ObamaCare - Could search your house without a warrant if you are known to buy cigarettes

reply to post by darkbake


Just one more reason to use cash..

O wait a moment.. Thats what there calling potential terrorists. To be completely fair I have not been doing my duty flowing this. But I will look further into this and research the implications. If they really enforced that there will be angry people. Im sure they take that into serous consideration

reply to post by hknudzkknexnt


Thank you, I got lucky I found out about it - it was through word of mouth. My room-mate communicates with over 1,000 people simultaneously on TeamSpeak due to being a member of a corporation on Eve Online.

I think that a lot of this kind of stuff is going to happen "under the table" more than likely, it might not easily come out into the open.

For all of your information:
The constitution protects you from having your house searched without a warrant.

reply to post by darkbake


yea.. so at that point it would be all hell breaking loose..

reply to post by hknudzkknexnt


Here are some more sources, as this is a big deal, I want to make sure:

Reuters: Home Visit Programs

it was a great thing. They looked at some study that spanned 20 years that showed that home visits improve “at-risk” families, specifically those families with pre-maturely born babies and Down syndrome kids.
“Home visits by nurses or other trained health professionals can improve the development of preterm infants, parenting and the home environment, according to a new review of recent research… The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has set aside funding for home visiting programs for at-risk families to improve outcomes for mothers and their babies born prematurely… There are 400 such programs currently providing care to at least 500,000 U.S. families, largely funded by state and local governments.”

What the Reuters article doesn’t mention is all those families who will be considered “at-risk.” Here are some other criteria under Obamacare that could be used against you to justify a “home inspection” by a local, state or federal government official:
Low-income families.
Families with pregnant women who have not attained age 21.
Families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services.
Families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment.
Families that have users of tobacco products in the home.
Families that are or have children with low student achievement.
Families with children with developmental delays or disabilities.
Families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces, including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of the United States.

Obamacare Provision: Mandatory Home Inspections

This is going to be a hard nut to crack. The official version makes it seem beneficial and optional, but based on the personal account I heard, I am going to have to lean towards the unofficial version being more accurate.

I have the feeling the official version is only there in order to keep it alive politically while the real agenda is being done in the dark. We might have to stick to Twitter and YouTube for updates on this.

hknudzkknexnt
reply to post by darkbake

 

yea.. so at that point it would be all hell breaking loose..

Well... any kind of legitimate reporting on the issue might be considered terrorist activity and Homeland Security would then have to step in and get involved. Either that, or it would be discounted based on lack of legitimate sources, which are, of course being kept from appearing.

I think this is going to be one of those things where the government is going to be completely operating outside of its legal authority with a lot of smoke and mirror tactics.

I wrote my senator on the issue, however. He has been responsive to my letters in the past, surprisingly - I wrote him a detailed report on the Syria crisis, and as a Republican, he released a YouTube video about why he thought that we should not attack them a few weeks later.

Give me my smokes or give me death!
Oh wait, I get both at once!
I can believe this, the Obama administration knows no Constitutional bounds. They will lie, cheat, steal, murder, whatever it takes to fulfill their agenda. Popping in to people's homes for cig searches would be a small step for these authoritarians.
I believe you Darkbake, this wouldn't surprise me in the least.
S&F

reply to post by darkbake

'Obamacare' is supposed to provide 'insurance' NOT HEALTHCARE - and it has nothing to do with your health and well being. It is just as pernicious and inimical to liberty as are all the other items on the following (partial) list of government inspired and controlled bad 'ACTS' by bad actors that were allegedly implemented to make your life better, and for America to be a safer and more productive place to live and work. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point being that (PPACA), The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is no different than all the rest of the so-called 'ACTS' - its all an act folks!. But you people voted for this - not once but TWICE - so you get what you deserve.

