Joe Wilson. Was he wrong?

[Saint Cad]

We all remember. Obama is giving a speech to a joint session of Congress and when Obama claimed that his proposal would not mandate coverage for illegal aliens, Joe yells out, "You lie!" This is in GQ because I don't want to debate if reprimand and not censure was appropriate or Obamacare or anything like that. It just struck me that SCOTUS is pretty consistant that not providing services for illegal aliens is unconstitutional, so was Joe Wilson actually correct and that Obama's health care plan as of September 2009 would mandate coverage for illegal aliens?

I went on wikipedia and they talk about affordability credits and whatnot but Obama was talking about "these reforms" and "insuring immigrants" and not specific pieces of the legislation was he?

[isaiahrobinson]

Yep, completely wrong. The bill specifically exempts illegal immigrants (a few Democrats were unhappy about it). Politifact, FactCheck.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by isaiahrobinson

Yep, completely wrong. The bill specifically exempts illegal immigrants (a few Democrats were unhappy about it). Politifact, FactCheck.

Really?

Politifact and FAIR do in fact concur there are no mechanisms in place to verify immigration status. Oddly Politifact still rates Wilson's statement as false, even though everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it is highly probable for this gaping hole to be used for illegals to get treatment in the system. (maybe some pay into it, maybe some won't - but it isnt the point either)

I dont have a problem with people breaking down Politifact's findings as a reference, but their concluding truthometer ratings leaves much to be desired.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

I dont have a problem with people breaking down Politifact's findings as a reference, but their concluding truthometer ratings leaves much to be desired.

Even assuming there are gaping holes, "has holes that will allow coverage for illegal aliens" != "mandates coverage for illegal aliens". Unless the above quote was incorrect. I don't care enough to look it up.

[RealityChuck]

Yes, people can cheat the system; they can cheat any system. But there is no mandate to cover illegal aliens, so Obama's statement was true.

Actually, covering illegal aliens would reduce costs*, but politics is the art of the possible, and with the bigotry against illegal immigrants, it's not possible.

*If an illegal requires medical care, someone will have to pay for it. That would be you.

[DrDeth]

So, the bills do not "mandate coverage". Just like any other insurance or govt benefit, there will be ways to cheat the system.

[IntelliQ]

By not closing the obvious loopholes while this was being crafted, it shows one thing only. Team Obama prefers they get covered. It fits with Obama's overall attitude regarding illegals, which is to say the more the merrier.

(Noting above: It's a shame there are people who can't weigh in on any issue that touches on illegal activity or system-gaming without throwing out the word bigotry, prejudice, racism, etc.)

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

By not closing the obvious loopholes while this was being crafted, it shows one thing only. Team Obama prefers they get covered. It fits with Obama's overall attitude regarding illegals, which is to say the more the merrier.

As has already been said, this is not "mandating coverage". Joe Wilson was wrong.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

By not closing the obvious loopholes while this was being crafted, it shows one thing only. Team Obama prefers they get covered. It fits with Obama's overall attitude regarding illegals, which is to say the more the merrier.

"Team Obama" specifically enacted a law prohibiting illegal immigrants from having coverage. And to you, this is proof that they want illegal immigrants to have coverage.

I'm assuming that if "Team Obama" had done the exact opposite and enacted a law giving illegal immigrants coverage, that would also be proof that they wanted illegal immigrants to have coverage.

And if it rains tomorrow and you see worms on the sidewalk, I suppose that's also proof that Team Obama wants to give illegal immigrants coverage. You just have to know how to interpret these things.

[smithsb]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

By not closing the obvious loopholes while this was being crafted, it shows one thing only. Team Obama prefers they get covered. It fits with Obama's overall attitude regarding illegals, which is to say the more the merrier.

(Noting above: It's a shame there are people who can't weigh in on any issue that touches on illegal activity or system-gaming without throwing out the word bigotry, prejudice, racism, etc.)

Unfortunately continuing this hijack; I can't let, "more the merrier", stand about "Team Obama."

