Affordable Care Act, Wow Just WOW.

reply to post by PtolemyII


Besides the fact that Seeker's follow up link confirmed my text, are these additional links good enough for you?

Bloggers say Obamacare provision will allow 'forced home inspections'

"Forced home inspections"? Um, no.

The flurry originated with BenSwann.com blogger Joshua Cook on Aug. 13. He picked up the phrase "forced home inspections" from a state lawmaker in South Carolina.

Back in March, as a group of state legislators discussed a bill to fight the Affordable Care Act, Rep. Rick Quinn offered a specific example of something in the law that worried him: "The forced home inspections that I’ve heard about."

Inspection Deception

Q: Will there be forced home inspections under the Affordable Care Act?
A: No. The law provides grants for state home-visiting programs for expectant and new parents. The programs are voluntary and participants can opt out any time.

PolitiFact: The top 16 myths about Obamacare

State lawmakers in South Carolina got this one going by saying they were concerned that the health care law allowed forced home inspections. People can relax, though: There are no forced home inspections. An optional home health care program sends nurses to the homes of pregnant poor women. The idea is that the nurses check on the women and offer prenatal advice in a comfortable environment. The program is not mandatory. We rated this claim Pants on Fire.

By the way that last one sums up some other widely repeated lies about Obamacare that many people on this forum should read.

reply to post by TheIceQueen


So what? This adds to all the others an others to come will pile up on top of this. Because you can take it! Yes you can!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I know for a FACT they lied about codex alimentarius, but you can't find it anywhere.
I know it for a fact because it changed the scope of my job description to a degree.
They lie all the time, and I absolutely believe they are funded by George soros, but Internet white washing is very real, but of course we can't prove that either.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Q: Will there be forced home inspections under the Affordable Care Act?
A: No. The law provides grants for state home-visiting programs for expectant and new parents. The programs are voluntary and participants can opt out any time.

Really, then why does this include infants to 8 year olds?? I put the info from the .gov website and yet you try to play word pretzel (Thanks Beezer! I had to steal that one from you!) to prove you are right!

Where does it say they WON'T be allowed to do forced home inspections? It doesn't! But yet the implied wording and past actions of these totalitarian power mongers tends to lean more favorably towards the fact that they WILL use their new vaguely written laws just as they always have! To further intrude upon our so called "free" lives!

Quite frankly, I hope you are right and I am terribly wrong! I really do!

However, I have seen how corrupt this government has become in creating laws that are so vague, that they use this as a way to increase "their" authority over the people. When was the last time these so called elected officials EVER passed a law and because of the vagueness of what was written, allowed them to do nothing more than add to their "authoritative power"?

When?

As I see it, they pass these laws that our so vaguely written in their descriptions, so that it takes a very wealthy citizen, (one whom has enough disposable income to hire an attorney) or an organization such as the ACLU to take the vagueness of that law to court! Which by the way takes years and during those years what does the government do? They just continue to add to "their" powers and authority while taking away as many of our rights as they can!

You can drink the kool aid all you want, but as I see it the system is rigged against the average citizen just trying to survive.....

I was born free, and I sure as hell won't be a part of any politicians visions of their version of Utopia!

First they came for the smokers but I wasn't a smoker
then they came for the junk food addicts but I didn't eat junk food
then they came for the couch potatoes but I was not a couch potato
then they came for me but there was no one left to speak for me

reply to post by seeker1963


But this gives no additional authority to the Federal Government. If your state decided to do some sort of forced invasion based on this grant that was overly invasive, you need to take that issue up with your state not the Federal Government. You seem to keep implying that this law allows the Fed to kick your door down and investigate your home. It doesn't, it just gives money (otherwise known as a grant) to the state so that they can better implement already existing programs along these lines. I don't know how you can call that word pretzeling. It is spelt out pretty clearly even in your link.

ETA: I don't like Obamacare either. You seem to be insinuating that I have some sort of love for this bill. I don't, I just don't like ignorance being spewed, that's all. I know this bill is a giant train wreck. If I were to sign up for Obamacare, I'd have to pay $200 a month and have a $5000 deductible. I can afford neither of those things and I get no subsidy because I make too much money.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

But this gives no additional authority to the Federal Government. If your state decided to do some sort of forced invasion based on this grant that was overly invasive, you need to take that issue up with your state not the Federal Government. You seem to keep implying that this law allows the Fed to kick your door down and investigate your home. It doesn't, it just gives money (otherwise known as a grant) to the state so that they can better implement already existing programs along these lines. I don't know how you can call that word pretzeling. It is spelt out pretty clearly even in your link.

ETA: I don't like Obamacare either. You seem to be insinuating that I have some sort of love for this bill. I don't, I just don't like ignorance being spewed, that's all. I know this bill is a giant train wreck. If I were to sign up for Obamacare, I'd have to pay $200 a month and have a $5000 deductible. I can afford neither of those things and I get no subsidy because I make too much money.

The Federal Government doesn't need to beg for any authority do they?

That's what I am trying to get across to you. Even though the bill does not say "forced home inspections" it does lay the ground work so that a government official or contractor, DOES have the ability to visit your home? Right?

Now let's allow our imaginations to run wild, with one parameter and that is, "We have to use past government actions to justify our story"............

What will happen if for some strange reason, your 7 year old is asked by a teacher if mommy and daddy smoke???

Now according to what I linked from the .govs website previously, let's just say that this teacher calls CYS and says that she has a 7 year old in her class whom told her dad smokes.

Here come the "Wellness visit"......Now CYS shows up at a fairly normal, average American families home, JUST BECAUSE Dad smokes..

What happens if Dad says, "Get the hell off my property!"?

Remember the parameter I set up?

How many times have police showed up at the wrong house OR the right house for whatever reason, and someone dies?

You can't say that the possibility of this kind of thing happening does not exist within this whole "Wellness Check" garbage with 100% certainty now can you?

We have all seen it before happening in a whole lot of different kinds of situations. Sure the wording doesn't say "Forced Inspections"!!! Do you think if they used that in place of "Wellness Check" that this fraud called Healthcare would have gotten of the ground? How many times does the government take what was "once" a good word, but because of how they chose to use this word in their new laws and agendas, that once good word now is turned into a word that is feared and loathed???

Let me give you an example.....

Sustainable Development, sounds good at first, but when you understand Agenda 21 and the UN's mission, the word takes on a chilling new meaning doesn't it?

Perhaps we are bumping heads because you still have some trust in our government officials?

I have to be honest with you, I DON'T! Not anymore!

seeker1963
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

The Federal Government doesn't need to beg for any authority do they?

That's what I am trying to get across to you. Even though the bill does not say "forced home inspections" it does lay the ground work so that a government official or contractor, DOES have the ability to visit your home? Right?

Your state government, yes. The Federal Government on the other hand would be breaking the law by invading your house like so, and if the Fed Gov't did do this they are just implementing totalitarian principles that didn't come from Obamacare. Again this is a grant. I'm really not sure what part of the word grant you don't understand.

Now let's allow our imaginations to run wild, with one parameter and that is, "We have to use past government actions to justify our story"............

What will happen if for some strange reason, your 7 year old is asked by a teacher if mommy and daddy smoke???

Now according to what I linked from the .govs website previously, let's just say that this teacher calls CYS and says that she has a 7 year old in her class whom told her dad smokes.

Here come the "Wellness visit"......Now CYS shows up at a fairly normal, average American families home, JUST BECAUSE Dad smokes..

What happens if Dad says, "Get the hell off my property!"?

Remember the parameter I set up?

How many times have police showed up at the wrong house OR the right house for whatever reason, and someone dies?

You can't say that the possibility of this kind of thing happening does not exist within this whole "Wellness Check" garbage with 100% certainty now can you?

Sure this can happen, but again these programs already exist. The states just have more money to run them. Now I know that more money can mean more corruption, but this is corruption at the state level not the federal level. If the state kicked your door down using one of these programs as a basis for doing so, it wasn't because Obamacare gave them more money, it was because the state was already corrupt and was going to be doing this anyways.

We have all seen it before happening in a whole lot of different kinds of situations. Sure the wording doesn't say "Forced Inspections"!!! Do you think if they used that in place of "Wellness Check" that this fraud called Healthcare would have gotten of the ground? How many times does the government take what was "once" a good word, but because of how they chose to use this word in their new laws and agendas, that once good word now is turned into a word that is feared and loathed???

The word you should be focused on is "grant," because that is all this provision of Obamacare is. It is a grant. The same thing the government can give you to go to college.

Let me give you an example.....

Sustainable Development, sounds good at first, but when you understand Agenda 21 and the UN's mission, the word takes on a chilling new meaning doesn't it?

Perhaps we are bumping heads because you still have some trust in our government officials?

I have to be honest with you, I DON'T! Not anymore!

