Wilson’s Truth
The truth is always a good defense.
HR 3962 now also contains language that allows illegal immigrants to be covered under the legislation. When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens for clarification of this language, we received no response other than the press release heretofore mentioned. Specifically, we asked if illegal immigrants would be forced to purchase healthcare insurance as citizens will be and whether or not they would be forced to do so at standard rates or if they would qualify for the public option subsidy.
The Associated Press said this morning that: “House leaders said that, in keeping with the Hispanic Caucus’ demands, there was not likely to be any prohibition added to the House bill against illegal immigrants shopping in the exchange.”
In a speech made to Congress a short time ago, President Obama had stated that the bill would not contain support for illegal immigrants - a statement for which he was called a “liar” by Rep. Joe Wilson. Rep. Wilson was severely chastised for his comment at the time though it would now seem to be true.
“...in 2003, Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ healthcare. The vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 2206 hrs
Aliens have been covered for a while; The crux of the issue is the extant of the provided services. Looking at this issue in the most practical way: To let a person die in an emergency situation that is preventable because s/he is an alien is bigger than left/right political arguments.
“Under federal and state law, undocumented aliens (illegal aliens) are not eligible for Wisconsin Medicaid services except when those services are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition. An emergency medical condition is a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of severity such that a prudent layperson, who possesses an average knowledge of health and medicine, could reasonably expect the absence of immediate
medical attention to result in:
• Placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy.
• Serious impairment to bodily functions.
• Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
Wisconsin Medicaid does not cover major organ transplants (e.g., heart, liver) for undocumented aliens pursuant to
42 USC s. 1396b(v)(2)(C).”
https://www.forwardhealth.wi.gov/kw/pdf/2003-02.pdf...and no, I’m not for long-term free health care for illegal aliens. Vaccinations are fine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 2251 hrs
Pat,
How is this relevant? Did Obama lie or not? I understand that at the time the bill may not have included the illegal immigrant provision, but, when it comes down to it, did the bill have it? Yes, it did.
I see no relevance of whether or not Wilson supports illegal immigrants’ rights or not in the argument of whether he was right by calling Obama a liar.
Posted by Brandon on November 09, 2009 at 0016 hrs
Brandon,
The bill at the time that Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie”, was H.R. 3900. HR 3200, which specifically bars coverage for illegal immigrants. Section 246, which is included in the part of the bill that sets up a health insurance exchange, forbids payments “on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
The Senate Finance Committee’s bill and the Obama administration’s proposal would also bar illegal immigrants from buying individual health insurance policies through the new exchange with their own money, which the House bill (H.R. 3962) would allow.
The relevance is that Obama didn’t lie.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2009 at 0720 hrs
The problem with 3200 (in this regard) was that while it did have language forbidding illegal aliens from participating, all of the enforcement mechanisms were stripped. There was no way to enforce that language. It was like passing a law requiring that car owners carry insurance, but then prohibiting the police from checking whether or not they have it.
Posted by Owen on November 09, 2009 at 0801 hrs
Yes Owen,
but, haha! Obama didn’t lie and Joe Wilson therefore did. When you are a partisan, useless semantics are really all that matters. Haha! Aliens will vote for Dems again.Now I can take my Democratic sword of social justice on to the next topic. My half trillion stimulus gave many of the overpaid union workers their jobs back. Haha! I have anecdotal evidence of that, haha!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2009 at 0850 hrs
Could someone back up a step and help a guy out? I have three questions.
I thought the previous bill simply prohibited illegal aliens from receiving government subsidies for health insurance (public or private option). It did not prohibit them from purchasing health insurance with their own money. Or do I have that wrong?
Is the bill that passed the house different? How?
Does anyone seriously wish to prohibit illegal aliens from purchasing health insurance with their own money?
Posted by scott on November 09, 2009 at 1238 hrs
“Does anyone seriously wish to prohibit illegal aliens from purchasing health insurance with their own money?”
Yes. I want them to stop breaking the law and leave the country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2009 at 2046 hrs
But let’s say we live in reality and you aren’t able to send them all back. What then? Do you actively prevent them from purchasing health insurance with their own money?
