Affordable Care Act and Veterans

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
14,003
Location
CONUS
I saw this story on the Facebook page of another member here.

It appears that the Affordable Care Act sees military service as such a risk factor, that it warrants government home visits to recipients. Other factors that warrant visits? Child abuse. Drug use. Yep, that's exactly like serving honorably in the military! :thumbsup:

Here is the specific passage:

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

and the link.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, it's pretty offensive to me as a veteran.
 
What are the positives to such a program?

At best, this is insulting and at worst it is more sinister than that. With that said, what are the positives (if any) to this program? Otherwise, the groups you're lumped in with:

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.

Basically, if you're a Vet, then your family is "high-risk" according to this list.
 
That's how I'm reading it. If you ever served, in any capacity, whether you deployed or not, you're high-risk and the government can come into your home at any time to "make sure your children are safe."

Kind of reminds me of that DHS memo dust-up.
 
I am still trying to research things, because in this context, it appears to be pretty insulting. Apparently the government doesn't think Veterans that have deployed two or more times can raise children. But I am not going take a hard position just yet.

There is some good news though. In going to the VA's website, they state:

What is the Affordable Care Act?
The Affordable Care Act, also known as the health care law, was created to expand access to coverage, control health care costs and improve health care quality and care coordination. The health care law does not change VA health benefits or Veterans’ out-of-pocket costs.

So if you have benefits through the VA, you do not have to apply for the ACA, and therefore, you shouldn't be subject to home visitations. I am guessing this is also true if you have medical benefits through another insurance provider and are not part of the ACA. But again, I am still looking into this more.
 
It won't cost you any more money, but you have to completely give up your right to privacy to have it.

NSA stuff is bad, but it doesn't get much worse than the government physically intruding into your home.
 
So even with VA or private insurance, you are still subject to home visitations? The ACA just "expands" the insurance you already have? I'm not finding any specific answers for this yet.
 
Some more info from a PDF here for Missouri (as an example)

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
which included, among other critical provisions, $1.5 billion in mandatory funding over 5 years
for high quality, evidence-based, voluntary early childhood home visitation services. This
investment will significantly expand home visitation services, helping to ensure that more
children have the opportunity to grow up healthy, safe, ready to learn and able to become
productive members of society. In addition, the law requires all states, as a condition of
receiving existing Maternal and Child Health Services Block grant funds in FY 2011, to conduct
a statewide needs assessment to identify at-risk communities, and determine the capacity of
existing early childhood visitation programs, substance abuse treatment, and counseling services.
The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program is designed to: 1) strengthen
and improve the programs and activities carried out under the Maternal and Child Health
Services block grant, 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. At-risk communities will be identified by the statewide assessment.

...

Definition of At-Risk Communities.
 Premature birth;
According to the guidance of the home visiting needs
assessment, at-risk counties (communities) in Missouri were identified with concentrations of 11
areas specified in the guidance. These areas include
 Low-birth-weight infants;
 Infant mortality, including infant death due to neglect;
 Poverty;
 Crime;
 Domestic violence;
 High rates of high-school drop-outs;
 Substance abuse;
 Unemployment;
 Child maltreatment; and
 Other indicators of at risk prenatal, maternal, newborn, or child health.

...

The Missouri Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (ADA) is the state authority responsible for
developing and implementing a statewide response addressing substance abuse problems
impacting Missouri families and communities. Through collaborative efforts, ADA works with
other state and local agencies to ensure that the response is comprehensive and appropriate. The
Division provides programming for prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery
management of substance abuse disorders through a statewide network of community-based
service providers. The Division of ADA contracts with 44 treatment providers with a total of
239 service locations statewide. Annually, about 48,300 Missourians receive substance abuse
treatment through the ADA network. Funding for these treatment services is from Medicaid,
federal block grant, state general revenue, and other grants and funding sources. An estimated
14,500 Missourians receive substance abuse treatment outside of the ADA network of care.12
This would include services provided by private providers, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
the Department of Defense, and other governmental entities.
In total, an estimated 63,000
Missourians or about 14% of those who need treatment receive treatment (Table 32).

I am guessing the emphasized part is what their rationale is based on. The more I read, the more insulted I am getting.
 
Seems to me like they are trying to help veterans along with other minority populations.

I agree that they are trying to help, but it is being put forth in a very negative way. Why are Veterans considered "high risk"? The info I got from Missouri lays it out in a not so flattering manner, IMO. That may also be out of context, but it's the only thing I have found characterizing Veterans.
 
This is a program you have to volunteer for as far as I could tell. They aren't just going to come in your home. This adds to programs that already exist.

Here is Minnesota's for example.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/fh/mch/fhv/documents/MIECHVBenchmarkPlan.pdf
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/fh/mch/fhv/miechv.html

Seems to me like they are trying to help veterans along with other minority populations.

What part is voluntary? Receiving the funds, or having people come visit the home? It seems to me that if you want the $$, you have to allow the intrusive visits.

And it still doesn't explain why being a vet = high risk.
 
Normally when it says eligible, I read "voluntary". In order to be eligible you normally have to apply.
 
Normally when it says eligible, I read "voluntary". In order to be eligible you normally have to apply.

I agree with you, but when you lump Vets in with those groups though, who is going to apply? This is an area where the Mil should look out for its own. No matter the intent, placing Vets and their families in with the others on that list guarantees few will take advantage of any positives involved.
 
Define deployment; exercise? contingency? HCA? If true, the wording has a wide interpretation.
Again if true, the object is to deny 2A rights to vets by saying they have mental issues and can not own weapons.
 
Do not be alarmed, there is no conspiracy.... go back in your homes until the 'health' workers visit... there is no cause for alarm, "citizens", everything not compulsory is forbidden, everything not forbidden is compulsory.... do not read anything into that outdated and stale document formerly known as the Constitution, "The Administration" knows better and will keep you all safe as long as you follow the rules.... We will mitigate the detrimental effects of all service to protect the former thought processes before the New Constitution was made more fair for every citizen by medically monitoring all stressed current and former military members unless they pledge allegiance to "The Administration"....

Very scary shit, to me.
 
Let's see... Guns, explosives training, multiple deployments, single parent... I'm pretty sure mine will be one of the first doors knocked upon if this is as dicked up as it looks upon my initial reading of this.





If I show up asking to crash in your barn, whether you own one or not, then you'll know for sure.
 
Back
Top