Mr. President, it's time to face the music and help America to do the same. This Wednesday evening, you will … Read More.
Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare
Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.
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 (http://www.kick-start.org) 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 compromised health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.
To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Isn't it totally apparent in the proposed bill that these services are OPTIONAL? And that we should regard these OPTIONAL SERVICES as a blessing, as a GOOD THING?
Wouldn't it be nice to have more medical/health services available on a HOME VISIT basis, if that is what you PREFER?
It wasn't that long ago in America that people didn't wait in waiting rooms for care, they got visits from the the doctor, who made house calls.
Why are people so instantly paranoid of everything? Afraid that the specialists will discover that the child watches too much TV and eats no vegetables?
Comment: #1
Posted by: snuffy
Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:24 AM
I don't know what planet you're from but the government can come in NOW and take your kids away. You heard about the two parents that were slow and the government took away their child away? THEY CAN DO IT NOW WITHOUT ANY HEALTH CARE BILL BEING PASSED. Some people like to talk and talk and talk and talk, they act like they fell off a Turnup Truck on their way into Town. Also I read you "BIRTHER ARTICLE" Obama showed his birth certificate. As you should know if one parent is a citizen so is the child no matter where the child was born. It wouldn't matter if Obama showed his birth certificate or not because his mother was a citizen of the United States of America. Also Sen. John McCain was born in PANAMA, SOUTH AMERICA. By your means of reasoning maybe we should deport Sen. McCain.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Ron
Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:18 PM
If not stopped, our government will be putting electrodes in our babies heads at birth. They have gradually intruded into every other aspect of our lives for the past fifty years. How do you think Frank Sinatra would feel about this mess?
Comment: #3
Posted by: John C. Davidson
Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:36 AM
You are a total dumb ass, Chuck. I hate to be so blunt, but if the shoe fits . . . .
As a parent of a young child, I'm going to tell you what this provision of the bill means. What it means is that you can arrange to have home health care have a talk with parents as to what appropriate (within the range of normal) developmental queues a baby should be displaying at what ages (i.e. it would be within the range of normal for a child to know 1 or more words at age 1, and the child should be engaging in babbling). There are certain play activities a parent can engage in that can assist a child in becoming competent in these developmental benchmarks. We are talking about a discussion about how much tummy time you should provide your child with and at what age to encourage proper muscle and frontal lobe development. This kind of information is already available through "healthy baby" visits to one's pediatrician. This provision would provide grant funding to make this program available via home health care so that new mothers, who are still recovering physically from the arduous process of childbirth, can take advantage of this as part of a "healthy baby" home care visit rather than having to pack the infant to the doctor's office. Because this kind of home care can actually be provided by trained non-doctors (say, a midwife or a nurse), and doing these kind of visits at home prevents the spread of the kind of germs commonly found in a doctor's office (lots of sick people there, you know) it can also be LESS EXPENSIVE depending on how the program is constructed.
So, after you are done pulling a watermelon out of your ass to approximate the feeling of giving birth and have an opinion about anything related to women's health care, maybe you can pull your foot out of your mouth and admit that health care reform is critical, and all you are doing right now is scaring people unnecessarily and shilling for the big, bloated, inefficient and greedy insurance companies.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Lori Burelle
Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 AM
This letter is about the current state of taxpayer funded health care and the inherent unfairness of the policies that have been created in Washington D.C. My analysis has resulted in some observations and some questions.
Currently American taxpayers are paying for:
1. FREE health care for Afghani and Iraqi citizens that is paid for with U.S. tax dollars. Our funding for those wars includes money for health services. Consequently, even insurgents who go to a medical clinic will get treated for free and be released to return to their nefarious activities. Is it appropriate to deny me health care, yet force me to pay for health care for America's enemies?
2. FREE health care, including FREE prescription coverage for all criminals in custody, including the terrorists in Guantanamo, all paid for with U.S. tax dollars. Why are they more deserving than me or the millions of other taxpaying Americans who have no health insurance?
3. Health care for armed service veterans paid for with U.S. tax dollars. This system has produced radically lower costs and its recipients report that they are happier with their health plan than most any other group. Like you I support the VA. What I don't understand is why you don't support helping the taxpayers who fund it?
