About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

The press can't even get the "You Lie!" story right

September 10, 2009 8:48 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Of course, the rude heckling by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is being reported everywhere. And yes, his apology for the extraordinary outburst has been noted. But have you noticed what's been mostly left out from the dispatches? It's the fact that when Wilson called Obama a liar for claiming illegal immigrants would not be covered by proposed health care reforms, Wilson himself was lying.

What's been completely glossed over by the press is the fact that the "You Lie!" was itself built upon a lie. That the rude outburst was yet more GOP misinformation. Instead, too many in the press treat the exchange as a he said/he said. i.e. Obama claimed illegal immigrants won't be covered, and Wilson called him a liar. What are the facts? Which man was telling the truth? The press won't say.

From ABC News:

A Republican member of Congress interrupted President Obama’s speech tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives to yell “You lie!” at the president, in reference to the president’s assertion that his proposals wouldn’t provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.

That's it. ABC never even tries to inform online readers which side was telling the truth.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since the press has spent the whole summer timidly looking away from the orchestrated, right-wing misinformation. What does a Republican have to do these days to get fact-checked by the press?

UPDATED: Politico's Glenn Thrush hailed Wilson's heckling as the night's "defining moment" in a piece headlined, "Wilson's rallying cry." But was Wilson's boorish accusation true? Did Obama "lie" when he claimed Democratic health care reforms would no offer up free care to illegal immigrants? On that count Politico remains politely silent.

As we've seen this summer, right-wing theatrics are far more important than facts.

UPDATED: Credit goes to Time's Michael Scherer, who included this in his "You Lie!" report:

The President's seemingly simple statement, that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line: "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 9:04 am ET)
      7 37
      Despite the line contained in the proposal, Dems are looking for a back door to allow coverage for illegals. Republicans have repeatedly asked for language inserted in any bill that would require proof of citizenship. The Dems have refused. This is why Wilson said the President lied. Without having to provide proof of citizenship, many illegals will in fact be covered by any health care reform.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by spork_incident (September 10, 2009 9:25 am ET)
        23 4
        So if I'm bleeding out in the ER I have to present proof of citizenship before I'll be treated?

        Brilliant!

        (And, as we know, birth certificates aren't valid proof.)


        .
        Report Abuse
        • Author by stanton.carol6110 (September 10, 2009 9:41 am ET)
          10 2
          Another Republican ploy....disregard comment
          Report Abuse
        • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:21 am ET)
          2 14
          Why do you have to take the example to the extreme?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by LORISNJ (September 10, 2009 10:26 am ET)
            15 3
            "Why do you have to take the example to the extreme?"

            Because you need to see what could happen if there was this "proof of citizenship" requirement. What are you suggesting - that only people who look like illegals would have to show citizenship? Have you really thought about the ramifications of such a requirement or you just taking a position without understanding anything about it except that it sounds good.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:37 am ET)
              4 16
              Did I ever say that only people who look like illegals would have to show citizenship? No I did not. If it's an actual emergency, I have no problem with rendering aid. However, anyone going to the emergency room for an ear ache should be turned away, regardless of citizenship. And Americans should not have to pay for illegals general health care.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 10:41 am ET)
                12 2
                "Did I ever say that only people who look like illegals would have to show citizenship? ---Kydem09

                Open mouth and insert foot. Do tell what does an "illegal" look like?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (September 10, 2009 1:14 pm ET)
                  8 2
                  Do tell what does an "illegal" look like?


                  Simple. An "illegal" is anyone who doesn't look like kydem09.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by spork_incident (September 10, 2009 10:43 am ET)
                15  
                If we have an viral epidemic of some sort - Swine Flu, perhaps - should illegal immigrants be prohibited from receiving vaccinations?

                Keep in mind that they then would spread the virus to other unvaccinated people and weaken herd immunity.


                .
                Report Abuse
              • Author by themidnightreview.com (September 10, 2009 10:59 am ET)
                4 2
                When I go to the emergency room, it is filled with the homeless as well as immigrants. I am left wondering, waiting several hours for service, where those people's bills are sent, and why I should pay when I had no insurance, when the guy next to me did not pay because he did not have insurance as well.

