The latest Obamacare scare is home visits. Stories made the rounds over the gummint sending employees to your homes for home visits. JJ found the proposed rule and posted it below. The government created the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Competitive Grant program and provided it with $1 billion grant for five years. The federal government awards the grants to the states. The government gave $1,769,606 to the Mississippi Department of Health and Human Services in 2012 (List of awards) The states obtain the funding and then administer the home visits.
The program's website states:
The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs.
The statutory purposes of the program are to (1) strengthen and improve the programs and activities carried out under Title V of the Social Security Act; (2) improve coordination of services for at-risk communities; and (3) identify and provide comprehensive services to improve outcomes for families who reside in at-risk communities.
MIECHV includes grants to states...
MIECHV is an evidence-based policy initiative and the authorizing legislation requires that at least 75 percent of grant funds be spent on programs to implement evidence-based home visiting models. Currently, thirteen home visiting models meet the HHS criteria and up to 75 percent of an eligible entities’ grant funds may be used to conduct a home visiting program using the approved model. Website
The controversy is two-fold. One is the idea of government-mandated home visits by social workers. Two is the list of groups given priority:
As directed in the legislation2, 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.”
The last group drew no small amount of attention as conservative websites protested over the inclusion of rural and military families. We are attempting to learn more about the Mississippi program so consider this post to be a starting point. I'm going to say one thing some people want to hear and I say this as a hard-nosed conservative. There are some families that need this help. Families with twenty-something year old grandmothers. Families where the mom is twelve and has no clue, no idea, no anything about how to care for a child. Cycle upon cycle. We've discussed that subject before on this website and the radio show. However, I am throwing that out there as a devil's advocate point of view.
Here is a a different perspective on the issue after Florida rejected the funds last year.Funding cycle link
22 comments:
During the last census, I had 'home visits' three times from gubment employees. I had refused to complete the secondary survey form they sent me. I ran their ass off all three times.
I didn't immediately see anything that made the home visits mandatory. Such a mandate would seem to violate the Fourth Amendment right of the people to "be secure in their ... houses". What am I missing?
That is why I am reading the rule and posting it here. I will probably know more after talking to DHS.
I got those visits and calls AFTER I filled everything out, sent it in, and THEN sent it in over the phone. Was ridiculous. I finally told the last one off and they didn't call back.
Low student achievement?
So the schools are gonna start naming names? How is that legal? And what the hell does education have to do with freaking healthcare?
Since when does fourth amendment (or any amendment) restriction give this administration pause?
Does Dees really believe the 4th ammendment right of being secure in our home extends to government employees coming onto our property to collect information?
Well, here is a piece of information we do NOT know.
Does the family receiving the home visit apply for federal funds via medicaid or other programs. If so, then the feds can place conditions on said aid. Now if the feds are mandating the states carry out these home visits and are providing the funding, different story as I see several issues. However, placing strings on grants, well, don' t have to accept the money.
HOwever, we do not know if that is the case here and that is what i am trying to find out.
Will be funny when they force their way into Anderson's house. Remember what he tells us. It isn't socialism.
This is no different than the way it's always been. If you are receiving government assistance, a government employee can come to your home to see if you are still eligible or to see if you are using the free services/goods offered as intended rather than selling them to others.
You don't want the government, then don't seek government aid.
There are people living in poverty in the US who don't know how to take care of themselves much less their children. You can leave them in ignorance or teach them to set an alarm clock and tell time or learn to make healthy meals and buy food economically etc.
You can't complain about welfare abuse and/or dependent people and then also complain about programs that check on eligibility and trying to foster independence.
No one is making these people avail themselves of the help and admit a government employee.
This is much ado about nothing and playing to the knee jerk crowd.
My guess is, if you sign up for benefits, you agree to home visits. Move along - nothing to see here.
If 'its no different' then why was it proposed in a bill, why was it passed by congress, why was Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. given a government contract to research how to do this, etc.
“The program enables eligible entities to utilize what is known about effective home visiting services to provide evidence-based programs to promote: improvements in prenatal, maternal and newborn health; child health and development including prevention of child injuries and maltreatment and improvements in cognitive, language, social-emotional, and physical development; parenting skills; school readiness; reductions in crime or domestic violence; improvements in family economic self-sufficiency; and improvements in the coordination and referrals for other community resources and supports”
“….the Secretary will develop alternative evidence-based criteria for identifying home visiting models likely to improve outcomes for families in Tribal communities”
“For example, families may self-select into groups (deciding whether they want services or not) or an administrator may assign families to groups based on family risk factors.”
