Forced Home Inspections Authorized under Obamacare

[NightFox]

What liberties do you believe you have that these programs could potentially
erode?

Let's start with the right to be secure in ones person and property, that's not only a natural right it's also a right that is explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution.

What part of "the programs are voluntary" did you not comprehend?

You don't have a right to emotionally or physically abuse your child. You don't have a right to withhold medical care from your child. You don't have a right to withhold food and water from your child. You don't have a right to raise your child in an unhealthy environment. So again, what liberties do you suppose you would be denied by VOLUNTARILY ENTERING THESE PROGRAMS?

Nobody is contending that anyone possesses the right to abuse children, what is in question is the right to privacy sans the issuance of a warrant by a court with proper jurisdiction. As far as voluntarily entering a program one would question the morality of a state that victimizes select groups of the citizenry by withholding what they themselves deem as beneficial necessary services on condition that said person signs away their own rights.

So what you are saying is you want the state to make sure that your high risk child is receiving the care that he or she needs, but just make sure the healthcare providers have a court order with them when they do that.

I want the state to abide by the constitutional protections that are in place (i.e. follow the rule of LAW) which requires that it possess a warrant or imminent probable cause sufficient to satisfy a court before forcibly entering a persons home. The existence of what the state arbitrarily deems "high risk" children does not in any way or in any case excuse it from being bound by both the natural rights of the citizenry and explicit constitutional protections of those rights. Your argument presupposes that the states power is unconstrained as long as it can rationalize some justification for itself, that's what is commonly referred to as the rule of MAN and the United States jettisoned that idea when our founders kicked King George to the curb.

 

[orogenicman]

They will be going into SMOKERS homes and legal gun owners . Last I checked both of these things are legal even though many on the left would like both to be illegal.. If the smoker is smoking outside what right does ANYONE without a warrant be allowed in my home unless I invite them. Hmm there is a history of Obama was a smoker are they going to snoop around his housing quarters too. Oh yeah, nothing applies to him and his family

It is illegal in some communities to smoke around pregnant women, babies, and small children. It is also medically very unsound.

Uh-huh and the problem with leaving up it the communities that set those standards for themselves to enforce said standards is what ? We're not talking about the self-determination of individual communities here we're talking about shoving a set of arbitrary standards down the throat of EVERY community using methods which are in direct contradiction to natural rights, constitutional protections and generally accepted morality.

What is arbitrary about doctors telling parents not to smoke around their babies and children? That is not an arbitrary standard. It is a medical necessity. Second hand tobacco causes cancer, and is a primary cause of asthma in children. What constitutional right do you suppose you have to expose your children to addictive carcinogens? Where is the morality in intentionally exposing them to tobacco smoke? If you were smoking crack in their presence, it would be a no-brainer, wouldn't it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Forced Home Inspections Authorized under Obamacare

High Risk Categories
Families where mom is not yet 21.
Families where someone is a tobacco user.
Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
Families with 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 the United States.

In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”
Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,
“This is not a“voluntary”program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

I hear they have added gun owners to this as well. WTF people, libs you ok with this. PLUS US TAX PAYERS are paying almost 225M on this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bullshit

 

[NightFox]

Uh-huh and the problem with leaving up it the communities that set those standards for themselves to enforce said standards is what ? We're not talking about the self-determination of individual communities here we're talking about shoving a set of arbitrary standards down the throat of EVERY community using methods which are in direct contradiction to natural rights, constitutional protections and generally accepted morality.

What is arbitrary about doctors telling parents not to smoke around their babies and children? That is not an arbitrary standard. It is a medical necessity.

TELLING them that it's not medically sound and FORCING compliance are two different things, in the latter case it is an arbitrary standard because it ignores the innumerable other things which while medically unsound remain unaddressed thus you are getting into arbitrarily picking THIS but not THAT even though both (THIS and THAT) are from a purely medical standpoint inadvisable.

 

[orogenicman]

What is arbitrary about doctors telling parents not to smoke around their babies and children? That is not an arbitrary standard. It is a medical necessity.

TELLING them that it's not medically sound and FORCING compliance are two different things, in the latter case it is an arbitrary standard because it ignores the innumerable other things which while medically unsound remain unaddressed thus you are getting into arbitrarily picking THIS but not THAT even though both (THIS and THAT) are from a purely medical standpoint inadvisable.

You'll have to point out where in those regulations there was a clause forcing compliance of a voluntary program.

