pattygreen

actually, I used to run a day care. That ended 6 years ago. I work in a nursing home part time. (26hrs.) And, yes, I am homeschooling the last of my 2 sons in grades 9 and 11. I homeschooled 5 out of 7 children. The 3 foster kids I raised were not allowed to be homeschooled. My 2 oldest went through the public school system and were very troublesome. They got involved with pot smoking and drinking, and still do it to this day. The others are doing great and went on to college and some are done with school and working in great fields. I believe that public schooling was a terrible influence on my 2 oldest boys, and homeschooling the rest of them was the best decision my husband and I made for our kids.

What do you mean mediocre results? Here is an excerpt from a recent study of homeschoolers: "According to a report published by the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, homeschool student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade were well above those of public and Catholic/private-school students. On average, homeschool students in grades one to four performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests. Students who had been homeschooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs." One interesting facet of the study noted that academic achievement was equally high regardless of whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether the parent had a state-issued teaching certificate. The study states, "Even with a conservative analysis of the data, the achievement levels of the homeschool students in the study were exceptional. Within each grade level and each skill area, the median scores for homeschool students fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students. For younger students, this is a one year lead. By the time homeschool students are in 8th grade, they are four years ahead of their public/private school counterparts."

No wonder the number of cohabiting couples soared from 400,000 in 1960 to 6.8 million in 2008. Obamacare will add new momentum to the trend. "Government policies on health care should strengthen the well-being of families. There should be no financial disincentives to marriage," asserts Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals. "Any loopholes which allow cohabiting couples to pay less taxes or lower insurance premiums than similarly situated married couples should be eliminated. Indeed, because healthy families are so important to society and contribute so much to the common good, we should give married couples preferential tax and benefit treatment." If Obama and the Democratic Congress reject this common sense advice, they will pay a heavy political price for doing so.

Obamacare Penalizes Marriage By Mike McManus December 23, 2009 While abortion and public plan aspects of health reform have been debated, a far more vexing issue for defenders of the traditional family should be the very substantial marriage penalties buried in the 2,457 page bill moving through Congress. Indeed, the low and middle income subsidies in the "health insurance exchanges" are stacked against marriage - with penalties of up to 100 percent if a cohabiting couple decides to marry. Individuals, who do not now have insurance, who have incomes up to $43,500, will be able to buy it at a very low cost due to federal subsidies. For example, an individual earning $25,000 would pay only $1,538 in insurance premiums. But what if that person is cohabiting with a partner with the same income, and they decide to marry? Their premium is not $3,072, double the cost of one person, but $5,160. That's a marriage penalty of $2,084. A cohabiting man earning $32,000 pays a premium of $2,842, as does the woman. But if they marry, they will pay a whopping $9,316 in additional premiums. Why? A couple earning $64,000 gets no subsidy. "This will devastate marriage for the middle class. If this law is passed, it will do to marriage of the middle class what welfare did to the poor," says Allen Quist, a Republican candidate for Congress in Minnesota, who broke the story. "It will create huge incentives not to marry. There will not be much left of marriage, if this bill passes." That is an overstatement. Most people who now have private health insurance, and are married, will not see such a spike for health insurance. However, what uninsured cohabiting couple facing a $2,100 to $9,300 jump in health costs will marry? Will such perverse incentives result in more or fewer marriages, or more or fewer stable families in which to raise children? That is a prism through which our elected representatives must view the most significant domestic legislation under consideration in more than a generation. Senate Democrats claim to have developed a compromise on the abortion issue. Not according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, NY and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City wrote to senators that "federal funds will help subsidize...and promote health plans that cover elective abortions." "All purchasers of such plans will be required to pay for other people's abortions in a very direct and explicit way, through a separate premium payment designed to pay for abortion. There is no provision for individuals to opt out of this abortion payment," they wrote. Fortunately, an amendment to the House bill did prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions. But it is the Senate bill that is more likely to be accepted by a House-Senate conference committee, A Quinnipiac University poll reports 72% of the public opposes public funding of abortions, which has been prohibited for three decades. ....................................................................................... VirtueOnline - News - Culture Wars - Obamacare Penalizes Marriage You can see the whole article here. I think it is in Obama's sick plans for this nation to demean everything that is right and good, and to promote immorality and wickedness. He doesn't care about marriage because he promotes things in the HC bill that will deter people from getting married that are living together and want marriage. He makes it more financially tempting to stay living together instead of getting married. he is anti- marriage!

