Did Obama lie about health care for illegals?

[The T]

The UNDERLYING point unto ALL of this? WHY...is Government involved in this from the start? Where is the right of Government (In this case the FED), involved at all?

Can ANYONE point to it in the Constitution? You cannot., And before ANY of you start harping on "precident"? SCREW PRECIDENT. That isn't the point.

They have NO BUSINESS in this. Healthcare coverage is NOT a RIGHT...it is a RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens to do for themselves.

 

[MaggieMae]

Exactly. Thank you. I was about to post that immigration reform is something separate which also must be dealt with, but you saved me the time. Also, the SSA needs to have more oversight over tracking fake numbers. The problem with the SSA has consistently been lack of manpower. That agency has always been understaffed (like some of the others where cutting corners means cutting the very people who could save money, and lives, in the long run--like the food inspection agency within the FDA). There is so much overlapping and so much waste and fraud throughout government, it's high time they start addressing the deficit problem from the bottom up.

And this is the same government that wants to run a public option. What, will they eat some Lucky Charms and magically eliminate waste, fraud and corruption? Once again they are putting the cart before the horse.

No, they're not. The intent is to find as much hidden money as a result of fraud and waste in the present systems to begin paying for a new reform policy. That's putting the horse first, for a change. Except for emergency reguations (pre-existing conditions) and funding (not yet defined), Obama said last evening that any program would not become operational until 2013.

 

[Care4all]

OK, I think I see the issue.

Here is what Obama said:

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. "

You see, here is the semantic problem.

The bill will not "insure immigrants". Mr Obama is correct there. To "insure them" would mean to provide coverage for them free of charge.

However, the bill would not specifically forbid illegals from buying policies at normal prices.

That would be a really stupid thing to do, as illegals would then simply continue getting free emergency coverage and living off the welfare of the taxpayer in this regard.

I ask again, why would we possibly want to DENY the ability to purchase health insurance at normal prices to illegal immigrants????

About half of illegal aliens have now and pay for= health insurance through their employer.
(i posted a link above that referenced such)

Of course illegal aliens can pay for insurance on their own if they wish...our private companies are not forbidden to sell anything they have to illegal aliens, that is not their responsibility.

but the Federal Government WILL NOT be issuing these affordability credits to the underprivileged illegal aliens so that they can buy in to a plan...so the Feds will not be funding such through this health care plan, but they do still pay with our tax dollars, money to emergency rooms who are required by law to take in any emergency.

Care

 

[MaggieMae]

We are better humans. Sorry. And we hold ourselves accountable for the welfare of liberals as well.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but you lost me there, sailor. We're all in the same boat, which is something you apparently don't consider too often.

 

[Vast LWC]

Read more: Obama takes big risk on driver's license issue

Maybe he changed his mind????

Why would approving of documenting illegals, so they can be tracked, by issuing them driver's licenses make someone "Pro-Illegal"?

 

[Vast LWC]

The UNDERLYING point unto ALL of this? WHY...is Government involved in this from the start? Where is the right of Government (In this case the FED), involved at all?

Can ANYONE point to it in the Constitution? You cannot., And before ANY of you start harping on "precident"? SCREW PRECIDENT. That isn't the point.

They have NO BUSINESS in this. Healthcare coverage is NOT a RIGHT...it is a RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens to do for themselves.

Article 1: Section 8:

"Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States"

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, I think I see the issue.

Here is what Obama said:

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. "

You see, here is the semantic problem.

The bill will not "insure immigrants". Mr Obama is correct there. To "insure them" would mean to provide coverage for them free of charge.

However, the bill would not specifically forbid illegals from buying policies at normal prices.

That would be a really stupid thing to do, as illegals would then simply continue getting free emergency coverage and living off the welfare of the taxpayer in this regard.

I ask again, why would we possibly want to DENY the ability to purchase health insurance at normal prices to illegal immigrants????