Don't let the facts get in the way: The number of illegals entering is at the lowest level in ten years (an 80% drop) and deportations have exceeded 400,000 per year (higher than any period during Bush-the-younger admin) since "Team Obama" has been in office. 3 things Americans don't need to worry about‎

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

"Team Obama" specifically enacted a law prohibiting illegal immigrants from having coverage. And to you, this is proof that they want illegal immigrants to have coverage.

I'm assuming that if "Team Obama" had done the exact opposite and enacted a law giving illegal immigrants coverage, that would also be proof that they wanted illegal immigrants to have coverage.

And if it rains tomorrow and you see worms on the sidewalk, I suppose that's also proof that Team Obama wants to give illegal immigrants coverage. You just have to know how to interpret these things.

Then you might as well write to politifact, FAIR, etc, and treat them to your searing insight - because they specifically note a loophole exists.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by smithsb

Don't let the facts get in the way: The number of illegals entering is at the lowest level in ten years (an 80% drop) and deportations have exceeded 400,000 per year (higher than any period during Bush-the-younger admin)‎

He's just using high deportations to cover up his secret pro-immigrant agenda!

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

By not closing the obvious loopholes while this was being crafted, it shows one thing only. Team Obama prefers they get covered. It fits with Obama's overall attitude regarding illegals, which is to say the more the merrier.

Where are you getting your facts? Obama has deported more illegal aliens than any other president before him.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by smithsb

Unfortunately continuing this hijack; I can't let, "more the merrier", stand about "Team Obama."

Don't let the facts get in the way: The number of illegals entering is at the lowest level in ten years (an 80% drop) and deportations have exceeded 400,000 per year (higher than any period during Bush-the-younger admin) since "Team Obama" has been in office. 3 things Americans don't need to worry about‎

I skimmed your link to the anti-republican op-ed from the Chicago Trib. Thanks.

As noted by factcheck: "He (Obama) took credit for putting “more boots on the border than ever before.” That’s true, but the big increase was under George W. Bush. And a decrease in illegal border crossings is due mainly to the lack of jobs in the U.S., experts say." This from a mostly positive take on Obama's SOTU Address, where he is mostly right on numbers, but unfairly takes credit where it is not his to take..

[md2000]

So I'm confused...
Does the law prohibit illegals from having Health Insurance?
Does this mean any employer group insurance that knowingly covers an illegal is violating the law?
Or does it simply not penalize them (unlike citizens) if they do not get health coverage?

Either way, I have trouble seeing how Wilson was even close to being right.

From what I understand about this, nothng has changed from today. Illegals typically do not have coverage; but if you show up and ned emergency treatment, you will get it regadless if questions are asked and regardless of the answers... Whether you are in the country illegally or there on a tourist visa or simply failed to pay health insurance premiums as a citizen. It's a doctor's duty to help people in immediate need, not to boot dying people to the curb.

From what I have read, then the hospital will come after you for payment, just like today if you are not covered. If your are working for minimum wage or below, you will not be able to pay. Joe Taxpayer will have to cough up, as usual.

That still does not make Wilson right. It just means doctors have an oath to uphold.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by md2000

So I'm confused...
Does the law prohibit illegals from having Health Insurance?
Does this mean any employer group insurance that knowingly covers an illegal is violating the law?
Or does it simply not penalize them (unlike citizens) if they do not get health coverage?

Either way, I have trouble seeing how Wilson was even close to being right.

From what I understand about this, nothng has changed from today. Illegals typically do not have coverage; but if you show up and ned emergency treatment, you will get it regadless if questions are asked and regardless of the answers... Whether you are in the country illegally or there on a tourist visa or simply failed to pay health insurance premiums as a citizen. It's a doctor's duty to help people in immediate need, not to boot dying people to the curb.

From what I have read, then the hospital will come after you for payment, just like today if you are not covered. If your are working for minimum wage or below, you will not be able to pay. Joe Taxpayer will have to cough up, as usual.

That still does not make Wilson right. It just means doctors have an oath to uphold.

Well I guess this is where we always get wrapped up in semantics, technicalities, mixed with blatant partisanship.

