Lars Larson: Do we need the government playing Nanny state?

Do we really need the government sending a nurse to your house if your wife is pregnant or about to become pregnant?

I know there’s been a lot of misinformation out there about something called ObamaCare, but here’s the latest outrage. On Monday, I talked with Susan Ferrechio, who works for the Washington Examiner. Buried in the middle of that ObamaCare plan is part of the plan to become a Nanny State, to send government nurses by your house if you just had a baby or if your wife is expecting a baby.

I don’t think we need to spend money on this. I think it’s a waste of the taxpayer’s dollars. But more than that, I don’t think the government has any business coming to your home and trying to tell you when and how to have a child or perhaps when and how to abort that child.

That’s exactly what’s inside that bill””suggesting when and how you ought to have a baby.

Putting a government Nanny inside your house, reporting back to other government agencies is not healthy for America and shouldn’t be a part of so-called health care reform.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 42 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Max

    I think homeowners these days need all the help they can get, and if that means a visit from a government nurse, fine. Our nation is falling apart all around us and all we can do is argue about health care? It is a right of all to be healthy. If the state must step in to make sure we are, fine.
    I applaud the president and all the dems who are working so hard for the little people.

    • Sybella

      Oh Max, they aren’t working to help the little people, they are working to control them.

      • Oregometry

        Put your tinfoil hat back on.

        And Lars is just adorable.

  • Sagano

    That is putting the nanny in nanny state.

  • Stephan Andrew Brodhead for Congress
    • dian

      sorry, your comments of this type just turned me off voting for you.

  • v person

    “Buried in the middle of that ObamaCare plan …”

    Thre is no “Obamacare plan.” There are 3 bills that have passed out of House committees, 1 that has passed a Senate committee, and 1 senate comittee bill still in progress. Which of these is Lars cherry picking from? And what the heck is wrong with offering help to people after they have had a baby? From what I have seen and read, there are a whole lot of young parents and single moms who don’t have a clue about baby care. I thought conservatives were pro baby, or is that just until they emerge fromt he womb?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Which of these is Lars cherry picking from?

      Probably the same one congressmen are tending to do their town halls with. Like the 1100 or so page bill DeFazio brought to his town hall.

      Look, we all know you love to pop off when you know something you think no one else is aware of. Every one knows the bill is still in committees stage. However you might want to drop this. Congressmen are running around with an actual bill.

      >And what the heck is wrong with offering help to people after they have had a baby?

      Because it costs money and Obama has promised the bill would save money. It is real hard to see how you add the 40 million people he has promised to add along with gold plated idiocy like this and save money.

      >From what I have seen and read, there are a whole lot of young parents and single moms who don’t have a clue about baby care.

      You know, you have a real tendency to take cases specific in your life and over generalize and think they apply to everyone else’s life. This is especially ridiculous when you know nothing about the situation involved. You might want to think about that.

      >I thought conservatives were pro baby, or is that just until they emerge fromt he womb?

      And this is why the Democrats lose a lot of credibility in an argument. Somehow being against something ridiculous means you are against babies.

      Keep going with that approach, its been working real well with health care so far.

      • David Appell

        > “Because it costs money…”

        Your mortgage interest deduction costs money, too (about $100B/yr). You’re ready to give that up, Rupert?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Are you still going on with this nonsense of confusing tax rates with the spending of money? I don’t know why you continue to make this mistake, but its really a little silly. And no, we don’t need a bunch of cites from advocacy organizations.

          Sorry, I earned the money, the fact that I keep it does not cost you or anyone else a dime.

          Could you just give us all a break with this nonsense and just buy a house for Gods sake?

      • v person

        Note both Rupert and Catalyst managers, that someone removed my response to Rupert. What they are afraid of I do not know.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >What they are afraid of I do not know.

          Boredom?

  • large larson

    Lars, Can you give us a bill number for “obamacare”. You are a blowhard

    • Joe

      Give it up people. Obama keeps referring to it as his plan, so it must be his. He says it is.