About half of illegal aliens have now and pay for= health insurance through their employer.
(i posted a link above that referenced such)

Of course illegal aliens can pay for insurance on their own if they wish...our private companies are not forbidden to sell anything they have to illegal aliens, that is not their responsibility.

but the Federal Government WILL NOT be issuing these affordability credits to the underprivileged illegal aliens so that they can buy in to a plan...so the Feds will not be funding such through this health care plan, but they do still pay with our tax dollars, money to emergency rooms who are required by law to take in any emergency.

Care

Correct. But it seems as if the righties want to deny the ability to purchase health insurance to illegals for some insane reason...

 

[MaggieMae]

Libs are so gullible... "Obama said it so it must be true!"

Maybe our new National Healthcare Plan will include instilling some common sense in Dems.

Nahhhhh, that'd be asking for too much.

One more time... ILLEGALS WILL BE COVERED BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR DETERMINING THEY'RE NOT US CITIZENS!

Again, Obama is a liar -- and the left eats it up like it's candy.

Umm, how would they be covered if they don't have the insurance?

In order to GET the insurance they would need to be citizens.

That's why there's no such "provision" needed.

Duh.

too bad non of the bills proposed require applicants to prove citizenship
If they cannot prove it, they do not qualify.

they are going to cover illegal aliens
No, they are not.

it is also unconstitutional for the US government to discriminate on the basis of national origin so if citizens are covered then they must cover illegal aliens

------>WHOOOOOOOSH-------->

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama didn't create illegals. The Republicans have long been in the business of encouraging more illegals to come here to support big business. But doctors don't generally discriminate, and should not and do not have police power, so handling the illegal problem by asking doctors to do it is not a genuine request. The Republicans can scream all they want but the illegal problem is a separate one to be addressed in different legislation. Why don't you get busy on that?

Regardless of history, Obama's now in charge. If he wanted to crack down on illegals, he doesn't need a new bill passed... there are already bills on the books that've never been enforced.

What's keeping him from addressing the problem?

Or maybe he'd just rather assign that responsibility to a nurse's aide so he won't get his hands dirty?

LOL and why did republcians pass the buck? LOL It's so funny how the right wishes to hold obama and the left accountalbe for everything when they refuse to hold their own accountable for anything.
Republicans had the majority ahnd COULD have done damn near anything that they wanted to and didn't. Now they sit there and whine "why aren't the democrats fixing _____?" when the republicans CHOSE not to do anything about it when they had the chance.

And then we get slapped down for daring to even mention the Booooooooooooosh Years. "Can't you ever say anything without injecting Bush as a defense? Whine whine whine..." Like those 8 years were just for fun and didn't count.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is common knowledge that Obama is pro-illegals. It was intentional to leave loop-holes in the bill just so it looks good on the outside, but they can still manipulate it their way.

Common practice, and if they fail to put guaranteed restrictions on the books it is because they know they may want to offer illegals services along the way.

This is the kind of deception Obama is using, and has been from the start. He is not an Americvan, and he has an agenda that is not proAmerican.

Why would he be PRO-illegals? "Common knowledge"?? Sure, among the loonies you hang with, I'm sure.

The "loonies" at the San Francisco Chronicle?

(01-28) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Sen. Barack Obama easily won the African American vote in South Carolina, but to woo California Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

It's a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It's also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.

"Barack Obama has not backed down" on driver's licenses for undocumented people, said Federico Peña, a former Clinton administration Cabinet member and Denver mayor now supporting Obama. "I think when the Latino community hears Barack's position on such an important and controversial issue, they'll understand that his heart and his intellect is with Latino community."

Read more: Obama takes big risk on driver's license issue

Maybe he changed his mind????

Actually, I happen to disagree on the drivers license issue. But SmartAss's posting implied a sweeping suck-up by using the blanket observation of PRO-illegal by "intentionally leaving loopholes" in the bill. Try to sort out fact from fiction for a change and you might not have such a comprehension problem.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually, I happen to disagree on the drivers license issue. But SmartAss's posting implied a sweeping suck-up by using the blanket observation of PRO-illegal by "intentionally leaving loopholes" in the bill. Try to sort out fact from fiction for a change and you might not have such a comprehension problem.

