Podcast: Marvin Olasky interviews the president of Rasmussen Reports on the necessity of accurate polling 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The NEA and healthcare reform
Our nation’s teachers were unwittingly in the thick of last week’s dramatic healthcare summit hosted by President Obama. Whether they liked it or not, their union dues supported a public relations campaign in favor of big government healthcare.
Politically savvy and seizing a timely opportunity, the National Education Association (NEA) produced radio and print ads, a video by its president, and an opinion editorial by its chief healthcare lobbyist, all designed to move public opinion in favor of the unpopular reform initiative in advance of the summit. But why?
Writing at the Huffington Post, NEA director of Collective Bargaining & Member Advocacy Bill Raabe said, “… health care coverage, at heart, is an education issue,” which is the NEA’s official position on the matter.
But is healthcare truly an education issue? The NEA says that it wants students to be healthy and, therefore, the reform of our healthcare system comes under the education umbrella. Following that line of reasoning, any issue that affects children could be defined as an education issue.
An organization that began in 1857 to “elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching, and to promote the cause of education in the United States,” the NEA has morphed into a powerful political force taking leftward positions on a variety of issues, including family planning and “reproductive freedom.” This is the NEA’s official position on that topic (see page 84 of the 2009-2010 NEA Resolutions):
The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom.
The Association urges the government to give high priority to making available all methods of family planning to women and men unable to take advantage of private facilities.
The Association also urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.
As I’ve written before, America is adrift because her citizens lack knowledge about the most basic constitutional principles. The NEA is a party to this problem. Just last week, we saw the NEA urging Congress to go beyond its enumerated constitutional powers to advocate for national healthcare.
We’ve got an education crisis in this country. Quality education is an education issue. The NEA should keep its eye on the ball.
back to top34 Comments to “The NEA and healthcare reform”
I was at one time a member of the NEA. I doubt that public schools work all that well, or that the NEA is an organization that helps education all that much, or that it should be running publicity or advocacy on an issue such as this.
On the other hand, I don’t know what God has to do with politics, or why so many people at wmb think that God is a “conservative.” Also, I think government should be as involved in helping people get health care as it is in killing people in war.
Report comment to moderator
why is the NEA are they not to be looking after the affiars of the teachers?
Report comment to moderator
There is no meaningful helath care cost reform whatsoever until we are dead serious about tort reform.
Report comment to moderator
God is apolitical. It is not that God is a conservative, but rather that conservatives have added some of His truths to their platform, i.e., the sanctity of life.
The NEA has an interest in healthcare reform to the same extent that the AARP has an interest in abortion. Dues are used for tradeoffs. They want the liberal vote for what they want, so they have to play ball with what the liberals want.
Report comment to moderator
I was forced to pay some $ to United Teachers Los Angeles, a teachers union. The last time the union had a vote of all the union members that was not about accepting a contract or a strike vote was about abortion.
The vote for all union members was should the union take a position on abortion. The members voted for the position that UTLA should take no position on abortion.
I know about this was because I was there when the vote was taken. There were bout 42,000 members in UTLA at the time. Under 4,000 voted that the union take a position and under 11,000 voted that the union take no position on abortion. Somewhere about 29,000 union members chose not to vote on this.
I would be willing to bet that UTLA members sent to the NEA convention voted on this stance of the NEA on reproductive rights.
Report comment to moderator
This example vividly, and directly points to the scope and breadth of control that those seeking power to rule over a society can achieve through control of ‘health’ related issues in that society. Nothing is exempt and anything/everything can be included, for any reason—directly or indirectly.
When we give up our personal control of this very private area to a faceless, irresponsible, overreaching government, we lose far, far more than anyone, anywhere gains. Even if any proponents claim of a societal ‘gain’ or improvement were believable and actually the truth about what they seek to accomplish.
Report comment to moderator
The little boy who lives down the street and is a grade ahead of my son in the public school we are zoned for looked at my son’s homework and said. “Hey, we’re not learning that yet.” And I bet they are spending twice as much on him.
