There was an interesting story that broke last week about the Alberta Finance Minister’s comment that the best way to raise children is by having one parent stay home with them during the early childhood years.
Well, D’UH! Only a moron who is ignorant of parenting research doubts that!
But what was interesting was the reaction of the secular-left to her comments.
Excerpt:
Following the speech, however, the Minister was sharply criticized for her comments by Alberta Liberal leader David Swann, who called for her to apologize. Swann said Evans should be fired should she not do so. “If she really said these things, she must apologize,” said Swann. “If she doesn’t apologize, the premier must fire her. … These are truly outrageous claims. I have never been as stunned by the sheer arrogance and ignorance of the Tories as I am today.”
According to Swann, “In a sense, Iris Evans did us all a favor by revealing her contempt for the sacrifices made by hard-working Alberta families.” Swann suggested that Evans’ comments prove that the current PC government of Alberta is a “group of small-minded social conservatives who don’t understand the problems of ordinary Albertans.”
Are leftists totally stupid or something? I would LOVE to stay at home with my children, if I ever found woman I liked and got married and had some. Relationships and debates are even more interesting than programming all day. (And programming is very interesting!) Why are people so focussed on making and spending money? What could be more important than introducing children to God?
Story here on Florida International University’s web site:
Who did the research:
FIU’s Fatherhood Lab explores these issues and Psychology Professor Gordon Finley, who runs the lab, focuses specifically on how divorce impacts fathers and the development of their children. Finley has found that a father’s role is unique and far too often neglected by the family court system.
What did they find:
Using questionnaires and a retrospective technique in which he asked 1,989 young adults to think back on their relationship with their fathers, Finley found that children of divorce really miss their fathers. According to Finley, they are denied a relationship with them because of present-day family law and court practices.
“Divorce marginalizes or severs a father’s relationship with his child,” he says. “In reality, the father becomes a visitor in his or her life. He is no longer a father in the very literal sense.”
But you fiscal conservative readers – shouldn’t you be social conservatives, too?
The statistics are alarming: children from fatherless homes account for 63 percent of youth suicides, 85 percent of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders and 71 percent of all high school dropouts. And 37 percent of fathers have no access or visitation rights to their children.
Read the whole thing, especially if you don’t usually care about social conservatism. It matters. The family is a bulwark against state power, and is the first thing to go as socialism progresses into fascism
Keith Hennessey is the go-to guy for analyzing economic policies. He takes a look at the leaked draft of the health care bill that I blogged about before. He lists 15 things you need to know about the draft bill.
Below I’ve listed a few of the scariest parts.
Mandatory coverage
The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”
Employer mandate
The bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS.
Mandatory services that I don’t use
A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services… The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
That’s just redistribution of wealth for elective services, right there. I wonder whether support for contraceptives and abortion would also be required.
Premiums not related to lifestyle risks
Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.
Guaranteed issue and renewal
All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.
…Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.
Massive wealth redistribution, especially to Democrats
People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.
…People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area.
Hennessey then goes on to explain all of the implications of his 15 points. READ IT ALL.
WINTERY KNIGHT 