Things You Need to Know about HR 3200
On page 838 under sections 440 and 1904 it outlines a home visitation program where the government would send individuals into your home to help instruct in proper parenting techniques. (Column concerning this). Okay, so this section is where states would apply for this grant money and what qualifications they have to reach to get it. I'm wondering if several states don't have programs such as these already, and that this would just open a pool of money up nationwide for similar services.
The part that worries me is this: "knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains (including knowledge of second language acquisition, in the case of English language learners)" (Pg 843).
In what universe is the government knoweldgeable of "age-appropriate" anything? Secondly, the second language acquisition is just such a flashing light for me on illegal immigrants or children of illegal immigrants.
This doesn't seem like something the government should be involved in, to my view, but that's my opinion and others are welcome to disagree. I just think it's people that don't have kids, telling people who have kids how to parent them. And even if they are poor or underserved by churches, etc, that does not mean they should be left to have the government tell them what's what.
On page 768 is information regarding Nursing Home Visit services, “to improve maternal and child health, pregnancy outcomes, and increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." That should scare a lot of people too. This is where they say you can no longer use a midwife, you have to use one of these government approved folks. The last part is what freaks me out. What does that mean? If I get pregnant before the government thinks I should ... what does that mean? How will the govermnet increase intervals between pregnancies? Why would it want to?
On page 769 Sec 1714, the Government will set mandates and decide eligibility for state family planning services. This is where pro-life folks are going crazy because it's under this section that they believe coverage for state funded abortions will slide by. This is also the section where the government will decide fertility procedures and tests, and who is eligible, and who is not.
On page 424 Section 1233, Advanced Care Planning. This is where the famous "death panels" come in. Here's some pretinent information. I'd like you to imagine these being recommended to your parents every five years by their primary care physician. I'll update more once I've read the whole section and figure out how the Fed is picking doctors that provide these ... which is where "death panels" comes from.
If you read down in this section (after the section I've copied) it goes on to say: in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
Clearly, I'm not a lawyer. But that sounds to me like you have to make sure all your ducks are in a row so your family can keep you alive, my brain goes the other way. Keep people alive (most especially if that is the family's wish) first and let them die second. Our government always has a hand on the kill switch. Babies and old people.
There's more but this post has taken me 4 days to write (busy busy busy!) and it's long enough.
I have a PDF copy of the bill (all 1017 pages) and a word document cheat sheet (that my sister's company created) if anyone is interested. I recommend starting with the word document and then moving to the PDF. The word document is biased, so I check the bias against the PDF and try and make my own assumptions.
The part that worries me is this: "knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains (including knowledge of second language acquisition, in the case of English language learners)" (Pg 843).
In what universe is the government knoweldgeable of "age-appropriate" anything? Secondly, the second language acquisition is just such a flashing light for me on illegal immigrants or children of illegal immigrants.
This doesn't seem like something the government should be involved in, to my view, but that's my opinion and others are welcome to disagree. I just think it's people that don't have kids, telling people who have kids how to parent them. And even if they are poor or underserved by churches, etc, that does not mean they should be left to have the government tell them what's what.
On page 768 is information regarding Nursing Home Visit services, “to improve maternal and child health, pregnancy outcomes, and increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." That should scare a lot of people too. This is where they say you can no longer use a midwife, you have to use one of these government approved folks. The last part is what freaks me out. What does that mean? If I get pregnant before the government thinks I should ... what does that mean? How will the govermnet increase intervals between pregnancies? Why would it want to?
On page 769 Sec 1714, the Government will set mandates and decide eligibility for state family planning services. This is where pro-life folks are going crazy because it's under this section that they believe coverage for state funded abortions will slide by. This is also the section where the government will decide fertility procedures and tests, and who is eligible, and who is not.
On page 424 Section 1233, Advanced Care Planning. This is where the famous "death panels" come in. Here's some pretinent information. I'd like you to imagine these being recommended to your parents every five years by their primary care physician. I'll update more once I've read the whole section and figure out how the Fed is picking doctors that provide these ... which is where "death panels" comes from.
Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
This may not bother you. If you are a fan of the plan it probably does not bother you. It does bother me. Because the doctors that are eligible to provide these under Medicare (PS - this is a change to Medicare - Sec 1233, line 6 - which means the President LIED yesterday when he said there were no changes to Medicare).
‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—
‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health care proxy).
If you read down in this section (after the section I've copied) it goes on to say: in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
Clearly, I'm not a lawyer. But that sounds to me like you have to make sure all your ducks are in a row so your family can keep you alive, my brain goes the other way. Keep people alive (most especially if that is the family's wish) first and let them die second. Our government always has a hand on the kill switch. Babies and old people.
There's more but this post has taken me 4 days to write (busy busy busy!) and it's long enough.
I have a PDF copy of the bill (all 1017 pages) and a word document cheat sheet (that my sister's company created) if anyone is interested. I recommend starting with the word document and then moving to the PDF. The word document is biased, so I check the bias against the PDF and try and make my own assumptions.
Comments
2. The home visitation program is explicitly defined as voluntary.
3. I find it ironic that many conservatives are so worked up about section 1713 (nurse home visitation services), believing that the government is going to get involved in enforcing specific family planning decisions, because the same constitutional basis upon which Roe v. Wade was decided (right to privacy guaranteed by the due process clause) would make any such enforcement unconstitutional. Of course, this isn't what section 1713 is about anyway. It is about restricting covered visitation services to services that have very specific benefits. For example, the health risk of short interpregnancy intervals, such as less than 6 months, are well-known and documented, and new parents should be educated about this.
4. Advance directives are not biased one way or the other on end-of-life decisions; they are an expression of the individuals wishes in these circumstances. You bolded the statement "orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders," these orders can state your wish to either not undergo certain life sustaining treatment or to definitely continue life sustaining treatment. Absent an advance directive, these kind of decisions will be left to your family to make. So, as expressed by your second bold statement, an advance directive is beneficial to both an individual because he/she gets treated according to his/her wishes, as well as his/her family because they are not forced into the difficult task of trying to determine what the individual would have wanted.
2. Medicare is also voluntary. But you'll notice there are no other options for seniors these days. This is something that I think should be expressly left to parents. Will the governments program be faith based? Will it be brazenly secular? Which parenting style will the Government of the United States adopt? It's a program that has no business at the federal level.
3. There are already those that want midwives and those that have home births run out of town on a rail. And how do you know what it's about? Why is your interpretation the acurate one? How would the government enforce those intervals? I would imagine women that get pregnant less than six months after the birth of a child is very, very rare. Since it's practically implausable. And since those are obviously high risk, what would the government do to those that find themselves in that situation? And why are the involved in this?
4. These are things that I just don't think the government has any business talking about. And I don't want the government incentivizing doctors to have these conversations with my parents.
The more the debate goes on the more I realize it comes down to this: some people trust the government to do it right, and some people don't.
I trust they will screw it up and my children will pay for it. So I'm opposed, thank you.