Whether I agree or not, how does trying to track illegal aliens by documenting their existence make one "Pro-illegal"?

I guess I'm just not seeing it.

 

[MaggieMae]

The UNDERLYING point unto ALL of this? WHY...is Government involved in this from the start? Where is the right of Government (In this case the FED), involved at all?

Can ANYONE point to it in the Constitution? You cannot., And before ANY of you start harping on "precident"? SCREW PRECIDENT. That isn't the point.

They have NO BUSINESS in this. Healthcare coverage is NOT a RIGHT...it is a RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens to do for themselves.

Well gee whiz, where in the Constitution does it specifically state that we shall build an interstate highway system to accommodate automobile traffic instead of horses and buggies which they drove at the time? Get real, the Constitution was written when the population was only 72,000,000 and we're at 305,000,000 and climbing. There are a multitude of laws that benefit all Americans that are not specifically outlined in The Constitution.

 

[MaggieMae]

The UNDERLYING point unto ALL of this? WHY...is Government involved in this from the start? Where is the right of Government (In this case the FED), involved at all?

Can ANYONE point to it in the Constitution? You cannot., And before ANY of you start harping on "precident"? SCREW PRECIDENT. That isn't the point.

They have NO BUSINESS in this. Healthcare coverage is NOT a RIGHT...it is a RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens to do for themselves.

Article 1: Section 8:

"Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States"

The preamble exemplifies what I've already said about using language in the Constitution as a crutch. "Common defense" 200+ years ago meant rifles with bayonets and field artillery using cannonballs, not nuclear weapons capable of blowing up the entire globe. The latter cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[Vast LWC]

The UNDERLYING point unto ALL of this? WHY...is Government involved in this from the start? Where is the right of Government (In this case the FED), involved at all?

Can ANYONE point to it in the Constitution? You cannot., And before ANY of you start harping on "precident"? SCREW PRECIDENT. That isn't the point.

They have NO BUSINESS in this. Healthcare coverage is NOT a RIGHT...it is a RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens to do for themselves.

Article 1: Section 8:

"Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States"

The preamble exemplifies what I've already said about using language in the Constitution as a crutch. "Common defense" 200+ years ago meant rifles with bayonets and field artillery using cannonballs, not nuclear weapons capable of blowing up the entire globe. The latter cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution.

Indeed. Just as "General Welfare" in Article I, Section 8 could not have contained a specific clause for Health Insurance, as it didn't exist at the time.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The UNDERLYING point unto ALL of this? WHY...is Government involved in this from the start? Where is the right of Government (In this case the FED), involved at all?

Can ANYONE point to it in the Constitution? You cannot., And before ANY of you start harping on "precident"? SCREW PRECIDENT. That isn't the point.

They have NO BUSINESS in this. Healthcare coverage is NOT a RIGHT...it is a RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens to do for themselves.

Get real, the Constitution was written when the population was only 72,000,000 and we're at 305,000,000 and climbing.

I think that this figure may be incorrect. I'm not sure if there was even 72 million people in all of Europe in 1789.

 

[Zona]

He lied right to your faces. The democwats purposefully voted down the Heller amendment. They know damn well they are going to give illegals health care.

Perhaps you missed this...

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

 

[frazzledgear]

1) President Obama is not being truthful because the Republicans attempted to insert an amendment in the bill such that the proposed plan would not cover illegal immigrants and they were voted down in a straight party line vote by the democrats.

2) Given the bills in the House and Senate are over 1,000 pages each and are written in pure legalese it will be up to the beaurocrats to imlement the bill once it has been passed, and without specific guidance to omit the coverage of illegal immigrants they will be covered. If this were not the wish of the Democrats why would they vote down the amendment (mentioned above)???

Why would you assume that, without that specific guidance, illegal immigrants would qualify for healthcare? Do illegals qualify for any other government program?