I don't trust authority. I'm Libertarian. Just trying to clear the murky waters a bit. Your beef in this instance isn't with Obamacare, but the STATE run programs that Obamacare is granting money to.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I don't trust authority. I'm Libertarian. Just trying to clear the murky waters a bit. Your beef in this instance isn't with Obamacare, but the STATE run programs that Obamacare is granting money to.

Your getting warmer to where I am coming from but your still not getting it, coming from a Libertarian, I am kinds surprised....

Anyhow, regardless of the word, "GRANT" being used to make everything I said null and void, how is it that you seem to be for States Rights, but yet don't understand the implications from a State accepting money from the Feds????

The Federal Government has in essence taken control of the States by offering them a hand out! Thus the states, give up their rights to the Feds!

Kinda like a loan shark or a drug dealer don't you think? Give the States a "Bump" get em hooked and now you basically control them.

Grant, loan, whatever you want to call it, it comes with a price for accepting it, and I am almost positive you are intelligent enough to see where I am coming from here.........

Maternal and Child Health Bureau
Division of Home Visiting and Early Childhood Systems

They "grant" money - and also require 'cooperative agreement'.

That means guidelines and requirements are set by HHS.

It's a partnership, not a free-for-all grant.

It's all a Federal Program, and apparently is in the PPACA.

page 6

II. Award Information

1. Type of Award

Funding will be provided in the form of a cooperative agreement.

A cooperative agreement is an award instrument of financial assistance where substantial involvement is anticipated between HRSA and the recipient during performance of the contemplated project.

In addition to the usual monitoring and technical assistance provided under the cooperative agreement, HRSA program responsibilities include the following: .......

page 1

[Authority: Social Security Act, Title V, Section 501(a)(2), (42 U.S.C. 701(a)(2))]

I. Funding Opportunity Description

1. Purpose
This announcement solicits applications to develop a Home Visiting Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (HV CoIIN) to provide support for the delivery of maternal and early childhood services, including (but not limited to) home visiting services provided under the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program (MIECHV), which was authorized by section 2951 of the Affordable Care Act.

MIECHV seeks to identify families with children ages 0 to 5 years and pregnant women who reside in at-risk communities and provide comprehensive services to improve outcomes for these families.

The purpose of the HV CoIIN is to facilitate the delivery and accelerate the improvement of home visiting and other early childhood services, both globally and as provided by MIECHV grantees, so as to obtain good results faster for low-income and other at-risk families served.

More specifically, in partnership with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau’s (MCHB) Division of Home Visiting and Early Childhood Systems (DHVECS), the successful applicant will plan and implement a HV CoIIN to facilitate the dissemination of methods and tools on continuous quality improvement (CQI) to up to forty (40) home visiting local implementing agency (LIA) pilot teams in partnership with other early childhood service agencies that operate within up to 12 MIECHV grantee states.

source - HHS pdf


Apparently the PPACA set it up...

On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act) (P.L. 111-148), historic and transformative legislation designed to make quality, affordable health care available to all Americans, reduce costs, improve health care quality, enhance disease prevention, and strengthen the health care workforce.

Through a provision authorizing the creation of the Affordable Care Act Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program,

the Act responds to the diverse needs of children and families in communities at risk and provides an unprecedented opportunity for collaboration and partnership at the Federal, State, and community levels to improve health and development outcomes for at risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs.


Affordable Care Act Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program

reply to post by seeker1963


Look I am just going off of how the law is written. You are the one who is reading into it. I also have never claimed what my stance on this particular part of the law is or isn't. You seem to think that by me defending it, that I support it. This isn't true, I am just making sure that people understand how the law is written and what it does.

By the way, what you are describing is known as a slippery slope fallacy. We start with the factual content of the law, that the bill will provide grant money to states for existing programs to check on family welfare. You then make the claim that the government will attach conditions to the grant money. If these conditions aren't met, then no grant money. You then imply that these conditions will be to force the states to be nosy in people's business. This will in turn cause the states to send agents to start kicking down doors to check up on family conditions. There may be some truths to some of those events, but the entire chain of events occurring to produce the outcome you describe is questionable. Now by no means am I suggesting that this can't happen, but right now there is no proof to suggest that it will either, so therefore it remains a slippery slope fallacy.