                To deny care would be wrong, but something obviously needs to be done.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by magnolialover (September 10, 2009 11:10 am ET)
                  12 2
                  Yeah, give everyone insurance.

                  Problem solved.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
                    1 6
                    can we send YOU the bill?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by NewBee (September 10, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
                      5 1
                      Everyone will get the bill. It's called shared risk and it's the foundation of the insurance concept.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mtblaze (September 10, 2009 8:30 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      Dude... we already pay the bill. Would you rather pay the emergency room price or the general practitioner price?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      EVERYONE gets the bill now, MacSimple. Who do you think covers these costs? You think it all goes to charity. No! It all gets added onto all of our bills. We are socializing costs now! The difference would be if everyone was covered in a universal system we could negotiate MUCH better rates. The only other option to lower costs is to deny healthcare to the poor.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by LORISNJ (September 10, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
                  9 1
                  Hospital emergency rooms see patiences in order of the severity of their problems not who showed up first. It's called triage and if you had to wait several hours it means that you weren't really that sick to begin with and should have just waited to see your regular doctor at his office. Ability to pay has nothing to do with how long you have to wait.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by themidnightreview.com (September 10, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
                    2 6
                    My comment had nothing to do with payment influencing my wait. My comment was more of an observation.

                    As for the regular doctor, it was my wife who was in severe pain and her doctor had advised to go to a particular hospital because it was after hours and when we arrived at the building, we were directed to another hospital's emergency room.

                    I told my wife to say her name was Jane Doe and she lived under the bridge, so that maybe we should get the free medical treatment. She didn't listen to me, and that one visit created significant medical bills for my family. I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Bum had the same problem.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by townie1952 (September 10, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
                      6 2
                      You advised you wife to lie in order to defraud the hospital of payment for treating her when she was in severe pain? Are you a Republican by any chance?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Swift2001 (September 10, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Mr. and Mrs. Bum have many other problems that you don't have. Because you're mad about the medical bill you got, you want to deny all others?

                      The best thing to do is obviously indemnify the hospital, as well as clinics and/or individual doctors, from taking losses. In other words, insurance.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by themidnightreview.com (September 11, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Advising my wife to "lie in order to defraud the hospital" was a joke (the humor obviously did not translate well into text)...

                        The reason why she was uninsured was because I was laid off and part of my severance was COBRA, but the company I worked for denied my severance (due to a clerical error) without me knowing and never filed my COBRA paperwork, which left my wife uninsured... and she was unable to get insurance until recently because of a preexisting condition, which caused her to be uninsured at the time... she was turned down by numerous providers, and was only able to get a prescription plan.

                        I don't want to deny anyone anything. I support health care reform, and am not necessarily against a public option, co-op, or anything of the sorts. I am registered Republican, but I think I will be changing soon. I don't believe in the crap on Fox News and find their reports to be misleading and hypocritical.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by ajhaney (September 11, 2009 2:14 pm ET)
                             
                          Good for you. Well done.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by shonna (September 11, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
                          1  
                          sorry to hear your wife was in pain. really does seem like YOUR COMPANY and COBRA should take most of the blame for your ordeal though. well honestly sounds mostly like insurance companies are to blame in this mix. if your wife had insurance and could get regular care would she have been in such pain? below is how much CEOs at some of the leading insurance companies got paid in 08 based on their companies SEC filings. seems to me they get paid to save the company money and grow the biz, not worry about making sure decent hardworking people get access to services they need. and the hospital spends much more time, energy and money dealing with these guys than they do on the homeless or immigrants.

