November 20, 2009
Did Joe Wilson Keep the President Honest?
We didn’t support Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst accusing President Obama of lying about his health plan covering illegal aliens. But evidently the Congressman from South Carolina was not the only one who thought the President was uttering an “untruth.” That is the conclusion you have to draw from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ displeasure over illegal immigrants being excluded in the bills now before Congress. They trace this “harder White House line” to the “you lie” incident. The question is, what did they think the line was going to be?
It sure implies that the CHC assumed that they were going to get illegal immigrants included. How could they think that when the President specifically 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.” So if they believed the President then, why are they mad now? And if they didn’t believe him then, how can they be mad at Joe Wilson? Logic once again confounds liberalism.
We (Christine & John) believe that everyone in the U.S. should get urgent health care, no matter their legality. It is just not acceptable any other way and we have reasonable confidence that it would work out in practice. But we question whether illegal aliens should be entitled to the full panoply of coverage. They are here illegally, after all.
An American tourist who becomes sick in European countries with universal health care will receive the care needed to safeguard his life and health. He will also receive a bill and be sent home. And he would not be eligible for other health care benefits enjoyed by the citizens & legal residents of that country. That is reasonable, understandable and moral.
We have obligations to our fellow human beings, but those obligations are not open ended. It is disingenuous for the CHC to be shocked that taxpayers don’t want to be endlessly generous to people who have come to our country contrary to our laws … or maybe they just assumed that the President was lying. Maybe it was Joe Wilson’s outburst that returned the president to the straight and narrow.
Posted by Christine & John at November 20, 2009 10:01 PMJoe Wilson was right in calling Obozo a liar. He lied about covering them, and had his bases covered in 3 ways:
1. It was always his goal to cover illegals, but Joe foiled this.
2. He lied by “it depends what is, is”, the old Clinton trick. Obozo said he would not cover illegals, but the next moved was amnesty. Which means they are covered.
3. Illegals can no more be denied healthcare than illegal’s children can be denied education. That decision was made by the SC and holds true to healthcare as well. And Obozo knew this, wasn’t he a law professor?
Posted by: propitiation at November 20, 2009 11:27 PM
President Obama never planned to cover illegal immigrants, that’s why every incarnation of the bill from the start has had strict procedures to ensure that only American Citizens and legal residents are able to participate in the public option and other government subsidized plans.
If a few idiots in the Congressional Hispanic Congress thought that Obama and the liberals in Congress would secretly add a provision to cover illegal immigrants, that only proves their idiocy, but proves nothing regarding Obama or the drafters of the various health-care bills.
Christine + John, thank you for posting this. I’m glad to hear that Obama has enough backbone to be able to stand up to a certain faction of the Democratic Party and tell them that they won’t be able to hijack the bill to serve their interests. The ability to oppose potentially large voting bloc in one’s own party and stand for what is right is a rare trait nowadays. I wish our previous President had learned this skill.
Propitation,
The first few times you called our President Obozo were cute, but now that it is becoming a regular part of your comments it is becoming irksome. You have every right to call him Obozo, but if you want people to have a constructive discussion or debate, it’s a good idea not to resort to name-calling. I know that it’s not unprecedented for some people at Watchblog to habitually use a pejorative name for a public figure, some liberals commenting on this site often used several different ones to describe Fmr. President George W. Bush, especially in the period from 2004-2006 when liberal frustration with the government was at its highest, but I tend to think that the use of disparaging terms detracts rather than adds to one’s argument. You may cite the “But they did it too!” justification, but I hope you hear my plea to take a moral high ground on this one.
Regarding your three points, I see no evidence supporting the first one. I doubt the Democrats will touch the immigration issue with a ten foot pole let alone pass amnesty any time soon, the reprisals from the electorate would be substantial, Democrats are more likely to let the issue slide until amnesty becomes popular with the public (this is likely to happen because of ongoing demographics changes in America). Regarding your third point, I think you are confusing emergency care, which cannot be denied by a hospital in this country that receives a cent of federal money and long term preventative care, which is what is what the various health care bills address.
Posted by: Warped Reality at November 21, 2009 01:21 AMChristine and John,
Actually, when a foreigner becomes ill in countries with Universal Healthcare, they generally don’t receive a bill. An illegal in any country will be treated and then booted out. Including here. Who is arguing that illegals won’t receive urgent care?
The best argument you can come up with is some action implies that someone assumed something? Really?