For the very same reason that until a bill was passed that locked it in for all existing government provided healthcare insurance programs that abortion will not be covered regardless of any further modifications to those programs -any modification to any existing government healthcare insurance program had to include a specific ban on abortions every single time -or these programs would have had to cover abortions. And that is according to US courts. Since abortion is a medical procedure, unless paying for abortions with taxpayer funds is specifically banned from legislation involving government healthcare insurance -the courts have said abortion MUST be covered. So rather than have this be an eternal issue with liberals trying get away with legislation that failed to always include this ban when these programs were modified in any way, Congress passed a bill years ago banning the coverage of abortion regardless of any future modifications to these programs. But that ban only applies to already existing government provided healthcare insurance programs. Not ANY future ones -those would once again require a specific ban. And more than a few Democrats in Congress -like Pelosi, as well as Obama himself -have lied and insisted that ban applies to all future programs as well -BUT IT DOES NOT. Democrats have been insisting that because abortion isn't even mentioned at all in their bills, it somehow means abortion would not be covered. A show of hands from those who believe that idiocy please. That is a lie -and the fact they refuse to include these bans in their legislation now PROVES IT IS A LIE. Democrats have dug in on this, refuse to include these specific bans -all while publicly insisting that Republicans are just making up phony issues with this. Even though it would be a ridiculously easy way to remove this as a point of contention or a debatable issue and just include the specific bans. But that would require that Democrats be honest in the first place instead of trying to secretly include the backdoor coverage for both abortions and illegals! Which is EXACTLY what they are trying to do -all while lying by insisting there is no way for abortions or illegals to be covered. Because hey, they aren't even mentioned in the bills! And apparently that satisifies some dolts out there. ROFL How can you possibly expect any US court to rule that abortion, a medical procedure - is somehow banned from coverage in a government funded medical insurance program THIS TIME - UNLESS IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS SO -when it has already ruled that it requires such a ban or it will be covered?

Only ONE BILL has even been proposed specifically banning coverage of illegals, one Pelosi has already said will never be passed by the House anyway -but without any requirement that participation requires proof of citizenship. Which makes the ban entirely meaningless because our courts have already ruled in the past that people only need to prove citizenship before participation in any government program when proof of citizenship is specifically REQUIRED in order to participate. Language that simply states it is intended for citizens is not sufficient language to justify the demand to prove citizenship -according to the court. Our modern courts have bastardized our Constitution by deciding that in the absence of specific language, benefit of the doubt will go towards the expansion and greater power of government instead of what will best protect the rights of citizens (without infringing on the human rights of noncitizens). Something that no doubt has the founders spinning like tops in their graves.

Even if you did not know that a specific ban and specific language must be included to insure abortion and illegals are not covered, COMMON SENSE should have told you there must be something you are not aware of to explain why Democrats, especially the leftwing extremist kooks like Pelosi, are all so VEHEMENTLY and rigidly opposed to the inclusion of such bans! Got any common sense or not? If Democrats were actually being honest (BWAA HAA HAA) and didn't have a desire to see that abortions and illegals were covered, then the inclusion of the few lines necessary to insure they are not -included somewhere in their massive piece of bullshit that guarantees a bureaucratic nightmare anyway - would remove this stumbling block from their neverending quest for government run healthcare, RIGHT? Come ON here -if they really believed their proposed bills AS THEY EXIST was really sufficient to prevent the coverage of abortions and illegals -then why do they so strongly oppose ending that debate entirely by including the specific language insuring abortions and illegals will not be covered? Pretty obvious that Democrats MUST have reasons, reasons they have not been honest about or even bothered to tell the people -about why they refuse to include these specific bans. So what could those reasons be? HMMMMM? The answer lies in those past court rulings.

