Huckleberries Online

IFF Decries ‘Special Needs’ Program

Posted by DFO

Feb. 3, 2012 1:16 p.m. • 13 comments

I have to wonder if some state lawmakers are serious about defending the state's sovereignty and the notion of limited government. Witness a bill that was before the House Health and Welfare Committee a few days ago: The measure in question would expand the role of state government in the upbringing of children. Under Idaho law, the government already has a program to swoop in and offer early childhood services for “at risk” infants and toddlers with disabilities. Under the changes being pondered by the Legislature, support would be offered up to children from birth to age 5 who have “special needs.” Of course, the Department of Health and Welfare insists that such an expansion of its role isn’t an expansion at all, that the words “special needs” are merely a kinder, gentler way of describing an array of human frailties in which the government may offer support. And those children who are at risk? Why, that includes every possible combination of ailment under the sun/Wayne Hoffman, Idaho Freedom Foundation. More here.

Question: Do you view this issue the same way that Wayne Hoffman/IFF does?

13 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

duroc on February 03 at 1:22 p.m.
Wayne’s just upset that he’s ineligible for help with his own obvious “special needs” because he’s older than 5.
duroc on February 03 at 1:22 p.m.
To answer the question (and almost any question having to do with Hoffman and the IFF): No, I do not view this issue the same way as Wayne Hoffman does.
Norther on February 03 at 1:24 p.m.
I need more information on this. Opposing viewpoints, etc. I will get back to this. Something feels menacing here and I don’t know what it is.
duroc on February 03 at 1:28 p.m.
Something feels menacing here and I don’t know what it is.

That’s the knee-jerk reaction most sensible people have to Wayne Hoffman, Norther. ;)
Norther on February 03 at 1:33 p.m.
@duroc - usually I would agree with you on that, but there is something about this program that bugs me. I don’t always disagree with some of the stances taken by IFF. But there is something that makes me itchy about governmental influence on an infant just because they were born poor. I need to see the legislation drafts. Something is odd here.
jmrusche on February 03 at 1:59 p.m.
The legislation is H388. It is updating language concerning the Early Childhood Coordinating Council. The original language dates from the early 1990’s. Changes in the federal law on identification and treatment of children with disabilities is the major reason for the statutory changes in H388. Idaho has been using a series of gubernatorial executive orders to comply with the federal rules that allow us to receive funding for these programs.

So Wayne wants to protect state sovereignty from the danger of caring for disabled infants and toddlers with federal money, but doesn’t care to preserve state sovereignty over management of the health insurance exchange and the regulation of the health insurance industry.

I am having trouble seeing either consistency or logic.
Sisyphus on February 03 at 2:14 p.m.
Don’t strain yourself Representative. Divining logic and consistency from Wayne Hoffman is surely the road to madness. Funny how a guy who devotes part of his tax free proceeds to a media outlet always seems to cherry pick and present only the information which supports the conclusion to which he wants his reader to arrive. Spreading that kind of misinformation is exactly what is dividing this country.
Norther on February 03 at 3:07 p.m.
After reading all 14 pages, I have come to the conclusion that this bill is not something I would oppose.

As it is mostly a revision, there isn’t much to get all worked up over. I am a huge fan of the some added language. For example:

16-103 (17) reserves the right of the states to determine who is and who isn’t qualified to be a provider.

16-103 (21) again ensures state and local control in compliance with federal mandates.

16-106 (g) ensures public hearings and comment (next best thing to citizen oversight.)

16-106 (k) Makes sure it is an updated program that is kept active and reviewed at least every five years (more than I can say for most HHS programs).

16-106 (n) allows for private donations to the funding of these programs.

I like it. except one part…

16-105 Sec 2 (f) - They need to leave this line alone. It HAS to be a physician. The term “or health care professional” is extremely vague and can possibly mean a social worker or PSR worker would be in place on the panel sans a Medical Doctor. Anything that involves the health of children needs a Physician on the panel.

So, basically, I think it is a good thing and I am onboard and hope my delegation supports it. I still think they need to rethink that whole thing about not necessarily needing a doctor on the council.
kamm on February 03 at 3:16 p.m.
I don’t agree with Wayne. Catching developmental and/or learning problems early in a child’s life can correct a lot of problems that would interfere with their learning in later years.

Every child has a right to have their needs met to ensure a successful public education.

A successful school experience builds a positive self image, prevents drop-outs- which decreases criminal behavior- and paves the way for a more successful life.

‘A stitch in time saves nine’.
Norther on February 03 at 3:32 p.m.
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov//legislation/2012/H0388.htm

link to bill.
danofthecommunity on February 03 at 5:03 p.m.
I do not see it the same way whatsoever.

If I did I would have to self label myself as someone with a heart of flint and in opposition to the Christian beliefs I try (but often fail) to live up to.

I believe we will be judged both in this life and the next on how we take care of those in need, especially the little ones.
Stickman on February 03 at 6:47 p.m.
Thanks Dan.
fortboise on February 03 at 8:56 p.m.
Norther’s opinion means more to me than Wayne Hoffman’s.

I think Hoffman tends to start from flawed premises, and then heads in the wrong direction. If he were to come to an appropriate conclusion, it would be a coincidence.

They say a stopped clock is at least right twice a day. A slow clock can be wrong pretty much all the time.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.