With everything Ive read, I take Wilson's outburst as a sign of disgust with the president for knowingly allowing a loophole to exist which will inevitably cover illegal aliens. The loophole IS there. It was also easily spotted and could have been fixed. Instead of fixing the problem - it was defended. That is the crux of the problem as I see it.

So there are two points to look at:

1) Obama and Democrat senators left the door wide open - on purpose. (Obama's baby ,"SCHIPS" is a good prior example of how he rolls, legislatively)

2) On sentence structure because that's how the game is played, technically - Wilson's statement would be considered false as there is no provision specifically granting them access.

I rate the context of Wilson's argument as half true.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

(Obama's baby ,"SCHIPS" is a good prior example of how he rolls, legislatively)

If you're referring to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, that was originally passed in 1997. I had no idea that a first-year member of the Illinois State Senate had the clout to push something like that through Congress.

I learn something new every day around here.

[md2000]

Is it deliberately "leaving the door open" if people in need of emergency care still get it regardless of their ability to pay? Just like today? Just like any civilized country or person would do?

If the rules had been actively changed so that there will be services or payments that are not there today, specifically targetting illegals, then maybe Wilson had a point. But I'm still not seeing what you mean.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

With everything Ive read, I take Wilson's outburst as a sign of disgust with the president for knowingly allowing a loophole to exist which will inevitably cover illegal aliens.

You may take it however you please. Psychological speculation about the state of mind of a heckler yelling two words in the course of a political speech is pretty much fair game.

But if it is taken as an assertion about the literal truth of a particular statement made by Obama, then Wilson's outburst was wrong.

Which is the factual question that the OP was asking about here in GQ:

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

This is in GQ because I don't want to debate if reprimand and not censure was appropriate or Obamacare or anything like that.

Well, nice try anyway.

[steronz]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

As noted by factcheck: "He (Obama) took credit for putting “more boots on the border than ever before.” That’s true, but the big increase was under George W. Bush. And a decrease in illegal border crossings is due mainly to the lack of jobs in the U.S., experts say." This from a mostly positive take on Obama's SOTU Address, where he is mostly right on numbers, but unfairly takes credit where it is not his to take..

"He's taking credit for the previous administration's policies" is a whole different objection than saying that his attitude is "the more the merrier." If the numbers are accurate, your characterization of Obama is a great example of cognitive dissonance.

It's entirely within Obama's power to undo the Bush policies that you claim he's taking credit for. His actions don't match your opinion.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

You may take it however you please. Psychological speculation about the state of mind of a heckler yelling two words in the course of a political speech is pretty much fair game.

But if it is taken as an assertion about the literal truth of a particular statement made by Obama, then Wilson's outburst was wrong.

Which is the factual question that the OP was asking about here in GQ:


Well, nice try anyway.

Maybe you didnt read where I stated that Wilson's outburst can be technically rated as false - with supportive reasoning, i.e. "Obamacare doesnt specifically allow a provision for covering illegal aliens".

You're welcome.

[Saint Cad]

Now maybe this is getting into GD territory but . . .
Would barring illegal immigrants from a social service like public health insurance be constitutional? It isn't for public schooling and welfare IIRC.

[Colibri]

Let's move this over to GD.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Well I guess this is where we always get wrapped up in semantics, technicalities, mixed with blatant partisanship.

With everything Ive read, I take Wilson's outburst as a sign of disgust with the president for knowingly allowing a loophole to exist which will inevitably cover illegal aliens. The loophole IS there. It was also easily spotted and could have been fixed. Instead of fixing the problem - it was defended. That is the crux of the problem as I see it.

So there are two points to look at:

1) Obama and Democrat senators left the door wide open - on purpose. (Obama's baby ,"SCHIPS" is a good prior example of how he rolls, legislatively)

2) On sentence structure because that's how the game is played, technically - Wilson's statement would be considered false as there is no provision specifically granting them access.

I rate the context of Wilson's argument as half true.

I rate it as false.

How is SCHIP Obama's baby? IIRC, this program was started (and defined) under President Clinton.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

I rate it as false.

How is SCHIP Obama's baby? IIRC, this program was started (and defined) under President Clinton.

