Category: Scott Lazarowitz

Education and Child Care: Get the Government Out


Maryland lawmakers are following the lead of hysterical California kooks and are proposing new guidelines for Maryland homeschoolers.  Proposals include intrusive monitoring requirements, compelling homeschoolers to submit to in-home visits by school bureaucrats, according to the Free Thought Project.

The anti-homeschooler legislators’ rationale is the recent case of child abuse and torture allegedly inflicted by a California couple on their 13 kids.  Did you hear about that case?  The one in which the parents kept the kids chained to beds, kept them malnourished, and so on.  So just because those parents happen to homeschool their kids, the apparatchiks are slamming their iron fists down on all homeschoolers.

The rulers are hardcore control freaks, and education is an important means to control the people.  So is the “child protection” racket.

The State compels kids to attend unsafe government schools and creates draconian restrictions if parents want an alternative.  There are the State’s abusive “child welfare” agencies.  And the schools are not safe either because they are an Orwellian police state or because teachers and staff are disarmed by law and unable to protect kids from intruders.

There are now many examples of the various government child care agencies such as CPS (Child Protection Services) and DCF (Department of Children and Families) that demonstrate the viciousness and indecency of the State.

To begin, according to Jenifer McKim of the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, between 2001 and 2011, at least “95 Massachusetts children whose cases were overseen by state social workers have died directly or indirectly because of abuse or neglect.”

In 2014, this Boston Globe article disclosed that “hundreds of children in the Massachusetts welfare system” had gone missing.

More recently, as reported by Masslive.com, “there were 76 deaths of children under state care or supervision” in fiscal 2017.

This is happening not only in Massachusetts. As of December of 2017, more than 70 foster care children were missing in Kansas.

This 2013 article discussed the Oklahoma state Department of Human Services and the 78 missing children from its CPS who may very well have been taken into sex-trafficking.  The late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaefer worked to expose (PDF) CPS and its alleged child sex-trafficking connection.

Why would government child “protection” involve sexual misconduct of any kind?

The Boston Herald has covered several disturbing cases in Massachusetts, including an 11-year-old foster boy who alleged that he was sexually assaulted [only after eleven paragraphs does the Globe reveal that the case involves two males – ed.] in that foster home.  DCF dismissed it as “consensual sex [sic].”  There are many other cases, including one in Worcester, as reported by the Herald, in which DCF degenerates worked feverishly to get three kids in foster care back to their parents, even though the kids made “allegations against the parents of rape, molestation and being ‘taught’ sexual acts they performed on each other and the parents, physical beatings, and a lack of food in the home[.]”

According to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a policy known as “viewing bodies” involved strip-searching the foster children on each visit, without probable cause.  They continued the strip searches even though that procedure was determined illegal.

Why is child “protection” becoming so sexualized and invasive?  One conclusion by the American Dream Blog is that the government schools seem to be playing a major role.

I think that intrusiveness toward others in a most private way is something that now pervades the left, from government child “welfare” to the radical LGBT extremists.  When the activists infiltrate the schools with sex-related matters that little boys and girls are too young to be exposed to, then I view that as extreme intrusiveness, and it becomes “abuse.”  It is just immoral to treat a child in that kind of invasive way, or to invasively expose a child to “alternative” adult lifestyles.

The State is intimately enmeshed in these intrusions because the State controls the education of most kids.

Moreover, the Massachusetts child “welfare” departments openly promote sickos to be foster parents.  In 2014, the Boston Herald reported that a Massachusetts DCF handbook stated that people with criminal records and who have been convicted of “inducing sex from a minor … violent offenses, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, armed burglary and involuntary manslaughter” are suitable to be foster parents.

In 2013, a five-year-old foster child, Jeremiah Oliver, had been missing and was later found dead in a suitcase.  Apparently, the children in that foster home had been abused by the mother and her gang-member boyfriend.

And I have covered the case of now-19-year-old Justina Pelletier, who had been treated for a mitochondrial disease.  At one point when she was taken to see a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital, her case was seized by psychiatrists who changed her diagnosis to “somatoform disorder” and immediately withdrew her from her treatment.  Custody of her was seized by the state of Massachusetts, and she was then involuntarily placed into a mental health facility for troubled teens, even though she was clearly not “troubled.”  Her physical condition deteriorated, and she then had to use a wheelchair.

Justina then found herself in captivity and under the constraints of “behavior modification” ideology-driven and research-driven psychiatrists, according to her father, Lou Pelletier.  The Pelletier family is suing Boston Children’s Hospital and the doctors, and the lawsuit trial is still pending.