Again I don't support Obamacare, really the only part of the law that I agree with is the no pre-existing conditions clause. I don't feel like a giant encyclopedia of a law was needed to be written to implement such a condition either. However, I'm not going to jump to some conclusions about what can happen based on an obscure part of the law.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

By the way, what you are describing is known as a slippery slope fallacy. We start with the factual content of the law, that the bill will provide grant money to states for existing programs to check on family welfare.

Now I have to question your real motives..............

What is the "factual content of the law"??

Why is it that all of the laws that we have to abide by OR ELSE, are written in a manner that you need to hire a lawyer with 20 law assistants to dig thru hundreds of tomes of ancient rulings so that us ordinary "CITIZENS" THAT HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY JUSTICE, can be TOLD what they mean??????? GET IT? NO LAW SHOULD BE EVER WRITTEN THAT YOUR AVERAGE CITIZEN CAN NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Justice system is not about Justice for the masses. It is about Justice for those whom can AFFORD TO BUY IT!!!

Do you not see the problem with a system like that?

I sure as hell do, but keep bringing up your fancy words trying to discredit me!

reply to post by seeker1963


Not really sure what you are getting at here. We both have confirmed that this is a grant given to the states to help out already existing programs. What don't you understand about this part of the law that you need a lawyer for? Complaining about how laws are written is a completely separate argument then what we are talking about.

Also what fancy words are you talking about? You've never heard of a slippery slope fallacy before? Well just in case here you go:

Logical Fallacies

Slippery Slope (also, the Domino Theory): The common fallacy that "one thing inevitably leads to another." E.g., "If you two go and drink coffee together, one thing will lead to another, and soon enough you'll be pregnant and end up spending your life on welfare living in the projects," or "If we cut and run in Iraq or Afghanistan, pretty soon all of southwest Asia will be run by Al-Qaeda."

Your fallacy goes like this: Federal government gives grant money to states for existing programs and soon enough the government will be kicking in doors of families to do spot checks and make sure they are living up to some insane standard set by the government. I filled in the middle ground in my last post (which technically made it not a fallacy, but the way you present it is most definitely a fallacy).

Oh I don't know - apparently the Affordable Care Act is much better than Obamacare -

people evensay so on film

Krazysh0t
reply to post by seeker1963

 

Look I am just going off of how the law is written.

see there's your problem - you are being rational and denying ignorance.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yea, I guess that is in short supply these days... Better to just yell and scream about something that MIGHT be true then to actually fact check or read up on it yourself.

seeker1963
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

I don't trust authority. I'm Libertarian. Just trying to clear the murky waters a bit. Your beef in this instance isn't with Obamacare, but the STATE run programs that Obamacare is granting money to.

Your getting warmer to where I am coming from but your still not getting it, coming from a Libertarian, I am kinds surprised....

Anyhow, regardless of the word, "GRANT" being used to make everything I said null and void, how is it that you seem to be for States Rights, but yet don't understand the implications from a State accepting money from the Feds????

The Federal Government has in essence taken control of the States by offering them a hand out! Thus the states, give up their rights to the Feds!

Kinda like a loan shark or a drug dealer don't you think? Give the States a "Bump" get em hooked and now you basically control them.

Grant, loan, whatever you want to call it, it comes with a price for accepting it, and I am almost positive you are intelligent enough to see where I am coming from here.........

edit on 23-10-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)

What you say about the state is true...but it is also true of the individual...taking handouts make you a slave

The American Dream is not dead.. One just needs to travel abroad to obtain it. IF this ever comes to fruition and there is anyBody left, You don't HAVE to stay here, the World is a pretty big place... | got My eye on Uruguay at 21-1 exchange rate and FREE Medical (FREE FREE, and not "cheaper" )

In 2016 when Ms. Clinton is running for the WH, |'ll be checking thongs at the beach volleyball at the Brazil Olympics.. win/win

"It'll never work"

namaste

www.ijreview.com... well if this is true im sure it will add to the chaos of the implementation kind of odd they only allow one party to come visit it eh?
www.foxnews.com...

The office of House Speaker John Boehner is calling for the Obama administration to brief House Republicans on the problems with the ObamaCare website, following a report that House Democrats will get a closed-door briefing on Wednesday. Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement to Fox News the speaker’s office has requested the meeting with the president but has not yet received a reply, saying “all members – as well as the American people – deserve answers for this debacle.”

www.kaiserhealthnews.org...

so i guess we will have to wait and see how this end up

reply to post by bekod


I don't mean to question your veracity, but there must be a typo there...how in the hell could your sister have 10 kids in 6 years? It's not physically possible.