4. Taxpayer funded health care for seniors, paid for with U.S. tax dollars. Why should seniors get health care, but not me? Why can't I sign up for Medicare? If I want Part B, I'll pay $100 a month to get it. The minimum age for coverage is 65. This arbitrary age is meaningless. Rep Conyers has proposed a “Medicare for All” plan. If it's good for American seniors, why do you believe it's bad for other Americans?
5. Taxpayer funded health care for all police, fire and other government employees. I understand that they pay taxes, but so do I; and they get health care. Why is that fair? Are their lives worth more than mine? Is this tantamount to rationing potential care for the uninsured, whose tax dollars buy health insurance for this special group? If a public service worker is hurt on the job they have worker's compensation, so health care is just a taxpayer funded perquisite that's not available to other Americans.
6. Taxpayer funded health care for all members of Congress. Are they better than me? Are they better than all the other Americans who pay for their health care, but cannot access it?
7. Taxpayer funded health care for the poorest of our society, but not for the middle class? This is especially unfair, because the middle class pays the bulk of the tax money that pays for the taxpayer funded health care that others receive.
I recently heard former Senator Frist declare that the reason he's against allowing the U.S. government to negotiate lower costs with drug companies is because Americans fund the profits that drug companies use to research and develop more and better drugs. I assume you agree with this argument.
If this is the reason that Americans pay higher drug costs than anyone else in the world, then I have a few questions.
1. Why do some members of Congress want Americans to pay for the benefits of the French, the Canadians, the Brits and all the other socialized health care countries? Aren't Americans just as deserving as they are? If not, why not?
2. I do not believe the drug companies would stop doing research if they weren't funded by price-gouging the American taxpayer. I think they'd say to the French, the Canadians, the Brits, etc, “The days of picking American's pockets are over. You have to raise the amount you pay us.” There'd be some grumbling in Paris, London and Berlin, but they'd all pay an extra couple of Euro's per prescription and the world would go on. And we in the USA would be paying less.
Middle class taxpayers are being told that they have to stay in the back of the bus and pay the bus fare of all the “special” people who get taxpayer funded health care. People like murderers, child molesters, terrorists and our congressional representatives. Please explain why these groups are so special and the taxpayers who pay for it aren't?
I believe that Congress' failing to enact health care legislation that gives ALL taxpayers access to taxpayer funded health care is inherently unfair. It is discriminatory. It is divisive. It is wrong for America and bad for Americans.
Comment: #5
Posted by: OregonGuy
Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:21 AM
Re: RevBookburn
I think you are in denial sir. There is a large scale opposition to this health care reform bill and many other things that are not in line with the principles of LIBERTY. I believe what I am doing is working and making a difference. More and more people are getting involved in what is going on in government on all levels and what we are finding is not pretty.
First of all to all of you knuckle heads who are trashing this guy, what the heck are you thinking? Are you telling me that you agree that the government should be telling us how to raise our children? You think someone who is not with your children everyday, every hour, will know better about what your child needs? You are crazy! This is not just about advising parents on new research and understanding of brain development in children and what type of stimulation they need. This is about the government controlling one more thing that they have no business even thinking about controlling and taking even more rights away from parents! Don't you understand that this is their way of getting to the next level of control?
All of these things, like this bill, are leading us into bondage even more than our current state. I'm sorry, but I thought I was living in the land of the free and the home of the brave! Great job, Chuck, for getting off of your behind and doing something about what you believe in! If everyone did that, we wouldn't be in this situation! But trust me, the sleeping giants (US MOTHERS) are waking up and are as mad a all hell!!!!!
Comment: #7
Posted by: azmomof4
Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:58 AM
Re: Lori Burelle
Are you SURE that's what they mean by that part of this proposed health care bill? Are you willing to RISK YOUR CHILD'S FUTURE on it? Have you even read that part?
This proposed healthcare bill is too vague; it is just too open to interpretation. From one end of the spectrum to the next. If the wrong person (or type of government) would get their hands on this type of bill, they could be indoctrinating your kids into 'specialized camps for age-appropriate play'.
Sure, it could mean just having a public health nurse come over and say, "yep, your kid is doing good." But are you SURE?