 

[NightFox]

TELLING them that it's not medically sound and FORCING compliance are two different things, in the latter case it is an arbitrary standard because it ignores the innumerable other things which while medically unsound remain unaddressed thus you are getting into arbitrarily picking THIS but not THAT even though both (THIS and THAT) are from a purely medical standpoint inadvisable.

You'll have to point out where in those regulations there was a clause forcing compliance of a voluntary program.

Actually I already pointed out that the questionable morality of a state which sets such conditions on a services which itself deems beneficial and necessary. I'm not sure what you fail to grasp with that especially when the case in point revolves largely around citizens with limited economic means.

To simplify things for you one might propose a scenario in which the state offers food to a starving man on condition that the starving man voluntarily forgo his right to the freedom of speech.

 

[Intense]

Let's start with the right to be secure in ones person and property, that's not only a natural right it's also a right that is explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution.

What part of "the programs are voluntary" did you not comprehend?

Nobody is contending that anyone possesses the right to abuse children, what is in question is the right to privacy sans the issuance of a warrant by a court with proper jurisdiction. As far as voluntarily entering a program one would question the morality of a state that victimizes select groups of the citizenry by withholding what they themselves deem as beneficial necessary services on condition that said person signs away their own rights.

So what you are saying is you want the state to make sure that your high risk child is receiving the care that he or she needs, but just make sure the healthcare providers have a court order with them when they do that.

I want the state to abide by the constitutional protections that are in place (i.e. follow the rule of LAW) which requires that it possess a warrant or imminent probable cause sufficient to satisfy a court before forcibly entering a persons home. The existence of what the state arbitrarily deems "high risk" children does not in any way or in any case excuse it from being bound by both the natural rights of the citizenry and explicit constitutional protections of those rights. Your argument presupposes that the states power is unconstrained as long as it can rationalize some justification for itself, that's what is commonly referred to as the rule of MAN and the United States jettisoned that idea when our founders kicked King George to the curb.

He presupposes that the State, with Democrats in charge, can't do anything wrong, and without their consent and blessing, you can't do anything right. He presupposes that anything the State imagines or claims, must be valid, and no further litmus test is necessary. He presupposes that the Individual , unsupervised, must be guilty of something, while the State, unsupervised, is just benevolent, and incapable of being unjust, you know.... Fantasy Island......[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x_QbVDlLbI]Fantasy Island TV Show Opening Theme Season One 1978 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

You'll have to point out where in those regulations there was a clause forcing compliance of a voluntary program.

Actually I already pointed out that the questionable morality of a state which sets such conditions on a services which itself deems beneficial and necessary. I'm not sure what you fail to grasp with that especially when the case in point revolves largely around citizens with limited economic means.

To simplify things for you one might propose a scenario in which the state offers food to a starving man on condition that the starving man voluntarily forgo his right to the freedom of speech.

Would you rather that the government force feed the starving man? Your argument assumes that it is morally unjustifiable to protect our children from demonstrable harm, and that makes your argument, morally unjustifiable, not a voluntary government program that actually would actually protect children.

 

[orogenicman]

What part of "the programs are voluntary" did you not comprehend?





So what you are saying is you want the state to make sure that your high risk child is receiving the care that he or she needs, but just make sure the healthcare providers have a court order with them when they do that.

I want the state to abide by the constitutional protections that are in place (i.e. follow the rule of LAW) which requires that it possess a warrant or imminent probable cause sufficient to satisfy a court before forcibly entering a persons home. The existence of what the state arbitrarily deems "high risk" children does not in any way or in any case excuse it from being bound by both the natural rights of the citizenry and explicit constitutional protections of those rights. Your argument presupposes that the states power is unconstrained as long as it can rationalize some justification for itself, that's what is commonly referred to as the rule of MAN and the United States jettisoned that idea when our founders kicked King George to the curb.

He presupposes that the State, with Democrats in charge, can't do anything wrong, and without their consent and blessing, you can't do anything right. He presupposes that anything the State imagines or claims, must be valid, and no further litmus test is necessary. He presupposes that the Individual , unsupervised, must be guilty of something, while the State, unsupervised, is just benevolent, and incapable of being unjust, you know.... Fantasy Island......[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x_QbVDlLbI]Fantasy Island TV Show Opening Theme Season One 1978 - YouTube[/ame]

Strawman argument.

