Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Obamacare provision: Forced Home Inspections (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Obamacare provision: Forced Home Inspections
Faith
Moderator

Posts: 5582
From:
Registered: Jul 2011

posted August 15, 2013 04:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

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

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.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

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.


Read more here

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 31982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 15, 2013 04:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The next stage will be jack-booted thugs. I thought Obama was on the left side of the spectrum--not a fascist.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 7784
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 15, 2013 06:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

I did read more there, and it's moronic.

quote:
It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools...

Oh no, the government wants to ensure your child has at least a rudimentary education! This is a crisis!

quote:
...or taking certain medications and vaccines...

So that the children might actually be healthy. Once again, sound the alarm. This is BS!

quote:
...and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents.

As described in the actual linked to provision: 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.
https://grants3.hrsa.gov/2010/Web2External/Interface/FundingCycle/ExternalView.aspx?&fCycleID=9E7EA909-4562-4FBE-86DA-D5F383C3ACFB&ViewMode=EU&GoBack=&PrintMode=&OnlineAvailability Flag=True&pageNumber=1

Which I'm sure is no different than child protective services is already doing.

quote:
The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

I think it's technically been set for quite some time, and the minimum standards are that a child should be compelled to be basically educated, the child should get proper vaccinations, the child should have healthcare availability, and the child should not be subject to routine neglect and abuse. I don't see why anyone anywhere within the political spectrum should take issue with that.

quote:
A manual called Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention includes firearms as potential safety hazard and will require inspectors to verify safety compliance and record each inspection into a database.

Once again, you'll forgive me if I'm not flabbergasted at the thought.

Faith's article ends with a video of a state politician running a bill by some unknown person that would seek to circumvent these "forced" home inspections. The video does very little to legitimize the claim. The person he's speaking with agrees with him about the forced home inspections, but if this were such an issue you'd have all kinds of videos from all kinds of state and even Federal Congress about this issue.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 7784
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 15, 2013 07:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
RAGE AGAINST THE MAROON
4:45 pm August 15, 2013

Stupidest Man On The Internet Warns Obamacare Storm Troopers Will Come For Your Children

by Doktor Zoom

Never mind the Death Panels, did you know that Obamacare has a secret provision that will allow forced home inspections? Well of course it does! Stupidest Man on the Internet Jim Hoft warns:

    Here come the home raids…
    A new provision in Obamacare will allow government forces to carry out forced home inspections.

Golly, that sounds serious! Hide your kids, hide your wife, the Obamacare Home Invasion Task Force is coming to force feed you some arugula!

Hoft breathlessly quotes a post from Freedom Outpost:

    According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

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

  • 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.

    There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

Of course, just as a plan for Medicare to reimburse “end of life counseling” got turned into “death panels,” this is also 100% pure bullsht — the link to the HHS Website is actually for a grant program for “Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting.” States can apply for funds to improve home health service outreach for children whose homes fit the defined categories. There’s nothing in there about raids, warrantless searches, seizing your guns, or strapping you down to drink the kool-aid.

On the other hand, Jim Hoft’s website has a photograph of a SWAT team breaking down a door, so who are you going to believe? http://wonkette.com/525829/stupidest-man-on-the-internet-warns-obamacare-storm-troopers-will-come-for-your-children

I think this editorial is head and shoulders more factual than the one Faith posted.

IP: Logged

mockingbird
Knowflake

Posts: 2101
From:
Registered: Dec 2011

posted August 15, 2013 08:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mockingbird     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
But muh guns and muh babies!*

Thanks for doing the leg work, AG.


*I actually do have children and a .223.

------------------
If I've included this sig, it's because I'm posting from a mobile device.
Please excuse all outrageous typos and confusing auto-corrects.

IP: Logged

mockingbird
Knowflake

Posts: 2101
From:
Registered: Dec 2011

posted August 15, 2013 08:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mockingbird     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Double post.
------------------
If I've included this sig, it's because I'm posting from a mobile device.
Please excuse all outrageous typos and confusing auto-corrects.

