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

I hope this isn't true.

Ive been cig free for almost 4 months now but another family member still smokes.

So smoking cigs gives the govt permission to enter your home? sees a bit out there but I wouldnt be surprised. every day 1984 is slowly becoming a reality.

the movie/book was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual!

reply to post by darkbake


I'm glad I stopped smoking.

reply to post by darkbake

The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:

It's a dead link. Do you have another link that shows these "high risk" categories?

reply to post by darkbake



Snopes claims this is false


www.snopes.com...

reply to post by curme


Yeah, I can give a new link: Canada Free Press: Obama Care Home Visits

It’s in the bill. Health and Human Services is making grants to states and agencies who are willing to perform “evidence-based home visits” connected to ObamaCare. What is the purpose of these visits? The grant guidelines don’t exactly say, but they do spell out in detail who might receive them:

a) Eligible families who reside in communities in need of such services, as identified in the statewide needs assessment required under subsection (b)(1)(A).

b) Low-income eligible families.

c) Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21.

d) Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services.

e) Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment.

f) Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home.

g) Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement.

h) Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities.

i) Eligible 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.

I think at this point we need to get into the actual Obama Care law... there are people out there who have read it and interpreted it this way, and just because they are not liberal, does not mean their opinion is worthless.

GeisterFahrer
reply to post by darkbake

 

Snopes claims this is false


www.snopes.com...

From what Snopes is saying, the home visits occur when a family has a child at or under the age of 5. They are voluntary - however, when I was looking into the definition of "voluntary" earlier, it was they show up at your doorstep, knock and

It is kind of like a vampire, you have to invite them in, but once you do, they can come back as often as they like and also, if they find something in the house that warrants an intervention, it is not optional.

It could be true that a lot of these programs already exist.

reply to post by ugie1028


Well here is the original text: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I am going to download it as a .pdf and see if I can find anything...

Okay. Check out sections:

2951: Maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting programs

4103: Medicare coverage of a personal wellness visit providing a personalized prevention plan

reply to post by darkbake


Directly from the bill:

4103: Medicare coverage of a personal wellness visit providing a personalized prevention plan

‘Annual Wellness Visit
‘‘(hhh)(1) The term ‘personalized prevention plan services’ means the creation of a plan for an individual— ‘‘(A) that includes a health risk assessment (that meets the guidelines established by the Secretary under paragraph (4)(A)) of the individual that is completed prior to or as part of the same visit with a health professional described in para- graph (3); and ‘‘(B) that— ‘‘(i) takes into account the results of the health risk assessment; and ‘‘(ii) may contain the elements described in paragraph (2). ‘‘(2) Subject to paragraph (4)(H), the elements described in this paragraph are the following: ‘‘(A) The establishment of, or an update to, the individual’s medical and family history. ‘‘(B) A list of current providers and suppliers that are regularly involved in providing medical care to the individual (including a list of all prescribed medications).

H.R.3590—436
‘‘(C) A measurement of height, weight, body mass index (or waist circumference, if appropriate), blood pressure, and other routine measurements. ‘‘(D) Detection of any cognitive impairment. ‘‘(E) The establishment of, or an update to, the following: ‘‘(i) A screening schedule for the next 5 to 10 years, as appropriate, based on recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the individual’s health status, screening history, and age-appropriate preventive services covered under this title. ‘‘(ii) A list of risk factors and conditions for which primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention interventions are recommended or are underway, including any mental health conditions or any such risk factors or conditions that have been identified through an initial preventive physical examination (as described under subsection (ww)(1)), and a list of treatment options and their associ- ated risks and benefits. ‘‘(F) The furnishing of personalized health advice and a referral, as appropriate, to health education or preventive coun- seling services or programs aimed at reducing identified risk factors and improving self-management, or community-based lifestyle interventions to reduce health risks and promote self- management and wellness, including weight loss, physical activity, smoking cessation, fall prevention, and nutrition. ‘‘(G) Any other element determined appropriate by the Secretary. ‘‘(3) A health professional described in this paragraph is— ‘‘(A) a physician; ‘‘(B) a practitioner described in clause (i) of section 1842(b)(18)(C); or ‘‘(C) a medical professional (including a health educator, registered dietitian, or nutrition professional) or a team of medical professionals, as determined appropriate by the Sec- retary, under the supervision of a physician. ‘‘(4)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, shall establish publicly available guidelines for health risk assess- ments. Such guidelines shall be developed in consultation with relevant groups and entities and shall provide that a health risk assessment— ‘‘(i) identify chronic diseases, injury risks, modifiable risk factors, and urgent health needs of the individual; and ‘‘(ii) may be furnished— ‘‘(I) through an interactive telephonic or web-based program that meets the standards established under subparagraph (B); ‘‘(II) during an encounter with a health care profes- sional; ‘‘(III) through community-based prevention programs; or ‘‘(IV) through any other means the Secretary deter- mines appropriate to maximize accessibility and ease of use by beneficiaries, while ensuring the privacy of such beneficiaries.

