Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The President Called a liar during speech.

The President Called a liar during speech. (Page 3)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 06:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by stumblinmike View Post
You're starting to sound pretty roguish yourself.
tilsibmlmskppbblllttt
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 06:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Yeah, funnily enough if Wilson had been booing I would have had much less of a problem with it. There is a line there where it gets accusatory and over-the-top disrespectful. So Congressman Wilson -- next time stick to booing! Trust me!
The line seems to shift. It used to be that booing and shouting "NO!" during a Presidential address was bad form until the Democrats crossed that line and apparently made that acceptable during the Bush years.

While I think Wilson's outburst (and booing and outbursts in general) are bad form, I really am more concerned by the fact that the President seems to continue to lie blatantly to the American people about what he wants, what he will do, and how it will work. I think that some really have their priorities messed up when someone's outburst takes up a day of discussion and there seems to be hardly any outrage over actual attempted wrongdoing.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 06:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by auto_immune View Post
Death Panels already exist - they are called insurance companies:

1)you live to be really old (if you are lucky)
2)you get sick with aggressive cancer or any other serious illness
that is very expensive to treat
3)scumbag insurance beancounter denies coverage
4)YOU DIE!

*and......you do not actually have to be old for this happen to you.
True, to a point. But:

A. In order to get costs down (the stated goal of reform), the government would have to be even more unmerciful than insurance companies when deciding what it will and won't pay for. The "end of life" counseling is something the government has put into place to encourage people to just die instead of wanting to live via expensive medical procedures. Old people are the most expensive element of the health care system.

B. When this turns to "single payer", you won't have an option to find an insurance company that seems to give the best terms. Our insurance plan and company at work changed the past year because the employees where vocal about quality/cost and the employer had incentive to keep employees happy and turn-over low. I'm pretty sure if a handful of citizens wanted changes made to government-run healthcare that would take away power from the government and likely cause an increase in taxes, there would be no similar, easy response. At this point, insurance companies still are "market based" and have to compete.

This puts too much power in government hands to decide who gets to live and die and isn't the same as the situation now with insurance companies.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 07:39 AM
 
How come they haven't dealt with the "Waste and Corruption" before? It's not like politicians are unfamiliar with it or wouldn't know where to find it. Seems like YET ANOTHER 0BAMA LIE.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 08:06 AM
 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I really am more concerned by the fact that the President seems to continue to lie blatantly to the American people about what he wants, what he will do, and how it will work.
That line also seems to shift. It used to be that a President lying was unacceptable until Bush crossed that line and started a war based on the argument that Iraq ready to launch WMDs at any moment only to discover no evidence of any WMDs of any significance.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The line seems to shift. It used to be that booing and shouting "NO!" during a Presidential address was bad form until the Democrats crossed that line and apparently made that acceptable during the Bush years.

While I think Wilson's outburst (and booing and outbursts in general) are bad form, I really am more concerned by the fact that the President seems to continue to lie blatantly to the American people about what he wants, what he will do, and how it will work. I think that some really have their priorities messed up when someone's outburst takes up a day of discussion and there seems to be hardly any outrage over actual attempted wrongdoing.
Yes, well, if we all agreed that Obama was lying then obviously we would feel that is more important than Wilson's outburst. But we don't all agree. On the other hand, we can all agree, at least, that Wilson had an outburst.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
All I know is that:

A. The President says that the healthcare bill should take care of X number of people in the US without healthcare, and that number includes illegal aliens.
For those who are obsessed with illegal aliens, every number includes them. The uninsured. The homeless. The poor. And the hungry. It's as if they believe that if every single person whose heritage originates south of the border disappeared tomorrow all of the country's "ills" would magically go away. In any event, common sense would dictate that the uninsured would "include" illegal aliens. The question is how many? Certainly not the majority. I have family members who work the the healthcare field who don't have health insurance. I daresay that the vast majority of people in this forum knows someone who is definitely a citizen who doesn't have health insurance. So again ... to throw out the baby with the bath water because some illegal alien MIGHT game the system and obtain coverage is pretty silly considering the vastly larger number of actual citizens who will be helped by this legislation.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
B. I still can't see any requirement for testing eligibility for anything besides the already existing programs.
And do we really need YET ANOTHER set of government standards? Again, if anyone who is applying for a subsidy in the Health Insurance Exchange must also apply for Medicaid ... and Medicaid already has comprehensive verification requirements for proof of citizenship ... why reinvent the wheel?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The President wants these illegals to get insurance, and the bill doesn't seem to really do anything to stop it from what I can see. I'm suggesting that this is BY DESIGN, not on accident. How would YOU get one of the really big Democrat priorities (free healthcare for even illegals) into law knowing that there would be a backlash if you outright said that illegals would be able to get it? You'd simply SAY that they were ineligible, then really do nothing to enforce eligibility. It doesn't take rocket science to put two and two together.
So now you have mind reading skills when it comes to the President and all Democrats huh? He specifically states that the program does not cover illegal aliens but you just know better. Without any proof to the contrary of your fundamental premise ... let alone the issue at hand with HR 3200.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
That's exactly my argument. Without explicitly stating it, you are creating a loophole -
Well then I would suggest that instead of calling the President of the United States a liar in a joint address to Congress on national TV ... the better approach would be to ask about the so-called "loophole". Instead of conservatives running around claiming that the legislation would cover illegal aliens despite the fact that the language outright prohibits that .... the better approach would be to calmly state that the verification requirements for proof of citizenship need to be beefed up otherwise the legislation might create a loophole.