IP: Logged

mockingbird
Knowflake

Posts: 2101
From:
Registered: Dec 2011

posted August 15, 2013 09:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mockingbird     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Faith:
Read more here

^ The above being said, I'm glad that you (and others) are looking out for abuses of power.
Our government works best (or, you know, at all) with watchful citizens.

------------------
If I've included this sig, it's because I'm posting from a mobile device.
Please excuse all outrageous typos and confusing auto-corrects.

IP: Logged

Dee
Moderator

Posts: 2641
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 15, 2013 11:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dee     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Parental Rights

http://www.parentalrights.org/

IP: Logged

Faith
Moderator

Posts: 5582
From:
Registered: Jul 2011

posted August 16, 2013 07:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AcousticGod:

I think this editorial is head and shoulders more factual than the one Faith posted.


You went to the government website that spells out the program, AG, and you still think my article isn't factual?

Edited to add:

quote:
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: 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."

https://grants3.hrsa.gov/2010/Web2External/Interface/FundingCycle/ExternalView.aspx?&fCycleID=9E7EA909-4562-4FBE-86DA-D5F383C3ACFB&ViewMode=EU&GoBack=&PrintMode=&OnlineAvailability Flag=True&pageNumber=1

quote:
Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Which I'm sure is no different than child protective services is already doing.

Targeting houses because someone is pregnant under age 21, or because someone smokes, or because they were in the Armed Forces...that sounds familiar to you? Child Protective Services already does that, "you're sure"?

IP: Logged

Faith
Moderator

Posts: 5582
From:
Registered: Jul 2011

posted August 16, 2013 07:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
The next stage will be jack-booted thugs. I thought Obama was on the left side of the spectrum--not a fascist.

I had actually wondered whether or not social services will be militarized for these interventions. I don't see why not.

IP: Logged

Faith
Moderator

Posts: 5582
From:
Registered: Jul 2011

posted August 16, 2013 10:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.

quote:
Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I think it's technically been set for quite some time, and the minimum standards are that a child should be compelled to be basically educated, the child should get proper vaccinations, the child should have healthcare availability, and the child should not be subject to routine neglect and abuse. I don't see why anyone anywhere within the political spectrum should take issue with that.

So all parents need to have the government visiting their homes to make sure they are doing a good job, that's your position?

Why just parents?

Don't you want the government coming into your house and making sure you are in full compliance with the law in every particular?

Do you have a sticker on your car that says:

I BIG BROTHER

?

IP: Logged

shura
Knowflake

Posts: 764
From:
Registered: Jun 2009

posted August 16, 2013 12:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shura     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
I think it's technically been set for quite some time, and the minimum standards are that a child should be compelled to be basically educated, the child should get proper vaccinations, the child should have healthcare availability, and the child should not be subject to routine neglect and abuse. I don't see why anyone anywhere within the political spectrum should take issue with that.

Vaccinations are not presently mandated, even for those children subjected to our abusive, poorly run public school system. Homeschooling is legal in every state. Why should a citzen be investigated by the government if they have not violated the government's laws?


quote:
Oh no, the government wants to ensure your child has at least a rudimentary education! This is a crisis ...or taking certain medications and vaccines...

So that the children might actually be healthy. Once again, sound the alarm. This is BS!


AG, the government's infinite wisdom and my own are often at odds. I homeschool my soon to be seven year old. He has never been vaccinated. (sorry, no guns. yet) What should we do about that? Does my scenario raise any red flags for you? Does the situation warrant a visit from my friendly neighborhood government inspection team?

Let's differentiate between neglect (I'm not feeding my child), abuse (I'm beating my child), and opposing parental styles - ie mine don't answer to Big Pharm lobbyists.
This is a clear invasion of privacy. A simple case of enforced homogenization - a my way or the highway mentality. Step outside the line, so much as THINK outside the line and you are an officially branded 'suspect' Is that type of fascist society acceptable?

IP: Logged

shura
Knowflake

Posts: 764
From:
Registered: Jun 2009

posted August 16, 2013 12:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shura     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
So all parents need to have the government visiting their homes to make sure they are doing a good job, that's your position?