(NDAA), National Defense Authorization Act
(FISA) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(Patriot Act), Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. AKA - An Act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
The Copyright Act of 1976 -- Electronic Communications Privacy Act – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act –– Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act – Money Laundering Control Act – Bank Secrecy Act – Right to Financial Privacy Act – Fair Credit Reporting Act – Immigration and Nationality Act – Victims of Crime Act of 1984 – Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act

BTW - Stalin, Hitler, and many others like them had similar lists of "ACTS" all designed for the betterment of society and culture. The plan for the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security comes directly out of the playbook of the Nazi regime. Homeland = Fatherland. They would have loved obamacare too.

I don't know how true this article is but it is certainly not only feasible but absolutely has to go that way. Here in Britain, fat people and smokers are constantly under threat not to get the free health service because apparently their ailments are self inflicted.
Strange thing though, sports injuries, pregnancies, flu and cold caught on public transport are not.

Anyway, I am absolutely sure that one day it will be illegal to do anything at all that could be harmful. Meaning that you will have to prove that you eat certain foods only, do a certain amount of exercise every day, take supplements, vaccines etc, as otherwise you'll lose all privileges.

Isn't that scary?

I remember a scene from the film "The Island", where the inhabitants have their wee analysed when peeing into the toilet and the toilet speaks and tells them that they seem low on XYZ and have to take/eat XYZ to counter the deficiency. [there was a reason but I would spoil the film if i'd tell you]

I do not want to live in such a world. But this is where it's heading. What if you get arrested for giving chocolate to a child, like an evil drug dealer?
The worst thing is that it will be other humans deciding what is healthy and what is not, and history tells us that these things are usually wrong.

What was hailed as 'good' in the 70's is now bad. One day we are told red wine is good for us, the next it is dangerous.

We are not advanced enough to force anything upon ourselves. Why not let people be? I want to smoke and drink and eat chocolate and if that takes 10 years of my life, I'll die in the knowledge that at least I had some fun.

But our health s not what concerns these people, because if I pay tax, I pay for the NHS and hence I should be able to use it for whatever I need, even if self inflicted. The reason they do this is for control and money.

We are but a nuisance to the rich and powerful and the more we can be kept like chickens in a battery farm, the better for them. That is the real reason.

What has happened to the world? Nobody should 'own' me or my body.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Thanks for believing me, I am just saying what I heard. After hearing about it, I did a quick check online to see if there was any evidence about the policy and there was.

About The Obama Administration knowing no constitutional bounds, it really does not. Or, it knows them, and knows them well enough to get around them.

One thing I am going to mention here that I definitely don't require people to believe (so I guess it is off the record) -

when Obama was running the primaries back in 2008, my family was in contact with N.S.A. operatives and we were told that the N.S.A. was investigating Obama because he was going to be the worst President in history. They were going to try and stop him, but apparently that did not work. I am still not sure who he is working with, exactly.

It was only long after this that the N.S.A. leaks came out showing that it was a massive spy program. We were involved back when people assumed it was used for mostly cryptography. A few other things we were told ended up happening, so I am guessing the information was accurate. We ended up terminating our communications due to stress.

reply to post by Hecate666


You are right, Hecate - I think a lot of us could see this coming, as you did - I am surprised that I heard a report of it happening already. I can attest to hearing the report prior to researching the policy, but I don't have a way to ensure that the report was accurate.

And the "legality" of it, based on looking at interpretations of what (in my opinion) is a complicated program (ObamaCare) seems "legitimate."

However, honestly, if you take a lot of the current policies in the United States back a ways and trace their origins, they are hardly legitimate legally, in my opinion - especially under Obama.

The problem is, these kind of searches are going to be happening - and honestly, what kind of things could be considered contraband in the future? Certain books? Pirated material from years ago? Gardening materials? I'm being serious here.

And this gives the government direct access into our home lives in order to enforce policies that they deem beneficial at the time. It could even amount to controlling what we do in our free time.

Hecate666
What was hailed as 'good' in the 70's is now bad. One day we are told red wine is good for us, the next it is dangerous.

I noticed that. We can't live in a country where what is right and wrong shifts as fast and as easily as the latest fashion designs. At that point, living in the said country becomes absolutely dangerous.