When legerdemain is used to pass an unpopular bill By: Michael Barone Senior Political Analyst December 23, 2009 (AP File Photo)It's time to blow the whistle on two erroneous statements that opponents and proponents of the health care legislation being jammed through Congress have been making. Republicans have been saying that never before has Congress passed such an unpopular bill with such important ramifications by such a narrow majority. Barack Obama has been saying that passage of the bill will mean that the health care issue will be settled once and for all. The Republicans and Obama are both wrong. But perhaps they can be forgiven because the precedent for Congress passing an unpopular bill is an old one, and the issue it addressed has long been settled, though not by the legislation in question. That legislation was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Its lead sponsor was Stephen A. Douglas, at 41 in his eighth year as senator from Illinois, the most dynamic leader of a Democratic Party that had won the previous presidential election by 254 electoral votes to 42. Douglas' legislative prowess far exceeded that of current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. To hold together his 60 Senate Democrats, Reid simply dispensed favors -- eternal Medicaid financing for Ben Nelson's Nebraska, a hospital grant for Chris Dodd's Connecticut, more rural health money for Byron Dorgan's North Dakota and Montana's Max Baucus. Douglas did something far more difficult. He got the Senate to pass a bill some of whose provisions were supported by half of the Senate plus Douglas and some of which were supported by the other half plus Douglas. After passage, Douglas spent a day getting drunk -- a consolation unavailable to the teetotaling Reid. The issue that Douglas said the Kansas-Nebraska Act would settle forever was slavery in the territories. His bill repealed the 34-year-old Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery in territories north of Arkansas and substituted popular sovereignty -- territory residents could vote slavery up or down. We cannot say with assurance that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was unpopular; Dr. Gallup didn't start polling until 81 years later. But the results of the next election were pretty convincing. The Republican Party was suddenly created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the 1854-55 elections transformed the Democrats' 159-71 majority to a 108-83 Republican margin. Democrats didn't win a majority of House seats for the next 20 years. On the health care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010 elections as they did in 1854. Nor did the Kansas-Nebraska Act settle the issue it addressed. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers fought it out in "bleeding Kansas," and Douglas felt obliged to break with the Democratic administration and disown election stealing by the pro-slavery side. The issue roused a former congressman named Abraham Lincoln to re-enter politics, and he beat Douglas in the popular vote (but not in the legislature) in 1858 and then was elected president in 1860. A health care bill like the Senate's is unlikely to settle all health care issues either, though the ensuing political struggles will stop somewhere short of civil war. "We aren't done talking about health care," writes Atlantic blogger (and Obama voter) Megan McArdle. "We haven't even really started. Our budget problems are as big as ever, and we just used up both political capital, and some of our stock of tax increases and spending cuts, to pay for something else." The Senate bill contains provisions that are likely to be revisited. Its language channeling federal and consumer dollars to abortion coverage is opposed, according to Quinnipiac, by a 72 percent to 23 percent margin. Its provision establishing an Independent Medicare Advisory Board and stating that it cannot be abolished except by a two-thirds vote of the Senate is of dubious constitutionality, and even if upheld in a court of law may not pass muster in the court of public opinion. Since when has Congress passed laws that cannot be repealed? Kansas-Nebraska was an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by legislative legerdemain and political trickery. The Democrats' health care bills are an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by partisan maneuver and cash-for-cloture. As Stephen Douglas learned, such tactics can work for a while, but the country -- and the Democratic Party -- can end up paying a heavy price. Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst,

CNSNews.com - Quinnipiac Poll: Using Public Funds for Abortion ‘Extremely Unpopular’ with Americans A quinnipiac poll dated 12/23/09

Reagan's last three annual budgets had lower deficits than some of the monthly deficits in fiscal 2009.

Not any medical treatment. Abortions. I can't even fathom why anyone who is prochoice would demand that others pay for what they feel is murderous. It's like me demanding you to pay for the killing of my child. Why a prochoicer would be offended by a prolifers repulsion of their tax dollars going to fund such an atrocity is beyond me. If they want to kill their unborn, then let them pay for it. To expect others to pay for it is maddening. It's one thing to believe what they want to believe, (mainly that the fetus is not an individual life and can be killed if mom prefers it to be), but to expect and even demand that others who feel quite differently support financially the disheartening, awful deed is quite another thing. The gall of liberals who are pro-choice!

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll shows 72 percent of Americans oppose paying for abortions with their tax dollars under the government-run health care bill in Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly tracking update shows that 41% of voters nationwide favor the bill and 55% are opposed. I suppose that congress could give 2 craps about what the people want. They feel they know what's best for us because they live in their own little world. The more the people hear about it, the less and less they like it.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll shows 72 percent of Americans oppose paying for abortions with their tax dollars under the government-run health care bill in Congress.

Why is nationalized HC so scary? Despite the rhetoric from the left, it is not because conservatives are mean-hearted evil trolls who live under bridges and use their clubs to squash the hopes and dreams of the poor and disabled. No, it was scary then for the same reason it is scary now. Not because it is "HC", but because it is "nationalized". Government spending on social problems does not make them go away; it just institutionalizes them. In fact, it ensures that the problems become a magnet for federal dollars, and thus there is an incentive for the problems to grow rather than shrink. As president Reagan said when he was inaugerated in 1981, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." The evidence is clear that Reagan was right! (Frank Miele)

Merry Christmas to you Bjean. BTW, I'm not grumpy. I'm a pretty happy girl today. Seriously, Merry Christmas and the best to you and your family. Patty

I would say that it is reasonably good that 85%+ people like their Health care. This is not only a reasonably good place to live, it's the best place to live. America is the most blessed nation because Jesus is with the majority of the people who live here, and he blesses his children and those who believe in him.