Yes, where do we draw the line? If a child is being fed gmo junk food, should the parents be inspected? We want healthy kids, right? What about upteenth hours spent playing video games? Or the ones who spend the better part of their young lives in daycare, yk the ones who call their "childcare providers" mom. Is that ok? How about ten year old girls allowed (encouraged!) to dress like cheap strippers? shiit, we're going to need whole lot of inspection teams.

quote:
Why just parents?

Don't you want to government coming into your house and making sure you are in full compliance with the law in every particular?


This is a fair question. Tell us about your lifestyle, AG. Ever done anything questionable?

Very seriously, the government feels the need to interfere with parental rights supposedly for the sake of the child. It's an easy sell to the general population. Save the children! Save the innocent children!! And who has authority over the child? The government or the parent? At what point do we cross the line (or have we already) where the government takes authority over my private life? I live in a state where raw milk sales are illegal but unlabelled gmo corn is ok. I'm sitting here trying to wrap my mind around that. Why is the government making these decisions for me? How many more personal decisions should the government be allowed to make?

quote:
Do you have a sticker on your car that says:

I BIG BROTHER


Ag is an intelligent, knowledgeable man. No question about that. Problem is (if you don't mind, ag ) he has absolutely no ability to think like a power hungry evil son of a biitch.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 7784
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 16, 2013 01:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
You went to the government website that spells out the program, AG, and you still think my article isn't factual?

It's very obviously selective, and creates a distorted version of the truth.

quote:
Targeting houses because someone is pregnant under age 21, or because someone smokes, or because they were in the Armed Forces...that sounds familiar to you? Child Protective Services already does that, "you're sure"?

When some of that "targeting" actually comes to fruition and government abuses are documented, you get back to me.

quote:
So all parents need to have the government visiting their homes to make sure they are doing a good job, that's your position?

Why do you choose to use such poor logic? No. Obviously most homes won't be visited even if there are children growing up in those homes.

quote:
Don't you want to government coming into your house and making sure you are in full compliance with the law in every particular?

I live with an attorney. Have I not mentioned that?

quote:
Do you have a sticker on your car that says:
I BIG BROTHER

If I did it would either be intended to reference the tv show, or be sarcastic.

quote:
Vaccinations are not presently mandated, even for those children subjected to our abusive, poorly run public school system.

Wow! Well, that's a shame. I can't imagine why not.

quote:
AG, the government's infinite wisdom and my own are often at odds. I homeschool my soon to be seven year old. He has never been vaccinated. (sorry, no guns. yet) What should we do about that? Does my scenario raise any red flags for you?

I can understand your wisdom being at odds with the government's. That's often the case with lots of people.

Your kid not being vaccinated is an issue, I'm afraid. If you'd like me to post stuff about that I can, but I'm certain you're well able to research the topic on your own.

quote:
Does the situation warrant a visit from my friendly neighborhood government inspection team?

I wouldn't suspect that you'll ever get on the government's radar. Perhaps if your kid does contract one of those diseases, then you could possibly get on their radar.

quote:
This is a clear invasion of privacy.

The verdict is still out on that. Public safety can override privacy.

quote:
Step outside the line, so much as THINK outside the line and you are an officially branded 'suspect' Is that the type of fascist society acceptable?

I don't think this part of "Obama"care amounts to that. Difference of opinion.

quote:
shiit, we're going to need whole lot of inspection teams.

Indeed, you would, which is why this won't be a widespread practice.

quote:
This is a fair question. Tell us about your lifestyle, AG. Ever done anything questionable?

Me? No never! I did, upon moving this year, get two speeding tickets in just a couple months time. Completely safe situations, but what can you do?

quote:
supposedly for the sake of the child.

"Supposedly" or "actually"? I mean, I'm certain that your views are that children shouldn't suffer unnecessarily. If any of those children were to be helped, would you take issue with that? Oh no, a kid from the projects will never contract meningococcal meningitis now. What a terrible blight upon his life to have been saved. Now he'll never know brain damage or lose an extremity.

quote:
At what point do we cross the line (or have we already) where the government takes authority over my private life?

