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

Isn't there a "hoax" forum for threads like this?

It just really irritates me to see false information being spread like this.

AlienScience
Isn't there a "hoax" forum for threads like this?

It just really irritates me to see false information being spread like this.

Have you troubled yourself to actually read the 'Act' ? Did you ever even read one of the many PDF synopses of the main document. I am sure you have not yet you have the audacity to come here to mock and malign the good work that many of our members have contributed to this fine thread. Better that you found another place for your snipes and gripes - try Randi why don't you - or better yet David Icke.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


You should do some investigation in Snopes to see who owns, runs and funds it. Who was on the board of where the money comes from. Saying Snopes said it is false is like saying Nancy Pelosi read the PPACA...

reply to post by YodHeVauHe



I have, and anyone who believes this crap is guano insane.

reply to post by darkbake


Am I misunderstanding the provision? I read through it here and didn't see anything that stipulated mandatory inspections as part of the ACA. Is this just legalize to hide forced inspections, or is it just people interpreting it in a way other than it's intention?

If I read it right, and please correct me where I'm wrong, I see:

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.

So first off this is a grant available for those states that have MIECHV already, and want to secure funding to expand it. I thought MIECHV was an "evidence based" policy, meaning that in order for a visitation to happen, there needed to be just-cause? Like: someone requesting medical aid for their child or a family member, and during that aid it is noted there are other factors that may be originating at the home level.

When I was an EMT-P there were a few times we had to report a family for potential child abuse or neglect, just based on the indications we had from a child we worked with. I guess my question is: I thought there still needed to be something equivalent to probable cause before they can visit, and that probable cause had to be initiated by a request for aid by a person of the household?

Priority for Serving High-Risk Populations and Programmatic Areas of Emphasis As directed in the legislation , successful applicants will give priority to providing services to the following populations...

If I understand this part correctly, it means that if they successfully earn the extra grant funding, than their visitations need to prioritize visits based on the following:

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.

Which seems like a logical list to me, assuming again that this was something prompted by a request for aid by the household. I can understand them wanting to investigate further into a household that requests aid for an underage pregnant daughter, in a house with members who've had a record of substance abuse. Or maybe when dealing with infants, they would want to check about tobacco use in the home.

I'm not so naive to think that this can't be abused, but I'm just unsure whether to believe it is a deliberate approval to allow forced inspection of people's homes based on the ACA or if it still requires a prompted action; like requesting aid or a report made by a hospital worker or responder; or something similar.

What am I missing?

As a side note: I agree with others, I do hope people exercise their right to deny entry without a warrant. I don't see anything in this or the original MIECHV documents that grant authority to entry without permission.

YodHeVauHe

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.

Some of us are not entirely sure that he was actually voted into office at all. We know that Mickey Mouse and several dead people voted for him but I have yet to meet anyone that admits to ever having voted for him.
And nobody deserves what is being done to this once great nation.

reply to post by YodHeVauHe


May I ask Why, when referring to the president, you choose to use his middle name as well? It seems a cheap tactic to elicit a response from a reader's subconscious. But it is not subtle enough to go unnoticed, thus blatantly draws attention to an agenda. But I am asking Why, in case it wasnt as thought out as that. In my opinion, gratuitous use of his middle name says more about your politics than about his.

Generally, people aren't called by all their names. Gerry Joseph Mander; Rush Harumph Limbaugh; Dianne Earmark Wraith Feinstein; Rachel Unattractive Lesbian Haircut Maddow

reply to post by UnmitigatedDisaster


Thoughtful and accurate interpretation, UnmitigatedDisaster. I'm with you on this. I dont think it is worrisome or the beginning or middle if an attempt to strip us of our right to be free from unreasonable seearches. In Our Homes, Too!