Merry CHRISTmas to everyone!!!

Each year at this time, when we are supposed to reflect on peace and good will toward all men, it seems we are bombarded by anti-Christmas. Most of this is brought on by the erroneous belief that there is a separation of church and state. If one truly reads the Constitution and its amendments, one would find no mention of a separation. In a letter to Baptists in Danbury, CT written years after the enactment of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote in support of a "wall of separation" between church and state. This was and still is a personal opinion that never has been written into law. A past supreme court ruled that there is a separation. However, that law and the entire judicial system are living proof this is an error. A courthouse is a state building and a trial is a state procedure. Why is it that when one is about to give a testamony, he must put his hand on the bible and swear to God he will tell the truth? Our judicial system is living a double standard. Why does our congress open in prayer every day if they don't believe in God, or that he should be included in their federal affairs? Hypocrits. The Constitution does not take God out of society, and the First Amendment restricts only Congress, denying it the power to establish a National Church. The first amendment did not stop America from being a Christian Nation. Allowing religious groups from placing religious symbols on a town green does not establish any church. Therefore it should be allowed. Go ahead! Wish me a Merry Christmas! The PC (politically correct) Cops worry that a Christmas Party at school will exclude some or make them feel uncomfortable, so they will have a winter-something-or-other party instead. Well, what about those who hate winter? I know I did? Standing in the freezing snow waiting for the bus, shoveling foot after foot. Why don't they care about these summer loving kids? They say the Constitution doesn't protect citizens from frostbite, but it does call for the often quoted "separation of church and state". As anyone who has read the Constitution can tell you, that famous phrase appears exactly zero times. It stops a theocracy from running the country, it doesn't mean Santa can't be in the building. How long before one can't wear a crucuifix or star of David around his neck because it possibly could offend someone? It seems to me that people were alot better off believeing in God. The more we marginalize our faith, the worse our society will become. PC will be the end of us all. If you think this is an exageration, recall the Fort Hood killings. Nidal Malik Hasan raised red flag after red flag, but nobody in power wanted to act and instead remained PC. I can only assume that the families of those he murdered wish the PC took the day off. Those families would still be intact if they did and probably celebrating something greater than Winter!

Those who are all for this HC bill don't have a clue to the expense of it. When has Congress ever kept to a budget? When has the government ever started a program that hasn't gone in the red? In CT, child advocates complain that Governor Rell's proposed budget reductions target children. Yet, there have been decades of public policies that created and fostered the economic, social and cultural rot that put the children at risk in the first place and left them and their parents addicted to the government programs taxpayers no longer can afford to provide at levels demanded by child advocates, whose money is made in treating the victims rather than curing the ills! We can't afford all the handouts anymore! It's time to quit it! Put it in reverse.

Why are you ignoring the way your party seems to have aquired their 60 votes needed? Embarrassed? I would be.

{QUOTE} Force does not work. It works for other laws. If you murder, the gov. forces you to go to jail. If you steal, the gov. forces you to go to jail, and so on. Therefore, if you kill a baby, you should go to jail. Committing a wrong should always have a consequence. I told myself I wouldn't get into abortion here. so I wont.

I suppose that justifies giving every single person(1,783,432) in that whole State FREE medicare FOREVER!!!!!! What's that gonna cost the rest of us? huh? It's totally unthinkable that Obama and his Congressional gang would resort to such a thing. I suppose this is acceptable to you?

<H3 id=preview>Article Preview TRIED TO BRIBE GOVERNOR.; Gov. John V. Mickey of Nebraska Says One Would-Be Office Holder Offered Him $1,000. Special to The New York Times. May 16, 1903, Saturday Page 1, 293 words OMAHA, Neb., May 15. -- Nebraska political circles were shaken to their foundations to-day when Gov. John V. Mickey announced that a number of attempts to bribe him had been made by would-be officeholders. Four instances did the Governor name wherein he had been offered money for appointments, but he refused to make public the names of those attempting the bribe. .............................................. What a comparison to today. When we used to be honest and decent and refuse such bribes, today it is openly paraded as if acceptable and good and a way to do business. Today we call it "negotiations". This is exactly what I am talking about when God tells us that as we get closer to his return men will be ever more wicked and what is good will be seen as evil and what is evil will be seen as good. I suppose you all will be seeing this as 'good'. (this is where I roll my eyes at you) </H3>

The people in Nebraska will now NEVER have to pay for their medicare in exchange for their senators vote! Bribery. This is what the deceitful, wicked, democrats need to do to get the things they want passed. "Screw the people, and what they want, we don't work for you really." Bribery, and more than once, and threatening. Talk about corruption in Congress and in the House. Wait 2010, just wait! Imagine if this were a legalized abortion bill being overturned. Dems would be in an uproar over these sort of bribes, but when it's them benefiting from it, it's perfectly okay. This form of governing has to end. Obama, as the leader, needs to keep from signing any bill that gets to him in this bribery sort of fashion, and if he doesn't, then he needs to go as well!!!!