Then again, they can continue acting a zip damned fool in town hall meetings and joint sessions of Congress.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No. Not when it isn't required, nor is it desired by the administration. Obama wants to cover all people in the US without coverage, which includes illegals. Do you really think the agency administering the program is going to make waves and require documentation that isn't actually a legal requirement when it's clear that those in power have no desire to have that put into place, since the Republicans specifically requested this type of "explicit" language and it was taken out?
Yeah I do think they will make waves. Because it is a legal requirement. I've already listed the verbiage in the legislation that makes it so. The Commissioner of the program is also specifically charged with enforcing the legislation's provisions. All of them. Why would this one particular provision will be ignored and all the others enforced? Oh yeah ... I forgot about that mind reading ability you have.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 10:30 AM
 
Turns out that Rep. Wilson has had to apologize for some "intemperate remarks" previously ...

Flashback to mid-December 2003, when Essie Mae Washington-Williams came forward with the bombshell that she was the illegitimate daughter of the recently-deceased patriarch of South Carolina politics, Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Rep. Wilson, a former page of Thurmond's, immediately told The State newspaper that he didn't believe Williams. He deemed the revelation "unseemly." And he added that even if she was telling the truth, she should have kept the inconvenient facts to herself:

"It's a smear on the image that [Thurmond] has as a person of high integrity who has been so loyal to the people of South Carolina," Wilson said.

Of course, Williams' story was entirely true -- and never really in doubt. Thurmond was 22 and Williams' mother, a black maid working in his family home, was 16 when Williams was born in 1925. Thurmond supported Williams financially for decades.

The State story continued with Wilson wondering aloud how anyone could dare "diminish" one of his personal heroes.

Six days and several furious letters to the editor later, Wilson was forced to apologize. But, amazingly, he maintained that Williams should not have gone public.
Flashback: Rep. Wilson Also Had To Apologize After Attacking Strom Thurmond's Illegitimate Daughter | LiveWire

And yet again .....

GOP Rep. Joe Wilson’s scream of “you lie” at the president yesterday turned him into an instant national celebrity for some and a useful symbol of Republican hostility and intransigence for others.

But it turns out it’s not the first time he’s gotten, shall we say, a bit carried away.

In September of 2002, The Washington Post reported that Wilson flipped out during a debate on C-SPAN with Dem Rep. Bob Filner of California, shouting at him and ranting about his “hatred of America.” From Nexis:

Filner, who opposes unilateral U.S. military action, suggested that in the 1980s, when U.S. officials sided with Iraq in its war against Iran, Saddam Hussein obtained biological and chemical weapons technology from the United States. “We gave it to him,” Filner asserted.

“That is wrong. That’s made up,” Wilson fired back. “I can’t believe you would say something like that.”

When Filner calmly held his ground, advising Wilson to read newspaper reports and other documentation, the Republican erupted: “This hatred of America by some people is just outrageous. And you need to get over that.”

As moderator Connie Brod sat by helplessly, Filner challenged: “Hatred of America? … Are you accusing me?”

“Yes!” Wilson shouted. For good measure, over the next minute Wilson accused Filner of harboring “hatred of America” four more times, of being “hateful” three times and of being “viscerally anti-American” once.
Flashback: Wilson Shouted At Dem Opponent, Ranted About His “Hatred Of America” — On Live TV! | The Plum Line

A black woman reveals that the late Sen. Strom Thurmond was her father (something that was an "open secret" for decades) ... but Rep. Wilson considered it a "smear" even though it was true. A Democratic Congressman states that the US (during the Reagan administration) sided with Irag during the Iran-Iraq war and gave Saddam Hussein the WMDs that the Bush administration was so "concerned" about ... but Rep. Wilson says "That's made up." even though it was true. He then goes on to claim that the Democratic Congressman "hated America". And now Rep. Wilson shouts "You lie!" to President Obama when he stated that the legislation does not provide subsidies to illegal aliens even though it was true.

Anybody detecting a pattern here?

OAW
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 10:45 AM
 
I guess we should be thankful that the Honorable Representative didn't call the President the "N" word...
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 11:04 AM
 
Oh this is getting even better! Looks like Rep. Wilson is a bit of a hypocrite as well ....

Poor Joe Wilson. The conservative Republican representative from South Carolina stepped in it Wednesday night when he broke with centuries of decorum by screaming, "You lie!" at President Obama during his health-care speech to a joint session of Congress.

Cut the man some slack. He's passionate! I know this because he told me, in the sole message that blazes across his campaign Web site: JOE WILSON IS PASSIONATE ABOUT STOPPING GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!

Except that he's not─at least not when it comes to his, and his family's, government-run health care. As a retired Army National Guard colonel, Wilson gets a lot of benefits (one of which, apparently, was not a full appreciation of the customs, traditions, and courtesies that mandate respect for one's commander in chief). And with four sons in the armed services, the entire Wilson brood has enjoyed multiple generations of free military medical coverage, known as TRICARE.