 

[Clementine]

Why would you not want high risk families and individuals to be checked on? It only applies to those eligible and enrolled in the ‘Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program’ and are in the high risk category. If you are not eligible and enrolled, nor in the high risk category, it doesn't apply to you. The intention of the program is to improve outcomes for American’s most vulnerable children and families, not to invade one's privacy, or infringe on someone's rights.

It's bullshit. People should not be on that list simply for currently or formerly serving their country. We don't need nanny government coming into our homes to tell us how to live our lives.

Government fucks up nearly everything it does and they think they can take the reins of peoples' lives? Incredible.

Some dimwitted bureaucrat will sit in judgment of whether people are living their lives the right way and they'll step in when they see something they don't like. Military tend to vote Republican. Gun owners tend to be Republican. Funny those will be on the list.

Meanwhile, the same people fought against drug testing for welfare recipients. So, do your drugs and that's cool, just don't serve your country in the military or legally buy a gun or the feds will be at your door. Fuckheads.

 

[orogenicman]

Why would you not want high risk families and individuals to be checked on? It only applies to those eligible and enrolled in the ‘Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program’ and are in the high risk category. If you are not eligible and enrolled, nor in the high risk category, it doesn't apply to you. The intention of the program is to improve outcomes for American’s most vulnerable children and families, not to invade one's privacy, or infringe on someone's rights.

It's bullshit. People should not be on that list simply for currently or formerly serving their country. We don't need nanny government coming into our homes to tell us how to live our lives.

Government fucks up nearly everything it does and they think they can take the reins of peoples' lives? Incredible.

Some dimwitted bureaucrat will sit in judgment of whether people are living their lives the right way and they'll step in when they see something they don't like. Military tend to vote Republican. Gun owners tend to be Republican. Funny those will be on the list.

Meanwhile, the same people fought against drug testing for welfare recipients. So, do your drugs and that's cool, just don't serve your country in the military or legally buy a gun or the feds will be at your door. Fuckheads.

Well none of that is correct. Military personnel are not on any "list", and neither is anyone else. There is no "list".

 

[Plasmaball]

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,
“This is not a“voluntary”program.

42 USC § 711 - Maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs

the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary

oh...so the OP is lying again? who knew

 

[Intense]

I want the state to abide by the constitutional protections that are in place (i.e. follow the rule of LAW) which requires that it possess a warrant or imminent probable cause sufficient to satisfy a court before forcibly entering a persons home. The existence of what the state arbitrarily deems "high risk" children does not in any way or in any case excuse it from being bound by both the natural rights of the citizenry and explicit constitutional protections of those rights. Your argument presupposes that the states power is unconstrained as long as it can rationalize some justification for itself, that's what is commonly referred to as the rule of MAN and the United States jettisoned that idea when our founders kicked King George to the curb.

He presupposes that the State, with Democrats in charge, can't do anything wrong, and without their consent and blessing, you can't do anything right. He presupposes that anything the State imagines or claims, must be valid, and no further litmus test is necessary. He presupposes that the Individual , unsupervised, must be guilty of something, while the State, unsupervised, is just benevolent, and incapable of being unjust, you know.... Fantasy Island......[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x_QbVDlLbI]Fantasy Island TV Show Opening Theme Season One 1978 - YouTube[/ame]

Strawman argument.

You presuppose what is convenient for you, ignoring reality, and arguing false premise. I'm sure it all fits in your head, but, try to just imagine for a second, all of the things you have to ignore, to have balance. Let me try to run something by you, just for some foundation.... Imagine a Government that existed by the consent of the Governed, for the benefit of the Governed. Imagine limits on power, checks and balances, and continual review of the process, to insure right action. No construct is of greater value than it's purpose for being. One exists to serve the other, we are on opposite sides of the equation, here, that is evident. You have no Right to substitute your moral values or lack of moral values, for me or any other, without consent. Majority makes Might, that too often Wrongly translates to Majority makes Right, which is clearly, too often, not the case. What may more accurately be measured here, is effective Salesmanship, Programing, Manipulation, focused on a special interest, with out any regard for where the position stands in the spectrum of truth. I want what I want when I want it, and my side is in charge, so guess what. What we end up every time is compound damage with unintended consequences, because of lack of foresight.