Posted by: gergle at November 21, 2009 06:49 AMWarped Reality:
So it’s getting under your skin? You’re too kind to the left for saying the name calling lasted from 2004-2006. Perhaps you would like to go back and check the records. The statements from the left, on a daily basis, insulted Bush up until he left office. In fact his name is still being slandered and he’s not been in office for a year. Not only Bush, but also anyone from the right was subject to the most fowl language. Perhaps you would like to look at some of the names given to Sarah Palin and her family? Are they still insulting her name? Why don’t we read some of the material out of the Daily Kos? Isn’t the Daily Kos the liberal standard?
“You have every right to call him Obozo, but if you want people to have a constructive discussion or debate, it’s a good idea not to resort to name-calling.”
I don’t think so. If there is one thing I have learned about the liberals on Watchblog, it is their inability to not respond. There are certain key words that spark a volley of vitriol from the left. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t remember Warped Reality correcting anyone on the left for his or her personal attacks?
Regarding my 3 points:
1.Obozo, for months, pushed there were 47 million Americans without insurance and he encouraged congress to pass health reform, providing insurance for the 47 million. When the material came to light that this included illegals, all of a sudden the number of uninsured dropped to 30 million. So in his original coverage he included illegals.
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-30-million-uninsured-47-million.html
2.Concerning amnesty: he was “for amnesty, before he was against amnesty:
Or perhaps this statement by Obozo, that is no longer on his web site:
“OFFICIAL STANCE on Amnesty/Legalization for illegal aliens and on Attrition Through Enforcement that pushes illegal aliens to go back home:
“Every year, a million people enter the country legally and another 500,000-800,000 people come illegally or illegally overstay their visas. Barack Obama believes we must fix the broken system to meet the needs of the U.S. economy. Obama believes immigrant workers should have legal protections to avoid abuse and downward pressure on American wages and working conditions. He also realizes the need to increase the number of people we allow into the country legally to a level that keeps families together and meets the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill … There are millions of people living in the shadows who would like to fully embrace our values and become full members of our democracy. For the millions living here illegally but otherwise playing by the rules, we must encourage them to come out of hiding and get right with the law. Barack Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, not violate the law, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens … He also realizes the need to increase the number of people we allow into the country legally to a level that keeps families together and meets the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.” BarackObama.com
3. Concerning a constitutional right to healthcare: I’m not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but the Constitution does not differentiate between legal and illegal citizens. If the Constitution guarantees rights, they are guaranteed to all who are within our borders. Such as emergency care and public education. Perhaps someone who knows more about this can comment, but there was a state that refused public education to illegal children and the SC overruled and said whatever is provided by the government, must be provided to all within the borders. According to Judge Napolitano of FOX News, this ruling also applies to illegal immigrants.
gergle, perhaps you could provid documentation that treated illegals are booted out of the US?
Posted by: propitiation at November 21, 2009 09:17 AMPropitiation,
I don’t think they are unless INS (Homeland Security) catches them. Hospitals are not police, or immigration enforcement agencies, but then neither are most European hospitals. I have read several articles by Americans abroad who say country of origin is not an issue in European hospitals, and many charge nothing.
I wasn’t suggesting that hospitals turn in their patients, just that illegals are booted from all countries, if caught. That said, if someone shows up with a gun shot wound, police are usually called. If the patient has committed a crime he likely will be booted after prosecution and sentence.
Posted by: gergle at November 21, 2009 10:01 AMGergle
My friend got sick in Germany and got a bill. I don’t know how it works generally. My general point was that no country covers routine care for visitors. Otherwise you could just book a trip to France or Germany when you needed some elective surgery.
My secondary point is that all civilized countries will provide lifesaving care. I wrote this point that is obvious to me and evidently to you to preempt the bogus arguments on both sides that illegals do not or should not get such care.
The reason I posted this in general was to show that Wilson’s assumption was not unique. Evidently the Democrats in the CHC thought there was some kind of wink and nod going on there.
Let’s agree that President Obama believed what he said was true at the time when he said it. Wilson’s outburst - by making the issue so prominent - certainly prevented any backsliding.
We have good reason not to trust the Democrats in Congress. They tend to do their work out of the public eye and their promises to post proposals and give the people the time to read them have not been kept.
IMO, w/o the higher level of attention, we would find provisions in the bill that somehow did indeed include an illegal alien option. That is evidently what the CHC believed and they are insiders - members of Congress - who know more than you or I.
