Chuck Norris: Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare = Home visits

page: 6
50
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
K i understand where this can be viewed as a major violation of rights but like some people have posted some of these parents out there really need some intervention to help them. I was just at a house party who had a kid running around while weed and beer were all over. I mean there are lil kids out slangin drugs or just strugglin on they own while they parents out. I don't agree with the teaching thing because i feel our education system is horrible so they would need to reform that before passing anything.

So its a double edged sword. It won't really matter to the people who know what to do, but there should be some limits on how far the government can go with the house visits.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I think this health bill while not properly fleshed out , will give americans a health care system thats better than the previous one.

There is just to much paranoia when it comes to any governement , "what are they gonna try and pull on us this time" And everyone is thinking that they are gonna hide in some loophole where they catalogue your entire life and save it on file. Maybe so it wouldnt surprise me if this has already been going on since the 50's.
Sure your rights may seem like they are going out the window , but there must be something in it thats positive!
When we look at the right to have children , some people on this planet dont deserve to parent a child for many reasons. By the government telling you you cant have children you feel as though your human rights have been stolen.Why is it that the select few ruin it for everyone else, well its not the select few that are ruining anything, they are always going to be there unless they are educated and find a solution through education not legislation. If the government are tellin you, that you cant have kids because you arent fit , then thats a question which would require individual analysis on the parent. However if the government are tellin you, that you cant have kids because of global food shortage or lack of resources to allow your kid to develop into an adult , then we really all have to make the sacrafice.
Over population is a real problem , food resources are a real problem, so maybe control of reproduction isnt such a bad thing after all. I mean would you see future generations go hungry or become overcrowded and suffer just because you selfishly wanted to have a kid , just for the sake of it , or because of some drunken fling at a bar?
Maybe sterilisation isnt the answer , i think something else is required , a parenting license seems the best thing. Just like a citizenship test or drivers licence, because sure as # raising a kid is alot harder than driving a car!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by verastyle
K i understand where this can be viewed as a major violation of rights but like some people have posted some of these parents out there really need some intervention to help them. I was just at a house party who had a kid running around while weed and beer were all over. I mean there are lil kids out slangin drugs or just strugglin on they own while they parents out. I don't agree with the teaching thing because i feel our education system is horrible so they would need to reform that before passing anything.

So its a double edged sword. It won't really matter to the people who know what to do, but there should be some limits on how far the government can go with the house visits.


For those people no amount of education is going to change them. I was that little kid 30 something years ago. Needless to say I had no education in the parenting department, but maternal instinct kicked in. You can't teach that. 20 odd years after 1969 my mother still lived as if it still was and I tried to educate her to no avail sadley because no amount of knowledge could make her safe to be around my children she died without ever knowing them.

Does that mean the parents you spoke of won't change? No, there is always that chance, but government intervention, at least the way they do it it know, is not the solution. Whats even sadder is that child is probably safer in that enviroment than in the system where they have a 7% higher chance of being killed by an abusive foster parent than an abusive natural parent.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


It's funny you say that because the largest threat to my life was my natural father.

He tried to kill me. Poisoned my milk by putting Arsenic in it. Came home from the doctors and blamed me for moving his rifle cartridge. Turns out the doctor called home and said "Hide the gun, he's coming home to die and take everyone with him"

Yet when I spent time with foster parents, I missed my mom, but it was the only time I got a chance to see what family really was.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by St Vaast
 


I usually am just an observer, but I must say that I agree with your post 100% It should be mandatory if you are on government assistance that you are on birth control. Preferably the implant kind so you do not "forget" to use it.
"Man up" deadbeat dads!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Honestly, I dont see anything bad with this. What is so wrong with government going to your house and giving you some advice about raising children? Its not even mandatory.
There are many people who are NOT responsible enough to be allowed to reproduce, be glad that you can and shut up.
And stop babbling about some parental rights, what about childrens rights to live in a good environment? They are the important ones.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


if you bothered to read the responses, you'd find the answer to this already in the thread. Why do people insist on going in circles.

You go ahead and bend over like a good little citizen and do as your told.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I dont have time to read the whole 6 pages long thread, but the responses are mostly positive. This law is wise.
I for one would even like government check-ups like these to be mandatory. If you are caring about your children, there is nothing to be afraid of. If you are not, then you SHOULD be afraid...



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jesus H Christ
There are so many people out there reproducing who are more dangerous than a retard with a Yo-Yo.


And just when was that NOT the case?

Really, I cannot envision why we should have been free before but now you would say we need to be controlled.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I dont have time to read the whole 6 pages long thread, but the responses are mostly positive. This law is wise.
I for one would even like government check-ups like these to be mandatory. If you are caring about your children, there is nothing to be afraid of. If you are not, then you SHOULD be afraid...


Oh BS. Sorry, no. We have gotten along fine for many a century without the "Morals police." Morals are subjective. If we want to apply ETHICS... Well, it would be unethical to instigate a policing of morals.

Perhaps you can define what one should see if a parent is "caring about" their children...

How does one tell?

Geez. What insanity.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Well folks I've been lurking long enough, the comments and responces to this post has really made me want to speak up.

I don't understand how some of you people can possibly say forced sterillization for anyone or any type of breeding license is a good idea. I hope you are just frustrated with the current economic and social state of things. Let me try to explain it to you intellectual types using some of my backwoods farmer Bob like experience.

Some years the harvest is good, and we all eat well.
Some years the harvest isn’t so good and we all sacrifice and make do.