Posted by scott on November 09, 2009 at 2054 hrs
Yes. I want them to stop breaking the law and leave the country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2009 at 2059 hrs
“Yes, I want to prevent them from purchasing health insurance with their own money.” If you want to do it, you should at least be able to write it. C’mon.
Posted by scott on November 09, 2009 at 2101 hrs
What part of illegal don’t you understand?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2009 at 2118 hrs
Let’s try again. Given the fact that you have no means of actually arresting and deporting ten or twenty million people, do you think it’s a good idea to prevent them from purchasing health insurance even if they do it with their own money?
Posted by scott on November 09, 2009 at 2130 hrs
My position shouldn’t be that hard to understand. They are here ILLEGALLY. Therefore they shouldn’t even BE here much less be able to buy or do anything.
Do you get it now?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2009 at 2215 hrs
I’m asking you a direct question about your position: Given the fact that you don’t have the means to deport 20 million people, do you think we should actively be preventing them from purchasing health insurance even if they do so with their own money? Yes or no. Is the question hard to understand? Yes. Or. No.
Posted by scott on November 09, 2009 at 2257 hrs
Still tryin’, huh scott? I’ll check back later and see how its going. In the mean time, Thanks for the comic relief.
Posted by Mike on November 10, 2009 at 0820 hrs
So Scott, As long as we are living in the real world now and not fantasy, do you honestly believe that this bill is not just a first step and that within 3-8 years illegal aliens won’t have free or virtually free coverage? They are a significant Dem voting block. That is clearly who is being helped the most here. If we are speaking reality it is you who will be out of line with the truth very soon, though technically you are right now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 0924 hrs
They are a significant Dem voting block.
You’re smart enough to know that illegal immigrants can’t vote, so I can only assume you’re taking it for granted that massive vote fraud is being perpetrated by them. Which I think is not only untrue, but a little paranoid. This after you chide me for not living in the real world.
That is clearly who is being helped the most here.
How do you figure that? The way things are now is that illegals are ineligible for Medicaid and S-CHIP, and under the House bill they will be ineligible for government subsidies for both private insurance and the public option. In both cases, however, they can theoretically get private health insurance the same way you and I do. Where’s the big help that you’re so concerned about?
do you honestly believe that this bill is not just a first step and that within 3-8 years illegal aliens won’t have free or virtually free coverage?
No, I don’t believe that this bill has anything to do with illegal immigrants. It doesn’t change their situation, nor do I believe it is a first-step toward changing their situation. It is a health care reform bill, having no impact on the issue of illegal immigration.
You might have an interesting argument that the public option, such as it is, is a first-step toward making government-run insurance available to anyone who wants it. But the slippery slope toward bad immigration policy is just the imaginings of a fevered brain.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2009 at 1014 hrs
You’re smart enough to know that illegal immigrants can’t vote…
Just like they can’t work, here, right?
You’re saying that we can’t stop them from working here, but we do stop them from voting here.
You’ve got a very selective belief in the law enforcement ability of the government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1043 hrs
First, I figured you were smart enough to know that most illegal aliens live with legals and their vote is the Dem block I am speaking of. I believe there is a significant amount of fraud in the form of using the same false ID they use for anything else, right down to buying liquor, but that is only a portion of the block I spoke of.
The way I understood it was that the bill does allow illegals to purchase the public or private option.
You might have an interesting argument that the public option, such as it is, is a first-step toward making government-run insurance available to anyone who wants it. But the slippery slope toward bad immigration policy is just the imaginings of a fevered brain.
Democrats admit that it is a crucial first step toward Government run insurance for everyone. Is that or is that not specifically your agenda? Insurance for the ‘40 million’ without insurance was your battle cry not too long ago. Are you saying you do not want to give insurance to those people or that the Democratic goal does not include those people?
My brain is not fevered, I was merely parroting back your own and many other liberals’ words. If you have changed your tune, at least have the decency to admit it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1051 hrs
and their vote is the Dem block I am speaking of.
So basically you’re talking about Americans with a particular view on immigration reform. That voting bloc.
The way I understood it was that the bill does allow illegals to purchase the public or private option.
I also have that understanding—although I’m not sure what that means in a practical sense. One has to have an SS number (isn’t it checked?), and insurance companies are very keen to kick people off their rolls once an expensive claim is made. Illegal immigrant status would be a no-brainer method of denial and cancelation. But yes, my understanding is that illegal immigrants could purchase any insurance through the exchange, public or private.