Yep, Clinton.
SCHIP

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) – later known more simply as the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)[1] – is a program administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides matching funds to states for health insurance to families with children.[2] The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960s. The statutory authority for SCHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act. It was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy in a partnership with Senator Orrin Hatch[3] with support coming from First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Clinton administration.

[John Mace]

He was wrong.

Now, if he had stood up and said:

Pardom me, Mr. President, but this is a very nuanced subject and not one that can meaningfully be described in such emphatic terms. Sure, you have language in the bill that states it does not apply to illegal aliens, but we all know that they have to be taken care of somehow. So, can we just admit that while this system theoretically doesn't include illegals, there really no enforcement mechanism, and just like every other government program, there is going to be some cases where illegals slip through the safeguards.

Perhaps that would have had some merit, although interrupting the SotU speech is beyond rude. Instead he yelled out "you lie", which is simply not true except by torturing the definition of that phrase and parsing Obama's statement in an unusual way.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by John Mace

He was wrong.

Now, if he had stood up and said:

Pardom me, Mr. President, but this is a very nuanced subject and not one that can meaningfully be described in such emphatic terms. Sure, you have language in the bill that states it does not apply to illegal aliens, but we all know that they have to be taken care of somehow. So, can we just admit that while this system theoretically doesn't include illegals, there really no enforcement mechanism, and just like every other government program, there is going to be some cases where illegals slip through the safeguards.

Perhaps that would have had some merit, although interrupting the SotU speech is beyond rude. Instead he yelled out "you lie", which is simply not true except by torturing the definition of that phrase and parsing Obama's statement in an unusual way.

This.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Now maybe this is getting into GD territory but . . .
Would barring illegal immigrants from a social service like public health insurance be constitutional? It isn't for public schooling and welfare IIRC.

I don't know, but how are you going to do this? Right now there are a bunch of laws that state that someone who is in need of emergency care must be treated and cannot be turned away/ Does your hypothetical system change this so that only someone who has papers proving their citizenship is eligible for emergency treatment? Or do you want to keep those laws but make it so the medical care provider has to eat these costs unless the patient can retroactively provide proof of citizenship? I believe this is how most illegal immigrants get medical coverage: retroactive to care.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Then you might as well write to politifact, FAIR, etc, and treat them to your searing insight - because they specifically note a loophole exists.

None of them made your extraordinary claim.

[BrainGlutton]

The only liar in this story is Joe Wilson.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Well I guess this is where we always get wrapped up in semantics, technicalities, mixed with blatant partisanship.

I presume you are referring to Post #3?

[Saint Cad]

Now that it's in GD ...
I was just thinking, the way that the law was written it was discrimination by commission i.e. specifically banning illegal immigrants from coverage instead of one of omission i.e. limiting coverage to citizen & legal aliens. There is no way excluding illegal immigrants would be upheld and due to the severability clause in the former scenerio illegal immigrants would be given coverage and in the latter case the required coverage would be disallowed.

So my take is that Joe Wilson was technically wrong because Obamacare specifically excluded illegal immigrants but actually right because anyone with a constitutional law background (like Obama) knew that those exclusions would be thrown out.

Anyone disagree?

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Now that it's in GD ...
I was just thinking, the way that the law was written it was discrimination by commission i.e. specifically banning illegal immigrants from coverage instead of one of omission i.e. limiting coverage to citizen & legal aliens. There is no way excluding illegal immigrants would be upheld and due to the severability clause in the former scenerio illegal immigrants would be given coverage and in the latter case the required coverage would be disallowed.

So my take is that Joe Wilson was technically wrong because Obamacare specifically excluded illegal immigrants but actually right because anyone with a constitutional law background (like Obama) knew that those exclusions would be thrown out.

Anyone disagree?

So, you're saying that, if he had left out that provision, then illegal aliens wouldn't be allowed to get coverage, but, by leaving it in, he cleverly double-reversed the rule, using the conservative supreme court to his advantage, in order to get them covered. He is one brilliant constitutional scholar! Here we all forgot about the 32nd amendment, making it unconstitutional to deny medical coverage to all illegal aliens.