                          Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation

                          * Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
                          * Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
                          * Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
                          * Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
                          * Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
                          * U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
                          * Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by globalRower (September 11, 2009 5:06 am ET)
                    1  
                    "...if you had to wait several hours it means that you weren't really that sick to begin with....(sic)" Nonsense. Three of my emergency room visits entailed long waits because observation was required - I had concussions. Concussions are not mild sickness that can be blithely (if uncomfortably) ignored until the next available office visit.
                    Waiting in the emergency room does not mean mild problems or unfairly burdening those (including me) privileged to afford regular medical care. There's so much wrong with that attitude that this list is just a taste:
                    - Sick people are not the problem.
                    - Appropriate medical attention takes time, even in emergency situations.
                    - Emergency room visits are painful and inconvenient; people don't visit the emergency room for kicks.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by rb608 (September 10, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  How do you define/recognize immigrants? I hate to break this to you, but we're all immigrants here.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by skorcha4086 (September 10, 2009 9:24 pm ET)
                    1  
                    I was born in the U.S. I am not an immigrant. Many of us may be the DESCENDANTS of immigrants, but at some point we must stop being foreigners in the land of our birth...
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by townie1952 (September 10, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Why are you going to the ER? Is it when you get into auto accidents and need life saving treatment, or are you getting routine care in the ER?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by MDin2012UIC (September 11, 2009 11:57 am ET)
                  1 1
                  Actually, the bill for any patient who cannot pay can go one of several ways. First of all, obviously, sometimes the hospital/collection agency can sue and get it skimmed off of any future wages. I know this for a fact because it happened to my wife and me. Unfortunately for them, I am a medical student who will have no cash flow until I graduate in 2012. Second (and also one I have experience with), is charity. Most hospitals have charities that SOMETIMES pay for your bill if you can't. It involves a lot of luck, and thus the reason I am not a fan. In my opinion health care should not be based on luck. To quote Albert Einstein, "God does not play dice." Sure, he was talking about Quantum Mechanics, but I still think it is apropos. Finally, if none of this happens and the hospital cannot recover the money, guess who pays? I'll give you a minute........................................................................................ Give up?
                  You. That's right, you foot the bill. The burden gets distributed to insurance companies and government subsidies, which means your tax dollars and increases to premiums get absorbed by the population as a whole. So anyone's assertion that any bill will all of a sudden cause the burden of immigrants' health care to be placed on your shoulders is misinformation, because it has been there for a long time already. Finally, the illegal immigrant population greatly under-uses the health care system ANYWAY for fear of being caught. This leads, sometimes, to extremely communicable diseases (i.e. Tuberculosis) to be spread, when they could be easily treated and contained if caught early. There will always be people immigrating to the US because the world sees it as the "land of opportunity" so I agree, something does need to be done. Let's keep ourselves healthier by making sure that those that slip through the cracks can't infect us with something their afraid to get treatment for.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Ron Mexico (September 10, 2009 11:02 am ET)
                4 1
                So, ignorant *and* racist, then? That is, ignorant of how our current policies are enforced? Unless we start tattooing citizens on their foreheads (a future comment from you?) someone's citizenship is not immediately obvious. Thus ICE agents have to use other means to determine whom to ask for papers. What they do in case after case is only ask apparent Latinos; any story you read about "raids" attempting to catch undocumented immigrants contains two numbers: the number of workers asked to produce papers and the number who are arrested. Surprisingly, the second number is always about 40% of the first. Most native-born *americans* do not carry proof of citizenship (i.e. a passport) on their person. But they don't have to, because ICE doesn't raid their businesses and homes demanding papers. Any such policy would only be enforced against apparent Latinos--we know this because this is what happens now.

                Also, who cares if illegal immigrants are treated on the gov'ts dime? Those of us who have insurance pay for their care one way or another, either through higher premiums and costs for our insurance or from reduced access to care. It's actually better for crackers like you if those folks are covered....
                Report Abuse
                • Author by albertsenj (September 11, 2009 12:09 am ET)
                  1 1
                  Actually a previous incarnation of the Reichwing solved solved a similar identification problem by tattooing a number on peoples' arms.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:28 pm ET)
                     
                  Ron Mexico? Is that Andre Rison??
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by LORISNJ (September 10, 2009 11:12 am ET)
                6 1
                "Without having to provide proof of citizenship, many illegals will in fact be covered by any health care reform."

                Those are your words are they not? How would you go about making sure that everyone provides proof? When would they have to provide proof and to whom? Clearly you want something but without know how to make it happen. The fact that illegals might get some coverage by any healthcare reform seem to be more important to you than the fact that millions of Americans would benefit from this legislation.