That hospital and the doctors are clearly private-sector workers.  However, in this case, doctors relied on the state’s DCF seizing custody of Justina.  The doctors’ receiving government research grants also plays a large role here.  Some people refer to this case as “medical kidnapping” by the doctors and their government partners.

Now, this is not to suggest that all these problems occur solely because “child protection” has been monopolized by the State.  There actually are some decent government social workers who rebuked their agencies.

In the private sector, however, workers are made to be accountable under the law, while the agents of government-monopolized services have shown themselves time and again to be above the law.

The invasive sexual deviancy and the “child welfare” racket and CPS abuses are bad enough.  Add to that the crazy police state in the schools, as discussed by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, and terrifying terrorism drills in the schools.  And now Donald Trump wants to impose an escalated police state in the government schools?

In my view, the police state inflicted on kids for no good reason is a form of child abuse – along with its imposing gun-free zones, mandating that no one may be armed in the schools, and therefore that no one may be able to defend the kids from a psychopathic shooter.  With civilian disarmament and mandated gun-free zones, the government schools turn kids into sitting ducks.

No wonder people want to homeschool their kids.  Imagine the government’s local homeschool “supervisors,” as threatened by Maryland and California bureaucrats.  Could they be just as bad as the government “child protective” social workers?

It is time to finally take control over education away from the government, as well as remove its monopoly over “child protection.”

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator.  Please visit his blog.

Maryland lawmakers are following the lead of hysterical California kooks and are proposing new guidelines for Maryland homeschoolers.  Proposals include intrusive monitoring requirements, compelling homeschoolers to submit to in-home visits by school bureaucrats, according to the Free Thought Project.

The anti-homeschooler legislators’ rationale is the recent case of child abuse and torture allegedly inflicted by a California couple on their 13 kids.  Did you hear about that case?  The one in which the parents kept the kids chained to beds, kept them malnourished, and so on.  So just because those parents happen to homeschool their kids, the apparatchiks are slamming their iron fists down on all homeschoolers.

The rulers are hardcore control freaks, and education is an important means to control the people.  So is the “child protection” racket.

The State compels kids to attend unsafe government schools and creates draconian restrictions if parents want an alternative.  There are the State’s abusive “child welfare” agencies.  And the schools are not safe either because they are an Orwellian police state or because teachers and staff are disarmed by law and unable to protect kids from intruders.

There are now many examples of the various government child care agencies such as CPS (Child Protection Services) and DCF (Department of Children and Families) that demonstrate the viciousness and indecency of the State.

To begin, according to Jenifer McKim of the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, between 2001 and 2011, at least “95 Massachusetts children whose cases were overseen by state social workers have died directly or indirectly because of abuse or neglect.”

In 2014, this Boston Globe article disclosed that “hundreds of children in the Massachusetts welfare system” had gone missing.

More recently, as reported by Masslive.com, “there were 76 deaths of children under state care or supervision” in fiscal 2017.

This is happening not only in Massachusetts. As of December of 2017, more than 70 foster care children were missing in Kansas.

This 2013 article discussed the Oklahoma state Department of Human Services and the 78 missing children from its CPS who may very well have been taken into sex-trafficking.  The late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaefer worked to expose (PDF) CPS and its alleged child sex-trafficking connection.

Why would government child “protection” involve sexual misconduct of any kind?

The Boston Herald has covered several disturbing cases in Massachusetts, including an 11-year-old foster boy who alleged that he was sexually assaulted [only after eleven paragraphs does the Globe reveal that the case involves two males – ed.] in that foster home.  DCF dismissed it as “consensual sex [sic].”  There are many other cases, including one in Worcester, as reported by the Herald, in which DCF degenerates worked feverishly to get three kids in foster care back to their parents, even though the kids made “allegations against the parents of rape, molestation and being ‘taught’ sexual acts they performed on each other and the parents, physical beatings, and a lack of food in the home[.]”

According to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a policy known as “viewing bodies” involved strip-searching the foster children on each visit, without probable cause.  They continued the strip searches even though that procedure was determined illegal.

Why is child “protection” becoming so sexualized and invasive?  One conclusion by the American Dream Blog is that the government schools seem to be playing a major role.

I think that intrusiveness toward others in a most private way is something that now pervades the left, from government child “welfare” to the radical LGBT extremists.  When the activists infiltrate the schools with sex-related matters that little boys and girls are too young to be exposed to, then I view that as extreme intrusiveness, and it becomes “abuse.”  It is just immoral to treat a child in that kind of invasive way, or to invasively expose a child to “alternative” adult lifestyles.