Wow! Genius! That even beats having his alleged birth announcement put into a Hawaii newspaper, all the way from Kenya!

[Ludovic]

When he successfully implements policies his predecessor had put into place, he's powerless so can't take credit, but when he proposes policies of his own, he's a lying master manipulator

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

When he successfully implements policies his predecessor had put into place, he's powerless so can't take credit, but when he proposes policies of his own, he's a lying master manipulator

And when he expands a program that has been in place for ten years already, it becomes his baby.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

This.

I second that.

Look, illegal or not, we're not going to let some dude bleed out in the ER while we're checking his Green card. We give medical care to inmates on death row and terrorists in Gitmo. Our medics treated Nazi Stormtroopers in WWII.

To do otherwise would be un-American. It's amazing that the right wing has taken that position.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

He was wrong.

Now, if he had stood up and said:

Pardom me, Mr. President, but this is a very nuanced subject and not one that can meaningfully be described in such emphatic terms. Sure, you have language in the bill that states it does not apply to illegal aliens, but we all know that they have to be taken care of somehow. So, can we just admit that while this system theoretically doesn't include illegals, there really no enforcement mechanism, and just like every other government program, there is going to be some cases where illegals slip through the safeguards.

Perhaps that would have had some merit, although interrupting the SotU speech is beyond rude. Instead he yelled out "you lie", which is simply not true except by torturing the definition of that phrase and parsing Obama's statement in an unusual way.

And then the appropriate presidential response would have been, "So what?"

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

So, you're saying that, if he had left out that provision, then illegal aliens wouldn't be allowed to get coverage, but, by leaving it in, he cleverly double-reversed the rule, using the conservative supreme court to his advantage, in order to get them covered. He is one brilliant constitutional scholar! Here we all forgot about the 32nd amendment, making it unconstitutional to deny medical coverage to all illegal aliens.

Wow! Genius! That even beats having his alleged birth announcement put into a Hawaii newspaper, all the way from Kenya!

No. That was not even close and I like how you futher poison the well by characterizing me as a birther.


What I'm saying is that the law had a severability clause so that an unconstitutional provision did not take down the whole law. Also, it is fairly well establish by case law that social services cannot exclude illigal immigrants.

So a provision that excludes illegal immigrants from benefits is thrown out as unconstitutional = illegal immigrants now receiving benefits.

A provision giving benefits to only those here legally is thrown out as unconstitutional = no one gets those benefits..

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

No. That was not even close and I like how you futher poison the well by characterizing me as a birther.


What I'm saying is that the law had a severability clause so that an unconstitutional provision did not take down the whole law. Also, it is fairly well establish by case law that social services cannot exclude illigal immigrants.

So a provision that excludes illegal immigrants from benefits is thrown out as unconstitutional = illegal immigrants now receiving benefits.

A provision giving benefits to only those here legally is thrown out as unconstitutional = no one gets those benefits..

First, I didn't call you a birther. IMO, at this point that's an insult that shouldn't even be allowed inside the Pit. The argument you put forth, though, seems to be as crazy as some of theirs.

Perhaps I misunderstand, or perhaps you're not explaining it well. Here's the argument you seem to be putting forth:

1. Without the illegal immigrant exclusion, the health care law is unconstitutional.
2. However, with the exclusion plus severability, it somehow becomes constitutional, once the immigrant exclusion is removed.
3. This is because, uh, the Supreme Court is distracted by it or something.

Further, you claim that Obama, using his Harvard Law wiles, knows this is how it will come down, so he specifically had the illegal immigrant exclusion put in, because that way, it would somehow be taken out, leaving the rest of the law in place! By signing a law excluding illegal immigrants from our lame form of universal healthcare, he not only gets them covered, but he keeps the rest of the law in place.

Is that what you're saying?

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

What I'm saying is that the law had a severability clause so that an unconstitutional provision did not take down the whole law.

Obamacare very famously does not have a severability clause. If you are not aware of this fact I am a bit dubious of the rest of your argument re: Obama's intentions.