  • dartagnan

    “That’s exactly what’s inside that bill—suggesting when and how you ought to have a baby.”

    This is even nuttier than the “death panel” BS.

    Lars, are you wingnut wacko commentators in competition to see who can come up with the most outrageous lie?

  • dartagnan

    There are, and have been for many years, facilities called “Well-Baby Clinics” which provide periodic health examinations and various medical services, including immunizations, for babies from low-income families. They also provide referrals to parents seeking advice on parenting skills or financial matters. They are tax-supported. I have not yet heard any right-wing nut case complain about these “evil, socialistic, Nazi-style, government-run” clinics, but I’m sure if they could find a way to link them to “Obamacare” they would. They’d probably claim they were part of a sinister leftist plot to train the “Obama Youth.”

    • David Appell

      Not only that, but there are many social workers who travel around the various states checking in on disadvantaged children and their development. What’s wrong with that?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    HONK IF YOUR GRANDKIDS PAID FOR MY CLUNKER!

  • Anonymous

    Yeah v, dart, large and David, There’s nothing to any of the complaints.

    Like “It’s not amnesty”?
    Or cap and trade must get passed to stop global warming?

    Here’s some more cherry picked facts.

    Universal Obama care will not be funded and the CBO says it will soar the debt.
    Services will be rationed and cut.
    Illegal aliens will be covered.
    Millions of public employees will be exempt.
    Most people, employees, will not have the choice to keep their current coverage.
    The savings from Medicare will never be acheived.
    Obamacare will join SS, Medicare Medicade and other big government fiscal fantasies.

    • vp

      “Universal Obama care will not be funded and the CBO says it will soar the debt. ”

      The CBO score on the Baucus committee bill says $90B per year is the cost. If they find some savings in Medicare and raise some taxes on the rich they can easily balance that amount. And if they add a public option the costs go down since that is cheaper.

      “Services will be rationed and cut. ”

      Services are already rationed and are being cut every day. And co-pays are going up for just about everyone.

      “Illegal aliens will be covered.”

      Not under any of the current proposals, other than emergency room care, which they already are entitled to.

      “Millions of public employees will be exempt.”

      Exempt from what? Since they are already insured, what is the issue?

      “Most people, employees, will not have the choice to keep their current coverage.”

      Most insured employees are already in that boat. It is up to their employers every year to cut deals with whichever insurance company they like. The employees have little say in the matter. For the 40 million or so non insured employees, they get new choices if a bill passes, as do self-employed people and those with pre-existing conditions.

      “The savings from Medicare will never be acheived.”

      Then the geezers should stop kevetching and take their signs home.

      “Obamacare will join SS, Medicare Medicade and other big government fiscal fantasies. ”

      OK, so convince the American people to eliminate SSI and Medicare and we can talk. But as it turns out the American people LIKE big government programs that provide them with a measure of security. And once a health bill passes, they will like that as well. This is what you fear most.

      • dartagnan

        “And once a health bill passes, they will like that as well. This is what you fear most.”

        BINGO! You nailed it.

        Time and again I have asked conservatives to explain why, if “socialized medicine” is as horrible as they claim, NOT ONE of the countries that have adopted it has voted to abolish it and adopt an American-style system. The only lame answer they’ve been able to come up with is that the people of those countries have become “dependent” on Big Government “looking after them” and are sort of like children who are afraid to leave their mommies.

        Here’s a simpler and more logical explanation: The people of those countries have kept their medical care programs in place because THEY WORK and THEY LIKE THEM.

  • Anonymous

    vp

    What a farce.
    SS and medicare are not funded. They are are trillions upside down.

    If you think universal health care won’t turn out the same, making things far worse, then you are hopelessly naive or a biased fool.

    Saying there’s rationing now is not an answer for will there be rationing of universal health care.
    That’s obfuscation and why there’s a credibility problem. .

    Saying savings be had with Medicare is why there is a credibility problem.

    Saying a government health care plan will only cost $90 billion is why there is a credibility problem.