H.R.3590—437
‘‘(B) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish standards for inter- active telephonic or web-based programs used to furnish health risk assessments under subparagraph (A)(ii)(I). The Secretary may utilize any health risk assessment developed under section 4004(f) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as part of the requirement to develop a personalized prevention plan to comply with this subparagraph. ‘‘(C)(i) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall develop and make available to the public a health risk assessment model. Such model shall meet the guidelines under subparagraph (A) and may be used to meet the requirement under paragraph (1)(A). ‘‘(ii) Any health risk assessment that meets the guidelines under subparagraph (A) and is approved by the Secretary may be used to meet the requirement under paragraph (1)(A). ‘‘(D) The Secretary may coordinate with community-based enti- ties (including State Health Insurance Programs, Area Agencies on Aging, Aging and Disability Resource Centers, and the Adminis- tration on Aging) to— ‘‘(i) ensure that health risk assessments are accessible to beneficiaries; and ‘‘(ii) provide appropriate support for the completion of health risk assessments by beneficiaries.

‘‘(E) The Secretary shall establish procedures to make bene- ficiaries and providers aware of the requirement that a beneficiary complete a health risk assessment prior to or at the same time as receiving personalized prevention plan services. ‘‘(F) To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall encourage the use of, integration with, and coordination of health information technology (including use of technology that is compatible with electronic medical records and personal health records) and may experiment with the use of personalized technology to aid in the development of self-management skills and management of and adherence to provider recommendations in order to improve the health status of beneficiaries. ‘‘(G)(i) A beneficiary shall only be eligible to receive an initial preventive physical examination (as defined under subsection (ww)(1)) at any time during the 12-month period after the date that the beneficiary’s coverage begins under part B and shall be eligible to receive personalized prevention plan services under this subsection provided that the beneficiary has not received such serv- ices within the preceding 12-month period. ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall establish procedures to make bene- ficiaries aware of the option to select an initial preventive physical examination or personalized prevention plan services during the period of 12 months after the date that a beneficiary’s coverage begins under part B, which shall include information regarding any relevant differences between such services. ‘‘(H) The Secretary shall issue guidance that— ‘‘(i) identifies elements under paragraph (2) that are required to be provided to a beneficiary as part of their first visit for personalized prevention plan services; and ‘‘(ii) establishes a yearly schedule for appropriate provision of such elements thereafter.’’.

reply to post by darkbake


I put the stuff in bold that supports my argument and the stuff in pink that does not as much, however, it looks as if there are going to be two services available. One of them is going to be a personalized care service that does require what is essentially a home visit within the first 12 months, and then a personal intervention plan, that does include smoking as a risk factor that would need to be curtailed.

The other option would be to not take the personal intervention plan route and that still requires a physical.

It seems like there is going to be some options to take the tests online, and they are also going to be handing some of the home visit duties to local agencies.

But as you all can clearly see, I am revealing to the internet that a personal health assessment is required and will come with intervention plans. This would be prior to receiving personalized prevention plan services.

So the question is, what is the difference going to be between the personalized services and the non personalized ones - and although it is optional, a lot of things in life are optional, but people don't often realize it.

I have worked sales before and I know that if I was selling this health care plan, I would be required to minimize the chance that someone would know about the non personalized services.

The reason is economical. Personalized health assessments and prevention plans are cheaper to provide health insurance for than not working with prevention plans.

Well, I guess this gets into a different topic than home visits, because I'm not sure if the personal assessment would take place in the home or not - although it very well could, if one of the local agencies was hired to run them.

However, the bill does say personal wellness visit, so I do believe that is reason enough to suspect that they will be home visits.

---------

So this basically brings us back to square one, where there will be optional home visits resulting in intervention plans, and if someone is smart enough, they will be able to opt out, but if someone doesn't know their rights, they might not get the chance to opt out. And that is simply for someone without kids -

I don't know what the kid visits include.

jaguarsky
Man, you guys are a bunch of rabbits, scared of your own shadows. Go ahead, live in fear, let people tell you BS so you have a reason to tremble. It's easier to live that way I guess, you don't have to think, just run or sit in place and piss yourselves.

I live in Idaho currently, the cost of living is about half that of Washington, but getting accurate information about politics is nearly impossible - it is actually set up socially to prevent access to factual information.

What mostly happens is the Head Dog makes something up that sounds plausible and everyone goes along with it or risks being cut from important resources and services.

---------

But on the other end of things, I've found that liberals can get so caught up in specifics and justifications these days that they couldn't tell if they were headed for a totalitarian state until after it was over and they looked back on it and said "Wow, that was bad."

And then another liberal would say, "Yeah, but..."

--------

A lot of it comes down to if we want to have the freedom to choose our own lifestyles or not.

