Kids graduated and couldn't READ!!!!!!!!

It's fine if someone wants to start a teaching business or volunteer. Government mandates always involve force, fraud, and theft-all inherently immoral. There was outrage about No Child Left Behind too, as I recall. Government fails at everything it does (except theft, fraud, and murder)-it should be abolished.

The easiest way to get Gov. involved in raising kids is to expand the authority of Social Services, allowing all recpients be subject to child rearing rules. Break the rules and get cut off and your children placed in foster care.

The problem is, language is important. There is a huge disconnect between the ideas being presented and the words being used.

Do I think it would be a good idea that a 17 year old mother of 2 kids has someone they can go to for help getting their life on track? Sure. But that isn't the language being used.

The government "will provide" means that it is now the governments job to send a representative into people's homes and tell them the best ways to raise their children. And, you can bet that each representative will be a mandated reporter for the state.

Why not change "will provide" to "will make available"? Wouldn't that ease a lot of fears??? Is there a reason they chose the language that they used?

As for No Child Left Behind, the reason that is such a monumental failure is because it treats all children as being the same (a similar criticism that some are raising with this package).

Now... as for the cost of creating an army of social workers to save our children from their parents.... that is problematic in itself.

Edit: Just went through the pdf and found this:

18 ‘‘(A) means expenditures to provide vol
19 untary home visitation for as many families
20 with young children (under the age of school
21 entry) and families expecting children as prac
22 ticable,

but the funding still looks like a nightmare.

The public school system already provides a Parents As Teachers program for children 5 and under. They do monthly home visits. I wonder what the difference would be and if they would abolish the current program.

dunno... I am unfamiliar with that program

http://www.parentsasteachers.org/site/pp.asp?c=ekIRLcMZJxE&b=1802143

It's a great program, IMO.

Looks like a good program and it will probably be around for a while. It only receives a small percentage of its operating capital from the government in the form of grants. And it is completely voluntary...

I think this kind of makes the point that a lot of people have been complaining about. There seem to be good programs out there that do good things and aren't a tax burden.