You have a choice, but not really...
well, no problem, Daddy Government is now coming to your home
Where the kids going to go when Daddy Government decides they don't like someone in the home.
And since the government will be coming to the house to 'protect' the children, lets not forget about the teenagers and what they are taught in college
“President Barack Obama today unveiled an ambitious new plan for the federal government to create a national rating system that will define what a good college is and financially reward or punish colleges depending on how they rank in the government’s system. He said he intends to have the rating system in placed by 2015 and intends to work with Congress to enact legislation tying federal aid to colleges based on how they perform in the federal government’s rating system.”
"Will be funny when they force their way into Anderson's house. Remember what he tells us. It isn't socialism."
I keep wondering, is there some newsworthy person named "Anderson" worth discussing, or is this just referring to me instead?
Anyway, I have an autistic child, so I'd imagine we might get a home visit. It might even be from someone with something useful to tell us. I doubt there are many parents of autistic children who don't have their ears open for any help they can get.
Here is the statute, which contains the magical language,
each State shall, as a condition of receiving payments from an allotment for the State under section 502 ...
But as for coercing families, each state must provide
Assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that—
(A) the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary; and
(B) services are provided to an eligible family in accordance with the individual assessment for that family.
Has it been suggested that there are people 'out there' who don't know how to set an alarm clock or care for themselves who need instruction as to how to wipe their ass and get through the day? Liberalism is alive and well.
This program was intended for the Department of Health - but here in Mississippi, Jill Dent grabbed it and the grant is at DHS. I hear it's way short of its goals. Will be interesting to see what sort of made up mumbojumbo she throws out when the Kingfish comes calling.
She, of Barbour-Dent fame?
2:18 pm et.al.
Do you really not understand that separate programs require separate funding and thus separate legislation?
What is it about eligibility verification and program participation that you don't get?
I was simply pointing out this isn't about government intrusion into your home. Don't take taxpayer money and you don't have to prove you need it.
Are you really so obtuse that you don't get that life is about choices? You don't get to go to a restaurant that requires a jacket if you don't wear a jacket. That's NOT an infringement on your rights. That's a choice you make. You sign covenants in a neighborhood, you give up the right to do whatever the hell you want on your property. Do you see THAT as a infringement of rights?
Yeah, we have citizens who don't know how to wipe their ass.
We have citizens who crazy.
We have citizens who are severely handicapped.
So , pray tell, what do you want to do with them?
You are apparently against teaching them to wipe their ass or help them out. If they've not learned how or can't, do you expect some miracle to happen? That they suddenly discover on their own how to use toilet tissue or get healed by magic?
Do you think we should be like third world countries and have squatter villages and beggars on the street?
We could do forced labor, I suppose. Do you want to be forced to hire or use people who are incompetent on your job?
Let's see, you are probably against birth control and abortion and sex education, so it's fine with you that those who can't take care of themselves to have a half dozen children who have no one to teach them how to take care of themselves.
Successful people tend to have few children. Poor people have the most children. Used to be having children was a crap shoot. Do you see the math trend and have a notion now of why the average IQ in this country has dropped?
Or is it your false hope you can force smart,successful women to breed more as they once had to do?
That horse left the barn.
So...let's hear your idea for dealing with those who can't care for themselves!
I think the bigger question is how do we decide who can or can't care for themselves? I don't think even the most conservative among us would turn a blind eye to the ones who are truly needy. In fact, we do more to help the poor than any other group, including the liberal elite. Some welfare recipients are obviously in need of our help, but they're not the ones eating up the public funds. One single mom works two jobs and gets by on food stamps while another doesn't work at all and is in for the full meal government deal - ADC, Medicaid, housing assistance, food stamps, you name it. This has always been a question of who needs taxpayer help, not whether we should provide it.
@4:24 - if you mean Marsha, yes.
Name a country where charity has taken care of those in need?
The assumption by too many is that few are in need and they judge books by their covers when they are out and about.
Fraud in the welfare programs is overwhelming attributed to those who are supposed to be serving the needy.
Welfare Queens just aren't common. Those who steal checks and stamps from the needy are more common, but it's really the services and caretakers who are running cons that waste taxpayer dollars.
Show me a slum lord and I'll show you a conservative. Show me someone who gouges the poor with extreme interest rates so a piece of junk ends up costing more than the best, and I'll show you a conservative.
And, frankly, in this town, you know who they are.
Welfare dependency can become a problem. No question about it, but those things that would help, like sex education and birth control at taxpayer expense as a condition are a " no " from the extreme right.
Post a Comment