    The millions of public employees will be exempt and insulated from having to switch over to the Obama care.
    Your ridiculous use of what is now is nothing but manipulation.
    Yeah most insured employees have to take what coverage the employer offers.
    But the employer can choose on the open competitive market what coverage to offer.

    That competiton and choosing will go away with government health care in place.
    Obama and democrats are telling americans they can choose to keep the coverage they have,

    That’s BS.
    No such allowance exists for employees with work coverage.

    Employees don’t choose the healtch care coverage for the employer.
    And you ask what’s the problem? Nothing for goverment employees and their coverage.

    Illegals will most certainly be covered, as sure as you’re a obfuscating and manipulating progressive democrat.

    If you there will be saving from medicare that isn’t even fully funded then have you’re democrats find those cuts first and come back next year for universal healthcare.
    What? You all demand health care now and promise the saving will come later?

    Yeah Ok.
    We need reform of abusive lawsuits, and for goverment employees to be consumers of health care like everyone else on the open market. Medical saving acccounts for all goverment employees.

    We need to seek and get all of the waste fraud and abuse out of SS and Medicare without adding any goverment expansions inoreder to preserve them for the near future.
    You want to simply expand the problem.

    Make the fiscal monster bigger.

    Your rhetoric about convincing the American people to eliminate SSI and Medicare is just too much crap. And typical of the left. Who said anyting about getting rid of them?

    They aren’t funded fool. Why do progressives waltz right by the fiscal madness?

    We can’t afford what you want to do. Claiming it will save money is simply not credible.

    • vp

      “SS and medicare are not funded.”

      Lets put it this way. They are both way better funded than the Iraq war is.

      “there be rationing of universal health care.”

      “Rationing” is a bogus term. There is an unlimited supply of medical services potentially available with a limited amount of money to pay for it. That is true today and will be true under any proposed scenario. The question is who gets what part of the supply given the limitations on funding. Today, 47 million Americans get next to nothing. Another large chunk gets screwed by their insurance companies and ends up with nothing. Tomorrow, someone might be denied a procedure because it cost too much or is not very effective. People cannot have every possible procedure now, and they won’t be able to later. Its not rationing unless the supply is artificially limited and everyone is alloted a portion of the supply.

      “Saying savings be had with Medicare is why there is a credibility problem”

      Maybe so. But it was the republcans who established the bloated and inefficient prescription drug plan for Medicare, and REpublicans who pushed Medicare recipients into expensive Advantage plans. And this is where the savings can and should be found regardles of current plans.

      “Saying a government health care plan will only cost $90 billion is why there is a credibility problem. ”

      You seem to like the CBO when they agree with you, and don’t like them when they disagree. $90B a year is their estimate, not mine.

      “The millions of public employees will be exempt and insulated from having to switch over to the Obama care. ”

      No one will have to switch to anything. I have no idea where you get that. You are simply repeating myths. Some employers will drop their presnt covereage, but that is already happening every single day, and it leaves employees in the lurch. At least they will have an alternative now.

      “Illegals will most certainly be covered…”

      You can make up whatever you want, but there is nothing in any of the bills that extends coverage to illegal aliens.

      “You all demand health care now and promise the saving will come later? ”

      We all have been demanding universal health coverage for Americans since the Truman Administration. We may finally have the votes to implement something. Elections have consequences. At least Democrats are offering ways to pay for this. Republicans did squat when they had power except increase deficits.

      “and for goverment employees to be consumers of health care like everyone else on the open market. ”

      They already are. Federal employees and elected officials choose a plan from a menu of options. That same menu is what will be extended to others across the nation, and insurance companies will be told they cannot discriminate among applicants. What is wrong with that? Its called more choices for everyone.

      “Who said anyting about getting rid of them?”

      Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, and Dick Armey for starters. You should read the writings of your own party leaders more. Dick Army called Medicare “extortion” the other day on television. Tom Delay said it should be abolished. Reagan gave a famous speech against its implementation that is available on the web.