The State is intimately enmeshed in these intrusions because the State controls the education of most kids.

Moreover, the Massachusetts child “welfare” departments openly promote sickos to be foster parents.  In 2014, the Boston Herald reported that a Massachusetts DCF handbook stated that people with criminal records and who have been convicted of “inducing sex from a minor … violent offenses, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, armed burglary and involuntary manslaughter” are suitable to be foster parents.

In 2013, a five-year-old foster child, Jeremiah Oliver, had been missing and was later found dead in a suitcase.  Apparently, the children in that foster home had been abused by the mother and her gang-member boyfriend.

And I have covered the case of now-19-year-old Justina Pelletier, who had been treated for a mitochondrial disease.  At one point when she was taken to see a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital, her case was seized by psychiatrists who changed her diagnosis to “somatoform disorder” and immediately withdrew her from her treatment.  Custody of her was seized by the state of Massachusetts, and she was then involuntarily placed into a mental health facility for troubled teens, even though she was clearly not “troubled.”  Her physical condition deteriorated, and she then had to use a wheelchair.

Justina then found herself in captivity and under the constraints of “behavior modification” ideology-driven and research-driven psychiatrists, according to her father, Lou Pelletier.  The Pelletier family is suing Boston Children’s Hospital and the doctors, and the lawsuit trial is still pending.

That hospital and the doctors are clearly private-sector workers.  However, in this case, doctors relied on the state’s DCF seizing custody of Justina.  The doctors’ receiving government research grants also plays a large role here.  Some people refer to this case as “medical kidnapping” by the doctors and their government partners.

Now, this is not to suggest that all these problems occur solely because “child protection” has been monopolized by the State.  There actually are some decent government social workers who rebuked their agencies.

In the private sector, however, workers are made to be accountable under the law, while the agents of government-monopolized services have shown themselves time and again to be above the law.

The invasive sexual deviancy and the “child welfare” racket and CPS abuses are bad enough.  Add to that the crazy police state in the schools, as discussed by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, and terrifying terrorism drills in the schools.  And now Donald Trump wants to impose an escalated police state in the government schools?

In my view, the police state inflicted on kids for no good reason is a form of child abuse – along with its imposing gun-free zones, mandating that no one may be armed in the schools, and therefore that no one may be able to defend the kids from a psychopathic shooter.  With civilian disarmament and mandated gun-free zones, the government schools turn kids into sitting ducks.

No wonder people want to homeschool their kids.  Imagine the government’s local homeschool “supervisors,” as threatened by Maryland and California bureaucrats.  Could they be just as bad as the government “child protective” social workers?

It is time to finally take control over education away from the government, as well as remove its monopoly over “child protection.”

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator.  Please visit his blog.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Why do Conservatives Support Socialized Medicine?


This week on the radio Sean Hannity was talking about the “importance of free markets,” at the same time mentioning that Donald Trump would have to “negotiate with pharmaceutical companies” and other interests. This was in regard to the Republicans in Congress working out their repeal of ObamaCare and imposing their own intrusions into medical care.

But the truth is, when you have a particular scheme being imposed on the people by Congress and the president, with various arrangements designed by Congressional central planners, and with a U.S. president having to “negotiate with pharmaceutical companies,” that is not an example of “free markets.”

The supposedly conservative Hugh Hewitt on his radio show continues to support the government maintaining its power to force private insurers to have to provide policies to people with “preexisting conditions” and policies in which they must allow “children” up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance plans.

This is “free market”? This is “conservative”?”

Sorry, those views are not free-market views, nor are they “conservative.” Apart from having some adherence to fiscal conservatism and private property rights, conservative used to mean the advocating of personal responsibility.

But just how is forcing insurers to include the adult children (age 18-26) of their consumers in their consumers’ insurance policies “responsible”? Whatever happened to property rights? What if an insurer doesn’t want to provide such policies?

And what if an insurer doesn’t want to take the extra risks involved in providing policies to someone with preexisting conditions?

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute commented on how the preexisting conditions requirement for insurers is the more hazardous centerpiece of ObamaCare, not the individual mandate:

If the sickest patients can hop from plan to plan knowing that insurers could charge them no more than anyone else, then each year many will choose whichever plan offers the most attractive coverage for their ailments. Whichever insurer provided the most attractive coverage to the sick would end up with lots of enrollees who pay far less in premiums than they generate in claims. That’s not sustainable. To keep from going out of business, insurers would start competing to not offer the best coverage to the sick. Year after year, sick people would find their coverage getting progressively worse, not better. Just like under ObamaCare.