I believe that the tactic that works is to narrow the President’s options by calling attention to the little things that get included by stealth.
Put them in the full light of day because sunlight is the enemy of corruption. If the American people are okay with what is going on, I am too. I am glad that the details of the Democratic plans are revealed.
Posted by: Christine at November 21, 2009 10:06 AMChristine,
It isn’t available for elective care, rather emergency care. Yes, I too, thought that was rather obvious. I don’t know about Germany, but both France and England do not charge, as I understand it.
I personally have never been to Europe.
While I agree that the posting of bills hasn’t been kept, I never took that to mean that backroom negotiation wouldn’t occur. We actually haven’t yet got a bill to the Senate floor for voting yet. I seriously hope you aren’t trying to aver that Republicans don’t engage in this backroom negotiation. The art of negotiation usually isn’t done in public. It then simply becomes another political tennis ball.
Here in College Station, the voters signed a petition to remove red light cameras from town.
It was put on the ballot and won by 52% of the turn out. A local lawyer who represented the company that has the contract to run these cameras, then filed a protest to stop removal as a “private citizen” claiming he was not representing the company. He claimed it was an illegal referendum, past the 20 days allowed by city ordinance. The city council hired a lawyer from Austin to “do the will of the voters” by calling the petitioned issue an initiative. A Judge sent the parties to mediation which resolved it by giving the company 60 days notice before removal. Funny how the company got two more months on a deal he said was his private concern about safety. I wonder what will happen in 60 days. Another protest?
The mediation happened behind closed doors.
In my opinion, the city council (since city council voted them in without a referendum) and the company and lawyer both ended up looking like snakes, but in the end the voters got what they wanted, it just had that bonus charge at the end for fun and profit.
Thanks for using the sane and social-oriented European health care system as a baseline for the one we should adopt. It’s about time “you people” came to your senses on this issue.
Posted by: steve miller at November 21, 2009 11:44 AMSteve
A foreigner in the U.S. would get similar level of care. Most Americans would be better off coming home for care if they could.
FYI - Both of us have experienced health care in Europe and the U.S. Christine is in favor of a Scandinavian style insurance system for the U.S. John, who is older and perhaps in more precarious heath, is less enthusiastic about that option. Reasonable people can disagree.
We agree, however, that the current proposals in Congress will probably manage to give us the worst of both, i.e. European levels of care at American prices.
Posted by: Christine at November 21, 2009 11:54 AMChristine,
Yes, but if they were to honestly attempt to pay the bill they received, they’d be bankrupt.
Life isn’t perfect, and in the face of the hostile Republican onslaught of death panels, any step forward is better than nothing. We may have to stumble our way into a real solution, but let’s, at least, start in that direction.
Posted by: gergle at November 21, 2009 12:45 PMGergle
The Democratic proposals do not include practical cost cutting means and there is no tort reform. The European use both cost control and there are no U.S. scale tort awards.
President Obama tells us that if we do nothing (his false dichotomy again) we will go bankrupt. But the health care talked about avoids doing the things that will cut costs.They are just looking for ways to tax everybody more.
Once we establish this new entitlement, changing it will be essentially impossible. So “doing something” may not be the right thing if we are doing the wrong things.
Posted by: Christine at November 21, 2009 01:13 PMpropitation, I said it was getting irksome, not that it was getting under my skin. It’s irksome because it’s annoying to have to translate your “Obozo’s” into “Obama’s” in my mind when I read what you write. I personally refused to stoop to the level that others did on the left during that period, if I ever blogged a critique of our President’s policies I always did so without modifying his name or denigrating the office of the President of the United States. It seems that you have chosen to refuse the offer to join me on this issue, I guess the only conclusion I can draw is that there is no evidence that Obama is a bozo and you are just playing one of Gobbels’ favorite tricks, “If you tell a lie often enough, the public will believe it to be true.”
There are certain key words that spark a volley of vitriol from the left.I don’t know why you visit Watchblog, I come hear to learn from well-reasoned opinions from across the political spectrum, but this sentence seems to suggest that you enjoy making inflammatory statements rather than having reasonable discussions.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t remember Warped Reality correcting anyone on the left for his or her personal attacks?
I used to post under the names “Warren” and “Warren P”. From 2004 to 2006 I was 14-16 years old, although I read Watchblog readily I commented very infrequently, and my comments were usually very small blurbs; I usually didn’t have much to say because I hadn’t formed that many political opinions yet, other than the fact that I felt betrayed by George W. Bush regarding the justification for invading Iraq and I also was disheartened by the refusal by conservatives to heed well supported scientific theories such as evolution as well as global warming. I did at one point defend Bush against the accusation that he hadn’t done a single good decision. You can read for yourself here. Maybe I should have done more, but just to let you know, my parents were not supportive of my participation in an online discussion group with mostly older participants. I tried to limit the number of times I visited watchblog from home, so that they did not suspect anything nefarious was going on. Most of my comments I made during my lunch break at school, which I usually used to study in the library and occasionally I used the library’s computer’s to visit watchblog without fear of my parent’s finding out.
If/when another conservative is President or gain control of Congress, I promise that not only will I refuse to participate in name-calling (just as I refused to do so 2004-2006). I will do my best to encourage other liberals to do the same.
Regarding the actual topic:
1. I don’t see how the statement of 30 million uninsured versus the statement of 47 million uninsured means that the original plan intended to cover illegal immigrants. Perhaps it took a while for supports of health care reform to discover that some of the people in the often quoted 47 million figure were illegals, once this was discovered subsequent speeches have accounted for that (this is just my idea, I don’t know what was actually going on, hence the word perhaps). All I know is that there have restrictions on coverage for illegal immigrants in every single major health care reform bill that has been proposed in Congress, including those that were proposed last spring, well before conservatives and right wingers began their attack of any planned reform.
2. I never said Obama never supported legalizing people who are currently here illegally. I merely said that there is no change that Obama or the Democratic Congress will try to tackle the issue when they have their hands full with other issues which are more important (health care reform, mitigating our impact on global climate and ending the recession that we are in right now).
3. Maybe conservatives use a different Constitution than the one that was written in 1787, but the one I use does not guarantee a right to health care so I don’t know why the courts would force a state to provide long term or elective health care to illegal immigrants.
We agree, however, that the current proposals in Congress will probably manage to give us the worst of both, i.e. European levels of care at American prices.
Posted by: Christine at November 21, 2009 11:54 AM
Well said…and thank you.
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 21, 2009 01:56 PMWarped Reality
I commend you on your ability to not result to the same name calling as other liberals on this site
From what you are saying, you’re just a young fella. So you never had the opportunity to actually attend public schools before the left started filling kid’s heads with mush. Those were he good old days, when teachers taught students to have pride in their nation. When we had Christmas and Easter break. When teachers read from the bible in class. Today, kids are taught that all the woes of the world can be blamed on America.
Concerning the president; I have respect for the office, but I have no respect for Obama. As Royal Flush has pointed out, he is nothing more than an empty suit. For all the hype about the credentials of Sarah Palin, we now find we are stuck with a president who is in way over his head. I heard today on the news; Obama said he would be willing to fore go a second term in order to get his legislation passed. Something that comes with age is the ability to read between the lines. So I asked myself the question, “why would he say such a thing?” The conclusion I came to was, he was telling those Democratic Senators and Congressman, who WILL get voted out, if they side with him on healthcare and cap and trade, “I am willing to sacrifice my re-election to pass these bills, how about you”. Does this mean he knows the people are against hi “change”? Why would he be willing to sacrifice the majority he holds? And, yes, the Democrats are in trouble with Americans. He would have never said this unless he knew how upset Americans are about the spending and taxes.
WR, I don’t have to try to upset the left. Like I said, there are key words that invoke a response from the left. Words like “Christian Nation”, “global warming is a hoax”, “Reagan was a great President”, “abortion is murder”, and you get the point.
There is no sense covering the 3 points anymore. You’re not able to understand, but perhaps an expert on Constitution Law can let us know, “is it constitutional for illegal aliens to be forbidden healthcare under a public healthcare option?”
Christine,
I would appreciate your ideas on how changing the for-profit structure of our health care system (imposed by insurance companies) would degrade the level of care. Or how costs would rise if everyone was required to have health insurance. Bureaucrats make my health care decisions NOW— I aint afraid of no public option! I pay $800 per month, and have giant deductibles. Why? Because there is no competition. Mandating coverage would stimulate competition between companies due, in part, to a much larger customer base. Sounds like, oh, I don’t know….competition. Ya know, free market, and all that. I keep hearing how instituting a public option would raise health care costs. This is a horribly dishonest assertion; I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone could say that while keeping a straight face. I can only pray that enough people see it for the cynical political statement that it is……
Steve Miller,
Your comments are well taken. I would love to hear how mandates requiring coverage will inrease costs and destroy the private health insurance industry. I would love to hear why the proposed insurance exchange would not provide the type of “across state line” comptetition that is so highly touted by conservatives.