What i mean is that just because you are doing well and everything is good right now and you can provide everything and living in an ideal situation qualifying you for "reproduction rights" doesn’t mean that you always will. Or that you always have. Or that your children won’t go through hardships putting them in situations less than "ideal" to bring a baby in this world, denying you the joys of grand parenting. Or simply what if these type of laws existed some 100 years ago? How many of us wouldn't be here today because of the hardships our grand parents or their grand parents went through. How many people would not of been fit for parenting or "licensed to breed" living in tent cities during the depression? How many great minds would we lose that came from people who "shouldn’t be allowed to breed" hard economic times is overwhelmingly stressful and people do not always act the way they should when enduring such times.

And furthermore how is the government going to "voluntarily" tell me how to raise and provide for my kids, when Uncle Sam can only provide for his citizens on credit and can't balance a checkbook? If govt wants to help society and the economy maybe they should step back and volunteer some of that sound advice and guidelines to themselves and their buddies, we can even call it Reganorals where the corporate elite and govt act in a moral way and the benefits seen will cause the movement to trickle down to the common Joe.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Dont get me wrong, by caring i meant really just basic living standards like not living in poverty, proper education etc, not personal opinions of parents. 95% of parents would pass no problem. Its those 5% that should be afraid. And its justified.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Uh, and don't you think poverty and education is interpreted differently by peoples with different opinions? What if my child never learns algebra but can farm, fish, hunt and skilled with his hands is he uneducated? what is poverty? is it the govt definition yearly wage of 17,000 or whatever its set at this year? what if people make far less than that but can provide food shelter and security. I very much think people will interpret these definitions differently. What if i provide 1000's of links of rich kids being abused or neglected then should we make the other 95% worry also? your thinking is so narrow and your insecurity and need to delegate all provisioning and power to govt is alarming



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Dont get me wrong, by caring i meant really just basic living standards like not living in poverty, proper education etc, not personal opinions of parents. 95% of parents would pass no problem. Its those 5% that should be afraid. And its justified.


Really!?! You think that 95% of parents should be "investigated" at great cost to the public... So that 5% could be rooted out?

Really? And then what do you do with these kids who are not living as YOU think they should? Take them away and charge the rest of us for raising them, too? While keeping ongoing tabs at great expense on the rest?

How utterly anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-human!

I surely won't vote for this if *I* have a chance.

EDIT to add: A better choice would be to get rid of money and usher in abundance. How? Read my most recent thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

EDIT again to ask: Are you going to support the parents above pverty if that is where life led them? Is that a solution? "Gee, you're poor and have a kid. Here's money to make you not poor anymore..." And "95%' of kids are NOT living outside of poverty... More like 50% are not these days.

So THEN what when half your kids in society are living in poverty?

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Amaterasu]

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Amaterasu]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Allright.. to clear things up those who would not pass teh test are those who abuse their children. Living in poverty is not a problem as long as the parents try to care about their children with what they have available.
But there are also parents who are poor but drink, take drugs or live in extreme poverty and dont care about their children.
What I want to say is that state inspections like these should be mandatory, so irresponsible parents cannot just say dont bother me and go away.
I dont know how it is now in America (Im from Europe), but judging from these reactions it is not allowed.
In Europe, we have Gypsy comunities where some women have 10 - 15 children and they all live in extreme poverty, with no futute, education or abilities outside stealing, drugging and procreating like rats. These are those 5%. I dont know about situation in US, but if there arent people or communities like this, consider yourself happy. If there are, then the law is justified.

"What if my child never learns algebra but can farm, fish, hunt and skilled with his hands is he uneducated?"
If you didnt try to give him at least elementary school and is not retarded, then it is child abuse in my book. It is important to also have education outside hunting abilities, if you want to succeed in todays highly developed society.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


WOW Algebra is taught in elementry school in europe? That is quite amazing. Just like all leftist you attack the hunting but I didn't say if he was just hunting. Included farming skilled labor such as electrical or carpentry and fishing. You're from europe so that explains why you already latched on to the govt nip. Govt does not make things better, every social program they run is a disaster and this one will be aswell. Name one just one non military program the govt has ran that isn't a complete disaster and burden.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by nostrashawnus
 

Great thought, and while were at it EVERY us senate and congress member along with the president and his cabinet should be forced on birth control too. I mean they are constantly having to barrow money and get "assistance" from government just because its foriegn should that really change anything.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


No, that is not clear. It is not clear what the government's definition of "pass" would be. That's the problem here, CLARITY. My definition of poverty is much different than yours I can imagine, and then who's rules are we going to play by?

Then you go on to say living in poverty is not a problem as long as the parents try? Oh brother...



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by HumilityIsKey
 


Exactly! And many of those tasks require basic elementary skills which they will have OBVIOUSLY obtained in one way or another in order to complete the task at hand.

Aka, building a barn will take precise measuring. Determining pipeline to lay in order to ensure all of the crops receive the right amount of water at the right amount of time takes accuracy in numbers as well.

That is just BASIC farming, let alone any sort of the other work you spoke of. Cheers!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Well, the school system is different in many countries, but here we have mandatory "basic" school with 9 grades, and yes, algebra is taught there, too, so thats why I didnt get your point.
Goverment social programs are often disaster, but are better than nothing and considering Americas HUGE military budget I think you have some reserves.

My point is that all social bureaus and children protecting programs are useless if they dont get information about child abuses. Thats what mandatory check-ups would be good for, and I dont see anything wrong with them.





new topics
 
50
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join