Are you kidding me?

Thankyou WorkinTheStreets and Heron for beeing able to disagree but respect each others opinion , reading through various threads and seeing the news on CNN , Fox ,or MSNBC , much of the populace has a lot to learn from you !

As in many of the problems highlighted in reference to the proposed healthcare reforms , the problem appears to be suspiscion of motivation , because the government says it will cover the cost of a service which is hopefully already provided , in this case advise on parenting skills to those that need it , some see big government interferrence others simply see money going to a needed service .

[quote=ozoneranger;3802824]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."


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111...nid=t0:ih:5197


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?]

I don't know. Better check with the folks at Head Start. This sounds suspiciously like an expansion of what those socialist subversives have been doing since 1965:

"Head Start programs promote school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to enrolled children and families. They engage parents in their children's learning and help them in making progress toward their educational, literacy and employment goals. Significant emphasis is placed on the involvement of parents in the administration of local Head Start programs."

How this got past Reagan and Bush the elder is beyond me.

Pure & simple... the Feds have gotten WAY too intrusive. The Health Care cost reform debate has just underlined what (for some) was a vague uneasiness. It has escalated for decades, well beyond what it needs to.
Imagine -- we don't even bat an eye to pay the government money when we earn money (i.e. - income tax). We just think it's a 'natural' thing to do.
And the Federal Reserve kinda does their own thing, and we just ASSUME they're doing the right thing. Wake up, darlings!

Early childhood and parent education is a bargain for government spending. 1 dollar spent in early childhood (up to about age 7) saves 7 dollars in future spending on welfare, mental health services, and corrections.

Art Rolnick did a study a few years ago and found that interventions for at risk families yield a lifetime 16% rate of return (12% for society and 4% for individuals.0

(sources available at epi.org and through the MPLS federal reserve bank.)

I am rather tired of these expressions of faux outrage driven by the corporates hacks of Faux news and EIB which are easily disproven with 5 minutes of research.

Sorry your feeling tired, HM2Viking. An umbilical cord to DC is not the way most Americans want to live their lives. Imaginative twist of words (I like it), but it ain't faux.

Excuse me... just because someone disapproves of the gov't stepping into a system that delivers quality health care does not mean he or she have anything to do with Fox news, agrees with their tactics or view point. I for instance never watch fox news because I think it is ridiculous. However, you on multiple occasions have accused me of being a fox news cronie.

You throw that ?insult around all the time to anyone who disaggrees with your point without actually addressing their arguments. Please stop it.

Is it not more likely that someone actually thinks for themself and by looking at almost every other gov't program realizes a gov't run program reliant on tax payers' money is a terrible idea?

Most gov't programs cannot maintain profitability, cannot keep costs at bay, are going bankrupt or deliver worse care than the private sector:

1) Postal service- has raised rates much faster than its competitors yet is still going bankrupt. Notice that it's competitors FedEx and UPS are not.

2) Medicare/Medicaid- always in a budget crisis. Never keeps costs at bay and the difference either gets added to the deficit, the pockets of the tax payers or on the shoulders of those actually providing the service. Medicare reimbursements (not even corrected for inflation) have actually gone down in many areas since the 1980s. Why because the gov't cannot run a large system efficiently

3) Social security- everyone is well aware of the problems here, they are numerous.

4) VA heath system- while not terrible I can assure you the care at the VA is worse than every private hospital I have worked in. Things move like molases. It shuts down over the weekend. How ridiculous is that? You end up adding 1/2 a week to everyone's stay adding to the risk of nosocomial infections and the other complications that come with extending hospital stays. The studies on how great the VA is, compares VA people to those w/ and without insurance. They cold called people during the day. Who do you think is home during the day? People with jobs and the money to pay for insurance or people who dont have a job and dont have insurance? A better comarison would be to those with insurance. I will acquiesce that having some insurance is better than none. That doesn't mean you have to bring the entire health care system down to the lowest common denominator.

The VA is good in a few areas though. Their computer system is not only simple but pretty powerful. It helps with reminding about screening tests and allows you to review the chart easier. Despite some good, after seeing it for myself, I still I would not choose to get care at a VA.

5) Our Public schools system ranks one of the worst in the civilized world.