Posted by: Rich at November 21, 2009 07:49 PMI just heard….are you ready for this? On Fox News!! That Olympia Snowe thinks that just the threat (her word) of a public option would bring health insurance prices down. If that is so, just think what it would be like if there actually was a public option….REAL competition. Renew the anti-trust laws? REAL competition. Why would politicians who are elected to do the people’s bidding be opposed to this? Hmmmmmm.
Posted by: steve miller at November 21, 2009 09:05 PMSteve & Rich
I have no trouble mandating coverage. It really doesn’t solve the problem, however. There are a several big problems with the insurance debate –
1. People say they want insurance, but what they really want is low cost or free health care. You cannot buy “insurance” against routine expenses, since if everybody or almost everybody regularly uses something you cannot spread risk. People really just want somebody else to pay for their medical bills.
2.Medical costs keep rising because of torts and malpractice. Everyone pays for lawsuits and everyone pays even more for the defensive medicine provoked by the fear of lawsuits.
3.Medical costs keep rising because medical care keeps improving. Many conditions that used to kill you or were just untreatable now can be managed. This costs money.Take AIDS as an example. It used to be fatal. Now people can live with the disease but require constant & costly treatment.
4.Medical costs keep rising because people are living longer. Older people require a lot more medical care than younger ones. If we had the type of health care we had back in 1960 and the life expectancy was only 65, costs would be much lower.
5.Medical costs keep rising because advances in medicine keep people alive who have major and expensive conditions or are very old.
6.Medical costs keep rising because people demand more services if they aren’t paying the whole amount.
7.Medical costs keep rising because our habits are getting worse. Voluntary conditions such as obesity, smoking, drug taking and drinking greatly add to health costs.
Christine believes that our country will have to go with a Scandinavian style program. We experienced health care there. Everyone is covered. They get a good basic service w/o a lot of the extras we demand, but people live longer anyway. John is not so sure, as we wrote above.
Our fear is that Democrats in Congress will pander to special interests and pressure groups. Tort reform is essentially off the table. We are calling voluntary conditions such as obesity “disabilities” and expanding coverage for those sorts of things. We are pretending that “insurance” and free/cheap health care are the same things.
Posted by: Christine at November 21, 2009 09:21 PMThanks C & J or J & C, for writing articles here. There hasn’t been much in the red column for quite a while, and your articles are much more thoughtful than what was being written her previously, exemplified by your most recent posting, including “7.Medical costs keep rising because our habits are getting worse. Voluntary conditions such as obesity, smoking, drug taking and drinking greatly add to health costs.”
The government should do everything it can to provide people with good health. People who make poor choices should pay for those choices. We actually can’t afford to provide health insurance, much less health care, to a nation of increasingly fat lazy stupid people who are unable to use their own reasoning to figure out how to get healthy and stay healthy.
Posted by: ohrealy at November 22, 2009 11:11 AMNo, there was nothing to keep him honest about.
That out of the way, the Republicans have to stop rationalizing their folk’s behavior. If there’s one reason why Republicans are polling only 20 percent identification, it’s that every prominent Republican people know by name is obnoxious.
The party itself considers it point of pride to tick off their political counterparts.
I might have occasionally indulged in calling Bush Chimpy McFlightSuit on occasion, but aside from that guilty pleasure, I never had much of a taste for direct name-calling. Sure it might bring a smile to to a fellow Democrat’s face, but if you’re arguing beyond your own partisan audience, it’s going to lack that charm.
Republicans need to figure that out. Right now, they appeal to a very narrow audience of folks who find the antics of their party amusing and exhilirating. Aside from that, most people find it at best tiresome, and at worse frightening. The Republican party needs to be a party of adults.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 22, 2009 12:25 PMChristine,
You give some fine reasons why health care costs are rising fast; only, in the wrong order. The tort reform red herring really has very little to do with rising costs.
You completely dismiss the power of an expanded customer base from mandatory health insurance, along with the extra boost for competition that will be gained when insurers are no longer too big, i.e., when their anti-trust protection is taken away…..as it must if we are to have real competition.
Christine,
While I agree in general, I think you’ve got it exactly wrong here.
Posted by: gergle at November 24, 2009 01:45 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