      “We can’t afford what you want to do. ”

      “We” includes me. If I did not think we could afford it I would be against it. We can afford it. What we can’t afford is the current system.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Progressives –

    People who think worrying about three degrees of temperature 100 years in the future is sensible, but concern about adding more deficit entitlement spending that will bankrupt us in decades means you’re a Nazi.

    • vp

      Conservatives-

      People who think it is ok to run up deficits when they have power, run up the temperature of the planet with disregard for science, ignore those without health care once they are actually born (unless they are dying and want to be unplugged, in which case they fight to keep them plugged in,) and try to make people believe that nazis were actually leftists.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Progressives – See also humourless Mr. Cranky’s.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Conservatives – People who criticize deficit spending in proportion to the amount of debt, not the party in power at the time.

        Progressive – People who can stand the fact that conservative opposition to Bush deficits throughout eights years now gives them the moral high ground.

        • vp

          Progressives-
          People (at least one I know of) who are presently laughing themselves senseless at the idea that conservatives, who actually ran government during the Bush Administration (unless Cheney, Delay, Army, Rove, Rumsfeld, Hatch, and the rest are really liberals, but hey, if Nazis are of the left anything is possible,) were in reality opposed to the very policies they voted for.

          Conservatives-
          People who seem to think that debts and deficits should be fixed ratios instead of contingent upon the fluctuating economy of the nation. I suppose interest rates whould be fixed as well in that case.

          As for humor, I admit you consistently come up with way funnier ideas than I do.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >that conservatives, who actually ran government during the Bush Administration

            You are arguing that conservatives were in charge during the Bush administration?

            Ahh Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

            Ok, I don’t think there is a lot of point in considering your opinions much further. Anyone who would argue that the Bush administration, or congress during that time, was run by conservatives or in a conservative fashion really has left the stage of reasoned consideration.

            Anyone who would make that mistake would probably also argue BO was not a liberal.

            Oh wait, you in fact did that.

            Ahh Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

            Thank you for your time sir. These men will escort you back to your ward. I will check with the concierge about your tin foil hat.

            Good day.

          • vp

            “You are arguing that conservatives were in charge during the Bush administration?”

            No Rupert. I’m *laughing at your argument* that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Army, Delay, Hatch, McConnel, and the rest of the dour looking white guys are not really conservatives, because if that is the case then they are all serial liars and those who voted for them (twice) thinking they were what they said they were are fools.

            “or in a conservative fashion”

            Hallelujah. You finally got there maybe. It was self described conservatives not governing in a fiscally conservative fashion, elected (sort of) and re-elected by self described conservatives like yourself, who doubled the national debt in 8 years, started an unecessary and very expensive war, broke the economy, then bailed out the banks and auto companies and left a mess behind that will take a generation to clean up. And what is left of them are now argung with straight faces that they (you) really are conservatives, trust us this time, and isn’t it a shame Obama can’t fix all this in his first 6 months and balance the budget to boot.

            As for Obama, I don’t know that he has ever called himself a liberal, but I know a lot of liberals who don’t think he is one. Now Obama could be a liar, and these liberals fools, but I’ll reserve judgement for a few years until I see how things shake out. If Obama turns out to be a liberal and governs as one, I’ll be happy and forgive him his lie. If he keeps moderating to please the yahoos, I’ll be disappointed.

  • Rick Hickey

    Progressives-

    People who claim that Illegal aliens will not get national health care, the same people who voted NO on a recent admendment to require checking the S.S.#/ID of all applying (N. Deal Amd., Walden voted Yes). The only requirement in hb3200 is income verification.

    The same people who claim Illegals can not get a job here or benefits or vote, yet do not require anyone prove they are who they say they are (they do in Arizona) because that would involve racial profiling.

    Progressives- Sen. Wyden & Merkley,
    Who claim that E-Verify does not work (and recently voted NO to make it mandatory) denying the 12% here plus needing a job to stay unemployed while illegals make so much money in America they send $2 Billion/month home. Even the Dept. of Homeland Security says over 6 million new hires have been checked via E-Verify this year most in 5 seconds for free and over 96% accuracy and not one American or legal immigrant has been denied a job with this system.