Democrats admit that it is a crucial first step toward Government run insurance for everyone.
Many Americans hope that this is true. I know I wouldn’t complain. But it’s not necessary to go Canadian in order to achieve the goals of universal coverage and effective cost controls. Look at Sweden. There are plenty of examples of other countries doing this. I imagine that our own system will look a lot like that in a decade. Regulated private insurance for most, public insurance for some, subsidies for those who can’t afford either. There is nothing in the House bill that indicates anything else. The only changes to the system are a) expanding coverage through subsidization and b) cost controls through pressures brought to the private insurance market by making public insurance more widely available. It isn’t one long, greased slide into single-payer.
Insurance for the ‘40 million’ without insurance was your battle cry not too long ago. Are you saying you do not want to give insurance to those people
I don’t understand your question. Is universal coverage a goal? Absolutely. Does that mean we must have Medicare for all? Of course not. Other countries achieve universal coverage without having single-payer. We can, too. I think that’s the most likely—if not the most efficient—solution in the end, given the degree of anti-goverment sentiment in American politics.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2009 at 1132 hrs
So basically you’re talking about Americans with a particular view on immigration reform. That voting bloc.
If by this you realize that I mean of Hispanic descent then yes. There is an estimated 50 million hispanics in the US and 10 to 20 million here illegally. I do not know if the census includes illegals in the 50 million or not, but at least 30 to 40 million people who want to see their aunt Pepita become a legal citizen and/or have voting rights and medical care is a significant voting block.although I’m not sure what that means in a practical sense. One has to have an SS number (isn’t it checked?)...
If they can pay taxes, I would guess that it is not checked. If they are not paying taxes, screw ‘em.
...and insurance companies are very keen to kick people off their rolls once an expensive claim is made.
Private insurance companies are…yes.
I don’t understand your question. Is universal coverage a goal? Absolutely. Does that mean we must have Medicare for all? Of course not.
I think the fevered brain is on the other head. How not? No one questions that the majority of illegals live at or below the poverty line. How can they not be the recipient of the ‘free’ healthcare? If any country in the world has true 99-100% coverage they must cover their illegals, and if the illegals cannot pay for it and are not working, that means everyone else is. If you want 100% coverage, everyone must have Medicare or some other insurance. If medicare is the ‘public option’ and everyone must be covered, liberals will make others pay for them to be added to Medicare. Let’s face it, the only people not on Medicare in the liberal world are people that can afford something better, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1225 hrs
people who want to see their aunt Pepita become a legal citizen and/or have voting rights and medical care is a significant voting block.
I suppose it is. And probably a growing one, too. Perhaps the GOP should find a way to reach out to those Americans and the things they care about. If not, well, I guess they’ll be Democrats.
I would guess that it is not checked.
According to this article I just read, Medicaid recipients have to “declare their citizenship” under penalty of perjury. They have to prove it if their state asks them to—if they suspect something, I guess. Also according to the article, the CBO estimated that less than 35,000 illegal aliens are receiving Medicaid fraudulently. If I read that correctly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902093.html
I don’t really follow your last paragraph. But I guess I see two different aspects of this issue. First, we already pay for them when they’re injured. We already pay for them when they’re acutely ill. We already pay for them when they’re elderly. Hell, we could probably save a buck if we just made them eligible for preventive and routine care in the first place. On the other hand, I definitely get it: We definitely do not want to incentivize additional illegal immigration. Tough call.
But that dilemma is separate from reforming health care in general. The House bill does nothing to change the healthcare fortunes of America’s illegal immigrants. All the shrieking about it is only paranoia and fear-mongering and distraction. Not only does it not change anything for them, there’s no logical reason to believe it’s the path to giving them free health care in the future. Is there? I think probably Democratic leaders have the idea that this isn’t an immigration bill, that it should not tip the scales on that issue one way or another, that it should preserve the status quo. Exactly the same thing they’ve aimed for with regard to abortion. Leave that as a separate issue.