Report comment to moderator
“Average per-student spending in public school. In 2004–2005 (the most recent school year for which data are available), an average of $9,266 was spent per pupil in American public schools.[6]”
Boy, could I afford a good private school for that! As it is I am only spending a third of that and he is already ahead.
Report comment to moderator
most money that is to be spent on the student or teacher ends up in the hands of The National Education Association. This group is a front for the Dem Party.
An the money ends up being used for the their party.
Report comment to moderator
To me, it just seems wrong that my tax dollars are used to pay union dues that are used to push political agendas that I am opposed to. Seems wrong.
I say that if tax money is used to support a union, that union needs to stay apolitical. At least at this level: teachers are supported by tax money, part of which goes DIRECTLY to unions. Now, if there were a third of fourth teir in that chain, I might not scream foul as loud.
It just seems wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Again…it seems wrong.
It seems that if a church doesn’t have to pay taxes as long as it stays apolitical, than a publicly supported union should have to play by the same rules.
How many publicly supported unions do we have?
I say defund them all!!! I’m sure that would help many a state and federal budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Report comment to moderator
NJ-4
Amen! I liked that.
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan I think The National Education Association should have to explain why they are taken the hard earn money from teacher and using it on a non-school / teacher issues.
Report comment to moderator
I miss the problem. If we start out like Mr Wishing and say that health care is wrong, then the fact that some others support the bill is pretty much moot. Moreover, given how health problems among the poor can interfere with families (and so with learning), it’s not clear at all why the health of the students should not be a concern of teachers. In that case, it is pretty similar to the notion that you want your students to be fed and not hungry.
Political opponents on the Right may object to such a philosophy, but the issue here would be the larger philosophy, not the union. Much the same way that folks on my side of the aisle dismiss most Evangelical polticos as enemies of workers rights. With another dollar I get a cup of coffee.
Report comment to moderator
Brother Dan
You don’t have to pay for the part of union dues that go for politics. Ask and you can get that part of your union dues removed from your dues.
This comes from a SCOTUS decision.
Report comment to moderator
Harris, Gov control health care is not the unions jobs. There are to look after their people issue on the work place.
But when your slave master calls you an say i need your money. They must obey.
Report comment to moderator
Even for worldmagblog, this is a very incoherent thread of comments. It mostly seems to be: Let’s throw as much mud as we can and see if it is a learning experience.
Report comment to moderator
Bob-15
I do recall that SCOTUS decision.
However, I DO NOT TRUST THE UNIONS! So, let’s say they take a hundred dollars from me every two weeks. I tell them not to use any of it for such and such. How do I know that they are honoring my wishes? I don’t. I don’t believe their books are open to that kind of scrutiny.
Again, public supported unions should be illegal are restricted from ANY POLITICAL ENVOLVEMENT.
Report comment to moderator
Random-17
You, talking about incoherent comments, just made my day!
Report comment to moderator
Is there any other industry or profession that supports the “right” of others to kill their future customers . . . and the ones who would eventually be taxpayers paying for their services? That the NEA supports the right to kill babies, while it is “taking care of” children is a hideous combination.
Report comment to moderator
This is a coherent comment. I am starting small. Later, I will build to bigger things.
Report comment to moderator
Well Cheryl, et al., it’s not about the children. It’s about money and power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I wonder why people don’t get this? These unions are about sustaining and growing their own power. I thank God that I am not in a union, especially a teachers union or any other public service union.
And back to the main topic as supported by Harris at 14: you go down you line of reasoning far enough and the NEA will soon be claiming all kinds of concerns about our children’s private life:
“How many vegetables did you eat last night, Johnny?”
“What time did you go to bed last night, Sarah?”
“How many times do your parents tell you that you’re important, George?”
“How much TV did you watch last week, and what did you watch, class?”
“Do your parents make you attend church?”
Really, aren’t all these educational concerns?
Report comment to moderator
My secular brother homeschooled his children. I tend to think positively about homeschooling. Nevertheless, I predict one of these days there will be a big scandal involving home schooling.
Perhaps even a big scandal involving parenting. So many of us are fallen.