Yes, it's true. As politicos and town-hall criers debate the finer points of the public option, employer mandates, coverage for undocumented immigrants, and who's more Hitler-like, they seem to miss a larger point: the United States has single-payer health care. It covers 9.5 million active-duty servicemen and women, military retirees, and their dependents─including almost a 10th of all Californians and Floridians, and nearly a quarter of a million residents of Wilson's home state.

Military beneficiaries like Wilson─who, as a retiree, is eligible for lifetime coverage─never have to worry about an eye exam, a CT scan, a prolonged labor, or an open-heart surgery. They have access not only to the military's 133,500 uniformed health professionals, but cooperating private doctors as well─whose fees are paid by the Department of Defense. It's high-quality care, too: surveys from 2007 and 2008 list TRICARE among "the best health insurer(s) in the nation" by customer satisfaction. Yet Wilson insists government-run health care is a problem.
The Gaggle : Joe Wilson's Dirty Health-Care Secret

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 11:10 AM
 
Oh please, what kind of crappy source is that.

Military health benefits and the VA are ok, but far from high quality care.

I have disabled veterans in the family, and I know first hand how bad government health care can be. Don't believe the hype.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 11:25 AM
 
The point is that he has "government health care" and utilizes it for himself and his family ... but routinely opposes it for everybody else. If he could demonstrate that he consistently forgoes his "government health care" and pays for private insurance coverage out of pocket then I will rescind my charge of hypocrisy against him. Barring that ... it stands.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The point is that he has "government health care" and utilizes it for himself and his family ... but routinely opposes it for everybody else. If he could demonstrate that he consistently forgoes his "government health care" and pays for private insurance coverage out of pocket then I will rescind my charge of hypocrisy against him. Barring that ... it stands.
What hypocrisy ?
WTF are you talking about ?

You are confused. You equate opposition to Obama Care (which is government health care for EVERYONE) with government health care for (former) government employees.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 11:58 AM
 
Actually you are the one who is confused.

1. Did you even read the post to which you are objecting? It clearly states that Rep. Wilson opposes "government run healthcare". It made no distinctions.

2. "Obamacare" as you derisively call it does not cover everyone. The legislation specifically states that only those who are without health insurance are eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange. And the "public option" would be just one of many plans offered on the Health Insurance Exchange. Those with Medicaid, Medicare, Employer Health Insurance, or Individual Health Insurance are simply not eligible. So how does that equate to "government health care for EVERYONE"?



OAW
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
That line also seems to shift. It used to be that a President lying was unacceptable until Bush crossed that line and started a war based on the argument that Iraq ready to launch WMDs at any moment only to discover no evidence of any WMDs of any significance.
Actually, there was plenty of evidence, however most of it turned out to be circumstantial. In fact, pretty much all the evidence points to all the people in positions of power in security leadership around the world being pretty sure they did have WMD.

Being horribly wrong, and "lying" are two different things. If you are looking to when lying became acceptable, you don't have to limit your quest to as recent times as Bush. Bill Clinton lied under oath in a court of law, and I don't even remember him apologizing for it. I do remember him making excuses for it though.
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Actually you are the one who is confused.

1. Did you even read the post to which you are objecting? It clearly states that Rep. Wilson opposes "government run healthcare". It made no distinctions.

2. "Obamacare" as you derisively call it does not cover everyone. The legislation specifically states that only those who are without health insurance are eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange. And the "public option" would be just one of many plans offered on the Health Insurance Exchange. Those with Medicaid, Medicare, Employer Health Insurance, or Individual Health Insurance are simply not eligible. So how does that equate to "government health care for EVERYONE"?



OAW
Hey, for a turtle, he's pretty sharp.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
For those who are obsessed with illegal aliens, every number includes them. The uninsured. The homeless. The poor. And the hungry. It's as if they believe that if every single person whose heritage originates south of the border disappeared tomorrow all of the country's "ills" would magically go away.
False..and a pretty desperate rebuttal, IMO.

Obama often quotes the number of uninsured in the United States at around 45 million. I can provide you quotes if you really want to rebut that, btw. The problem is that there ARE NOT that many uninsured in the United States UNLESS you count the approximately 10 million who are here illegally.

In any event, common sense would dictate that the uninsured would "include" illegal aliens. The question is how many? Certainly not the majority. I have family members who work the the healthcare field who don't have health insurance.
About 10 million. A HUGE chunk.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthi...235_table6.pdf

And do we really need YET ANOTHER set of government standards? Again, if anyone who is applying for a subsidy in the Health Insurance Exchange must also apply for Medicaid ... and Medicaid already has comprehensive verification requirements for proof of citizenship ... why reinvent the wheel?
I see no requirement to apply for Medicaid. As I stated before, the language simply says that the states have to enter into an MOU for both the EPHP and their Medicaid plans. It doesn't state that the same standards have to be used for both and it doesn't appear that they are saying that the EPHP's have to be administered by the state medicaid program or that those applying for a subsidy in the Health Insurance Exchange must also apply for medicaid and qualify. If you've got the language that says that, feel free to post that.


So now you have mind reading skills when it comes to the President and all Democrats huh? He specifically states that the program does not cover illegal aliens but you just know better. Without any proof to the contrary of your fundamental premise ... let alone the issue at hand with HR 3200.
I presented my evidence.