6) Gov't limiting its own size- never, during any presidency has the gov't actually shrunk in size- this goes for Republicans and democrats alike. It cannot limit itself and it's spending has continued to increase every year.

So really the gov't has a pretty terrible track record for doning all the things it says it is going to: provide a quality service on par with the private sector, maintain profitability (or stay out of the red), and keep prices down without pawning its inability on someone else (namely the tax payers or the proviors or having to cut services).

Furthermore most also fear the gov't, and for good reason. Our country was founded in response to governmental tyrrany. Our constitution and declaration of independence bear witness to this in the way they are worded- to limit gov't size and create checks and balances.

As soon as you cede power to the gov't you open the door for abuses by the gov't. Will it happen immediately- probably not. But being cautious is not a bad idea given the history in this country and every other where the gov't has been given too much power.

I'd like to ask a few questions:

In thread after thread here on AN, we see posters bemoaning the lack of parenting skills on the part of someone or other. Basically, parenting knowledge and skills are obtained primarily from one's family of birth, less often from churches and educational institutions.

When those skills don't exist in the family of origin, where is a person supposed to get them?

Or are you saying that children born into poorly functioning families don't deserve decent parenting?

Or, perhaps personal responsibility should play a role ... just how does a newborn take personal responsibility for his/her own care and upbringing?

The programs you cited, wowza, are all federal programs. This proposal is for grants to the states, just like the feds already do for the public schools and universities. Do you object to all federal funding for education? What part is OK, if any?

As for values, you are right, Freedom42 - there are a plethora of theoretical models of early childhood development and values is always a sticky wicket.

But we're not talking about preparing parents for a doctoral dissertation. We're talking about basic information about health and development, learning needs, boundaries and safety. There's no such thing as value-free education, but it is possible to convey the basics without violating personal moral, social or religious values ... nurses do it all the time.

You could say, and you'd be right, that "those people" should not have children they aren't prepared to raise. But once the child is born, that becomes moot, 'cause the baby exists. Short of compulsory sterilization, I don't see how to get around that fact. Are we just supposed to say, "Too bad, so sad ... we have information that'll help you grow up with a fighting chance, but we're not gonna share it ... see you when you land in the justice system or the morgue, when we'll give your mom the fish eye and moan 'but where were the parents?'"

I also happen to agree that government ... on any level ... has become way too intrusive. In this case, however, non-government resources do not exist in a quantity to meet the need. Volunteerism and private non-profits could make a huge difference, but so far they haven't cracked the nut, either.

And, workingwomanintn, could you please explain how grants to states for parenting education constitutes an umbilical cord to DC?

Good points, heron. There will always be needy children & adults in our society, and there must be ways to address their needs. I don't think you're arguing that any of the nurses on this post lack compassion. But what is at issue is 'who' meets the needs. Do we want a bureaucratic system far-distanced from the need to address it (like the Feds or the UN), or something closer to home?
I believe needs will always be addressed better by the entity closest to it, and should only be 'bumped up' in rare cases. But we've gotten turned upside-down. We jump right from family to the Fed.
Post-WWII, Americans spread out geographically. Now, many nuclear families fend for themselves and cannot rely on the extended family. So here comes the evolution of Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, SCHIP, etc. to the rescue. Filled the need, but was it the best choice for who should help?
I believe that nowadays non-government resources do not exist sufficiently because we reflexively think that Big Brother will handle the need. People think 'well, that's why I pay taxes', and on & on. But in my lifetime I've seen charities dry up and churches become social clubs. Why -- because government stepped in. If/as government would phase-out of social programs, you would see these other entities pick up.
As to your question 'how grants to states for parenting education constitutes an umbilical cord to DC?' --
Federal monies come with strings attached that states do not want to pay for or be forced to relinquish their rights.
In fact, there is an increasing adversarial relationship between the states and the US govt. 30+ states have recently introduced bills affirming their 10th amendment sovereignty rights. The balance of power has gotten skewed. The federal government is supposed to provide coinage, militaries for defense, rules for naturalization....a limited list. NOT health care.
That is part of the reason why there is so much outrage about the health care bill. It has over-reached the Constitution.
I think what we'll see is the states will use their sovereignty if health care reform is 'rammed down their throats'. They know it will ultimately hurt their budgets.