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.
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.
Let’s move this over to GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I rate it as false.
How is SCHIP Obama’s baby? IIRC, this program was started (and defined) under President Clinton.
Yep, Clinton.
SCHIP
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.
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.
None of them made your extraordinary claim.
The only liar in this story is Joe Wilson.
I presume you are referring to Post #3? 
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!
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 :rolleyes:
And when he expands a program that has been in place for ten years already, it becomes his baby.
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.
And then the appropriate presidential response would have been, “So what?”
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:
- Without the illegal immigrant exclusion, the health care law is unconstitutional.
- However, with the exclusion plus severability, it somehow becomes constitutional, once the immigrant exclusion is removed.
- 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?
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.