We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, March 6. 2014
Yet a case like this seems - I say seems, because we can't ever know all the details - to be indicative of many things that are wrong in American society today. Entitled kids? Maybe, that's very common. Abusive parents? We've seen that, so it's possible. Litigation to solve something which should be worked out privately? I have no idea why this is in court, but there are plenty of cases in the courts which have no reason being heard. These people need counseling, not lawyers.
I believe in a 'my house, my rules' environment. Children, even some young adults over 18, often don't understand why rules exist, don't want to know why they exist, and want only what they want. Furthermore, once a child turn 18, and particularly if they decide to leave home permanently - for any reason - they have to accept responsibility for themselves. As a parent, if my child left on good terms, I would offer and provide assistance when it was needed and requested. If they left on bad terms and immediately made demands on me and the rest of the family, let's just say things may not work out as well. The child should expect and understand why that might happen. If they were willing to take steps to remedy the situation, they would always be met with welcome arms.
I can't say Rachel Canning is entitled, I don't know. The superficial information seems to indicate she is and simply isn't happy living within her parents' somewhat strict governance. But that's part of the the parent/child dynamic. I don't put limitations on who my boys can hang out with or date, but I have had long, and often difficult, discussions with them about the types of kids they spend time with. Other parents take a much more active role. We all have a different approach, and it's my opinion that the house makes the rules regardless of how I make my own house rules. If the child lives in the house and relies on the parents, then that is part of the package.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
ObamaCare does not require a parent to insure an adult child (age 18-26) unless he/she is a dependent on the parent's tax return. I assume that Rachel is not, at least for 2014 since she has been kicked out of the house well before the halfway point of the year.
Reference: IRS ACA page, www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision
(I tried to submit this as a working link, but Maggie's software decided it was spam.)
Thanks. I made that clarification. I didn't think it was necessary.
But whether they are claimed on my taxes or not, it's still the state providing a form of support for children. I don't see why, even if I claim a kid who is 25, I should also be responsible for their health care.
Furthermore, since that is how the regulation is designed, isn't that proof enough that the ACA fee is a tax, and not a 'fee' as the left continues to claim? That point has been made before, I know. But it boggles the mind how they continue to use the term fee for a tax.
Are you talking about the penalty for not carrying insurance? Well, the Supreme Court said that was a tax.
Administration wanted it ruled Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but its own back-up argument was that even if it wasn't legal under the Commerce Clause, it was Constitutional via the taxing power.
In any case; "fee" implies one party buying something they want from somebody who wants to sell it to them at that price. It isn't the proper word to use for any aspect of the ACA.
On another note, I like the Orwellian language of "Individual Shared Responsibility".
Health care is an individual responsibility (if I'm covering myself) or it's a shared responsibility (if I'm covering my family). I suppose from the standpoint of the individual who is benefiting from the shared responsibility, it's an individual shared responsibility. But from my standpoint as a parent, it's just a shared responsibility.
This girl only had one more semester to go before she graduated from high school and was free to do what she wanted. No matter how strict the parent (and there is no indication she was abused or maltreated), I don't think she has any rights here.
Her parents were kind enough to pay about $10K per year for her to attend a private school. They didn't have to pay that tuition. It was their choice to send her there. She chose to leave the house, so she can go to the public school. There is no obligation for a parent to pay their child's way through private school or college (unless a college account had been started in her name, then I am not sure of the legalities there). In fact, she got scholarships already for her school of choice...get a loan! Take care of yourself. If your parents were so terrible, why would you want a financial connection to them at all?
I think this girl is spoiled. I think this girl has never had a taste of real life. I think this girl does not need the financial support of her parents any longer. Gravy train is over the minute you decide to move out and live your own life against your parents' wishes.
I also say shame to the lawyer who encouraged this young woman to file a lawsuit against her own parents. He put a wedge between the girl and her family by giving her hope that she could get $$ and freedom from her parents' rules. What a jerk. If he were really interested in her well being, he would've paid for some family counseling instead...or instead the girl see a therapist. If something truly terrible were happening at her parents' home, this is the better way to deal with it.