Some of us think that we would like that, and some of us think that it would be better if healthy lifestyles were enforced.

Some of us think that being the perfect homogeneous liberal should be enforced.

----------

For me, I do not like the side-effect that comes from the above statement, which is that people are afraid to think for themselves or express what is honestly a valid, human perspective and viewpoint - because who knows what the perfect homogeneous liberal is, anyway? It is complicated #.

It is safer to keep your mouth shut and pretend to get it.

reply to post by Daedalus

The ACAct was judged to have been legal in consequence of the vote of a single individual - Justice Roberts. Same with the GWBush election - both were 5-4 decisions, which has the effect of "Dictatorship by Legal Fiat" insofar as the actual dictator in the WH knows what the outcome will be thereby allowing him to take the 'risk' implied in having the issue at hand settled by the SCOTUS - which was something that should never have been allowed in the first place. Ask yourselves - why in the hell is the Supreme Court deciding elections and major rulings on health insurance in America???

Its not that the nation has actually been hijacked by SCOTUS - its that democracy and liberty have been hijacked from the people by the government legally in the same manner as everything done by the Nazi regime was done 'legally' - so you see the bind we are in - right?

reply to post by darkbake


This isn't anything new. Social services has been doing home visits and inspections for, like, FOREVER! If you want food stamps, Social Services first wants to know if you have refrigeration, a sink, a stove in working order, etc. If you want housing assistance, Social services will visit you home to make sure it's up to code. If not, you or the owner of the house must bring it up to code, or loose funding, or find alternative housing. This targets slum lords.

Someone who is receiving special assistance for a disability may have a home inspection to make sure the person is being properly cared by the provider receiving Social Services funding. Are they well fed, clean, have access to medication and doctors, etc.

I looked through every link in the cited OP article, and found absolutely no reference to cigarettes at all.

windword
reply to post by darkbake

 

This isn't anything new. Social services has been doing home visits and inspections for, like, FOREVER! If you want food stamps, Social Services first wants to know if you have refrigeration, a sink, a stove in working order, etc. If you want housing assistance, Social services will visit you home to make sure it's up to code. If not, you or the owner of the house must bring it up to code, or loose funding, or find alternative housing. This targets slum lords.

Someone who is receiving special assistance for a disability may have a home inspection to make sure the person is being properly cared by the provider receiving Social Services funding. Are they well fed, clean, have access to medication and doctors, etc.

I looked through every link in the cited OP article, and found absolutely no reference to cigarettes at all.

And I'll bet you won't find a single reference to "warrantless searches of your home" either! That's because this entire thread is nothing more than an exercise in fear-mongering and the propagation of lies on the part of the Tea Party neo-cons to scare and convince their ignorant minions into rejecting ObamaCare.

Even though darkbake has apparently chosen not to respond, the offer/wager that I proposed in an earlier post in this thread still stands and I offer it to anyone here on ATS.

If you can provide a single quote from the Affordable Care Act that authorizes "warrantless searches of your home" for any reason whatsoever, I'll kiss your naked butt in the middle of any main street in any town in America and I'll give you a week to sell tickets to anyone who wishes to watch.

Lies, Lies and more Lies. IMO, those who spread this crazy crap should be publicly shamed!

reply to post by darkbake


So you have a friend, that has an online acquaintance, that has a neighbor, who said his house was forcibly searched because of Obamacare? Yeah, that sounds totally credible.

Also, you do know that Ben Swann is full of crap right?

Here is the exact website he links to in his article...please notice some key words in the details....like "existing programs" and "applicants". Kind of odd that you and Benny claim that Obamacare is introducing these when they are talking about "existing programs"...and even more odd that you claim it is forcibly when they are taking applicants to be part of these programs. Also notice that "giving priority to" is not the same as "targeting".

Here is some text for you.

grants3.hrsa.gov... &PrintMode=&OnlineAvailabilityFlag=True&pageNumber=1

The purpose of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Competitive Grant program is to award Development Grants to States that currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts. Successful applicants will sufficiently demonstrate the capacity to expand or enhance their evidence-based home visiting programs.
...
successful applicants will give priority to providing services to the following populations: a) Eligible families who reside in communities in need of such services, as identified in the statewide needs assessment required under subsection (b)(1)(A). b) Low-income eligible families. c) Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. d) Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. e) Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. f) Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. g) Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. h) Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. i) Eligible 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."

reply to post by darkbake

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.

It is optional and beneficial.

But you are going to believe the "personal account" you heard from your friends online friend who said he has a neighbor that had this done. Have you ever heard of people being made fun of for saying they heard something from a "friend of a friend"...or "I know a guy who knows a guy who has a brother who...."??? This is not a "personal account"...this is rumors or gossip. It is 4th hand information, and the story didn't even come from the person who was supposedly "searched".

But you will believe that over all other relevant information out there that says otherwise.

I'm glad you haven't made up your mind before looking at all the facts.