A. The President has already stated that he wants to provide insurance for illegal aliens by continually including them in the totals he says he wants covered.

B. Despite there being a technical prohibition, there are no safeguards or policies in place to ensure that those who do not qualify based on their citizenship are not able to take advantage of subsidies.

C. When Republicans objected to point B., and included language which would have ensured safeguards, it was removed by the Democrats.

I don't need mind reading in order to see that the Democrats want illegals covered, and have made efforts which will specifically allow them to take advantage of taxpayer funds despite not technically being qualified.

Well then I would suggest that instead of calling the President of the United States a liar in a joint address to Congress on national TV ... the better approach would be to ask about the so-called "loophole".
I've already said that the outburst was unnecessary, and there's no reason to ask about a loophole that the President is sure to already know exists. A President who has made it quite clear that HIS GOAL is to insure ALL the people in the US who have no insurance, including the illegals.

Yeah I do think they will make waves. Because it is a legal requirement.
So you think that people who have already violated the "legal requirements" in regards to being in the country will have qualms about violating the "legal requirements" for getting free health care when there is no requirement for checking eligibility in the law? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. The law has been set up KNOWING that the illegals will ignore the technical prohibition and apply and receive the health care anyways.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
What hypocrisy ?
WTF are you talking about ?

You are confused. You equate opposition to Obama Care (which is government health care for EVERYONE) with government health care for (former) government employees.

-t
Just more desperate rebuttals, IMO.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
False..and a pretty desperate rebuttal, IMO.

Obama often quotes the number of uninsured in the United States at around 45 million. I can provide you quotes if you really want to rebut that, btw. The problem is that there ARE NOT that many uninsured in the United States UNLESS you count the approximately 10 million who are here illegally.
Let's say for the sake of discussion that I accept your figure. You still have 35 million citizens who are uninsured. That is over a 3 to 1 ratio of citizens to illegal aliens. But you will throw out the baby with the bath water and deny help to 3 citizens to prevent 1 illegal alien who might ... I repeat ... MIGHT game the system.

And you guys wonder why you got tossed out of office?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I see no requirement to apply for Medicaid. As I stated before, the language simply says that the states have to enter into an MOU for both the EPHP and their Medicaid plans. It doesn't state that the same standards have to be used for both and it doesn't appear that they are saying that the EPHP's have to be administered by the state medicaid program or that those applying for a subsidy in the Health Insurance Exchange must also apply for medicaid and qualify. If you've got the language that says that, feel free to post that.
I already did.

There is a “Medicaid screen and enroll obligation” that would require states to enroll non-traditional Medicaid-eligible individuals (childless adults) in Medicaid if they apply for coverage in the Exchange and are found to be Medicaid eligible

See my previous post for the link.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I presented my evidence.

A. The President has already stated that he wants to provide insurance for illegal aliens by continually including them in the totals he says he wants covered.
So given this statement if the President said that he wanted to provide insurance for only 35 million uninsured you would have no objection to his plan right? Now why is it that I seriously doubt that?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So you think that people who have already violated the "legal requirements" in regards to being in the country will have qualms about violating the "legal requirements" for getting free health care when there is no requirement for checking eligibility in the law? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. The law has been set up KNOWING that the illegals will ignore the technical prohibition and apply and receive the health care anyways.
I was actually speaking about the agency that would administer the program. Something that was made quite clear in my previous post. But somehow your illegal alien obsession interfered with your reading comprehension abilities.

OAW
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
For whatever reason, a collective boo from the left side of the chamber for Bush Jr. is acceptable just as it was acceptable to hold a Congressional Hearing when Bush Sr. spoke in a public school, but some rogue parents and a rogue Senator who can't stand this Administrations' BS anymore breach etiquette... well... that's just unAmerican!
Don't you know it's against House Rules to call the President a 'liar' or 'hypocrite' while he is giving a speech to congress.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
So given this statement if the President said that he wanted to provide insurance for only 35 million uninsured you would have no objection to his plan right? Now why is it that I seriously doubt that?
Because he's already voiced other objections than just the illegal immigrant one?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
TailsToo
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Westside Island
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
A. In order to get costs down (the stated goal of reform), the government would have to be even more unmerciful than insurance companies when deciding what it will and won't pay for. The "end of life" counseling is something the government has put into place to encourage people to just die instead of wanting to live via expensive medical procedures.
And Obama is going to have to power our new eco-friendly cars by filling them up with ground up puppies and kittens.

Where is your support for your "even more unmerciful than insurance companies" claim? This is total nonsense. Nothing but fear mongering. Just because you might be afraid of government health care, don't start making up stories with no basis in reality. If you have facts, then state them, but say that the government "will have to" is wrong.

My mother was sick with leukemia, and days before she was to undergo a bone marrow transplant that could have saved her life, United Heath Care decided that the cost of the procedure was too much based on the low probability of success, and told the hospital that they would not pay for it. It took days to get them to finally agree to pay, but if we hadn't raised hell, they would have been glad to let my mother die and add more profits to their bottom line.