It is a shame that a spoiled brat gets so much publicity for this. There have always been spoiled brats and always will be. Too many of them today have their own reality shows, but that is another rant.
I hope this suit is thrown out quickly so that we as parents don't have any more government regulations to have to follow. Raising successful, healthy children is tough enough without worrying about whether they can drag us into court because we don't give them an Iphone when they demand it or allow them to hang out at all hours with the dregs of society.
No matter how this turns out the girl has created an online history that any potential employer can look at. Who in their right mind would hire a "lawsuit waiting to happen"? Who will have a lawyer in her purse to settle any employment issue?
I've read that she is living with a friends family. And that the friends father is funding her lawsuit. What's his recompense, the principal of the thing.
I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
I'm becoming more convinced than ever that one should never believe a word out of the MSM's mouth. Not a solitary word.
I don't think this will surprise anyone here but this is supposed to be a letter from the girl to her mother:
‘Hi mom just to let you know you’re a real f***ing winner aren’t you you think you’re so cool and you think you caught me throwing up in the bathroom after eating an egg frittatta, yeah sorry that you have problems now and you need to harp on mine because i didn’t and i actually took a s** which i really just wanna s** all over your face right now because it looks like that anyway, anyway i f***ing hate you and um I’ve written you off so don’t talk to me, don’t do anything I’m blocking you from just about everything, have a nice life, bye mom’
We still don't really know any of the details of this story but the girl certainly doesn't come off well in this letter. Assuming there is no real abuse on the parent's part and she is really as competent as she is described, I'd be inclined to tell her "so long!"
I read the article where the dad claimed he have been a "very liberal, liberal parent" and how he would have wanted to grow up in a similar environment. And I kept thinking, that's probably the problem. Princess has always had her way, and you can't wait 17 years and all of a sudden start introducing rules and expectations.
And to the "dad's house, dad's rules" thing: I'd never expect any different, and my kids are very aware of it (just like I grew up in). As a matter of fact, it translates to the entitled groups: you want the fruits of someone else' labor you have expectations and rules (you get your birth control shot when you come in to get your welfare check/section 8/ food stamps, etc.). Don't like it, don't ask for me to pay for your existence.
Have you forgotten that one of the goals of the NOW (National Organization of Women) crowd is to make it a function of divorce settlements for any father to have to pay for full 4 year college tuition, even if they don't get visitation or shared custody! That does not happen yet because most students attend college after the age of 18. However, those gals from NOW have been working on this goal since at least the mid 90s. They might get it soon if this case goes anywhere at all. If this gal gets her last bit of high school tuition paid for by court order then it will be an easy step to order the father to make payments for schooling after age 18.
This gal is just one more pawn in the democrats vast collection of people they use as tools.
Sorry it's late. Correction: second to last sentence should read--
easy step to order ANY father in any divorce settlement to make payments for college tuition after the age of 18.
I have been following this story. I believe that if proper values were instilled in this young woman as she was growing up, there would not be a problem. I have been in a similar situation, and found that a frank discussion resolved conflict. This little spoiled shit needs to learn a life lesson which her parents have apparently been remiss in teaching her.
Spare the rod, spoil the child! I echo the sentiment about only introducing rules when the child turns puberty-crazed, with mom and dad then becoming concerned about friends and especially boyfriends!
How much would you like to wager that the parents indulged every wish and whim for "Princess", substituting money for time spent with her and then compounded that failure by trying to be friends with their daughter, instead of parents.
We only had two rules for the children raised in our house: "You will be given the gift of poverty" and "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" (jk)
Actually being a parent first, imposing consistent discipline(mom and dad collectively on the same page), making certain that solid friendships with decent kids occurred and spending time, rather than just money, was the way my three were raised.
All three are college grads with no student debt, employed in their fields of study (no lib arts crappola) and all are generally principled conservative-thinking, who all attend church, (even though their father gave then a choice about that upon confirmation at 12). Worked out pretty well for all of them.
I don't have any human children, but I hope I would have followed the same principle with them that I have with my puppy dogs and kitty cats:
You can have all the freedom that I can handle.
I like that one. All the freedom I can handle.
If it works for a dog, it can work for a kid. Except dogs can be much more obedient.