Report comment to moderator
Lee Wishing notes: “The ads in question here are not classified as political. If they were, they would have been paid for by the NEA’s PAC. Notice on the print ad it states: Paid for by the 3.2 million members of the National Education Association, meaning that the NEA, not the NEA PAC, paid for the ad. Therefore, no NEA teacher was exempt for paying for the ads.”
Report comment to moderator
@24 — noted that, too.
So to pick it up on that theme: there’s a point here that a lot of non-profits run up against. How far can you go in your advocacy? And in fairness, I think it probably crosses over (even if the lawyer said it did not). The larger point, nonetheless remains: the health of children will be a concern a for teachers who work with them. And Brother Dan? Yep, how much sleep you get? are you hungry? Are you turning off the TV? These all get talked about in the classroom all the time. These things all impact outcomes in the classroom.
But back to the point at hand, when I put on my marketing point,
I wonder who exactly, what congress person, was in fact the target? This is a big expense aimed at a small target, those handful of Dems who would appear to be wavering.
Report comment to moderator
Harris. the only reason the Unions are involved here, has nothing to do with Children. It has every thing to do with the Fact Obama and his people are losing the battle and the unions can not let that happen.
Report comment to moderator
Harris-25
“And Brother Dan? Yep, how much sleep you get? are you hungry? Are you turning off the TV? These all get talked about in the classroom all the time. These things all impact outcomes in the classroom. “
But are you proposing legislation on these? Why or why not?
You see, ONCE AGAIN, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT WANT THIS BILL!!! And yet, our tax dollars are being used in a very unseemly manner to advocate this. PATHETIC AND FEARFUL.
Don’t you see the self-sustaining circle of corruption? There is an ethical standard to try and live by: “Avoid even the appearance of evil”. What’s going on here is more than the appearance of being wrong, it is the demonstrable reality of wickedness.
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan – the issue is Obama is losing so he must turn to his little special interst groups to raily support. the media fail so now it is the Unions and soon you will hear from the GLBT Community and the baby killing compaines.
Report comment to moderator
Harris #14 — “Moreover, given how health problems among the poor can interfere with families (and so with learning), it’s not clear at all why the health of the students should not be a concern of teachers. In that case, it is pretty similar to the notion that you want your students to be fed and not hungry.”
It seems we’ve yet to find the end of your list of a teacher’s ‘parental duties’ and how many of them they should be able to perform. Now you want them to be medically able to spot/identify illness. (So, why not treat? Oh, that’s right—there’s a school nurse for that and anything else health related—like STDs and abortion counseling.)
Is it just me or are you sending mixed signals to these ‘poor’ parents about exactly what you expect of them? I mean, just who is supposed to raise the child—the school or the parent? I think I can see why parents might be confused and tend not to participate in the traditional manner.
The school covers breakfast/lunch (dinner?) with healthy meals meant to supplement what kids don’t receive at home and also runs numerous after school programs until the parents pick them up. There is no end to the counseling services/programs/fact sheets/training classes available to parents including personal aid some teachers pull from their own pocket to help their kids—and bless them without end for that.
I’m not saying we don’t have—or should it be we ‘haven’t created’—a situation where this stuff isn’t necessary, because sadly most of it is—but why?
It used to be a crime to mistreat, or be deficient in the manner you choose to raise, a child—a fact not lost on some zealots in child protection agencies on other parental rights issues—usually those parents use in a manner contrary to what the State approves. Yet, and on the other hand, through all these school programs, you readily provide ‘cover’ for the delinquent parent who chooses to raise a child in what would be a criminal manner were it not for the school programs picking up the slack. Were I a poor parent faced with all of what schools offer, I’d certainly make sure I meet the requirements for participation and I’d take advantage of them to the fullest extent possible. I’d be dumb not to.
Wouldn’t it be easier, and more efficient, to simply take all children from the parents at the exit of the maternity ward and ‘properly’ raise them in what would amount to boarding schools? That seems to be where you’re headed.
And, is it really any wonder that actual education takes a back seat to all this child rearing which continually generates a never ending need for more money in the schools?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy — of course they’re doing it for politics. But that doesn’t meant that they don’t think it a good idea, too.
Brother Dan — no evidence at all of this “overwhelming majority.” Sorry.
