There is another set of concerns about the health care that I haven’t really seen discussed much (probably because its a 1,000 pages plus long and there is a lot to discuss).  The Home School Legal Defense Association did take note of how H.R. 3200 or “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” 

In a legislative summary they write that while it wouldn’t directly impact homeschool freedoms, it would impact parental rights and early childhood education and should be opposed for the following reasons:

    • Spend billions of dollars to allow the federal government to fund home visitation programs, where government officials would enter homes and monitor children and instruct parents in how to raise their children;
    • Encourage states to pressure families to enroll their children in these home visitation programs;
    • Put the federal government in the healthcare business, resulting in loss of competition, loss of patient choice, and loss of patient freedom;
    • Require all health insurance plans, whether offered by a private company or the government, to include controversial “essential benefits,” which courts or the Secretary of Health and Human Services may determine to include medical procedures which businesses and taxpayers may oppose on philosophical and religious grounds…

Oh yeah, don’t forget to report this post to the White House as well.

11 comments
  1. Wow- this is an issue I feel very strongly about. Now, I have the advantage of being a doctor, but nevertheless, I want to be able to make decisions about my child’s care and upbringing. I happen to be well trained in alternative therapies in addition to conventional care and I have made the choices that I have seen fit for my daughter, that are not conventional. Unless the parents are deemed mentally unstable – which can be something that is very abused by the government- parents really should make educated choices about the care and upbringing of their children. I hope parents really take a stand on this!

    1. @Mel, I was surprised that it hasn’t been addressed more. I’ve covered, and I think I’m having a guest blogger this weekend who will cover again, the abortion issue. I haven’t heard a peep on these concerns though.

  2. Hi everyone,

    I have already written five Senators and my list is growing. I encourage you all to do the same. We DO have a voice and Christians need to use them. It’s not Scriptural to have a fatalistic attitude and just say, “Well, whatever happens is the Lord’s will.” We need to ACT. We are told to redeem the times and so we MUST stand up for what is right. Silent protests result in nothing more than evil winning.

    This healthcare idea is an abomination (obamanation?) and we need to let our senators and representatives know that we are NOT happy; not just because we’re Christians but because we’re Americans and history shows that nationalized healthcare doesn’t work and neither does socialism.

    God bless you all! Keep looking up!!

    Mike

  3. The section is question is #1904 and starts runs from Pg. 837-851 of HR3200.
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

    I’m trying to find the truly controversial portions of the section. It outlines the conditions a state should meet *if* the state wishes to apply for federal grants outlined that section. The first part deals with data the states must provide in their application. That includes the plans & projected outcomes, the status of current programs & needs, and assurances that funds will be directed as specified (e.g. with prioritization for those communities with highest needs).

    The next part deals with allotments and that appears to be related to the number of children in the state of families earning less than 2x the poverty line. It also describe has states may reuse unspent funds and reimbursable percentages.

    The second portion describes eligible expenditures. These are for *voluntary* visitations and *do not* specify that government officials will enter homes. It doesn’t prohibit non-government companies or agencies from providing services. It basically specifies that states fund competent programs with prioritization given to those with the strongest evidence of positive impact. There is no requirement that states operate identical programs. Personally, I think ensuring accountability and documenting quality is an appropriate goal for a funded program. States are also required to report the coverage and the progress of the programs, another crucial aspect, IMHO.

    Could there be political influence in which programs are selected and how they are designed? Yes, quite possibly, although I’d expect that cronyism would be the most frequent problem. However, being that this is a law, there is no prohibition against making modifications in future bills. There likely will be. And different states will also create & manage different programs.

    1. @Argon, It’s amazing to me how different people can read the same bill and come up with different conclusions. Mel (above) has read it and is bothered by the language. You not so much. Perhaps it could be due to ideology, and lifestage – I don’t know.

      I think also part of the problem (like with abortion, etc.) isn’t so much what it says, as what it doesn’t say. It’s missing language that would alleviate concerns of some.

      You may be right, or you could be dead wrong on how that language is used.
      .-= Shane Vander Hart´s last blog ..The Shaping of the American Evangelical Mind =-.

      1. Filling in the missing language is both an excellent suggestion and a good reason to propose alterations to the bill, either before final acceptance or after. The Senate and House versions have to undergo substantial reconciliation before final passage. How such programs may play out in individual states is also something one can affect.

        Personally, I like to see programs made available to families that want support and training with prenatal health care and child care. It’s crucial for many. So, I think it’s a good thing (& some programs already exist in many states). I don’t really believe this bill is designed usurp parental rights — I think the goal is education and referral. It’s not about government officials invading homes and tell people what to do. With regard to visitation programs, I believe the language of the bill would have to be substantially altered to turn it into what the HSLDA describes.

        Does such a program necessarily need to be in this bill? I’m not sure, but I view that question as more about ranking relative priorities in determining which programs to fund. For example, low birth weight and premature babies present a huge cost to the health care system. Increasing support for prenatal and child care may produce a net savings. But that portion of the bill could also be split out and passed separately. I don’t know enough about legislative sausage making to sense which option is best.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Grading the Trump Transition

Now that Donald Trump is President Adam Graham evaluates his transition decisions and their impact on the economy, domestic policy, and nationals security.

Why Are So Many Horrible Things Happening To America All Of A Sudden?

Once upon a time the United States was a land of abundance…

In 2018, The Federalist Party Should Step Up or Stand Down

Adam Graham: What does the Federalist Party need to do in 2018 to become a refuge for the conservatives fleeing the GOP?

Taxed Enough Already! – A Rallying Cry For The Tea Party Movement

When you talk to most Americans about taxes, primarily what they think…