                And as far as someone being turned away in the emergency room for an ear ache - must mean that you have never had a child with ear aches or you would have never written that statement, but I know what you mean - minor health issues, right? That is why we need healthcare reform, so that people whose only access to healthcare is through the emergency room can see a doctor in his office instead.

                Why is it that makes some Americans so afraid of a non-citizen somehow benefitting from healthcare legislation or that we might have to pay for illegals general healthcare that they are willing to stop healthcare reform? It doesn't make sense to me at all.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (September 10, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
                    4
                  How would you go about making sure that everyone provides proof? When would they have to provide proof and to whom?
                  Its simple. When you go to wherever you go to sign up for your public option you will need to show proof of legal residency. How hard is that? If and illegal shows up at a ER we should 1( treat them 2. Call INS 3. Deport them. Simple.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by chascates (September 10, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
                1  
                People going to an ER for an ear ache are turned away most of the time. ERs treat emergency cases and the federal law requiring treatment only applies to emergency cases that need to be stabilized, nothing more.
                A study by the American Hospital Association revealed that only 9% of illegal aliens ever go to an ER as opposed to 22% of American citizens.
                Not only is yours a straw man argument it's not accurate in any respect.
                Please display your racism toward the issue of immigration and not health insurance reform.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by all your eyes (September 10, 2009 11:09 am ET)
              9 2
              You have no idea how bad an earache can be. In fact, a severe ear infection can have major long term consequences, sometimes requiring surgery, or resulting in permanent loss of hearing. I'm sure if left untreated it could be even worse. Trust me, I've been to the emergency room for an ear infection.

              It helps if you have any idea what you're talking about BEFORE you open your mouth. That's a lesson the childish right wing needs to learn, as they yank their kids from school to avoid being brainwashed by Obama.... to stay in school. Amazing.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (September 10, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
              1 4
              No one is saying you need to show proof of citizenship if you bleeding out. You should however have to shop proof of citizenship when you sign up for the public option. Otherwise Illegals will be able to sign up.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by sargebob (September 10, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
                1  
                no where does it say you will not be treated. it say you will not get the credit! You will be billed..it is up to you if you pay your bills or not. Origin of birth does not make you a better bill payer over another
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Swift2001 (September 10, 2009 7:37 pm ET)
                1  
                Gosh, you know, that's exactly the provision in at least some of the bills. No subsidy for your premiums unless you submit proof of legal residence or citizenship. In other words, it's there in the drafts.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 1:28 pm ET)
                    1
                  Pleas show me where any of the bills require showing proof of legal residency. Also where can I find the Obama Plan I still cant find it anywhere. He talks a lot about his health care plan yet he dosent endorse any of the current versions and does not have one of his own. Maybe you should be more specific and say which bill your talking about. I guess you could just be like Obama and talk about his phantom healthcare plan.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Are you kidding? I have seen copy and pastes of some of them right here on this site. It explicitly states that no one who is an illegal resident can sign up for the government plan. Doesn't this make sense to you? When you fill out all the paperwork necessary for any insurance plan (government or otherwise) you fill out reams of paper. Some of this is to prove where you live and who you are. I suppose you are going to deny the bill requires this until the bill "No Illegals May Sign Up And We Will Require Birth Ceritificates From Each Person Who Signs Up". We all know how reliable you right-wingers think birth certificates are.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
                1  
                That's actually what the proposed bills say, hi. Do you know how silly you look when arguing against a proposed bill by regurgitating something that already exists within the bill?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
                    1
                  Which bill? Please show me where any of the bills require proof of residency.

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
            4  
            For the same reason you use bright colors, shiny objects and big letters when teaching toddlers.

