What’s the Harm?

October 7, 2013

By: Kelly Diamond, Publisher

If people still don’t see the harm in turning things over to the government, then they deserve the government they have.

By now it is patently obvious that any information the government gets from you WILL be used against you… it’s just a matter of when.

During the last census here in the U.S., I decided to only answer the ONE question legally required of me: number of persons living at my residence.  I left the other 7 pages alone.  I was also revisited about three separate times thereafter by census representatives to try and elicit the remaining information from me.  I refused every time and eventually they left me alone.

But I also remember getting into a rather impassioned discussion with a then-friend of mine.  He said, “I got the census packet and the questions aren’t that bad.  What’s the harm in answering them?”  My first response was, “What’s the benefit or even the point of answering them?”  His argument was essentially reduced to him not wanting to draw attention to himself or cause any trouble over answering questions that were seemingly benign.  We went back and forth for a while, until it hit me: he’s putting up more of a fight to defend answering these seemingly harmless questions than he is willing to just push back on those seeking the answers from him!

I called him out and asked, “Why are you willing to argue the harmless nature of the questions with me for this long rather than tell a census worker to get bent in a matter of seconds?”  He said it wasn’t worth the hassle with the government.  I said, “What hassle?  You’re not legally obligated to answer and the one’s following up are even more harmless than the questions they’re asking.”  Stalemate.

It became rather clear that there was a part of him that was actually a little afraid of any potential blowback for not complying and it didn’t seem worthwhile to risk it over questions he perceived to be paltry.

There are a lot of things we guard and protect that aren’t necessarily earth-shattering pieces of information, but it also doesn’t mean that the apparent inconsequential nature of the information entails that everyone – or anyone – is entitled to know about it either.  In the event that we are okay to share the information with various private research groups, the understanding first and foremost is that our participation is voluntary.

But look what happens when you turn down the government.  In the United States, if you don’t give us the information, well, we’ll just get it another way: by commissioning the NSA to get that info for us!  In Canada, it’s a crime not to answer a government survey.  Check out this EIGHTY-NINE year old woman who conscientiously objected to answering and submitting to a Canadian government survey on the grounds that Lockheed Martin was somehow involved with it.  She won’t pay the fines or submit to community service either because that would be an admission of guilt to what she believes is NOT a criminal act!

What happens to your privacy when you get onto a government program or their “exchanges”?  Well, there were states who sought drug testing for welfare recipients.  Imagine how health insurance will work.  No need to imagine!  Here’s a glimpse into one of the myriad caveats of the “Affordable Care Act” illustrating how government intends to weasel its way into the lives of people:

“The U.S. Health Resources & Services (HRSA) is distributing $125,000,000 in federal tax dollars to local and state jurisdictions through a competitive grant, called the ‘Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Competitive Grant program’.”

What is this? Who would be eligible for these little drop-in visits from a federally funded state agent?  According to the ACA’s website, it’s “High-Risk Populations and Programmatic Areas of Emphasis”, and they are defined as eligible families:

• who reside in communities in need of such services, as identified in the statewide needs assessment required under subsection.
• who have low-incomes.
• who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21.
• that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services.
• that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment.
• that have users of tobacco products in the home.
• that are or have children with low student achievement.
• with children with developmental delays or disabilities.
• who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces, including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of the United States.

Consider carefully what this entails.  And consider even further the latitude given to state agents at the behest of the federal government to qualify a given family for observation.  Now take a look at the social worker objectives for their assigned files and families:

• Home visiting to women at high medical risk;
• The provision of mental health services;
• Obesity prevention;
• Tobacco cessation programs;
• Behavioral health (including services for substance abusing caregivers);
• Engaging health service providers in at-risk communities to encourage identification and referral of pregnant women, young children, and families to home visiting programs.

So the government trains their youths to be cold-blooded killers in another country, and as thanks, they are going to be monitored by their former employer… because now they are “at risk”?  Women who get pregnant before 21, who don’t make a whole lot of money and/or have kids who aren’t performing well in school?  And what happens if they don’t turn it around?  What happens if their kids don’t perform better in school?  What happens if she picks up a cigarette?  What happens if she doesn’t make more money?  What happens if the parents want to pursue alternative medical treatments for their children rather than the FDA approved methods of treatment?  What if their child cannot outgrow or recover from their “special needs” status?  Will agents just be welcome in their homes in perpetuity?

These are the questions that needed asking and still demand answers, yet so many people are blinded by the notion of getting insurance coverage that they never stopped to think at whose expense, and if that expense included MORE individual liberties offered up at the altar of government.

The article goes on to quote a Constitutional lawyer and author, Kent M. Brown:

“This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation. Intervention may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

People can be so obtuse when it comes to seeing the facts placed right in front of them.  I’ll bet any amount of money that there are still people who will read about all this and STILL defend the home invasions as being necessary and noble.  “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide” or “What’s the harm?”  And much like Obama’s “Hope and Change” mantra, people are now projecting their own fantasies and dreams onto the Affordable Care Act. 

I remember asking people what the hell was “Hope and Change” and “Yes We Can” supposed to mean.  I’ll tell you what, get a roomful of Obama supporters in 2008 and you’d get a roomful of different answers as to what all that nebulous nonsense meant!  Now when asked about what’s entailed in the ACA, all I hear about is 9 year old children with brain tumors the size of grapefruits finally getting the care they need.  I call BULLSHIT.  IF in fact that’s who this bill was for then it could’ve been covered in 5 pages and would’ve specified 9 year old cancer patients as the sole benefactors of this bill.  I have images of morbidly obese Walmart poster children who chain smoke and sustain themselves off a steady diet of synthetic foods and carbonated beverages that could peel paint off a car.

What’s the harm?  The harm is the irreparable damage to my civil liberties.  The harm is in the compelled compliance to buying a product I don’t want which offers a range of coverage I don’t want or need.  The harm is in healthy people footing the bill for unhealthy people.  The harm is in socialized costs for insurance premiums.  The harm is in the crony relationship between private insurance companies and government.  The harm is in government feeling authorized to tell you how to live and raise your kids.  The harm is in the countless unintended consequences yet to be realized, but inevitably will surface giving way for a single-payer program to be the ultimate cure for this government created cancer.