I guess it upsets you that I say I want universal coverage and that the universe includes some illegal immigrants. But let me ask you this: if we excluded them from that universe would you support the rest of the reforms? No. If it makes no difference to you with regard to whether you’ll support it or not, why are we wasting time talking about it? Why not talk about the real issues that your support hinges upon?
Posted by scott on November 10, 2009 at 1302 hrs
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, that Bush signed, authorizes government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants.
It’s already on the books.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1331 hrs
Illegal aliens are not eligible for Medicare. The fact that we’re paying for illegal immigrants who show up acutely ill at hospitals should be no surprise. Where did you think that money came from? Still, it is wrong to say that they are eligible for Medicare—they aren’t.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2009 at 1340 hrs
www.fha.org/protected/1011presentation.ppt
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1343 hrs
You’ll notice in the powerpoint the name John Shadegg.
Yes, it’s the same John Shadegg from the John Shadegg and Maddie show.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28o3yUvuQSA
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1500 hrs
Pat, having looked through the first half of those slides, I wonder why you’re bringing it into this argument. It seems to be about the fact that the government reimburses hospitals who provide emergency services to illegal aliens. What on earth does this have to do with the reforms under discussion?
And actually, the fact that you and I are already paying for these acute medical cases is a good argument that we might spend our money more cost effectively by providing more preventative care up front. But that’s another can of worms altogether. The current reforms do not in any way attempt to provide this for them. The current reform bill preserves the status quo as far as I can tell.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2009 at 1513 hrs
Scott,
Hey, I’m not debating with anyone on this.
Your doing well with debating TUERQAS.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1516 hrs
The fact that we physically can’t deport them all is not the issue.
They are here illegally and shouldn’t be able to buy a hamburger much less health care. Yes - if they stumble into a hospital with a heart attack, we are going to give them health care.
If you are here illegally - you have no rights - since you shouldn’t even be here. Try going to any other country illegally and see what you are able to buy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1530 hrs
The fact that we can’t physically deport them is precisely the issue. Because once you acknowledge that fact, you have to come up with sensible policies on what to do with them.
It’s one thing to say you’re not eligible for government-paid health care (excepting emergency care). It’s quite another to go out of your way to prevent them from acquiring health services on the open market with their own money. What next, are we going to demand proof of citizenship to buy baby formula? After all, they’re here illegally.
I understand that conservatives are very concerned that we not reward or coddle people in our country illegally. But there’s a point at which it becomes mean-spirited, vindictive and ultimately unhelpful to us. I believe that point is where we are now. No Medicaid, fine. No health insurance of any kind? C’mon. Who does that help?
Posted by scott on November 10, 2009 at 1543 hrs
Scott;
I don’t know that anyone is saying they can’t buy health insurance with there own money. Just like no one was saying with the Stupak amendment that women can’t buy health insurance with abortion services with their own money. What is being said, is that they (both the undocumented residents and women) should not be able to buy health insurance that has a federal subsidy. THIS INCLUDES A SUSIBDY IN THE FORM OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS PAID WITH FDEDERAL FUNDS. That is, if it is a policy that is available through a cooperative, or centralized market, or whatever you want to call it, that is administered by and.or staffed and /or funded in any way with federal money/employees then no undocumented residents should have access to it. Now, is that something you can agree to? If you can I would think everyone else here (well maybe not Bill) will say,, “Yes, is anyone wants to buy insurance on the OPEN MARKET they can do so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1625 hrs
Scott, you said it yourself earlier this thread. If the government answer is to mandate insurance and prove it on your tax return, how can an illegal comply? The answer is that no one will be verified, just like your taxes except with an occasional audit.
Do you know what happens to an illegal if they get audited? The exact same thing as if they were a citizen. if they owe more they are asked to pay it. if they owe less, they are sent a check. Even when a fake social security number is verified as a fraud the IRS ‘has no authority regarding legal immigration’ and the information is not forwarded to another dept. as long as taxes are in order.
The answer is as simple as choosing which laws to enforce and which not to. It has always been that way. The bottom line is that any illegal that has a payroll job has some level of fake ID. They need that just to buy a beer after work. That same level of fake ID allows them to vote in WI. If they pay taxes they have an (illicit)social security number. That is enough cred for the Government. A public option will be just as sloppy in verifying legality. They do not have the motive to look any further because they do not save their money by doing so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1634 hrs
I don’t know that anyone is saying they can’t buy health insurance with there own money.