            To help you stay focused, and understand.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
              3  
              Oops, that was in response to the poster who didn't understand why he made"the extreme example" necessary.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by skorcha4086 (September 10, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
            2 1
            Why does a partisan Senator have to yell insults at the President during a speech to the nation? No 'extremism' there.
            And for the record, the SC senator never did explain why he yelled what he did. Not in any of his statements did he come out and say that proof of citizenship would be required before receiving treatment. Maybe we should just allow the GOP to start carding everybody so they can see who the 'real' Americans are.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by bolo.boffin2180 (September 10, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
          2  
          Emergency coverage has always been exempt from this type of verification.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Tom_Shaftoe (September 10, 2009 9:38 pm ET)
          3 1
          First you kick them out of the ER when they don't have their birth certificate, then when they come back with their birth certificate you still ignore even if they stick it in your face. If anyone asks just reply they are Kenyan for sure, your brothers, mothers uncles roommate told you!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by pmwarren (September 10, 2009 9:28 am ET)
        13 2
        that is the most ridiculous retort of all. It is a lie. Prove what you say with some real demonstration that undocumented people will be able to BUY health insurance.
        Even the doctor's office asks for your social security number and that is checkable.
        go back to south carolina. Governor sanford needs you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NG_Officer (September 10, 2009 9:30 am ET)
        9 3
        Hmm, lets think about this...
        every insurance application I've ever filled out required that I put my SSN on it. Seems like the big bad government could verify that.

        Without having to provide proof of citizenship, many illegals will in fact be covered by any health care reform.


        What? You think that an undocumented foreigner would be able to walk into a doctor's office, say "I'm on the public plan", and get treated?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neon desert (September 10, 2009 9:40 am ET)
          16 2
          If you believe an illegal alien can become president, how far a stretch is it to believe that illegal aliens could get health care?

          And when did "ridiculously ignorant" become one half of the two-party system in this country?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dr. matt (September 10, 2009 9:38 am ET)
        15 2
        Dems are looking for a back door to allow coverage for illegals


        Prove it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Whispers (September 10, 2009 11:12 am ET)
          9  
          It's part of the big secret "If there is anything wrong, Dems are trying secretly to do it" conspiracy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
          4 1
          Prove it.


          According to Republican logic, he already did prove it. The GOPpers asked for a ridiculous, superfluous restriction requiring "showing ze papers" , and Dems didn't go along with the idiocy.

          The wingnut mind sees this as "Dems are secretly trying to insure Mexicans !!"
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dmhack (September 10, 2009 9:40 am ET)
        4 1
        Oh, please... that's just babble. Tell me what you think will stand the proof test that an illegal can't already buy on the streets of a major city.

        It's fine to argue that Republicans want some language inserted, but if there's no agreed upon proof of citizenship first, it remains useless posturing.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Richard in Jax (September 10, 2009 9:46 am ET)
        7 2
        No..it is you that is lying,..and in typical Republican flavor. Illegal does not imply a non-citizen. There are many LEGAL aliens in the USA, paying taxes and employed. If their employer wants to opt into a public option they would be legally entitled to join as they are EMPLOYED and PAYING TAXES.
        Illegal means illegal.
        And proving citizenship is very difficult to do. That is the reason that you want that hazy standard..you can lie and rely with it.
        But you know that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:24 am ET)
          4 10
          HUH??? And just how in the world can you possible consider a person who entered this country illegally to be a valid citizen? As for paying taxes, many of them don't. They are paid under the table and their money is sent back home to Mexico. They are already a drain on our economy and we don't need to continue giving them health care coverage.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 10:29 am ET)
            8 3
            Tehy do pay taxes,but many never collect returns because well their here illegally. But everyone pays taxes and substantial taxes whenever they purchase goods or buy gasoline. That they or poor people don't pay taxes is just another lie YOU conservatives try and peddle
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:39 am ET)
              4 9
              Really? Talk to people in Florida and Tennessee. There's no sales tax there. Besides, it's income taxes I was referring to, and you know that.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 10:47 am ET)
                7 3
                There are taxes on gasoline that's Federal, and there ARE local taxes their are no state taxes in Florida but there are sales taxes. Income taxes are not the only taxes and many do that but don't recieve a check at the end of the yr. because they are here illegally and don't apply for it. Many pay into state taxes for services they never use because of their condition. They are not the drain you have failed to show.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (September 10, 2009 11:26 am ET)
                4  
                I can't speak for Florida, but I live in Tennessee. We pay 9.5 percent sales tax(part of which is local county sales tax). That overall high rate reflects the fact that we do not pay state income tax.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by townie1952 (September 10, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
                4  
                Many very wealthy people pay no income taxes because of the way tax laws have been written.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Swift2001 (September 10, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
                3  
                They pay income taxes. They pay Medicare tax. They pay into Social Security. And they don't collect on any of it.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by no.rompan9616 (September 10, 2009 10:33 am ET)
            7 1
            Read the comment you are answering to, before answering.
            He is saying that many non-citizens are not illegal immigrants, not what you are saying (that illegal immigrants are citizens.)

