It shouldn’t be hard to assure people that the end of life “counseling” in House Bill 3200 health care system destruction, er reform, bill will always remain voluntary. The word isn’t hard to spell, and indeed, can be easily placed in the legislation at the appropriate spot. In fact, it already has–just not in the end of life section.
There is a federal grant provision to help states pay for counselors to go to the homes of families with young children in the bill, and look what it states about that counseling. From the bill:
SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
`(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.
`(b) Grant Application- A State that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary for approval, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require, an application for the grant that includes the following:
First, no wonder this bill breaks the bank, it is the nanny state on steroids. That arguable point aside, it is easy to make counseling voluntary–you just use the word in the bill before the word “counseling.” That wasn’t done in the end of life section, which as written, is virtually unintelligable, and could easily be construed to seem mandatory, since reference must be made to existing law to learn what it is all about. I have suggested fixes, but so far, no takers.
HT: Mary Kay Culp
August 5th, 2009 | 12:56 pm
Fixes? No the whole thing needs to be shot dead.
August 11th, 2009 | 8:15 am
This bill doesn’t go far enough. It should apply to all parents-to-be of all socio-economic backgrounds.
Why shouldn’t parents be trained on parenting? In fact, why shouldn’t parents be LICENSED to be parents?
One must have a license to drive. To do most ANYTHING in society, one must have specialized training. So, why not require training and licensing for parents?
Again, why shouldn’t parents be required to be trained and licensed before they are allowed to raise a child? Nothing is more harmful to society that children raised by “parents” who have no business being parents!
Dysfunctional parenting can be linked to just about every problem affecting society. Governments SHOULD require parents to have the ability to parent properly.
Societies are FAILING for this very reason. Improper parenting has taken its toll. Children are brought up in pain and misery. And this CANNOT be fixed AFTER THE FACT, by those who are trained and licensed to deal with these issues. The training and licensing should PRECEDE parenting, not be required only later to mop up the MESS caused by bad parents!!
August 19th, 2009 | 12:05 pm
And who decides, Rod, you? Being a “fit” parent is a much more subjective thing than being fit to drive.
(Please note, my opinion is that cases of IVF and adoption are a bit different and rightly bear closer scrutiny.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact