Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

The Liberals Want To Kill Grandma and Other Lies

Rush told me this so it must be true. Sarah Palin said the same thing. She also said they want to kill her baby. We must stop them before it is too late.

Does anyone truly believe these claims?

According to conservative web sites and pundits the health care reform sponsored by Democrats will lead to “death panels” that will decide who lives and who dies. If you listen to talk radio you are told that the “evil libruls” want to kill off all of the old people in order to save money on health care. They never explain how this matches with their claims that liberals are all about tax and spend. That liberals never met an expensive program they didn’t like. According to them, it’s not liberals that want to save money, it is conservatives that are supposed to be all about cutting spending.

The conflict between their claims that ‘evil libruls’ want to go to extreme lengths to save money and at the same time are spendthrifts who only want to get as much of your tax dollars as possible isn’t the only paradox in their arguments. They also need to explain how the party that has always been for the weak and defenseless is all of a sudden going to turn on the very types of people they have always defended. On the other hand, when have conservatives ever shown the least bit of concern for the elderly or the disabled?

I could write far more about these nonsensical claims, but they don’t deserve the amount of attention I’ve already given them. They are fabricated out of thin air in an attempt to scare people.

The conservatives have labeled their opponents as “tax-and-spend liberals.” The liberals can and should name their political opponents as “fear-mongering conservatives.” It seems to be all they can do – spread fear. I guess that’s what happens when your core governing policies have been shown to be failures.

The “death panels” lie isn’t the only one that conservative pundits are spreading. They also claim any public plan option in the bill amounts to “taking over one-sixth of our economy.” In order to believe this lie you have to ignore the fact that the government is already paying for 40% of the health care in this country. You also have to ignore the fact that a public option is a small part of a national health care exchange that will give consumers far more choice when it comes to health insurance than they have now.

Facts have nothing to do with conservative claims. They invent their own reality. In fact, the Bush administration proudly announced that “we make our own reality.” It is becoming more and more clear that this wasn’t a hyperbolic claim. It is how they think.

One final example of this fantasy-based thinking can be found in another claim conservatives are making about the health care reform bill in the House of Representatives. H.R. 3200 has a section dealing with home consultations for expectant parents or those with pre-school children. Sounds scary doesn’t it.

Here’s what the Alliance for Seperation of School and State had to say about it.

Obviously, some legislators (and, no doubt, some special interests goading them on) are bent on robbing the American people of one of the most basic and important foundations of liberty – the right to bring up our children free of government interference.

Without the liberty to rear and educate our children as we see fit, free of state pressure and control, all other liberties are at risk. The state has myriad ways of eating away at our freedom. Exploiting the most vulnerable of society and working up from there is one way.

They also state that:

How would you feel about government employees coming into your home to teach you how best to rear your children?

Sound like the plot of a futuristic novel? Unfortunately, it’s not.

That’s exactly what H.R. 3200, the national health care bill currently under consideration by Congress and being pushed by the president, provides for.

The bill offers funding to states to send government officials into private homes to teach moms and dads how to rear children according to state-approved criteria developed by “experts” and covering every imaginable aspect of parenting.

Notice the scare quotes around “experts”? This is a necessary part of creating your own reality. You have to ignore those who actually know something about a subject.

If you’ve been exposed to this kind of thinking before you can begin to read between the lines. What they seem to be claiming here is that the government will come into your home with the intention of brainwashing you and your children.

Now you shouldn’t get the impression that conservatives are only worried about themselves. They are showing concern for those less fortunate than themselves. It’s called compassionate conservatism. You know, the kind that G. W. Bush brought to us.

the most vulnerable would be targeted first – low income families, non-English-speaking families

So what is in H.R.3200 that could inspire this fear of government control and brainwashing? It isn’t as if they would make up fraudulent claims in order to scare people. Well, yeah, they did that with “death panels” and “taking over one-sixth of our economy” and “socialism”, but this is about our kids. Surely there must be a reason for this fear.

The Heritage Foundation thinks so:

Section 440 of the House bill – Home Visitation Programs for Families with Young Children and Families Expecting Children – would provide grants to states to establish home visitation programs to educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. The “well-trained and competent staff” will:

…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…

Ooooh, sounds scary.

The Home School Legal Defense Association thinks so:

[This bill should be opposed because it would] [e]ncourage states to pressure families to enroll their children in these home visitation programs… Page 843 requires states that receive grants from the federal government to “provide voluntary home visitation for as many families with young children and families expecting children as practicable, through the implementation or expansion of high quality home visitation programs….

Oh, NOES! “high quality home visitation programs.” What will those evil libruls come up with next?

The National Home Education Legal Defense warns:

The House version of the health care legislation, H.R. 3200… contains many provisions that are worthy of questioning, not the least of which is Section 440….

This section of the bill authorizes the provision of federal money to be given to the states on the condition that the states will develop certain programs that include “voluntary home visits” by government officials.

The visits by government officials will be through the implementation of programs that, among other things:

“adhere to clear evidence-based models of home visitation that have demonstrated positive effects on important program-determined child and parenting outcomes, such as reducing abuse and neglect and improving child health and development”;

“establish appropriate linkages and referrals to other community resources and supports”;

“monitor fidelity of program implementation to ensure that services are delivered according to the specified model”;

“provide parents with– knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains…”

  • knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors;
  • knowledge of health and wellness issues for children and parents;
  • modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices; and

    skills to recognize and seek help for issues related to health, developmental delays, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills…

OH, MY GOD!!!!!1! This sounds horrible!

Now that we’ve seen the wingnut version of reality let’s take a rational look at this section of the bill.

It has been established knowledge based on multiple studies over the years that neglect and abuse during the early years of a child’s life can lead to physical and mental health issues later in life. It is also established knowledge based on studies by “experts” in the field that parental education can lead to better outcomes in the form of better nutrition, less abuse, and less neglect. It has also been shown that children who receive better care based on these principles do better in school.

Now any rational person would look at this part of the bill and think, “This is a good idea.” Wingnuts look at these provisions and think, “Oh no, the government is trying to take over your family.” This is called “creating your own reality.”

Here is the text of Section 440 of H.R.3200 so you can read it and make up your own mind about this latest wingnut claim.

Sorry for the poor formatting. This is copied and pasted from the official pdf document available online at http://energycommerce.house.go…

837

•HR 3200 IH

1 SEC. 1904. GRANTS TO STATES FOR QUALITY HOME VISITA2

TION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG

3 CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHIL4

DREN.

5 Part B of title IV of the Social Security Act (42

6 U.S.C. 621-629i) is amended by adding at the end the

7 following:

8 ”Subpart 3-Support for Quality Home Visitation

9 Programs

10 ”SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES

11 WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

12 EXPECTING CHILDREN.

13 ”(a) PURPOSE.-The purpose of this section is to im

14 prove the well-being, health, and development of children

15 by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality

16 programs providing voluntary home visitation for families

17 with young children and families expecting children.

18 ”(b) GRANT APPLICATION.-A State that desires to

19 receive a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary

20 for approval, at such time and in such manner as

21 the Secretary may require, an application for the grant

22 that includes the following:

23 ”(1) DESCRIPTION OF HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS.

24-A description of the high quality programs

25 of home visitation for families with young children

26 and families expecting children that will be sup-

838

1 ported by a grant made to the State under this section,

2 the outcomes the programs are intended to

3 achieve, and the evidence supporting the effectiveness

4 of the programs.

5 ”(2) RESULTS OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT.-The

6 results of a statewide needs assessment that de

7 scribes-

8 ”(A) the number, quality, and capacity of

9 home visitation programs for families with

10 young children and families expecting children

11 in the State;

12 ”(B) the number and types of families who

13 are receiving services under the programs;

14 ”(C) the sources and amount of funding

15 provided to the programs;

16 ”(D) the gaps in home visitation in the

17 State, including identification of communities

18 that are in high need of the services; and

19 ”(E) training and technical assistance ac

20 tivities designed to achieve or support the goals

21 of the programs.

22 ”(3) ASSURANCES.-Assurances from the State

23 that-

24 ”(A) in supporting home visitation pro

25 grams using funds provided under this section,

839

•HR 3200 IH

1 the State shall identify and prioritize serving

2 communities that are in high need of such serv

3 ices, especially communities with a high propor

4 tion of low-income families or a high incidence

5 of child maltreatment;

6 ”(B) the State will reserve 5 percent of the

7 grant funds for training and technical assist

8 ance to the home visitation programs using

9 such funds;

10 ”(C) in supporting home visitation pro

11 grams using funds provided under this section,

12 the State will promote coordination and collabo13

ration with other home visitation programs (in

14 cluding programs funded under title XIX) and

15 with other child and family services, health

16 services, income supports, and other related as

17 sistance;

18 ”(D) home visitation programs supported

19 using such funds will, when appropriate, pro

20 vide referrals to other programs serving chil

21 dren and families; and

22 ”(E) the State will comply with subsection

23 (i), and cooperate with any evaluation con

24 ducted under subsection (j).

840

•HR 3200 IH

1 ”(4) OTHER INFORMATION.-Such other infor2

mation as the Secretary may require.

3 ”(c) ALLOTMENTS.-

4 ”(1) INDIAN TRIBES.-From the amount re5

served under subsection (l)(2) for a fiscal year, the

6 Secretary shall allot to each Indian tribe that meets

7 the requirement of subsection (d), if applicable, for

8 the fiscal year the amount that bears the same ratio

9 to the amount so reserved as the number of children

10 in the Indian tribe whose families have income that

11 does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line bears

12 to the total number of children in such Indian tribes

13 whose families have income that does not exceed 200

14 percent of the poverty line.

15 ”(2) STATES AND TERRITORIES.-From the

16 amount appropriated under subsection (m) for a fis17

cal year that remains after making the reservations

18 required by subsection (l), the Secretary shall allot

19 to each State that is not an Indian tribe and that

20 meets the requirement of subsection (d), if applica21

ble, for the fiscal year the amount that bears the

22 same ratio to the remainder of the amount so appro23

priated as the number of children in the State whose

24 families have income that does not exceed 200 per25

cent of the poverty line bears to the total number of

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00840 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

841

•HR 3200 IH

1 children in such States whose families have income

2 that does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line.

3 ”(3) REALLOTMENTS.-The amount of any al4

lotment to a State under a paragraph of this sub5

section for any fiscal year that the State certifies to

6 the Secretary will not be expended by the State pur7

suant to this section shall be available for reallot8

ment using the allotment methodology specified in

9 that paragraph. Any amount so reallotted to a State

10 is deemed part of the allotment of the State under

11 this subsection.

12 ”(d) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.-Beginning with

13 fiscal year 2011, a State meets the requirement of this

14 subsection for a fiscal year if the Secretary finds that the

15 aggregate expenditures by the State from State and local

16 sources for programs of home visitation for families with

17 young children and families expecting children for the then

18 preceding fiscal year was not less than 100 percent of such

19 aggregate expenditures for the then 2nd preceding fiscal

20 year.

21 ”(e) PAYMENT OF GRANT.-

22 ”(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall make a

23 grant to each State that meets the requirements of

24 subsections (b) a
nd (d), if applicable, for a fiscal

25 year for which funds are appropriated under sub-

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00841 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

842

•HR 3200 IH

1 section (m), in an amount equal to the reimbursable

2 percentage of the eligible expenditures of the State

3 for the fiscal year, but not more than the amount

4 allotted to the State under subsection (c) for the fis5

cal year.

6 ”(2) REIMBURSABLE PERCENTAGE DEFINED.-

7 In paragraph (1), the term ‘reimbursable percent8

age’ means, with respect to a fiscal year-

9 ”(A) 85 percent, in the case of fiscal year

10 2010;

11 ”(B) 80 percent, in the case of fiscal year

12 2011; or

13 ”(C) 75 percent, in the case of fiscal year

14 2012 and any succeeding fiscal year.

15 ”(f) ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES.-

16 ”(1) IN GENERAL.-In this section, the term

17 ‘eligible expenditures’-

18 ”(A) means expenditures to provide vol19

untary home visitation for as many families

20 with young children (under the age of school

21 entry) and families expecting children as prac22

ticable, through the implementation or expan23

sion of high quality home visitation programs

24 that-

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00842 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

843

•HR 3200 IH

1 ”(i) adhere to clear evidence-based

2 models of home visitation that have dem3

onstrated positive effects on important pro4

gram-determined child and parenting out5

comes, such as reducing abuse and neglect

6 and improving child health and develop7

ment;

8 ”(ii) employ well-trained and com9

petent staff, maintain high quality super10

vision, provide for ongoing training and

11 professional development, and show strong

12 organizational capacity to implement such

13 a program;

14 ”(iii) establish appropriate linkages

15 and referrals to other community resources

16 and supports;

17 ”(iv) monitor fidelity of program im18

plementation to ensure that services are

19 delivered according to the specified model;

20 and

21 ”(v) provide parents with-

22 ”(I) knowledge of age-appro23

priate child development in cognitive,

24 language, social, emotional, and motor

25 domains (including knowledge of sec-

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00843 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

844

•HR 3200 IH

1 ond language acquisition, in the case

2 of English language learners);

3 ”(II) knowledge of realistic ex4

pectations of age-appropriate child be5

haviors;

6 ”(III) knowledge of health and

7 wellness issues for children and par8

ents;

9 ”(IV) modeling, consulting, and

10 coaching on parenting practices;

11 ”(V) skills to interact with their

12 child to enhance age-appropriate de13

velopment;

14 ”(VI) skills to recognize and seek

15 help for issues related to health, devel16

opmental delays, and social, emo17

tional, and behavioral skills; and

18 ”(VII) activities designed to help

19 parents become full partners in the

20 education of their children;

21 ”(B) includes expenditures for training,

22 technical assistance, and evaluations related to

23 the programs; and

24 ”(C) does not include any expenditure with

25 respect to which a State has submitted a claim

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00844 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

845

•HR 3200 IH

1 for payment under any other provision of Fed2

eral law.

3 ”(2) PRIORITY FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS WITH

4 STRONGEST EVIDENCE.-

5 ”(A) IN GENERAL.-The expenditures, de6

scribed in paragraph (1), of a State for a fiscal

7 year that are attributable to the cost of pro8

grams that do not adhere to a model of home

9 visitation with the strongest evidence of effec10

tiveness shall not be considered eligible expendi11

tures for the fiscal year to the extent that the

12 total of the expenditures exceeds the applicable

13 percentage for the fiscal year of the allotment

14 of the State under subsection (c) for the fiscal

15 year.

16 ”(B) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE DE17

FINED.-In subparagraph (A), the term ‘appli18

cable percentage’ means, with respect to a fiscal

19 year-

20 ”(i) 60 percent for fiscal year 2010;

21 ”(ii) 55 percent for fiscal year 2011;

22 ”(iii) 50 percent for fiscal year 2012;

23 ”(iv) 45 percent for fiscal year 2013;

24 or

25 ”(v) 40 percent for fiscal year 2014.

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00845 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

846

•HR 3200 IH

1 ”(g) NO USE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS FOR

2 STATE MATCH.-A State to which a grant is made under

3 this section may not expend any Federal funds to meet

4 the State share of the cost of an eligible expenditure for

5 which the State receives a payment under this section.

6 ”(h) WAIVER AUTHORITY.-

7 ”(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary may waive

8 or modify the application of any provision of this

9 section, other than subsection (b) or (f), to an In10

dian tribe if the failure to do so would impose an

11 undue burden on the Indian tribe.

12 ”(2) SPECIAL RULE.-An Indian tribe is

13 deemed to meet the requirement of subsection (d)

14 for purposes of subsections (c) and (e) if-

15 ”(A) the Secretary waives the requirement;

16 or

17 ”(B) the Secretary modifies the require18

ment, and the Indian tribe meets the modified

19 requirement.

20 ”(i) STATE REPORTS.-Each State to which a grant

21 is made under this section shall submit to the Secretary

22 an annual report on the progress made by the State in

23 addressing the purposes of this section. Each such report

24 shall include a description of-

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00846 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

847

•HR 3200 IH

1 ”(1) the services delivered by the programs that

2 received funds from the grant;

3 ”(2) the characteristics of each such program,

4 including information on the service model used by

5 the program and the performance of the program;

6 ”(3) the characteristics of the providers of serv7

ices through the program, including staff qualifica8

tions, work experience, and demographic characteris9

tics;

10 ”(4) the characteristics of the recipients of serv11

ices provided through the program, including the

12 number of the recipients, the demographic charac13

teristics of the recipients, and family retention;

14 ”(5) the annual cost of implementing the pro15

gram, including the cost per family served under the

16 program;

17 ”(6) the outcomes experienced by recipients of

18 services through the program;

19 ”(7) the training and technical assistance pro20

vided to aid implementation of the program, and

21 how the training and technical assistance contrib22

uted to the outcomes achieved through the program;

23 ”(8) the indicators and methods used to mon24

itor whether the program is being implemented as

25 designed; and

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000
Frm 00847 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

848

•HR 3200 IH

1 ”(9) other information as determined necessary

2 by the Secretary.

3 ”(j) EVALUATION.-

4 ”(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall, by

5 grant or contract, provide for the conduct of an

6 independent evaluation of the effectiveness of home

7 visitation programs receiving funds provided under

8 this section, which shall examine the following:

9 ”(A) The effect of home visitation pro10

grams on child and parent outcomes, including

11 child maltreatment, child health and develop12

ment, school readiness, and links to community

13 services.

14 ”(B) The effectiveness of home visitation

15 programs on different populations, including

16 the extent to which the ability of programs to

17 improve outcomes varies across programs and

18 populations.

19 ”(2) REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS.-

20 ”(A) INTERIM REPORT.-Within 3 years

21 after the date of the enactment of this section,

22 the Secretary shall submit to the Congress an

23 interim report on the evaluation conducted pur24

suant to paragraph (1).

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00848 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

849

•HR 3200 IH

1 ”(B) FINAL REPORT.-Within 5 years

2 after the date of the enactment of this section,

3 the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a

4 final report on the evaluation conducted pursu5

ant to paragraph (1).

6 ”(k) ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS.-The

7 Secretary shall submit annually to the Congress a report

8 on the activities carried out using funds made available

9 under this section, which shall include a description of the

10 following:

11 ”(1) The high need communities targeted by

12 States for programs carried out under this section.

13 ”(2) The service delivery models used in the

14 programs receiving funds provided under this sec15

tion.

16 ”(3) The characteristics of the programs, in17

cluding-

18 ”(A) the qualifications and demographic

19 characteristics of program staff; and

20 ”(B) recipient characteristics including the

21 number of families served, the demographic

22 characteristics of the families served, and fam23

ily retention and duration of services.

24 ”(4) The outcomes reported by the programs.

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00849 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

850

•HR 3200 IH

1 ”(5) The research-based instruction, materials,

2 and activities being used in the activities funded

3 under the grant.

4 ”(6) The training and technical activities, in5

cluding on-going professional development, provided

6 to the programs.

7 ”(7) The annual costs of implementing the pro8

grams, including the cost per family served under

9 the programs.

10 ”(8) The indicators and methods used by States

11 to monitor whether the programs are being been im12

plemented as designed.