Given how negative consequences seem to occur when bureaucrats dictate to private businesses, when we’re dealing with health care those unintended consequences will obviously have more serious, perhaps deadly results.

Another jaw-dropper occurred on Sunday on Bloomberg Radio’s rebroadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” who was interviewing the allegedly conservative Christopher Ruddy, publisher of the allegedly conservative Newsmax.

Stephanopoulos asked about something Ruddy had written that week. Ruddy wrote: “Donald Trump staked out a high moral ground by calling for a feasible system of universal health care to replace ObamaCare. He shouldn’t retreat from that no matter how much the establishment GOP dislikes it.”

Huh? “Universal health care?” Ruddy states that he shares Donald Trump’s vision (blurred as it is) that all Americans should have access to health care. But all Americans already had access to health care prior to ObamaCare. I think what he’s saying is that the government should be empowered to make that happen.

Prior to ObamaCare, did the people have as much access to affordable health care?

Actually, more Americans had access to affordable health care prior to Medicare and Medicaid than after, it seems to me. In his book Making Economic Sense, economist Murray Rothbard noted that government interventions in medical care, including government-mandated licensure, has resulted in raised prices.

Prior to Medicare and Medicaid, a much larger proportion of doctors and hospitals were financially able to treat patients for free. LBJ’s “Great Society,” which expanded under Republican President Richard Nixon, made such philanthropy by doctors difficult.

And the suggestions offered by Christopher Ruddy include a lot of Medicaid deck-chair rearranging, as with other socialist Republicans, who don’t understand that more Americans were better off with medical care prior to these illicit intrusions of the government.

These Republicans and conservatives in Congress seem to be addicted to central planning. They seem obsessed with maintaining government controls and government operations of various medical and insurance schemes, despite their resulting distortions and dysfunctions.

Well, Congress can pass the RyanCare revision of ObamaCare and Trump can sign it into law. And history can tell us what will probably happen: employers dropping workers’ health care, Americans losing insurance plans, more bureaucrats confused about what should be enforced and what’s been repealed, more doctors’ offices and hospitals going bananas by government diktat.

The government changes the rules of the game and makes the people have to change their lives around the bureaucrats’ changes, and it’s frustrating!

Yes, socialism is frustrating.

But this is the road to total government control of the people’s private medical matters. Not good.

The socialized medicine that conservatives support has been an easily predictable failure, and more of it will be a nightmare, whether it’s Medicare or Medicaid expansion, ObamaCare, RyanCare, TrumpCare, and all the rest.

We really need to dump socialized medicine into the dustbin of history, once and for all.

Allowing for free markets in health care means letting doctors, insurers, medical patients, consumers enter into whatever contracts or relationships or associations they want among themselves, as long as there is no fraud or theft.

Leave government bureaucrats and their enforcers out of the picture entirely.

If people are concerned that low-income Americans can’t obtain treatment for their illnesses, when there’s freedom (like there used to be), they will be treated by doctors and hospitals that will once again be able to afford to treat them, because the bureaucracy, the mandates and requirements, the regulations, and the tax-thefts will be gone.

And when there’s freedom consumers will be the ones who will be in control — as the medical providers and insurers compete for those health care consumers. In such an environment, prices come down.

Sadly, conservatives who say they are against socialism, redistribution-of-wealth schemes, and central planning seem to be suffering from great cognitive dissonance in their continued support of socialism and central planning in health care.

At the very least, just repeal ObamaCare, root and branch, and don’t replace it. Let doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumers make their own adjustments. Bureaucrats, stay away!

Scott Lazarowitz is a social and cultural conservative who follows a libertarian political and economic philosophy. Please visit his blog.

This week on the radio Sean Hannity was talking about the “importance of free markets,” at the same time mentioning that Donald Trump would have to “negotiate with pharmaceutical companies” and other interests. This was in regard to the Republicans in Congress working out their repeal of ObamaCare and imposing their own intrusions into medical care.

But the truth is, when you have a particular scheme being imposed on the people by Congress and the president, with various arrangements designed by Congressional central planners, and with a U.S. president having to “negotiate with pharmaceutical companies,” that is not an example of “free markets.”

The supposedly conservative Hugh Hewitt on his radio show continues to support the government maintaining its power to force private insurers to have to provide policies to people with “preexisting conditions” and policies in which they must allow “children” up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance plans.

This is “free market”? This is “conservative”?”

Sorry, those views are not free-market views, nor are they “conservative.” Apart from having some adherence to fiscal conservatism and private property rights, conservative used to mean the advocating of personal responsibility.