Rond — I think I get your concern: advocating for health care in this manner carries something like an advocacy for more ‘nanny state’ activities and a diminishment of the parental responsibility. That is, as a policy, such a view can subvert family independence.
If that is something like your position, I would agree.
And if you let me pull back a bit, the ed policy questions get more complicated. Ed policy (what should we do about the under-performing schools/students) breaks into two camps: those who see educational success or lack of it as part of network of societal causes such as poverty, lack of health care and the like; and those who focus more on the role of teacher and classroom (this is the approach of Teach for America, Michelle Rhee is one of the leading champions, and in fairness, so is Secy of Education Arne Duncan). Well, given these two camps of Society or Classroom, you know which side the NEA plopped down on. This ad, this viewpoint is entirely predictable from an ed policy point of view.
Fwiw, on these matters I’m on the Classroom side of the Reform issue.
And to come back to Pastor Roy’s point, I would agree that these ads are mostly political in nature, albeit not for the reason he suggests, but this: children in poverty are generally going to be covered by existing S-Chip programs.
Report comment to moderator
#30 Harris — “advocacy for more ‘nanny state’ activities and a diminishment of the parental responsibility.” . . . “subvert family independence”
Exactly. And not just the parent’s responsibility, but also—and maybe more importantly—responsibility which brings independence the child needs to—must—learn.
IMHO, children who are taught to first understand, then form, and finally to implement their own solid sense of personal responsibility are the ones who most often successfully transition into being adults who can not only care for themselves, but also care for a family and others with whom they have contact. They become leaders on their own local network of people.
The charge of teaching this responsibility rests on the parent as the schools are not designed, nor prepared, nor should be expected, to efficiently and completely impart this lesson. They do try, but are hindered by a lack of enough contact with the child on a personal enough level and an inadequate amount of time—enough teaching moments—in the child’s life.
When either society, or the school through policy, constantly picks up after, or covers for the parent—and through that, the child—never allowing either to actually, and completely understand consequence resulting from their poor choices and actions, the child learns that no matter what he/she does, that net is down there eliminating any serious consequence for decisions they make. They learn to expect the net to save them. Some will eventually go so far as to ‘demand’ it save them and are the first to protest when it doesn’t, or when it looks like someone wants to diminish the benefits it provides. The eventual result is yet another generation trapped in a never ending and increasing cycle of dependency on society.
In times long past, when the parent raised the child with the specific intent to transition that child into adulthood as quickly, and efficiently, as possible because his/her two hands were needed to help provide/care for the family, the child learned that accepting responsibility meant success and irresponsibility caused failure which brought difficulty to everyone he/she cared about. Now, with the seemingly endless, fault-free childhood some parents provide, coupled with government’s life backup safety net for both parent and child, these children learn that society will pick up the slack for their irresponsibility—simply to keep life livable for the rest of society—making personal responsibility/provision unnecessary or not important.
Report comment to moderator
I think noting the point in #24 is that did ALL 3.2 million NEA teachers approve this ad? If not, then it was not the teachers that are part of NEA that ran this ad nor paid for it. Then it was the union misusing the money that they received to run a political ad. And no fuss was made in the MSM about this being a political ad but see what happens if a corporation runs an Obamacare ad. Then you will see all kinds of people rush out to condemn them.
This is the double standard the Progressives in our midst are trying to foist on the American people.
Report comment to moderator
The charge of teaching this responsibility rests on the parent as the schools are not designed, nor prepared, nor should be expected, to efficiently and completely impart this lesson. They do try, but are hindered by a lack of enough contact with the child on a personal enough level and an inadequate amount of time—enough teaching moments—in the child’s life.
Perhaps the better way would be to see the classroom as (ideally) supplemental to the parents’ own teaching. I say “ideally” because there are of course homes where the parents are absent physically or psychologically. In those cases, a teacher or coach may be one of the rare adults who can point to a way to healthy adulthood.
But you are right, Rond, it’s not the teacher’s task to teach responsibility; it is however their duty to model it. You can become a window to another, better way of growth.
Report comment to moderator
Evangelical leaders must help The Church understand that the attack on Christendom is coming from academia, not the government or society
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's blogs to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!