Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare by Chuck Norris, yes, that Chuck Norris

[Guest SUNTZU]

Chuck Norris : Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare - Townhall.com

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 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.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Page 16 should be enough for anyone to want to puke on this idea of "O-Care"!

[Guest mustangdave]

sadly SUNTZU...this has been coming down the PIKE since at least the 80's...GOV'T run and FUNDED child care...so BOTH parents can WORK, or the SINGLE Mother can provide for her brood...the beginnings of the nanny state. This Legislation just re-enforces this and legitimizes the effort.

[Mike.357]

whats on page 16?

[E4 No More]

whats on page 16?

16

•HR 3200 IH

1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT

2 COVERAGE.

3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4

ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of

5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6

erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health

7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance

8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the

9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance

13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll

14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15

fective date of coverage is on or after the first

16 day of Y1.

17 (

DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18

MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect

19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an

20 individual who is covered as of such first day.

21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR

22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except

23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any

24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and

25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26

fore the first day of Y1.

[Guest C4Dave]

From what I've seen, most of the "families" in the hood need some kind of child-rearing help. Those 14 year old baby mama's have no clue how to raise a child. And the 30 year old grandma doesn't have a clue either. They don't even know who the daddy be.