    Progressives-
    Who say allowing over 12 millions illegals to stay here is not amnesty and even though they are already living here they will have to “Get to the back of the line” and though “poor” they will somehow pay a fine for not really getting amnesty.

    Progressives –
    Who still allow over 1.5 Million/yr. (on top of 1 million illegally) to Legally emigrate to here even though Millions of Americans are not working and can no longer subsidize the many many needs of the poor immigrants.

    Progressives-
    Who still pretend that California, the state with millions of Illegals and the most Taxes and gov’t services is not going Bankrupt because massive uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world is “Good for the economy”. And it is obviously destroying the Nations economy as well.

    Like we have any reason to trust progressives.

    • vp

      “People who claim that Illegal aliens will not get national health care….”

      Red herring: Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

      The issue in question is reforming the health system so that all AMERICANS have access to affordable insurance and decent care. Illegal aliens were here prior to this debate, and will be here long after the debate is put to rest.

  • Anonymous

    vp,
    Oh enough of the same old rheotoric. There’s zero credibility there. And most people recognize it.

    The issue is to give free insurance to millions of people at the expense of taxpayers and current coverages.
    Genuine refrom of healthczare would included caps on lawsuits no economical damages. Something which drives the cost up for eveyone.
    YOU misleading Ds won;t do that.

    It’s very simple on how lying democrats could put to rest the coverage for illegals. Simply put into any bill a prohibition of coverage to illegal aliens.
    You obfuscating D won’t do that Ou

    It’s easy to show future adequate funding. Require the cuts to medicare and added tax revenue first.
    You Ds are lying so that won’t happen.

    No, instead this is just like the amnesty debate where you all told us “it’s not amnesty”.

    The cap and trade/global warming agenda is the same.

    Yes, llegal aliens were here prior to this debate, and democrats are mamking sure they, and more, will be here long after the debate and with health care coverage.

    Everyone knows it.

  • Anonymous

    Amendments requiring proof of citizenship are being rejected by DEMOCRATS.
    I’m shocked.

    Now vp throw in the latest BS.

    • vp

      So if the had voted yes on these amendments, then you and the republican party would have backed the bill right?

  • Anonymous

    Don’t be ridiculous vp.

    And earlier you insisted illegals would not be covered. You were indeed lyiing.

    There’s many problems with the bill and universl health care which are just as problematic as illegals being covered. All of which you have attempted to obfuscate and deny in your democrat push to pass it without regard for any of them. Lying about illegals, lying about funding, lying about service levels, lying about savings in Medicare. etc etc etc
    The reckless and dishonest advocacy of policies such as amnesty, cap and trade and now health care are trade marks of today’s demomcrat party.
    Here in our own Oregon we have witnessed the Democrat machine pushing horrible policies for decades and now the State is hobbled to the point of near total dysfunction.

    • vp

      “And earlier you insisted illegals would not be covered. You were indeed lyiing.”

      There is nothing in any of the bills that extends publicly supported insurance coverage to anyone in the country illegally. Period. If you think that is a lie you don’t know what you are talking about.

      The Democrats in Oregon and nationally are so horrible they keep getting elected and re-elected in overwhelming numbers.

  • Anonymous

    vp,

    Oh stop your obfuscation.
    You’re lying by doing so.
    There doesn’t have to be a something in the bill which extends coverage to illegals. Just making sure no proof of citizenship is required will suffice.
    That’s why democrats are killing amendmnets requiring proof.

    • v person

      By your logic proof of citizenship should be required for every transaction under the sun Do you really want a government that is that intrusive? I don’t.

  • Joe

    I think all peoples should get whatever they need whenever they need it for free.
    That is the America I have come to love.

  • Tates

    No we don’t need a Nanny State.  I guess during a snow storm when your car breaks down or you are in the ditch you will have to get out of your car to call for help.

  • George

    How does the availability of nurses doing house calls translate into a “nanny state” and then further morph into counseling on when to have a baby and possibly trying to encourage abortion?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)