But just how is forcing insurers to include the adult children (age 18-26) of their consumers in their consumers’ insurance policies “responsible”? Whatever happened to property rights? What if an insurer doesn’t want to provide such policies?

And what if an insurer doesn’t want to take the extra risks involved in providing policies to someone with preexisting conditions?

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute commented on how the preexisting conditions requirement for insurers is the more hazardous centerpiece of ObamaCare, not the individual mandate:

If the sickest patients can hop from plan to plan knowing that insurers could charge them no more than anyone else, then each year many will choose whichever plan offers the most attractive coverage for their ailments. Whichever insurer provided the most attractive coverage to the sick would end up with lots of enrollees who pay far less in premiums than they generate in claims. That’s not sustainable. To keep from going out of business, insurers would start competing to not offer the best coverage to the sick. Year after year, sick people would find their coverage getting progressively worse, not better. Just like under ObamaCare.

Given how negative consequences seem to occur when bureaucrats dictate to private businesses, when we’re dealing with health care those unintended consequences will obviously have more serious, perhaps deadly results.

Another jaw-dropper occurred on Sunday on Bloomberg Radio’s rebroadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” who was interviewing the allegedly conservative Christopher Ruddy, publisher of the allegedly conservative Newsmax.

Stephanopoulos asked about something Ruddy had written that week. Ruddy wrote: “Donald Trump staked out a high moral ground by calling for a feasible system of universal health care to replace ObamaCare. He shouldn’t retreat from that no matter how much the establishment GOP dislikes it.”

Huh? “Universal health care?” Ruddy states that he shares Donald Trump’s vision (blurred as it is) that all Americans should have access to health care. But all Americans already had access to health care prior to ObamaCare. I think what he’s saying is that the government should be empowered to make that happen.

Prior to ObamaCare, did the people have as much access to affordable health care?

Actually, more Americans had access to affordable health care prior to Medicare and Medicaid than after, it seems to me. In his book Making Economic Sense, economist Murray Rothbard noted that government interventions in medical care, including government-mandated licensure, has resulted in raised prices.

Prior to Medicare and Medicaid, a much larger proportion of doctors and hospitals were financially able to treat patients for free. LBJ’s “Great Society,” which expanded under Republican President Richard Nixon, made such philanthropy by doctors difficult.

And the suggestions offered by Christopher Ruddy include a lot of Medicaid deck-chair rearranging, as with other socialist Republicans, who don’t understand that more Americans were better off with medical care prior to these illicit intrusions of the government.

These Republicans and conservatives in Congress seem to be addicted to central planning. They seem obsessed with maintaining government controls and government operations of various medical and insurance schemes, despite their resulting distortions and dysfunctions.

Well, Congress can pass the RyanCare revision of ObamaCare and Trump can sign it into law. And history can tell us what will probably happen: employers dropping workers’ health care, Americans losing insurance plans, more bureaucrats confused about what should be enforced and what’s been repealed, more doctors’ offices and hospitals going bananas by government diktat.

The government changes the rules of the game and makes the people have to change their lives around the bureaucrats’ changes, and it’s frustrating!

Yes, socialism is frustrating.

But this is the road to total government control of the people’s private medical matters. Not good.

The socialized medicine that conservatives support has been an easily predictable failure, and more of it will be a nightmare, whether it’s Medicare or Medicaid expansion, ObamaCare, RyanCare, TrumpCare, and all the rest.

We really need to dump socialized medicine into the dustbin of history, once and for all.

Allowing for free markets in health care means letting doctors, insurers, medical patients, consumers enter into whatever contracts or relationships or associations they want among themselves, as long as there is no fraud or theft.

Leave government bureaucrats and their enforcers out of the picture entirely.

If people are concerned that low-income Americans can’t obtain treatment for their illnesses, when there’s freedom (like there used to be), they will be treated by doctors and hospitals that will once again be able to afford to treat them, because the bureaucracy, the mandates and requirements, the regulations, and the tax-thefts will be gone.

And when there’s freedom consumers will be the ones who will be in control — as the medical providers and insurers compete for those health care consumers. In such an environment, prices come down.

Sadly, conservatives who say they are against socialism, redistribution-of-wealth schemes, and central planning seem to be suffering from great cognitive dissonance in their continued support of socialism and central planning in health care.

At the very least, just repeal ObamaCare, root and branch, and don’t replace it. Let doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumers make their own adjustments. Bureaucrats, stay away!

Scott Lazarowitz is a social and cultural conservative who follows a libertarian political and economic philosophy. Please visit his blog.



Source link