Comment: #8
Posted by: Jennifer
Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:42 PM
So what branch of the Armed Forces did you serve in Chuck? As a retired Marine, I am embarrassed to say we are still defending you ditto heads who cannot read or think for yourselves. You are all like a linguistic Amway.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Mike Brewer
Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:50 AM
It seems Mr. Norris roundhouse kicked his own head. There is not large-scale opposition to health care reform. There are small brownshirt mobs and little pockets of bloggers who repeat the propaganda of the health insurance industry. The scare tactics of free-market extremists are not working. It is now time to undo their damage and fix this nation. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
It seems Mr. Norris roundhouse kicked his own head. There is not large-scale opposition to health care reform. There are small brownshirt mobs and little pockets of bloggers who repeat the propaganda of the health insurance industry. The scare tactics of free-market extremists are not working. It is now time to undo their damage and fix this nation. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
I think it's wonderful that China is so willing to loan us trillions of dollars to help us spend our way out of the current recession and into a financial collapse. I suggest giving them California and Hawaii (but not Alaska) to pay off the debt when the inevitable collapse happens. On top of what China has already lent us, they're also willing to fund Obamacare, cap and trade, another stimulus package, homes for everyone (legal and illegal) and just about any new program that increases the size of government at the expense of free enterprise and individual freedom. Isn't China's plan to eliminate competition just wonderful!
Seriously, this country is doomed! We (me excluded) continue to elect power-hungry politicians who continue to trample the US Constitution. The end result of our stupidity will be the destruction of this once-great country.
I'm thankful to have been alive when the USA was a great place to live and raise a family. Those days are gone. I'll soon be retiring and living fairly well until the dollar collapses. I can only hope that doesn't happen for a decade or so. It WILL happen, however. Fiscal conservatives like Chuck Norris and Rush Limbaugh get it and will fully understand WHY it happened when the time comes.
I believe it's too late to save the country. We should have learned from fiscal conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. We didn't. Instead of making fiscal conservatism a priority, we put it on the back burner. What do we do now that the stove has caught fire? I know; let's douse it with lighter fluid. That's a good analogy of what the Democrats are currently doing. Will we smarten up and vote the big spenders out of office? I doubt it.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Al Dell
Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:54 AM
CHUCK- It's time to start kicking some communist liberal ass man. Look at all the roaches come crawling out of obongo's pocket when you point out the specific problems in it's marxist commie health manifesto. I'm with you Chuck. Let's kick these moon crickets around a little what do you say? The government, health care, the FED: THEY ARE ALL RUN TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY BY JEWS. J-E-W-S! THEY OWN THE CONGRESS AND THE whitehouse and pull the strings on the puppet obongo. That's the problem folks. Yep.
Re: Lori Burelle
I respectfully disagree with you Lori. I am also a mother, of 4 children who range in age from 9 to 1, so I have felt the pains of birth AND the recovery. I too know a thing or two of womens health care. I know I speak for many other mothers when I say that I don't want the government in my home teaching me how to be a mom and what they think is best for MY kid through their views of how the world should be. I also don't want to pay for the government to go to your house or anyone elses' to teach them through their views of the world. To your first "interpretation" of a bill you probably haven't read: Parents can become competent in "developmental benchmarks" by going online to any respectable website. Second, who is this less expensive for? The taxpayer in high income brackets or those on welfare? What about the people like me who don't go to the doctor for every little sniffle? Will it be less expensive for those people? Hmmmm....
I don't agree with insurance companies either, they make me sick. But this bill is not the solution. I think I would rather take the insurance companies over a government program unless someone comes up with a better plan.
Comment: #14
Posted by: azmomof4
Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:21 AM
You sure did well with this article, Chuck, 10 comments, with 1 duplicate, (plus mine) so far and it's only Wednesday! You also made it onto Dr. D. A. Waite's email newsletter as well, for the first time I've ever seen. You can check out his website at the Bible For Today address and I highly recommend his book Defending The King James Bible. Most of the comments above seem to deal with government sponsored education (or indoctrination) of both parents and children. Well, our UK government is pro-abortion, pro-Islam, pro-unrestricted immigration, pro-Marxism, pro-pornography, pro-substance abuse (whatever they profess to the contrary), pro-early release of murderers, muggers, rapists etc., pro-sodomites, pro-one-world-dictatorship (UN, European Union, NWO etc.), pro-destruction of what's left of British industry, pro-'multi-culti-ism,' pro-illegal (for us) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pro-violent suppression of political dissent and anti-marriage, anti-traditional nuclear family, anti-WASP and anti-Biblical, especially the KJB. If your government's anything like ours, I suggest that its goverment sponsored educators will be about as much help to the traditional American family as Attorney General Janet Reno was to David Koresh and his followers.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:45 AM