You people who think government -ANY government -is trustworthy and that those who wield power should ever be given the benefit of the doubt, can readily and always be taken at face value, that government is a benign entity that actually has your best interests at heart, or stupidly believe that those who wield power and give lip service to claiming to have only the "purest" motivations cannot possibly be the corrupt liars they really are - clearly are not only completely ignorant of the thousands of years of mankind's history and experiences at the hands of government of every single conceivable kind and stripe, but do not understand how government even works. But especially not even YOUR OWN.

Our courts do not EVER rule in accordance with what the people believe their representatives have SAID is intended by their legislation or what the people were even promised was not included by lying ass politicians who have no qualms about deceiving their own constituents and the entire nation if doing so will further their own agenda. The courts don't rule in accordance with legislators' intent even when they know exactly what that intent was. But will rule in accordance with what is and is NOT specifically included in that legislation. Only who gets the benefit of the doubt when there is an absence of specific language has changed -not the fact that this is how courts make their rulings. If it doesn't have a specific amendment that not only bans illegals from participating but also requires proof of citizenship in order to participate - then our courts will almost certainly rule that illegals MUST be covered. Courts have already ruled in this way regarding the "right" of illegal aliens to access our education and healthcare systems already. No language that specifically banned them from accessing these systems and no language specifically requiring proof of citizenship and therefore no legal grounds to ASSUME these systems were intended only for the US citizens who thought they were creating them for their OWN benefit. And not for the benefit of everyone and anyone else who managed to sneak across our borders. Therefore, the courts have ruled, the benefit of the doubt goes to illegals who have a "right" to be parasites on our education and healthcare systems. The benefit of the doubt did not and will not in the future go to the US citizens who only have the "right" to foot those massive bills.

Don't kid yourself on this one. Congressional Democrats, as well as Obama, KNOW THIS for a fact -which is why they so vigorously and VEHEMENTLY refuse to include the language that would ban coverage of abortions or illegals.

Without the inclusion of a specific amendment banning the funding of abortions, taxpayers will DEFINITELY end up footing the bill for it in any new healthcare legislation passed by Democrats. No ifs, ands or buts about that one -without a specific ban the courts have already ruled in the past that abortion, which is a medical procedure, must also be covered. And without the inclusion of a specific amendment banning the inclusion of non-citizens AND requiring proof of citizenship in order to participate, it is also a dead certainty that illegals WOULD be covered as well. And that is why Democrats so vehemently and vigorously oppose including any bans on either. And apparently they have no problem with deceiving the American people about it either. When it turns out both are covered they will just claim they had no idea the courts would rule that abortion and illegals must be covered under their bill. They will claim they had no idea courts would rule that way because HEY, it isn't as if they wrote a bill that said so. They just wrote a bill that DIDN'T ban it -which our courts have said amounts to the same thing.

Given the past rulings of our own courts on both of these issues, rulings that are readily available to anyone who wants to read them -you have to be either ignorant about past rulings or not understand how those rulings may apply to future bills. Or someone who does know about all these past rulings, as our elected government officials all do -and still choose to be a blatant liar anyway in order to deceive the very people who put you into office. No secret which I think Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Obama etc. are on this one.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The only way I'll believe that illegal scumbag aliens won't get health coverage is when one of them walks into an emergency room with a nail in his head, and is then turned away because he's here illegally.

If he gets treatment, he just got coverage...

Steve a person going into an ER with a nail in his head (what an ER is actually for) is much different than someone going in there because he has the shits or his kid has a runny nose....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The person who should be embarrassed is Wilson. The president doesn't need to be embarrassed, he is the victim of harassment from bitter loser Republicans who think this is going to get them some attention.

The Democrats will get a bill, Repubs can sit on their hands for 11 more years. Who cares.

one of the reasons why this country is so fragmented.....people who think like this....and not just you Sarah....Republicans with your mindset also....."who cares about the other half"....you had better start caring....because if this country does not at least get as close together as we were at one time....goodby America....as we knew it anyway........

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama didn't create illegals. The Republicans have long been in the business of encouraging more illegals to come here

so have the Dems.....ESPECIALLY in S.Cal......