I'll tell you what I want. I want Value for Value, without being cheated or abused. Every action has a reaction. Get out of the way, and let things play out and work out on their own, without meddling. Either when something is broken, you have a fix, or you don't. If you don't, let someone else take a shot. Government is not God, and clearly faces the consequences of every misstep, just like the rest of us. Government, at best, is a steward, at worse, a lousy imitator at playing Divinity. Consider a Tax Bill, a Health Care Bill, less than 1000 pages, then try for 100 pages. The last thing we need here besides you being our eyes, is your approval.

 

[NightFox]

Actually I already pointed out that the questionable morality of a state which sets such conditions on a services which itself deems beneficial and necessary. I'm not sure what you fail to grasp with that especially when the case in point revolves largely around citizens with limited economic means.

To simplify things for you one might propose a scenario in which the state offers food to a starving man on condition that the starving man voluntarily forgo his right to the freedom of speech.

Would you rather that the government force feed the starving man?

Now that you have completed your descent into the absolutely ludicrous do you feel better? In a world where the state was moral the starving man would be offered food without strings attached, I would have thought that would have been self-evident but apparently I set my expectations WAY too high.

Your argument assumes that it is morally unjustifiable to protect our children from demonstrable harm, and that makes your argument, morally unjustifiable, not a voluntary government program that actually would actually protect children.

Once again your confusion forces you to attempt to make my argument into something that it is not instead of attempting to rebut the actual argument I have already made. The immoral act is the state attaching strings to what it deems beneficial and necessary services and as an additional slap in the face targeting this behavior directly at the poor. Unfortunately I cannot spell that out any clearer for you but I expect that will in no way deter you from attempting to misrepresent it as you have repeatedly attempted to do throughout this discussion. A bit advice, take a step back, reconsider your reasoning and attempt to formulate an actual argument based on sound logic and whatever principles you deem worthy of consideration.

 

[Plasmaball]

Why would you not want high risk families and individuals to be checked on? It only applies to those eligible and enrolled in the ‘Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program’ and are in the high risk category. If you are not eligible and enrolled, nor in the high risk category, it doesn't apply to you. The intention of the program is to improve outcomes for American’s most vulnerable children and families, not to invade one's privacy, or infringe on someone's rights.

It's bullshit. People should not be on that list simply for currently or formerly serving their country. We don't need nanny government coming into our homes to tell us how to live our lives.

Government fucks up nearly everything it does and they think they can take the reins of peoples' lives? Incredible.

Some dimwitted bureaucrat will sit in judgment of whether people are living their lives the right way and they'll step in when they see something they don't like. Military tend to vote Republican. Gun owners tend to be Republican. Funny those will be on the list.

Meanwhile, the same people fought against drug testing for welfare recipients. So, do your drugs and that's cool, just don't serve your country in the military or legally buy a gun or the feds will be at your door. Fuckheads.

how did you become so fucking retarded? No thats a serious question.

Nobody is forcing you to do shit.

 

[bravoactual]

Some lives on a steady diet of Hannity, Beckie, Limbaug and Fox News.

You really believe every lie your told

 

[DarkLion]

What I find amazing here is the double standard. It's like the same Left that cannot find anything right about the Patriot Act, can't find anything wrong with this. Astounding.

It's who implemented it of course. The left hates the Patriot Act because it's Bush's bill, and the right hates this because it's Obama's. Whether or not people care about something all depends on who is in the White House at the time. Change the drapes, and they change their tune.

The oligarchy's stranglehold on the political and legislative process is nearly complete

 

[NightFox]

What I find amazing here is the double standard. It's like the same Left that cannot find anything right about the Patriot Act, can't find anything wrong with this. Astounding.

It's who implemented it of course. The left hates the Patriot Act because it's Bush's bill, and the right hates this because it's Obama's. Whether or not people care about something all depends on who is in the White House at the time. Change the drapes, and they change their tune.

The oligarchy's stranglehold on the political and legislative process is nearly complete

..and then of course there's some of us that hate both because they represent egregious violations of the liberty of the citizenry and immoral expansion of state authority.

"Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the first and greatest lesson in the study of politics: You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things FOR you carries with it the equivalent power to do things TO you." -- Albert Jay Nock

 

[francoHFW]

And then there's knowledgeable people who know Pubs are scumbag con men. We've fixed and are fixing the Patriot Act and now we're fixing the BS Pub scam of a health system.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Absolute total lies and fear mongering BS, for hater dupes only. Voluntary help for high risk pregnancies. Ay caramba, maybe we'll have lower infant mortality than India and Guatemalla in the future. What a bunch of greedy Pub a-holes and silly chumps...