I think that will always be up for debate, but I think we can all count on existing in a nation with laws for the foreseeable future, so government will always have a certain amount of authority. I wonder if the seat belt debate was as heated. There will always be some people petitioning the government to save more lives, while there are also another group petitioning the government to stay out of the business of interfering in the name of safety.

quote:
I live in a state where raw milk sales are illegal but unlabelled gmo corn is ok. I'm sitting here trying to wrap my mind around that. Why is the government making these decisions for me?

I agree. A lot of people are upset about things like that, and I'm sure Monsanto will eventually end up on the losing side of this battle.

quote:
Problem is (if you don't mind, ag ) he has absolutely no ability to think like a power hungry evil son of a biitch.

This is true.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 7784
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 16, 2013 01:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I did search to see if any of the fact checking entities had tackled this article. They haven't yet, so I emailed Politifact, and we should be hearing something any day now:

It's great to be able to outsource a response. Takes "me" out of the equation. They usually get experts to comment and the whole bit, which I'm not sure I have the time to do.

IP: Logged

Faith
Moderator

Posts: 5582
From:
Registered: Jul 2011

posted August 16, 2013 03:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Why do you choose to use such poor logic? No. Obviously most homes won't be visited even if there are children growing up in those homes.

It's logical. If I assume you have any consistency in your philosophy, and if you are okay with targeting parents who are not doing anything illegal, then logically it should be honky dorey for the government to come YOUR house as well to inspect whatever they want. Heck, maybe your vacuum filter is broken and you are polluting the air for your pets! That could be cruelty! You might need to be ticketed and brought into line!

It's called boiling the frog: they begin a program with limited parameters and then expand more and more.

What makes NO difference is whether or not your wife is a lawyer.

IP: Logged

Faith
Moderator

Posts: 5582
From:
Registered: Jul 2011

posted August 16, 2013 03:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by shura:
Yes, where do we draw the line? If a child is being fed gmo junk food, should the parents be inspected? We want healthy kids, right? What about upteenth hours spent playing video games? Or the ones who spend the better part of their young lives in daycare, yk the ones who call their "childcare providers" mom. Is that ok? How about ten year old girls allowed (encouraged!) to dress like cheap strippers? shiit, we're going to need whole lot of inspection teams.

Exactly.

For my part, I'd like to know why the parents of vaccine-damaged children don't come under scrutiny in these new programs?

"Did your child have a fever prior to the immunization, and yet you neglected to take her temperature?" Or are they only going to draw the line when it won't offend the Big Business Congress is in bed with, like the food industry ("Oh I see your cupboard is full of Nabisco snack foods. Oh well, it's FDA approved, so you pass!") or Big Pharma or Big Agra. As you said, GMO is cool but you can get a SWAT team kicking down your door over raw milk.

And what's the remedy the government has to offer in these interventions? Maybe they can help a little, but you look at foster care and see how many children are neglected in those homes, sometimes killed while in foster care. Or you look at other government programs and how badly they fail. To me, it shows an overall, system-wide lack of respect for children's actual needs.

I have little patience AG's happy wonderland ideas about "we can relax now, the government is taking over everything. "

Oh yeah, sorry to be mean, this just makes me all indignant.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 31982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 16, 2013 03:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The mere fact that they are allowed to do so is the problem--not whether they will or not--or whether they have the manpower to do so. Selective enforcement will be used to harass people.

There is no federal law requiring vaccines. You can exempt them in the military also if you object in writing when you first sign up. And Americans can travel abroad with no vaccines...but be prepared to show them the law, because a lot of people are ignorant about it. All vaccine laws are at the state level, but there are exemptions, because requiring that dangerous substances be injecting against one's will is a huge liability, but you can volunteer to do so; never mind the fact that you think it's required.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 7784
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 16, 2013 04:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
It's logical.

It's not. I'm pretty good at spotting logic, and that was not it.

quote:
If I assume you have any consistency in your philosophy, and if you are okay with targeting parents who are not doing anything illegal,

You're still using the term "targeting". I disagree with your assessment.

    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.

