HSLDA Pits Homeschoolers Against HR 3200 and Health Care Reform

Let me first say that I support Obama, I support HR 3200, and I strongly support Health Insurance Reform.

As a liberal homeschooler, I have complex feelings about HSLDA (the Homeschool Legal Defense Association). I believe that a lot of what they do is good, watching legislation and helping families with legal issues. I wish they would do it from a less political, less religious position, but that's who they are.

They've released a memo to members, calling for homeschoolers to call our representatives and senators, asking them to oppose the bill. Here's the memo.

HSDLA gives five reasons why this bill should be opposed. I'd like to respond to those five points, one by one:

• Spend billions of dollars to allow the federal government to fund home visitation programs, where government officials would enter homes and monitor children and instruct parents in how to raise their children;

This already exists. It's called Head Start, and it's over 40 years old. Trained workers go into the homes of low income or immigrant families, and teach them about nutrition, reading to their kids, playing with their kids, taking them to the doctor, dental hygiene, etc. The program was started in the 60s, yet somehow homeschooling has managed to explode in popularity.

• Encourage states to pressure families to enroll their children in these home visitation programs;

Here's some murky language. "Encourage states to pressure..." What does that mean? What kind of pressure are they implying? Physical pressure? Financial pressure? When a "state" applies pressure, there are only a few things that can mean: either they're going to hurt you physically or they're going to hurt you financially. So exactly what does HSLDA expect the state to do here, and how is this expectation rationally merited based on 40 years of the Head Start program's history?

• Put the federal government in the healthcare business, resulting in loss of competition, loss of patient choice, and loss of patient freedom;

The federal government has been in the health insurance business for decades. Medicare was also launched in the 60s, and somehow Medicare and liberty have coexisted for decades. There will be no loss of competition, no loss of patient choice, and no loss of patient freedom. HR 3200 means there will be more competition for the insurance companies, more choices for patients, and more freedom for patients. Anyone who likes their current situation can keep it. Anyone who wants another choice can have it. Anyone who currently has no choice because they're unemployed or have a pre-existing condition or have maxed out their life-time cap or have been determined by insurance companies to be not worth the risk: they now have a choice.

• Require all health insurance plans, whether offered by a private company or the government, to include controversial “essential benefits,” which courts or the Secretary of Health and Human Services may determine to include medical procedures which businesses and taxpayers may oppose on philosophical and religious grounds; and

Note the use of the word "may" -- as in... "may determine" and "may oppose." Now we're getting hysterical and writing our Congressmen over hypotheticals. Of course, we know what HSDLA is referencing here without saying it: If we pass this bill, your tax dollars will pay for abortions! Well, guess what? Abortions are already covered by tax dollars, have been since 1973. Adopting health care reform won't bring this about, any more than electing three republican presidents put an end to it. Abortions are covered by Medicaid, right now, .

• Increase the size and power of the federal government.

Well, now we're just fear-mongering, and over-generalizing. Bigger government bad, smaller government good! Really? No exceptions? No grey area? Welfare makes government bigger. Medicare and Medicaid make it bigger. Social Security makes it bigger. Are we ready to get rid of all of these things? A lot of people like to shake their fists and yell about smaller government, but I don't believe this is a rule we can apply universally. By using this bit of as a final bullet point, HSLDA is trying to join in the popular chorus sung by tea partiers, libertarians, and erstwhile Republicans who have only recently decided that big government is bad, after the guy they most recently elected swelled the government more than anyone since Roosevelt. Increasing the size and power of the federal government has only just become a bullet point for opposing a bill. When considering the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, or the Transportation Security Administration, or No Child Left Behind, this would have been a bullet point on the pro side of the argument.

I'll leave you with Obama's opening statement from his health care town hall today. I hope if you've spent any time reading the email forwards and blog posts frothing about what might happen, what could result, how much homeschoolers have to fear from health insurance reform, that you'll take a few minutes to read Obama's message straight from the horse's mouth:

Let me set record straight:

. If you like your doctor, you can keep them.
. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
. You won't be waiting in lines.
. Health care choices should be between you and doctor.
. Government bureaucrats shouldn't meddle, but neither should insurance company bureaucrats.
. In the past 3 years, 12 million have been discriminated by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions.

Under our reform, insurance companies will be prevented from denying or dropping your coverage due to pre-existing condition or when you get sick. They won't be able to water down your coverage. Insurance companies won't be able to put a cap on how much coverage you get in year or lifetime, and we'll put a cap on how much you have to pay out of pocket. We'll do this without adding to deficit by cutting out things that don't help.