            Lots of non-citizens are here legally, work and pay taxes like citizens, and are entitled to receive the same health benefits.

            Asking for citizenship as a requirement is completely off the mark.
            That's the point of the previous post.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NG_Officer (September 10, 2009 10:45 am ET)
              7 2
              it is easier for kydem09 to keep hammering away with his false premise that to actual acknowledge that he misread something
              Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (September 10, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
                3
              I think the problem here some people are confusing citizenship with legal residency. If there must be a public option at least make people be legal residents.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by peace4all (September 10, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
                3  
                come on people, read the bill.

                SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

                Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

                ------------------------------------------------------------
                i think thats pretty clear that people here illegaly are not covered. until you can show another section of the bill that disputes this part you are doing nothing more than living in your own little clinger world. at least TRY and have some facts
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
                    1
                  Really easy
                  There is no provision in place that requires you residency to be checked. So illegals will be able to sign up for health because no one will check. Many illegals revive work comp why would this be different?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
                    1
                  Really easy
                  There is no provision in place that requires you residency to be checked. So illegals will be able to sign up for health because no one will check. Many illegals revive work comp why would this be different?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:32 pm ET)
                    1  
                    You have to sign up! Just as you do for any insurance company. That is the verification. Why is this so difficult to understand? Are you being purposefully obtuse for the sake of partisanship? Or are you just slow?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
                        1
                      That doesn’t even make sense Insurance companies don’t check for legal residency. How is signing up verification? Illegal sign up for work comp all the time and get away with it so what would make this any different.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 12, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
                           
                        What does work comp have to do with a government healthcare plan? Have you ever dealt with any workers comp claims? It has nothing to do with a government insurance plan. And, when an you sign up with an insurance company you better believe they check EVERYTHING to make sure that you meet all the requirements and qualify for the plan.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (September 11, 2009 11:31 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Whoa there. A differnt kettle of fish.
                    Workman's compensation is an insurance
                    policy that your employer carries and pays for. A worker---citizen, immigrant or otherwise--- has no legal standing other than as beneficiary. Employers typically don't like it to be used because it affects their premiums. And when a Workman's comp claim is filed, the employer is out of the loop. It becomes a matter between the injured employee and the insurance carrier. Some small businesses may wish to pay for treatment of on the job injuries to avoid any red flags with OSHA or premium increases. And if you are an undocumented immigrant, your employer probably knows already.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by Whispers (September 10, 2009 11:16 am ET)
            7 1
            You've got it backwards. You claimed that Republicans want "proof of citizenship" to get medical treatment. Richard in Jax points out that there are a large number of people in the US who are not citizens, but who are here legally. According to what you propose, people like that would not be eligible to receive medical treatment.

            That seems pretty draconian to me.

            I have lived abroad - in Germany and in the UK. I was never required "to prove citizenship" to get medical care. If the German system were designed along the lines you suggest, I would have had to fly back to the US after having a serious bike accident in Germany that included a head injury.

            And this is why people are critical of you for not thinking things through.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by girlgeek (September 11, 2009 1:09 am ET)
              1 1
              Why is it so important to not insure illegal aliens? As long as they are here, they are as likely to get & pass Swine Flu or other infectious disease. Isn't it a lot cheaper to treat the illegal alien in the kitchen washing the dishes, than to treat all of the legal residents that his disease was passed on to? Sure, the object is to chase them out. As long as that hasn't happened, why do we want to make them disease carriers?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by liberalXtian (September 10, 2009 9:53 am ET)
        4 4
        Everyone who gets a job in this country has to provide proof of citizenship, or other legal status. Even with these controls there are millions of undocumented workers. As far as applying for health insurance under the Obama plan, perhaps many will slip through the cracks and get health insurance. But, what would be wrong with that? Right now we are paying for their medical bills by higher medical fees and higher insurance rates, so if a few end up paying into the insurance system, isn't that a plus?

        But, bottom line, I doubt that many of the occupations taken by undocumented workers are ones that provide health insurance, and few of those workers would apply for a public option that would focus government scrutiny on them during the eligiblity process. Many don't even report crimes done against them for fear that law enforcement would deport them.

        For those workers here doing jobs that American citizens do not want are here to make money for the basic necessities. I doubt getting health insurance is on their agenda.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Whispers (September 10, 2009 11:17 am ET)
          3 2
          Republicans like Joe Wilson want a law that prevents people from acting illegally.

          Seems a bit nutty to me.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 9:56 am ET)
        12 2
        Whay more do you need than this :

        REALITY: House bill stipulates that those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance. Under the "Individual Affordability Credits" section of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:

        SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

        (a) DEFINITION. --

        (1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) --

        SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

        Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

        Senate HELP bill excludes those "not lawfully present" from federal funding. Under the "Making Coverage Affordable" section of the Affordable Health Choices Act:

        (h) NO FEDERAL FUNDING. -- Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

        I pasted this from : http://mediamatters.org/research/200909080001

        The liar was Joe Wilson and you've become his dupe. Any futher attempt to pass on this lie will be treated with the disdain and scorn it deserves. Stop lying!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (September 10, 2009 10:05 am ET)
        7 2
        Umm, in the bill, as others have said, there is language that states if you are an illegal alien, you get no coverage. Why is there no language in the bill of how to verify citizenship? Because we already have LAWS for that. We don't need to double dip and create something entirely new that we already have.

        This is what you guys don't get. It is in the bill. Illegals are NOT covered.

        Wilson is the liar in this case.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:26 am ET)
          4 10
          Yeah, we already have laws that law enforcement doesn't heed. Illegals are a drain on our economy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by LORISNJ (September 10, 2009 10:31 am ET)
            11 4
            Illegals are not a "drain" on our economy, Republicans are!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dmhack (September 10, 2009 10:43 am ET)
            10 4
            The day all the illegals leave (I'm pretending I'm a right winger), it'll be the Republicans howling the loudest.
            Who will do all the crappy jobs?
            Who will mow my lawn?
            Who will take care of my kid?
            Who will work for below minimum wage?
            Who can I hate now?

            A drain on the economy? Please.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (September 10, 2009 10:57 am ET)
            8 1
            That wasn't your point before. Your point was, how come there isn't language in the bill that says we need to verify their citizenship, and I answered, because we already have laws on the books that does that.

            Law enforcement does heed these laws at verifying citizenship.

            How are illegals a drain on our economy? I'll tell you how they're not. They come here, they work. Most, or the vast majority of them work under false social security numbers, on which, yes, federal and state income taxes are paid into the system by these workers. As others have mentioned, when they do come here, they have to have a place to live, and therefore, paying rent to local property owners normally. They have to have electricity, so they pay for that. Trash collection, water, sewer, and other requirements for living are bought and paid for.

            When they're here, they also need to eat, therefore, they probably visit the grocery store / local restaurants a fair amount of time, and again, injecting more money into the economy.

            Illegal aliens are not a drain on our economy, because the facts state otherwise. They pay taxes, of which they don't expect, or ever will see a tax return (and in my opinion, they don't deserve one because they're here illegally), but they're far from a drain on our economy as you claim.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
              4  
              Thanks, Mag. Of course, the odds of any of that sinking in to a right wing skull are pretty slim.

              I've been in construction in Southern California for a few decades, so believe me, I know a little about the subject too.

              Yes, there are a lot of immigrants using fake SS cards, and that's good for anybody who needs some work done. Believe me, I've put out a lot of Help Wanted ads over the years, and there aren't too many Orange County kids showing up to haul heavy things up ladders or break out concrete, regardless of wages.

              You're correct, they pay taxes, and can't take advantages of many benefits. I've seen a lot of Mexicans who, because of their status and/or a distrust of banks that they've brought with them, cash their paychecks at a liquor store that takes a 6% cut. They do most of their business in the neighborhood, and spend most of their wages to live, contrary to the idea that they're sending big chunks to Mexico.