If my choice is trust my well-being with a large corporation out to do nothing more than increase revenue and cut costs, or with the government, I'll take my chances with the government. At least I know that if they screw things up, it's not so that their CEO can make a larger bonus.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 05:47 PM
 
Is anyone concerned that HR3200 will give the Health Choices Commissioner (and state agencies) access to our SS and IRS info?

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data - Taking Liberties - CBS News
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
     
TheWOAT
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 07:23 PM
 
Illegal immigrants get free health care through emergency rooms... I dont believe either side is proposing to change that, so to me its a moot point.

That Wilson guy seems like a D-bag.

I am concerned of the billions that would be used to setup the bureaucracy.
.......
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Anybody detecting a pattern here?
OAW
Yeah, when the details and facts aren't effective enough, demonize the opposition with enormous stretches of logic.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Don't you know it's against House Rules to call the President a 'liar' or 'hypocrite' while he is giving a speech to congress.
I don't excuse the Senator for the emotional outburst because he's correct. I'm just reiterating he's correct.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by TailsToo View Post
And Obama is going to have to power our new eco-friendly cars by filling them up with ground up puppies and kittens.
Will that work? When this Administration fires up the printing presses, we're going to need some real cheap alternative sources and quick.

Where is your support for your "even more unmerciful than insurance companies" claim? This is total nonsense. Nothing but fear mongering. Just because you might be afraid of government health care, don't start making up stories with no basis in reality. If you have facts, then state them, but say that the government "will have to" is wrong.
What, is the precedent of every system of this proposed kind having to ration care not enough evidence for you that you would claim he's "making up stories"? Do you really need someone to prove to you that getting whacked upside the head with a ball-peen hammer would hurt real bad?

My mother was sick with leukemia,
I'm sorry to hear that. My mother was sick with small cell lung cancer.

... and days before she was to undergo a bone marrow transplant that could have saved her life, United Heath Care decided that the cost of the procedure was too much based on the low probability of success, and told the hospital that they would not pay for it. It took days to get them to finally agree to pay, but if we hadn't raised hell, they would have been glad to let my mother die and add more profits to their bottom line.
Your mother's chances of surviving cancer are exponentially greater in the US than anywhere else on the globe under the current system. While my mother's initial prognosis was extremely bleak, she lived an additional 12 years with excellent care and a very good quality of life.

I'm glad the insurance company finally relented in your case. I couldn't possibly imagine a letter to your Senator being more effective. Maybe you could explain how the government would've been more responsive in this scenario?

If my choice is trust my well-being with a large corporation out to do nothing more than increase revenue and cut costs, or with the government, I'll take my chances with the government. At least I know that if they screw things up, it's not so that their CEO can make a larger bonus.
This is nothing more than an anti-capitalist rant. A company out to do nothing more than increase revenue and cut costs cannot afford to hemorrhage customers and dollars to save dollars. There's a balance and that balance must be acknowledged by wise legislation. In an environment not skewed by government regulations that have created State-by-State monopolies, you'll have the degree of competition necessary to mitigate much of the current health care woes without throwing our economic future in the crapper. I'll put my trust in the free market bolstered by the collective consumership of the entire country over an assembly-line government program founded on ignorant, and patently stilted compassion. How do I know the compassion is stilted? Because there are less contentious means of opening up the national market of over 1300 insurers through government reform to the uninsured tomorrow. The problem is an Administration hamstrung by political hand-wringing and special interest. I have a lot more faith in the free markets' desire to sustain the life's blood of their business than I do a government who "cares about me".
ebuddy
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 10:01 PM
 
dummies... you got to pick your fights... this isn't a logical fight... why do you defend this?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Being horribly wrong, and "lying" are two different things.
Lying and "wanting to be horribly wrong" aren't, though.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Is anyone concerned that HR3200 will give the Health Choices Commissioner (and state agencies) access to our SS and IRS info?

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data - Taking Liberties - CBS News
You mean to be eligible for "affordability credits" , the government would have to verify your income, SSN, and citizenship?

Joe Wilson and ebuddy says you are a LIAR!

According to ebuddy, the government will do no such thing as verifying your SSN, income, and citizenship to be eligible for "affordability credits"
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't excuse the Senator for the emotional outburst because he's correct. I'm just reiterating he's correct.
The public option does not cover illegal immigrants. So Joe Wilson is a liar.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
auto_immune
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by stumblinmike View Post
Why do you hate America????

     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The public option does not cover illegal immigrants. So Joe Wilson is a liar.
- The SAVE Program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) is an inter-governmental initiative designed to aid benefit-granting agencies in determining an applicant’s immigration status, and thereby ensure that only entitled applicants receive federal, state, or local public benefits and licenses.

Per the Center for Immigration Studies; Based on our analysis of Census Bureau data, we estimate that there are 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States who could be covered by the new health care reform bill (HR 3200). Even though HR 3200 states that illegal immigrants are not eligible for the proposed taxpayer-funded affordable premium credits, there is nothing in the bill to enforce this. An amendment was defeated in committee that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, used by almost all other means-tested programs of this kind.

Let's say you're not willing to accept the Center for Immigration Studies' notion, what about the Congressional Research Service? Per the CRS; “Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”

Of course, these have all been mentioned a billion times. The facts are as clear as they can possibly be. If you support Obamacare, you support it. You don't need to run from it. You don't need to split hairs over it. You don't need to excuse it. It is what it is. You're really doing your desire for a single-pay system a great deal of injustice by supporting it "by any means necessary" up to and including outright dishonesty.

