Government Shutdown: The Unaffordable Nanny State Act

ObamaCare regulates more than healthcare.

The Name Doesn’t Say It All

One tipoff resides in the official name: the “Affordable Care Act.” Note that Congress did not call it the “Affordable Healthcare Act.” This act is not just designed to just to care for your health but every aspect of your life.

A more accurate name might be the Unaffordable Nanny State Act. However, this also would be a misnomer in that this particular nanny turns out to be the wolf dressed up as grandmother in Little Red Riding Hood. This nanny is an ironfisted tyrant.

Just as the “Affordable” aspect of the name is dishonest (for many Americans it makes healthcare unaffordable), the “Care” element of the name also misrepresents the truth, i.e. the design is not intended to care for you but to control you, to forcibly transform your life so that it can impose the fundamental transformation of America that President Obama promised.

Of course, Congress is not worried about assigning names to bills that actually fit the content. For example, the Farm Bill predominantly funds the government food stamp program as reflected in the diagram below.

 Farm Bill 3

By calling this the “Farm Bill,” the government camouflages allocation for the food stamp program. What could be more noble and American than helping the farmers that produce food?

The Government’s Trojan Horse

So we see that names don’t get in the way of Congress stuffing into a bill whatever they desire. Consequently, the thousands of pages that comprise the Affordable Care Act provide Congress with a very large Trojan Horse in which it can hide virtually any coercive measure it chooses. This is especially the case in light of how this bill was passed, making it into law before the public had an opportunity to discover its contents, or as Nancy Pelosi famously asserted, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

Looking Inside the Horse

What is in it? We will be discovering the answer to that question for many years. One reason why it is difficult to assess the reach of this bill is found in the latitude that it assigns to those implementing it. In many of its provisions it can become anything the Secretary of Health and Human Services or other agency head deems it to be.

That said, however, many of the provisions of this bill that we do know about are frightening.

Kent Brown, a constitutional attorney, makes the following observation in this regard:

To begin, Obamacare unleashes a dizzying array of “social transformation” programs which have received almost no attention when compared to the absolutely catastrophic health insurance aspects of the monstrous bill. Among the social transformation aspects of Obamacare are: the creation and funding of school-based clinics (which are nothing more than contraception and abortion counseling centers) designed to “reduce pregnancy and birth rates for youth populations” so as to meet “State-established goals;” the requiring of “digital electronic quality data” from every physician, the grouping of physicians into Federally-authorized “accountable care organizations;” the mandating that private not-for-profit hospitals provide what likely will be a prohibitive amount of free and discounted health care as a condition of them maintaining their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status; and the providing of grants to States and community-based organizations to “create the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment,” and to create “statewide needs assessments” to assess and implement “worksite wellness programming and incentives, highlight healthy options in restaurants and other food venues and implement strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health.”

Those familiar with the workings of government bureaucracies understand how agencies can take these provisions and expand them out to almost anything they want them to be, using them to control our lives in very authoritarian and distasteful ways.

Tyranny in a White Coat

For example, I witnessed a case in which a mentally capable woman was in essence incarcerated in a nursing home because medical and social work personnel concluded that conditions in her home were not safe. She desperately wanted to return home, but ultimately died in that nursing home without ever seeing her home again. This incarceration was forced without judge or jury, but was mandated solely by fiat of doctors and social workers.

If they wield this sort of power prior to the implementation of ObamaCare, imagine the reach and power of such agencies as it becomes fully implemented. In the current environment that is growing increasingly hostile to Christians, think of how social provisions of ObamaCare might be used to assault Christian values. For example, it takes little imagination to foresee the health concerns that the government might have concerning children raised in homes that fail to accept homosexuality as moral. The welfare of these children may require moving them into foster care that would foster healthier values.

If the government shutdown continues until tomorrow, I plan to divulge one of the most invasive of these social engineering provisions of ObamaCare, a.k.a the Unaffordable Nanny State Act.

One comment on “Government Shutdown: The Unaffordable Nanny State Act
  1. Patty Kearon says:

    I would like to comment on what you stated about children having to be removed from their homes because their parents refuse to accept homosexuality as moral.
    I have been deemed an expert in child protection by The State Superior Court. So this is a subject I know a lot about. CPS statutes are based on federal mandates. The only category this can fit into is Mental Injury. Mental Injury is defined as a form of substantiated child abuse in The United States. And currently, CPS will get involved in a family they substantiated mental injury happened. Currently Mental Injury is defined as a pattern of rejecting, terrorizing, ignoring, isolating, or corrupting behavior that would, if continued, result in mental injury. .It’s not about the values and beliefs, but about abusive actions. For example, A Christian parent can teach their teenager homosexual life styles are immoral, But the parent can not personally and intentionally reject the child and with hold affection, keep the child separate from the rest of the family. You can’t take an 8 yr. old child and hold him close to a burning fire and say, “you are going to burn in hell worse then this fire if you become a homosexual”
    All the other definitions of abuse are neglect, physical, and sexual abuse. Child abuse is never about a belief, it’s always about an act of a parent towards a child.

Have a comment?