Actually Bill has been saying it quite clearly throughout this thread.
no one was saying with the Stupak amendment that women can’t buy health insurance with abortion services with their own money.
Really? Which insurance plans offered in the HIE will offer those services? My understanding—and forgive me if I’m wrong—is that over time all private insurance will be offered through the HIE.
A SUSIBDY IN THE FORM OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS PAID WITH FDEDERAL FUNDS.
I’m pretty sure that the House bill legislates that the entire cost of the public option insurance be paid for through premiums. That includes claims and administrative costs. Am I wrong? I think your presumption that a) the public option is subsidized by the government and b) that private insurance sold through the HIE is also in some meaningful way ‘subsidized’ is wrong.
Tuerqas you make an interesting argument above. But riddle me this: if the government is so lackadaisical about checking and verifying things, what makes you think they’re going to rigorously check and verify whether you have insurance or not? Still, it’s an interesting argument. Most interesting one on your side I’ve heard yet.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2009 at 1652 hrs
Scott;
Is the public option going to be serviced by federal employees? Are federal employees going to process the applications for HI and determine which program the applicant qualifies for? Is the HIE going to be overseen by federal employees? Money is fungible, if federal employees are involved, then federal funds are involved. Unless the entire shooting match is going to be kept 100% seperate, and that includes benefits, payroll processing, infrastructure creation and maintenance, then it will involve federal funds. I do not think it was going to be set up as an entity seperate from the rest of the government. But, I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1704 hrs
Isn’t it true that the House bill just passed mandates that the public option be paid for entirely by premiums? Is there any reason at all to think that this doesn’t include administrative or other costs associated with its operation? Because right now all you seem to have is that you have a funny feeling that it might be subsidized.
I don’t know how the HIE operations are funded. But even supposing that they’re totally federally funded, so what? My health insurance today is also regulated by a government agency. Does that mean it’s not an entirely private enterprise? Stocks of companies are traded on the floor of exchanges funded by the government. Does that make those companies “federally funded”? C’mon.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2009 at 1715 hrs
Scott,
The federal public option, to the best of my knowledge, is based to a significant extent on MinnesotaCare. MnCare is also a premium financed HI system with a sliding scale of premiums. To say that it is not funded with state and federal dollars would be a flat-out falsehood however.
Yoiur insurance today is regulated by the government, yes, but the people doing the work and making the decisions are paid by the company, not the regulating body.
As for the NYSE being funded by the government? Um, no. It is operated by NYSE_Euronext a for-profit corporation.
Simply put, the public option will have federal funding/ THat is the definition of public isnt it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2009 at 1729 hrs
Isn’t it true that the House bill just passed mandates that the public option be paid for entirely by premiums? Is there any reason at all to think that this doesn’t include administrative or other costs associated with its operation?
At the very least, prices will be negotiated (set) by the Government. That was the underpinning of your argument about Medicare being cheaper. Without, again, going in to how price setting kills the market, the only way the US cost ever goes down through Government intervention is sensible legislation on private businesses (will never happen, too much special interest money in to both sides’ coffers) or price setting and rationing. This bill in no way represents sensible legislation on private businesses and price ‘negotiation’ is part of the current public option of the bill, so…
But riddle me this: if the government is so lackadaisical about checking and verifying things, what makes you think they’re going to rigorously check and verify whether you have insurance or not?
Not much of a riddle there and the point you are proving is mine. The answer is that they won’t. The hospital does that. If your fake ID works you get your coverage because there is no motivation to check further. The Hospital gets paid by the Government and the Government does not care because they want everyone to be covered just like Dems want everyone to vote regardless of technical legalities. (Sure it is illegal for a non-citizen to vote and there is a law against it. Of course, without the least ID needed to prove yourself at the ballot box, there is no way to enforce it.) There will be no enforcement here either. Therefore, everyone and their illegal brother will have the public insurance. Let’s see, I can go to a private company where they will accept my money until I have a problem, then they will deny my claim because I am illegal, or I can take the public option where no one will check the least detail of what I send in… h’mmm.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 0833 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129829
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 12:30 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 02:40 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).