Obama is lying. Joe Wilson is telling the truth.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You mean to be eligible for "affordability credits" , the government would have to verify your income, SSN, and citizenship? According to ebuddy, the government will do no such thing as verifying your SSN, income, and citizenship to be eligible for "affordability credits"
Per the bill, there is no provision for any of the above with the exception of income verification. The only safe-guard in place that could've ensured this entitlement would be denied illegal residents was an amendment to the bill to use SAVE and was struck down in committee.

The Health Choices Commissioner and the related State Agencies are not going to go digging around for information on undocumented, illegal residents. Where Chongo's concern is merited is that it will only disenfranchise legal residents in need of coverage. Those that are actually documented. Yayy! More incentive to dodge the immigration system.

Joe Wilson and ebuddy maintain that anyone who is so duped by rhetoric that they support this measure in spite of the facts against it are being willfully ignorant.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Joe Wilson and ebuddy maintain that anyone who is so duped by rhetoric that they support this measure in spite of the facts against it are being willfully ignorant.
Willful ignorance is not an uncommon state for people on both sides of the political fence.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Willful ignorance is not an uncommon state for people on both sides of the political fence.
This I grant you. Willful ignorance may be more or less apparent contingent upon the issue in question. The only way to combat genuine ignorance is information. The more information presented on this issue, the less popular it becomes.

This is when willful ignorance becomes most apparent.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2009, 01:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
- The SAVE Program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) is an inter-governmental initiative designed to aid benefit-granting agencies in determining an applicant’s immigration status, and thereby ensure that only entitled applicants receive federal, state, or local public benefits and licenses.

Per the Center for Immigration Studies; Based on our analysis of Census Bureau data, we estimate that there are 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States who could be covered by the new health care reform bill (HR 3200). Even though HR 3200 states that illegal immigrants are not eligible for the proposed taxpayer-funded affordable premium credits, there is nothing in the bill to enforce this. An amendment was defeated in committee that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, used by almost all other means-tested programs of this kind.

Let's say you're not willing to accept the Center for Immigration Studies' notion, what about the Congressional Research Service? Per the CRS; “Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”

Of course, these have all been mentioned a billion times. The facts are as clear as they can possibly be. If you support Obamacare, you support it. You don't need to run from it. You don't need to split hairs over it. You don't need to excuse it. It is what it is. You're really doing your desire for a single-pay system a great deal of injustice by supporting it "by any means necessary" up to and including outright dishonesty.

Obama is lying. Joe Wilson is telling the truth.
Good! I was hoping you brought it up again.

Give me the opportunity to clear up a few things.

I just want to point out the Health Insurance Exchange is NOT the same as 'affordability credits'.

Under the Bill:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

The healthcare reform does not insured illegal immigrants. Under the HR3200, government does NOT and will NOT insured illegal immigrants. However, illegal immigrants can BUY healthcare insurance through the health insurance exchange if they choose to do so.


It like saying only US citizens can qualify for Food Stamps, but income and citizenship verification is required.

However, anyone including undocumented immigrants can buy food in the US marketplace.

You are pissed because undocumented immigrants can buy food in the US marketplace even thought they don't qualify for food stamps?






Health Insurance Exchange - a marketplace for you to compare and shop for health insurance. Open to US citizens and non-citizens, legal or illegal


affordability credits - Government will help you pay for insurance but income verification is required. Your SSN and citizenship will be verify. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.





ebuddy, your willful ignorance about the HR3200 is quite apparent.

One last time. Health Insurance Exchange NOT THE SAME as affordability credits.

illegal immigrants are not eligible for the proposed taxpayer-funded affordable premium credits.

Illegal immigrants can BUY, with their own money, health insurance offered on the Health Insurance Exchange.

Taxpayers won't be paying for insurance for illegal immigrants! Government will NOT insure illegal immigrants.

NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2009, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Good! I was hoping you brought it up again.
ebuddy, your willful ignorance about the HR3200 is quite apparent.
the HR3200 huh? Nicely done hyteckit. I'm convinced you support a public option, but your post really didn't address anything I've mentioned.

One last time. Health Insurance Exchange NOT THE SAME as affordability credits.
Never said it was. I said there are safeguards used in over 71 similar means-tested programs like this one. It is called SAVE. It is used to ensure that benefits payouts do not go to illegal immigrants. Even though a bill might say "DON'T GO TO ILLEGALS", there is a safeguard to ensure they won't. That safeguard was struck down.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2009, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
the HR3200 huh? Nicely done hyteckit. I'm convinced you support a public option, but your post really didn't address anything I've mentioned.


Never said it was. I said there are safeguards used in over 71 similar means-tested programs like this one. It is called SAVE. It is used to ensure that benefits payouts do not go to illegal immigrants. Even though a bill might say "DON'T GO TO ILLEGALS", there is a safeguard to ensure they won't. That safeguard was struck down.
You are just regurgitated talking points without actually understanding them. You just keep quoting stuff you have not actually read.

You clearly didn't understood the difference between the Health Insurance Exchange and the affordability credits.

Affordability Credits is like Food Stamps, but instead of using it to buy food, you are using it to buy health insurance.

Illegal immigrants are NOT eligible for affordability credits.
However, illegal immigrants can BUY health insurance on the Health Insurance Exchange, a marketplace for you to compare health insurance.


You keep quoting Congressional Research Service's report on HR3200, as proof that HR 3200 will insured illegal immigrants, which it clearly states HR 3200 will NOT insured illegal immigrants because they are NOT qualified for Affordability Credits.



Here's the actual report:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/CRS..._on_HR3200.pdf


Exchange


Under H.R. 3200, a “Health Insurance Exchange” would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option. The Exchange would not be an insurer; it would provide eligible individuals and small businesses with access to insurers’ plans, including the public option, in a comparable way. Individuals would only be eligible to enroll in an Exchange plan if they were not enrolled in other acceptable coverage (for example, from an employer, Medicare and generally Medicaid).26 H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.

However, as discussed above, H.R. 3200 would only mandate that resident aliens would be required to have health insurance.

Credits


In 2013, under §241 of H.R. 3200, certain individuals would be eligible for premium credits (i.e., subsidies based on income) toward their required purchase of health insurance. Even when individuals have health insurance, they may be unable to afford the cost sharing (deductible and copayments) required to obtain health care. Under H.R. 3200, those eligible for premium credits would also be eligible for cost-sharing credits (i.e., subsidies). To be eligible for credits, individuals must have family income of less than 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL), among other requirements.

To be eligible for the credits under §242 of H.R. 3200, individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States, but generally not in the United States temporarily (i.e., nonimmigrants).29 Nonimmigrants—that is, foreign nationals who are admitted to the United States for a specified period of time and a specific purpose—are “lawfully present,” but most, with exceptions noted below, would be ineligible for the credits under H.R. 3200. The exceptions for nonimmigrants who could obtain credits under H.R. 3200 would be trafficking victims, crime victims, fiancées of U.S. citizens, and those who have had applications for legal permanent residence (LPR) status pending for three years; these individuals are likely to become LPRs (i.e., immigrants) and remain in the United States permanently. Furthermore, §246 would bar unauthorized aliens from receiving any premium or cost-sharing credit.

Notably, many categories of nonimmigrants in the United States who have work authorization (i.e., temporary workers) would meet the definition of a resident alien, and as a result would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance. Nonetheless, many of these aliens would be ineligible for the credits under the bill. For example, professional specialty workers (H-1B) are admitted to the United States for up to three years, and can stay for a maximum of six years. Thus, in general, these aliens would be considered resident aliens under the I.R.C. and would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance, but would be ineligible for the credits under the bill because they are nonimmigrants.

In addition, the credits are based on an individual’s eligibility, but many tax returns are filed jointly or with dependents. There could be instances where some family members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not. For example, in a family consisting of a U.S. citizen married to an unauthorized alien and a U.S. citizen child, the U.S. citizen spouse and child could meet the criteria for being a credit- eligible individual, while the unauthorized alien spouse would not meet the criteria. H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.

Some have expressed concerns that since H.R. 3200 does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status, the prohibitions on certain noncitizens (e.g, nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens) receiving the credits may not be enforced. However, others note that under §142(a)(3) of the bill, it is the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner) to administer the “individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.” Thus, it appears, absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits.

Income verification and citizen verification through the IRS and SSA (Social Security Administration). As mentioned in the last paragraph, the Health Choices Commissioner will be responsible to administer the verification of an individuals eligibility for affordability credits.

Many of the requirements and verification is set by the Social Security Act, will also apply to HR 3200.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2009, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You are just regurgitated talking points without actually understanding them. You just keep quoting stuff you have not actually read. You clearly didn't understood the difference between the Health Insurance Exchange and the affordability credits.
Ironically, this is the second time you've said this. Please indicate where I conflated or confused the two. Can't? Then let's move on. Otherwise, you're just regurgitating talking points because you're not paying to attention to what I'm telling you, or what the CRS is telling you, or what the CIS is telling you, and what just about any expert in the field will tell you.

Affordability Credits is like Food Stamps, but instead of using it to buy food, you are using it to buy health insurance.
Yes, of course this is all very clear and simple. Interesting you should use Food Stamps in your analogy as this is an example of where the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) safe-guard is used. Why? To prevent the issuance of benefits to ineligible immigrants. Of course food stamps are also not intended to go to illegal immigrants, but they do. SAVE is a measure to safe-guard against this problem. SAVE was struck down in committee. Address that please hyteckit. Can't? Then let's move on. Otherwise, you're just regurgitating talking point because you're not paying attention to what I'm telling you.

Illegal immigrants are NOT eligible for affordability credits.
Correct just as they are not eligible for food stamps.

However, illegal immigrants can BUY health insurance on the Health Insurance Exchange, a marketplace for you to compare health insurance.
Now you're catching on. They use the affordability credits they're not supposed to get because there is no safe-guard in place to ensure they don't get them unlike food stamps. Then they can pool this with the remainder of their tax-free income to BUY health insurance on the Health Insurance Exchange. If you don't like it when I repeat stuff, don't make it so evident that I need to.

You keep quoting Congressional Research Service's report on HR3200, as proof that HR 3200 will insured illegal immigrants, which it clearly states HR 3200 will NOT insured illegal immigrants because they are NOT qualified for Affordability Credits.
RIGHT. They're not qualified for food stamps either.


You quote the blasted thing and still don't see it;
"Thus, it appears, absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits."
It's funny how in a mere 8 months, your comfort and confidence in the Federal Government (particularly with regard to crony selection) has come so far.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2009, 11:40 PM
 
ebuddy,

Was SAVE ever included in any Medicare or Food Stamp reform/bill?

Or was it part of immigration reform and homeland security bills?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2009, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
ebuddy,
Was SAVE ever included in any Medicare or Food Stamp reform/bill?
Or was it part of immigration reform and homeland security bills?
It was a measure of immigration reform in 1986 that allows Federal, State, and local agencies access to a database for verification of an immigrant's status. It has been included in the language of a number of reform bills including SCHIP and Medicaid reform and is generally administered at the State level, most often for food stamps and other means-tested programs. Why? To ensure that benefits payouts for means-tested (i.e. income qualification) programs are not made to illegal immigrants. Here's an excellent article that explains in more detail;

DAN STEIN // STEIN REPORT 2000-2009® | Federation for American Immigration Reform

This report has been affirmed again, by the CRS, CIS, and just about any health care professional or study you can find. The only ones claiming that these payouts will not go to illegal immigrants are the ones sighting the language in the bill. This language, without an enforcement mechanism, means nothing just as it exists in a wealth of other means-tested Federal programs and means nothing.

Who is the Health Choices Commissioner? Was this measure ever part of a Medicare or Medicaid reform/bill?
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2009, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It was a measure of immigration reform in 1986 that allows Federal, State, and local agencies access to a database for verification of an immigrant's status. It has been included in the language of a number of reform bills including SCHIP and Medicaid reform and is generally administered at the State level, most often for food stamps and other means-tested programs. Why? To ensure that benefits payouts for means-tested (i.e. income qualification) programs are not made to illegal immigrants. Here's an excellent article that explains in more detail;

DAN STEIN // STEIN REPORT 2000-2009® | Federation for American Immigration Reform

This report has been affirmed again, by the CRS, CIS, and just about any health care professional or study you can find. The only ones claiming that these payouts will not go to illegal immigrants are the ones sighting the language in the bill. This language, without an enforcement mechanism, means nothing just as it exists in a wealth of other means-tested Federal programs and means nothing.

Who is the Health Choices Commissioner? Was this measure ever part of a Medicare or Medicaid reform/bill?
You keep insisting SAVE needs to be included in the HR3200 bill.

Was SAVE ever mentioned/included in any medicare/food stamps/welfare reform bill?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You keep insisting SAVE needs to be included in the HR3200 bill.
Because ensuring illegal immigrants do not get benefits payouts is what SAVE was designed for.

Was SAVE ever mentioned/included in any medicare/food stamps/welfare reform bill?
I already answered the question, you posted it above. SAVE has been included in the language of a great many State-by-State SCHIP and Medicaid initiatives as well as foodstamp programs.

Instead of asking the same already-answered questions over and over and over again, how about answering my question? Who is the Health Choices Commissioner? Was this administrator ever part of any Medicare or Medicaid reform/bill?
ebuddy
     
papworth
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: pantone 369 EC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Maybe he's watched too much British Parliament on C-SPAN.
Hmmm. If he has been watching parliament then he appears to not have been listening. Inside parliament MPs (members of parliament) are not allowed to call another member a liar. If they do, they have to leave (or are removed) for a period of time and then must apologise.

Of course, MPs are allowed to interrupt and make noises etc, just no accusations of lying - it helps to stop pointless, fiery, personal attacks within parliament. Outside it is fine(iThink), but still pretty serious.
firebook 12" rev A 1.25GB ram 120GB hd 10.4.11
MacBook Pro 15.4" 2.5 4GB ram 250GB hd 10.5.5
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 09:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You are confused. You equate opposition to Obama Care (which is government health care for EVERYONE) ...........

-t
Methinks it is you who is confused; you've obviously been buying into the lies fed to the sheep.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post

I already answered the question, you posted it above. SAVE has been included in the language of a great many State-by-State SCHIP and Medicaid initiatives as well as foodstamp programs.

Instead of asking the same already-answered questions over and over and over again, how about answering my question? Who is the Health Choices Commissioner? Was this administrator ever part of any Medicare or Medicaid reform/bill?
So it's not on any Federal Bill.

Case closed.

SAVE shouldn't be on a Federal Health Reform bill.

It is only being use as a delay tactic.

It's like Republicans put in the end of life counseling and then turn around and call it the death panel.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 11:53 AM
 
I was listening to local radio host this morning and a caller brought up a good point. NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, La Raza LULAC, and the other groups would be up in arms if abortions and illeg.. sorry, undocumented immigrants weren't covered by HR 3200 or whatever bill comes out. Have you heard a peep from these groups? No.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I was listening to local radio host this morning and a caller brought up a good point. NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, La Raza LULAC, and the other groups would be up in arms if abortions and illeg.. sorry, undocumented immigrants weren't covered by HR 3200 or whatever bill comes out. Have you heard a peep from these groups? No.
There you go; that settles it, then, doesn't it?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,