Cultural trends are one thing, but mixing them with government control over personal lives is another entirely.

darkbake
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Thanks for believing me, I am just saying what I heard. After hearing about it, I did a quick check online to see if there was any evidence about the policy and there was.
About The Obama Administration knowing no constitutional bounds, it really does not. Or, it knows them, and knows them well enough to get around them.

The primary objective of progressive liberals - otherwise known as Marxist/Leninist communists - and most especially of those who vote them into office - is to subvert the Bill of Rights, and in so doing destroy this Republic thereby transforming it into a communist state. You think I'm exaggerating don't you?

reply to post by darkbake


Here's the deal, darkbake.

It's your friends neighbors fault for allowing them to search the premises. The Constitution protects the people from unreasonable search and seizure. No qualms about it. If you give up that right, it's due to your own ignorance or complacency. There is no legal way around it, unless you sign paperwork that releases your rights.

In that case, yes...that person is an idiot.

In my humble opinion, you never give up your rights under any circumstance. These same rights are what men fought and died for. They didn't sign them away. Read the fine print and if it includes forced home inspections then why sign up for it? That is exactly what these people are doing!
Signing away their rights.
All for "insurance".




THESE NEW EMOTICONS SUCK!
(WTH BILL!)

Forced home inspections? Ha!

Does little Barry need another spanking at the Supreme Court? It seems he does.... Well... Old Daddy Roberts will be happy to take little Barry out behind the wood shed and educate him again on Constitutional matters. He seems one dumb President on the matter...for a man with a Harvard education on Constitutional law.

We'll be in real trouble if the balance of the court changes.

reply to post by havok


Hell yes, you are correct, Havok. We should all stay informed, and this is the best course of action to take -

I discussed this with my room-mate already, who mentioned that you are not required to let the government search your house without a warrant. He went so far as to say that it would be within your legal rights to shoot trespassers after giving them ample warning.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I recently read an article that said that The Supreme Court was not going to be equipped enough to hear any cases about The Obama Administration's lack of respect for the legal system, as it is much too complex for them to handle. Well, at least when it comes to the N.S.A. Surveillance Programs (not directly associated with Obama)

Supreme Court Ill-Equipped to Judge NSA Surveillance Programs

Scalia Expects NSA Wiretaps to End up in Court

That is what I got from it, anyway - that The Supreme Court may not have enough expertise on it to counter Obama's legal expertise.

and let's not forget that Obama studied Constitutional Law. I once wrote to my Senator recommending that he immediately assemble a team of high-powered lawyers and constitutional lawyers, because he would need them all to counter The Obama Administration's legal expertise.

Wrabbit2000
Well... Old Daddy Roberts will be happy to take little Barry out behind the wood shed and educate him again on Constitutional matters. He seems one dumb President on the matter...for a man with a Harvard education on Constitutional law.

Oh Beezer - here. I think you are missing the point. He got educated on Constitutional Law in order to know how to circumvent the Constitution the best. Does that make sense? It was a real eye-opener when I realized it.

He is far from dumb, he is dangerous.

reply to post by darkbake

I think you are now 'getting it' as to the true nature of obamacare and the manner of its implementation insofar as its directed at the destruction of America as we know it.

Incidentally, obamacare had been defeated in the Supreme Court, but because of blackmail manoeuvrings and threats on the part of the administration against Justice Roberts it was overturned at the last minute, and the (majority opinion) had to be completely re-written and 'faked out' by Justice Roberts. Notice that the other conservative Justices held their ground - not changing a single word of their respective opinions, which actually reflected the majority WITH ROBERTS - in other words, what were initially majority opinions were then written and presented as dissenting ones by the conservative justices.

I put feminized 'men' like Justice Roberts on a par with Aaron Burr, Jonathan Pollard, and others like them who sold out their country as traitors because of cowardice, weak-mindedness, and a general lack of manly character.

reply to post by YodHeVauHe


It could have easily been blackmail. Or maybe he out-maneuvered the Supreme Court with legalities that were over their head. Obama does not play nice. Thank you on that, I will have to check into it and download the evidence.