This time the left can’t say, “That’s not in the bill!”
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.
By “eligible families” they presumably mean eligible for premium subsidies, and that covers a whole lot of people. As for the categories offered here, it seems just about everyone would fit into at least one of them, yes?
Why do you need to get a visit from someone connected to ObamaCare because of your child’s grades? Tobacco use? Not wise, but not against the law, so why do they need to come and see you about it? Interactions with child welfare services? A serious matter, but what exactly is the reason the federal government wants you to get a visit in connection with ObamaCare?
You realize what this is, right? Once the government (or “society” as liberals are fond of saying these days) is responsible for subsidizing your health care, they’ve got an inherent interest in your lifestyle. They’ve got a financial stake. If you were just paying the bills yourself, it would affect no one but you. But now that we’ve got a system of third-party payers mandated and subsidized by the government, it’s no longer just your business if you smoke or, I guess, if your kid gets poor grades.
You will get a visit!
Many of us warned of this sort of thing during the original debates. It’s bad enough that an insurance company gets to question you about this stuff, but when someone backed by the force of law can knock on your door and demand to know why you smoke . . . now do you see why Ted Cruz talked all those hours?
UPDATE: Some on the left are responding to this by a) claiming the visits are “voluntary”; and b) passing around a Snopes link that claims the story is false. The response to both A and B is the same. The Snopes piece emphasizes that the home visits are not “forced,” and that is true, which technically makes it “voluntary” in the sense that you don’t have to let them in. But that is misleading and beside the point.
It is not “voluntary” in the sense that you call up the government and say, “Hey, I can’t quit smoking, is there someone the government can send over?” They reach out to you and seek to arrange a visit. You don’t have to agree, but once the government has flagged your home as an issue worthy of a home visit, what happens after you refuse the visit? These are the people who are subsidizing your insurance, and they’ve just told you they need to speak with you. Yeah, sure, that’s “voluntary.”
It’s a great example of how politicians use words to make things sound very different from what they really are.
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com
A new edition of Dan’s book “Powers and Principalities” is now available in hard copy and e-book editions. Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement