[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are not answering the question.

My Vet know it's a dog. He's the one doing to operation on the dog. Oh course he knows it's a dog.

So you say that the vet is going to knowingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, request payment for services rendered that he knows he's not eligible to receive just by doing the procedure in question? I believe that's known as "fraud" and will land him in jail. The fact that it's highly likely that the doctor will go to jail if he does what you suggest IS a safeguard and a deterrent.

On the other hand, there's no similar "beyond a reasonable doubt" that can be proved if a doctor provides services to an illegal alien that they aren't required to actually see citizenship documentation on. You can't tell that someone is here illegally just by looking at them, therefore there is no deterrent for a doctor not to treat them and gain financially.

Your analogy fails.

My Vet knows it's a dog. The government doesn't.

A vet is only licensed to perform on animals. The government won't output payments to vets because animals are not citizens. You can tell a doctor is a vet by the little initials that come after their name - it's a pretty easy way to determine if a healthcare provider is treating humans. If a vet tries, they likely would be engaging in fraud and would end up in jail which is a huge deterrent and safeguard.

Seriously...you're going to have to do better.

[ebuddy]

Obama lied. Folks, it's not even debatable. I've addressed the enforcement mechanism used in numerous other means-tested programs and satisfied the spirit of HR3200s intent to cover illegal immigrants, but have you ever wondered why the Latino community is not more vocal about such a hard-line "we aren't going to cover any illegals" speak?

“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else..." “... If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.” ~ Obama

Folks, can you honestly tell me he's not simply saying we're going to solve the illegal immigrant health care coverage problem by amnesty? C'mon folks. The only thing transparent about this Admin is its BS. Face it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Obama

“That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else..."

Let's dissect this:

The following people will "have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan":

• "folks who are here legally"
• "everybody else..."

Am I missing something ?
Wouldn't illegal immigrants fall under "everybody else", just as a matter of logic in this sentence ?

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you say that the vet is going to knowingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, request payment for services rendered that he knows he's not eligible to receive just by doing the procedure in question? I believe that's known as "fraud" and will land him in jail. The fact that it's highly likely that the doctor will go to jail if he does what you suggest IS a safeguard and a deterrent.

On the other hand, there's no similar "beyond a reasonable doubt" that can be proved if a doctor provides services to an illegal alien that they aren't required to actually see citizenship documentation on. You can't tell that someone is here illegally just by looking at them, therefore there is no deterrent for a doctor not to treat them and gain financially.

Your analogy fails.



A vet is only licensed to perform on animals. The government won't output payments to vets because animals are not citizens. You can tell a doctor is a vet by the little initials that come after their name - it's a pretty easy way to determine if a healthcare provider is treating humans. If a vet tries, they likely would be engaging in fraud and would end up in jail which is a huge deterrent and safeguard.

Seriously...you're going to have to do better.

I'm pretty sure my pets are covered because there are no safeguards to determine if my dog is a US citizen.

In the HR 3200, it states veterinarians are included:

In this section, the term ‘health workforce’ includes all health care providers with direct patient care and support responsibilities, including physicians, nurses, physician assistants, pharmacists, oral health professionals (as defined in section 749(f)), allied health professionals, mental and behavioral professionals, and public health professionals (including veterinarians engaged in public health practice).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you say that the vet is going to knowingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, request payment for services rendered that he knows he's not eligible to receive just by doing the procedure in question? I believe that's known as "fraud" and will land him in jail. The fact that it's highly likely that the doctor will go to jail if he does what you suggest IS a safeguard and a deterrent.

On the other hand, there's no similar "beyond a reasonable doubt" that can be proved if a doctor provides services to an illegal alien that they aren't required to actually see citizenship documentation on. You can't tell that someone is here illegally just by looking at them, therefore there is no deterrent for a doctor not to treat them and gain financially.

I don't know. If the same-sex marriage slippery slope is going to eventually lead to marriages with animals, we may start to see increasing reasonable doubt about the citizenship status of animals.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't know. If the same-sex marriage slippery slope is going to eventually lead to marriages with animals, we may start to see increasing reasonable doubt about the citizenship status of animals.

You bring up a very good point.

We all know that Pres. Obama is going to legalize all illegal immigrants.
Next Pres. Obama will legalize same-sex marriage.
From there, it's a slippery slope to human-pet marriage and US citizenship for animals.

[hyteckit]

Conservatives believe Pets will be covered under HR 3200 bill. From freerepublic to liberty.edu.

http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/at...ama_072909.pdf

Sec. 340M, Pg. 899 - The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians. Will animals have heath care too?

Just google:

"Will animals have heath care" HR3200 - Google Search

Yes, you have to misspell healthcare as "heath care".

I don't blame freerepublic and liberty.edu for not knowing how to spell "health care"

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You bring up a very good point.

We all know that Pres. Obama is going to legalize all illegal immigrants.
Next Pres. Obama will legalize same-sex marriage.
From there, it's a slippery slope to human-pet marriage and US citizenship for animals.

Who said anything about legalize? It'll be "required*.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Who said anything about legalize? It'll be "required*.

As long as my pets will be covered under the HR 3200, I can deal with that.

But I will not be forced by Pres. Obama to have sex with my pet That's where I draw the line.

[turtle777]

hyteckit, do you think you're funny or witty ?

You're not. Your drivel is f***ing annoying.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

hyteckit, do you think you're funny or witty ?

You're not. Your drivel is f***ing annoying.

-t

I think it's pretty funny when two arguments get merged together and highlight just how foolish they can be.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think it's pretty funny when two arguments get merged together and highlight just how foolish they can be.

Funny ?

Yeah, in the beginning maybe. Now we're at

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think it's pretty funny when two arguments get merged together and highlight just how foolish they can be.

We should let illegal immigrants rule over us. Oh, but only if they're gay!

Oh-ho, I sure stuck it to those liberals right now. Because making fun of straw men is exactly the same thing as intelligent satire, apparently.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

We should let illegal immigrants rule over us. Oh, but only if they're gay!

Now you're being silly. They should be gay dogs!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Obama lied. Folks, it's not even debatable. I've addressed the enforcement mechanism used in numerous other means-tested programs and satisfied the spirit of HR3200s intent to cover illegal immigrants, but have you ever wondered why the Latino community is not more vocal about such a hard-line "we aren't going to cover any illegals" speak?

“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else..." “... If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.” ~ Obama

Folks, can you honestly tell me he's not simply saying we're going to solve the illegal immigrant health care coverage problem by amnesty? C'mon folks. The only thing transparent about this Admin is its BS. Face it.

Without SAVE being mentioned in the HR 3200 bill as a requirement, there's no way to determine whether the application for eligibility credits is either a US citizen, legal immigrant, illegal immigrant, or animal.

Ever wonder why PETA is not more vocal about the HR 3200 bill?

Folks, it's not even debatable. Animals will be covered by the HR 3200 bill. Veterinarians are even mentioned in the bill as part of the Public Health Workforce Corps.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

hyteckit, do you think you're funny or witty ?

You're not. Your drivel is f***ing annoying.

-t

Which part is annoying?

You mean the part about SAVE not being mentioned in the HR 3200 bill, so the government has no way of enforcing or determining whether the applicant is either a US citizen, legal immigrant, illegal immigrant, or animal?

Yes, turtles are even covered under the HR 3200, so you are in luck.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Without SAVE being mentioned in the HR 3200 bill as a requirement, there's no way to determine whether the application for eligibility credits is either a US citizen, legal immigrant, illegal immigrant, or animal.

Ever wonder why PETA is not more vocal about the HR 3200 bill?

Folks, it's not even debatable. Animals will be covered by the HR 3200 bill. Veterinarians are even mentioned in the bill as part of the Public Health Workforce Corps.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the PWL;

The above is exhibit A of Reductio ad absurdum bestia
When you can't argue the merits of your point, bring up animals. Once you've brought up animals, the handcymbal-clapping monkeys who agree with your meritless point will join in the choir of cacophony by including PETA, gay animals, and sex with gay animals.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the PWL;

The above is exhibit A of Reductio ad absurdum bestia
When you can't argue the merits of your point, bring up animals. Once you've brought up animals, the handcymbal-clapping monkeys who agree with your meritless point will join in the choir of cacophony by including PETA, gay animals, and sex with gay animals.

And, that's the point.

But, thanks for providing a term to describe this. I'll remember it for the next time there's a same sex debate and someone says that same-sex-marriage will create a slippery slope that will lead to humans marrying animals.

[Chuckit]

As far as I can recall, the only people who say that are morons and people trying to make it out like all social conservatives are exactly the same as those morons.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the PWL;

The above is exhibit A of Reductio ad absurdum bestia
When you can't argue the merits of your point, bring up animals. Once you've brought up animals, the handcymbal-clapping monkeys who agree with your meritless point will join in the choir of cacophony by including PETA, gay animals, and sex with gay animals.

What's the argument here?

Without SAVE mentioned in HR 3200, there no safeguard to determine if the applicant for eligibility credits is a US citizen, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrant?

Well, how would the government determine if the applicant is an animal without the safeguard SAVE?

If someone can help illegal immigrants apply for eligibility credits, I sure can help my dog apply for eligibility credits. Since no safeguard, both would be covered under the HR 3200.

[besson3c]

Did somebody say sex with gay animals?

[besson3c]

Wow, that really cleared the room.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What's the argument here?

Without SAVE mentioned in HR 3200, there no safeguard to determine if the applicant for eligibility credits is a US citizen, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrant?

Well, how would the government determine if the applicant is an animal without the safeguard SAVE?

If someone can help illegal immigrants apply for eligibility credits, I sure can help my dog apply for eligibility credits. Since no safeguard, both would be covered under the HR 3200.

What is your argument? That an animal trying to get federal insurance is as likely as an illegal immigrant?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What is your argument? That an animal trying to get federal insurance is as likely as an illegal immigrant?

Yes. I help both illegals and animals to obtain health coverage since there's no safeguard or enforcement.

Any pet owner who wants to save money on vet bills can come to me for help. Illegals who don't know English can come to me for help as well.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm pretty sure my pets are covered because there are no safeguards to determine if my dog is a US citizen.

There are no "safegaurds" needed besides what is already there. Dogs aren't citizens, dogs can be determined by simple visual examination. That's not true of illegal aliens, and that is why additional safeguards are required.

It can be determined with 100% effectiveness that a dog is a dog without any additional laws being required, unless it's your argument that a healthcare provider could credibility make the excuse that he didn't know that the dog was a "dog" and assumed it was a human, as a healthcare worker could credibly claim that they assumed (since no safeguards are required) that the person they gave care to was here legally. Good luck with that.

In the HR 3200, it states veterinarians are included:

In this section, the term ‘health workforce’ includes all health care providers with direct patient care and support responsibilities, including physicians, nurses, physician assistants, pharmacists, oral health professionals (as defined in section 749(f)), allied health professionals, mental and behavioral professionals, and public health professionals (including veterinarians engaged in public health practice).

Wow..so you are right. The Democrats are including not only illegal aliens, but animals as well. You've successfully argued for why they do not have ANY business creating laws in regards to healthcare. Congratulations.

Not only did Obama lie about illegal aliens, he forgot to tell us his plan would force taxpayers to foot the bill for pets as well.

AMAZING!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There are no "safegaurds" needed besides what is already there. Dogs aren't citizens, dogs can be determined by simple visual examination. That's not true of illegal aliens, and that is why additional safeguards are required.

It can be determined with 100% effectiveness that a dog is a dog without any additional laws being required, unless it's your argument that a healthcare provider could credibility make the excuse that he didn't know that the dog was a "dog" and assumed it was a human, as a healthcare worker could credibly claim that they assumed (since no safeguards are required) that the person they gave care to was here legally. Good luck with that.

What visual exam? What are you talking about?

Didn't realize applying for eligibility credits under the HR3200 require a visual exam or a photo to go with the application.

Where in HR3200 does it say a visual exam or a photo is required to apply?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What visual exam? What are you talking about?

Didn't realize applying for eligibility credits under the HR3200 require a visual exam or a photo to go with the application.

Where in HR3200 does it say a visual exam or a photo is required to apply?

Exactly why this bill is no good for us.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What visual exam? What are you talking about?

Didn't realize applying for eligibility credits under the HR3200 require a visual exam or a photo to go with the application.

Where in HR3200 does it say a visual exam or a photo is required to apply?

When a doctor looks at you...he's visually examining you. A 100% accurate determination regarding qualifications based on not being a dog can be performed at that time with no further "safeguards" required. This isn't the case for determining qualifications based on being a legal citizen.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When a doctor looks at you...he's visually examining you. A 100% accurate determination regarding qualifications based on not being a dog can be performed at that time with no further "safeguards" required. This isn't the case for determining qualifications based on being a legal citizen.

What are you talking about?

Where does it say the patient must have a physical exam by a doctor before the patient can apply for eligibility credits under the HR 3200?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What are you talking about?

Where does it say the patient must have a physical exam by a doctor before the patient can apply for eligibility credits under the HR 3200?

People can apply for whatever they want. I can apply for credits for the tree I have in my backyard.

Applying does one no good if you go to get services and you are denied because the physician in question knows he cannot legally treat trees and be reimbursed, and there is no way he can make the excuse "I didn't know it was a tree" if he's caught trying it.

Again, there's no need for additional checks in regards to animals, plants, and inanimate objects, as far as knowing if they are covered or not. Illegal aliens however can't be determined unless there is a requirement to check eligibility, as it is impossible to determine that criteria by simple visual examination.

You are engaging in demonstrable absurdity.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People can apply for whatever they want. I can apply for credits for the tree I have in my backyard.

Applying does one no good if you go to get services and you are denied because the physician in question knows he cannot legally treat trees and be reimbursed, and there is no way he can make the excuse "I didn't know it was a tree" if he's caught trying it.

Again, there's no need for additional checks in regards to animals, plants, and inanimate objects, as far as knowing if they are covered or not. Illegal aliens however can't be determined unless there is a requirement to check eligibility, as it is impossible to determine that criteria by simple visual examination.

You are engaging in demonstrable absurdity.

Like I've said, veterinarians are covered as they are part of the health workforce.

I can get eligibility credits for my dog and veterinarians are covered.

So my pets are covered under HR 3200.

[hyteckit]

Besides. You make it sound like someone in the government is actually going to enforce anything.

If the government isn't going to verify the information on the application on whether the applicant is eligible for affordability credits base on income and citizenship, why would you assume they would verify if a medical procedure is eligible for compensation.

[olePigeon]

Will illegal gay pets get coverage? I'm not voting unless illegal gay pets get coverage.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Like I've said, veterinarians are covered as they are part of the health workforce.

..but not for the care of pets. As it's been stated, the law says that reimbursement for services is only allowed for citizens of the United States.

We've already covered this. You are arguing in absurd circles.

[indrani]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

every one may b not prferct

there may be the chance

[indrani]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What's the argument here?

Without SAVE mentioned in HR 3200, there no safeguard to determine if the applicant for eligibility credits is a US citizen, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrant?

Well, how would the government determine if the applicant is an animal without the safeguard SAVE?

If someone can help illegal immigrants apply for eligibility credits, I sure can help my dog apply for eligibility credits. Since no safeguard, both would be covered under the HR 3200.

hope

[ebuddy]

The emergency room is no place to have your pet spayed or neutered. Even if they were registered to vote for Obama.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The emergency room is no place to have your pet spayed or neutered. Even if they were registered to vote for Obama.

ZING!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..but not for the care of pets. As it's been stated, the law says that reimbursement for services is only allowed for citizens of the United States.

We've already covered this. You are arguing in absurd circles.

Let me rephrase it for you:

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.

[hyteckit]

House GOP wants Health Care for Pets by introducing the HAPPY Act (Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years)

House GOPer Seeks Co-Sponsors For Pet Health Care Tax Benefit

Don't know why since the HR 3200 would cover pets.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Let me rephrase it for you:

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.

I'm looking at that quote, and I still don't see a requirement to actually check for citizenship, since that can't be determined by a simple visual check.

Could you break down the paragraph to show me where I'm missing it?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Let me rephrase it for you:

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 problem with that statement is that it's toothless. It says illegal aliens aren't eligible, but doesn't actually do anything to prevent them from claiming credits. It's like hanging a sign on your front gate that says "Burglars not allowed" and calling it a security system.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The problem with that statement is that it's toothless. It says illegal aliens aren't eligible, but doesn't actually do anything to prevent them from claiming credits. It's like hanging a sign on your front gate that says "Burglars not allowed" and calling it a security system.

I guess. That's why I believe HR 3200 will covered pets.

stupendousman says:

As it's been stated, the law says that reimbursement for services is only allowed for citizens of the United States.

No illegal aliens and pets will be reimbursed. If that law is not enforced, then both illegals and pets will get coverage.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I guess. That's why I believe HR 3200 will covered pets.

stupendousman says:

As it's been stated, the law says that reimbursement for services is only allowed for citizens of the United States.

No illegal aliens and pets will be reimbursed. If that law is not enforced, then both illegals and pets will get coverage.

No, because (among many other reasons) a doctor can easily tell when his patient is an animal and would certainly be detected at least by the time the patient is receiving treatment for feline leukemia. Do you really believe pets will receive care under this bill?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I guess. That's why I believe HR 3200 will covered pets.

stupendousman says:

As it's been stated, the law says that reimbursement for services is only allowed for citizens of the United States.

No illegal aliens and pets will be reimbursed. If that law is not enforced, then both illegals and pets will get coverage.

You are making a VERY good case for this thing not to get passed. I won't stand in your way of doing it. Be sure and tell all your friends that the bill covers taxpayer subsidized care for pets. That would be GREAT!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, because (among many other reasons) a doctor can easily tell when his patient is an animal and would certainly be detected at least by the time the patient is receiving treatment for feline leukemia. Do you really believe pets will receive care under this bill?

The doctor can tell if the patient is a human or animal. True.

And our government can tell who's a US citizen or not, base on your name, SSN, and other information that is provided on the application. Just as if I were to apply for a passport.

That's not the argument. We are talking about enforcement here.

If you believe our government isn't going to check whether the applicant is a US citizen, why would you believe the government would verify if the medical procedure was preformed on a human before reimbursing my Vet?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

And our government can tell who's a US citizen or not, base on your name, SSN, and other information that is provided on the application. Just as if I were to apply for a passport.

Yes, but passport law requires the government to do this confirmation while the law in question does not. That's what people are talking about here. It does not provide any means of enforcing its terms.

[stupendousman]

Now the Democrats are getting upset that the "jig is up" regarding their attempts to do what Obama said the healthcare plan wouldn't do. Not only do they not want any safeguards, they've let it be known that they simply want people here ILLEGALLY to be able to take advantage of government sponsored health care.

How dare Obama say that the plan should include safeguards and not include illegal aliens just so a Republican politician's accusations that Obama was lying wouldn't be true!

Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not only do they not want any safeguards, they've let it be known that they simply want people here ILLEGALLY to be able to take advantage of government sponsored health care.

I have great fun imagining the kind of person that *actually* believes that.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but passport law requires the government to do this confirmation

No it doesn't, the administration's regulations do. The U.S. Code governing passports states that passports can only be awarded to U.S. nationals, but does not provide the means for the Secretary of State to enforce this when the Department reviews applications. From U.S. Code:

§ 211a. Authority to grant, issue, and verify passports

The Secretary of State may grant and issue passports, and cause passports to be granted, issued, and verified in foreign countries by diplomatic and consular officers of the United States, and by such other employees of the Department of State who are citizens of the United States as the Secretary of State may designate, and by the chief or other executive officer of the insular possessions of the United States, under such rules as the President shall designate and prescribe for and on behalf of the United States, and no other person shall grant, issue, or verify such passports. Unless authorized by law, a passport may not be designated as restricted for travel to or for use in any country other than a country with which the United States is at war, where armed hostilities are in progress, or where there is imminent danger to the public health or the physical safety of United States travellers.

§ 212. Persons entitled to passport

No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.

§ 213. Application for passport; verification by oath of initial passport

Before a passport is issued to any person by or under authority of the United States such person shall subscribe to and submit a written application which shall contain a true recital of each and every matter of fact which may be required by law or by any rules authorized by law to be stated as a prerequisite to the issuance of any such passport. If the applicant has not previously been issued a United States passport, the application shall be duly verified by his oath before a person authorized and empowered by the Secretary of State to administer oaths.

The regulations governing the information required to complete a passport application are found not in acts of Congress, but in the Code of Federal Regulations.