13 ”(l) RESERVATIONS OF FUNDS.-From the amounts

14 appropriated for a fiscal year under subsection (m), the

15 Secretary shall reserve-

16 ”(1) an amount equal to 5 percent of the

17 amounts to pay the cost of the evaluation provided

18 for in subsection (j), and the provision to States of

19 training and technical assistance, including the dis20

semination of best practices in early childhood home

21 visitation; and

22 ”(2) after making the reservation required by

23 paragraph (1), an amount equal to 3 percent of the

24 amount so appropriated, to pay for grants to Indian

25 tribes under this section.

VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00850 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

851

•HR 3200 IH

1 ”(m) APPROPRIATIONS.-Out of any money in the

2 Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated,

3 there is appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this

4 section-

5 ”(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;

6 ”(2) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

7 ”(3) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;

8 ”(4) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and

9 ”(5) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.

10 ”(n) INDIAN TRIBES TREATED AS STATES.-In this

11 section, paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 431(a)

12 shall apply.”.


14 comments

  1. Hollede

    This is a conversation between people who want health care for everyone and people who don’t even want the conversation to happen. Paraphrasing a bit, but you get the idea.

  2. Jjc2008

    sad reality.

    Too many of the people who fear government coming in their homes (albeit it clearly says voluntarily), fear it for crazy reasons inspired by conservative fear mongers but those fears can hurt children.

    We all know for a fact what poor prenatal care can do, how delayed development of cognitive skills can be impaired by poor diet, poor supervision, lack of communications.  These are scientifically researched issues.

    Working in the poorest neighborhoods, places where the education of the parents was weak (hs only and often drop outs) of our district, it was obvious.   Our kindergarten children came to school overall smaller (physically) than their counterparts in neighborhoods where parents had post hs education.  I have helped test them as they start school.  The test gives us clues as to where the kids are in understanding: left to right sequence (kids who are read to often have this innate understanding); names and sounds of letters; basic concepts of under/over, small/big, etc; sentence structure (you read a sentence and leave out a phrase or word for the child to complete).  I also helped test in the neigborhood where I substitute these days, where many, if not most, of the parents are college educated and higher.  Scores tell a real story.  The kids in the poor neighborhood start kindergarten on average (there are always exceptions) two years behind their counterparts.  

    As well, over the years, one sees much more obesity in children in these schools. Obesity in childhood can and does cause health problems later on.

    Language development is delayed due to how much children are engaged with their caretakers.  

    Teaching parents, especially young, unmarried girls, prenatal care, dietary skills, how to engage their babies early on with language, how to discipline without physical attacks on a child, makes a huge difference.

    Thanks for writing this.

  3. HappyinVT

    what they want to.  People who fear government involvement will automatically believe the worst in such programs as this and the end-of-life provisions.  Those of us who understand that government does have a role and isn’t automatically out to control us understand that these provisions are simply a way for government to help those who need help the most.

    Of course, there’s also the personal responsibility angle.  Poor folks are just screwed because they didn’t work hard enough and their kids will just have to suffer along with their parents, and they really shouldn’t have kids in the first place, especially if they are Hispanic ’cause you know they are all illegal and they’ll end up on welfare and they take resources away from “real” Americans so send them all back to Mexico.  Wait…what were we talking about again?

    Thanks for the info John.  I didn’t even know this was in HR 3200.  I guess we can expect to hear more about this since the “death panel” stuff seems to be winding down.

  4. jonlester

    Broun, Gingrey and Price, who (I would assume) had some incentive to abandon medicine for politics, because that’s the sort of thing Republicans like to talk about. Apparently the Hippocratic Oath went out the window with their practices, because they have to know that they’re endangering lives by claiming to have read the legislation but continuing to lie about it anyway. And somehow Phil Gingrey in particular has escaped recent revelations that his support for building extraneous F-22’s might have something to do with his owning Boeing stock.  

  5. creamer

    Paul Krugman has a nice op-ed in todays NYT. Its incredible to me that so many still chant “all government is bad”. Late last week I got an update on my Social Security. Where do theese buffoons think that comes from, Walmart?

Comments are closed.