It's not a mandate that States have a home visitation program, and the expectation is that some States have a "modest" program.

    Successful applicants will sufficiently demonstrate the capacity to expand or enhance their evidence-based home visiting programs.

A State would have to apply for this funding in order to enhance their programs that are already evidence-based (If we had to infer what "evidence" means in this case, I would venture a guess that there's an existing reasonable suspicion of irresponsible parenting). That doesn't sound remotely like the "forced" home inspection of presumed innocent parents you or your article made this out to be.

quote:
It's called boiling the frog: they begin a program with limited parameters and then expand more and more.

It's called BS or shenanigans by those that are rational. Even with the next line of text from the Health & Human Services website, it doesn't amount to a program that's being institutionally expanded in the manner you're talking about. (That line is: "The funding provided will build on the formula funding already provided to States and territories to support the quality implementation of home visiting programs.") Why doesn't this amount to "boiling the frog"? Because it's not mandated. It's voluntary on the State's part. Even so, the description goes on to say, "Additionally, this funding opportunity will continue the program's emphasis on rigorous research by grounding the proposed work in relevant empirical literature, and by including requirements to evaluate work proposed under this grant."

quote:
What makes NO difference is whether or not your wife is a lawyer.

It doesn't make a difference that a lawyer follow the law. Interesting premise. Good news for Randall if he tries to circumvent any of the laws he doesn't like.

quote:
I have little patience AG's happy wonderland ideas about "we can relax now, the government is taking over everything.

Wait. Which one of us understands the material here again?

quote:
Selective enforcement will be used to harass people.

Speculation...and there is no Federal "enforcement" of a voluntary exercise pursued by States.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 31982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 16, 2013 04:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's not circumvention if the exceptions are written into the law. Selective enforcement is common with the IRS. They admit to it. They choose one or more groups each year to target. It's not too big of a stretch to think other agencies will do the same.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 7784
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 16, 2013 04:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It is too big of a stretch to think a State that doesn't have this kind of program, which didn't apply for this grant, would be forced by the Federal government to "harass" people. It's an even greater stretch when the grant insists on "including requirements to evaluate work proposed under this grant."

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 31982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 16, 2013 04:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Often, states are more oppressive than the feds.

IP: Logged

Faith
Moderator

Posts: 5582
From:
Registered: Jul 2011

posted August 16, 2013 05:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
AG,

1) You toot your own horn about following logic, but I will just have to delicately differ with you.

2) For example, your logic seems to be that since your wife is a lawyer, she will not break the law, therefore she will not be subjected to any home inspections.

You two are going to have children, hopefully? What if the scope of home inspections expands to include criteria that you two meet, such as, if one parent is over 40, the state must ensure that the parent is healthy so that they are capable of meeting all the needs of a child? Because maybe, who knows, there is a statistic linking people who are over 40 with morbid obesity. So the state might have to come check you out!

3) "Why doesn't this amount to 'boiling the frog'? Because it's not mandated. It's voluntary on the State's part. "

This shows you have no idea what boiling the frog means. The frogs are the citizens whose choices are restricted, not the states.

And in order for the "boiling the frog" principle to work, a new law WILL NOT blare its horn saying that it is likely to be expanded upon in the future. They get their foot in the door (literally, in this case) and then expand.

4) The word "targeting" reflects the way people who resent warrantless home inspections regard said inspections. So it is a perfectly apt carrier of the sentiments of those who use that word in this context.

5) Why do I bother talking to you?

I don't understand myself sometimes, it's like I'm trying to talk sense to someone who doesn't even speak my language whatsoever.


IP: Logged

Faith
Moderator

Posts: 5582
From:
Registered: Jul 2011

posted August 16, 2013 06:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
edit

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 7784
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 16, 2013 09:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My wife isn't the subject of the conversation. I only bring her up to say that we are pretty lawful people, much as a suspect of everyone here.

The rest of your post is the same as you've been expressing: an overly cynical opinion that modest State programs are going to morph into some oppressive, currently illegal system of warrantless invasions. There's no rationale whatsoever for such an extreme view.

IP: Logged


This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2013

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a