              Anybody who's making enough swinging a hammer to live here and send a bunch of money back home is obviously working their butt off, and contributing to the economy.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
            1
          Why is there no language in the bill of how to verify citizenship? Because we already have LAWS for that. We don't need to double dip and create something entirely new that we already have.

          Except that we don’t enforce those laws. So by your own admission the 18mill or so illegals here will be covered because no on will be there to enforce the laws to prevent it.
          You just in the pocket of big business and want the cheap labor. Such hate!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 10, 2009 10:15 am ET)
        9 3
        What the republicans are asking for is both racist and stupid. Put it this way: You've fallen from a ladder, maybe a roof. You're bleeding and have broken bones. You're rushed to the hospital. Do you want them to treat you right away, or verify your citizenship first?

        What if you were unconsious? Or having a stroke or heart attack? What more imporataant? Attending to you right away? Of making sure we don't waste a few tax dolllars, by waiting for your family to provide documentation? That idiocy, and what's more it's proof that we should never elect another republican since THEY'RE the ones in government who would make public health care a bureuacratic nightmare if they ever got control of it. All because of stupid nonsense like this.

        If you're worried about illegals, you will put many people's lives at risk trying to enforce that. It's stupid, despicable, cheapskate scumbaggery.

        Racist too.: You'd probably assume ANY white person is a citizen, or here legally. So shy worry about it, when it will really only affects Mexicans and other brown people anyway, right?

        It's a stupid red herring. Give your tin foil back to Lou Dobbs and think for yourself for a moment how you want out health care system to treat YOU. Then apply that to EVERYONE else. (That's called being principled.)

        Worry about HEALTH CARE first. Blood is far more important than money.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 10:24 am ET)
          4  
          I agree with you Eddie !
          Report Abuse
        • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:27 am ET)
          3 8
          Oh brother, there you go playing the race card again. I have absolutely no problem with Mexicans being in this country, as long as they are here LEGALLY. Why is that a concept so hard for the Left to grasp??? Why is it always about race with you people?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 10:39 am ET)
            10 2
            You've just put your foot in your mouth and you probably don't even know it . You've just proven our point! Mexicans was the 1st word out of your mouth in speaking of illegals but they are not the only "illegals" here, but you unconsciously(reflexively)put Mexican and illegal together, and probably all Latinos. It is about race because YOU make it about race.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:42 am ET)
              4 10
              Try to draw your racist conclusion from that, but it's a fact that the majority of illegals are Mexicans. Plus, look at all the posts from your "friends" here referring to brown skin and Mexicans. It's only logical that I would answer the criticisms here by referring to Mexicans.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NG_Officer (September 10, 2009 10:48 am ET)
                9  
                psss...Mexican are nto the only race with brown skin
                Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 10:49 am ET)
                6 2
                logical to a racist!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  By reading your posting that "The South is the most backward part of the nation", you prove that YOU ARE THE RACIST!!!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
                    5 1
                    Numbnuts I was speaking of the general conditions not the people. Standard of living, labor laws, wages, working conditions,poverty, funds spent on education, the gap between rich and poor, etc, etc., etc., the South lags behind the rest of the nation. But like most wingnuts you here what you want negating the rest of my post which described that I was talking about conditions and not the people. Although I'am finding backwardness and Republicanism seem to have an affinity for each other these days,and a majority of the Republican Party is in the south...hmmmmmm. Become a progressive and save yourself. He-he!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
                      4 1
                      you hear what you want, it should read...and the backwardness I was speaking of in terms of Republicanism was about ideas...just to be clear. :-)
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by barscotch9441 (September 10, 2009 6:50 pm ET)
                      1
                    Actually, technically he would be regionalist.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Swift2001 (September 10, 2009 7:44 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    The South is a race?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:41 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    The Confederacy is a race now? Wow? It is delightfully ironic, though, to hear the white, southern Confederacy cry victim about racism. Oh, how far we've come.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by bill.bilderback7234 (September 10, 2009 10:43 am ET)
            7  
            this is maybe the third or fourth time you have defined "illegal immigrant" as "Mexicans." That's why people find a tinge (alright, perhaps more than a tinge) of racism in your complaint.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 10, 2009 11:38 am ET)
            5  
            You didn;'t answer the only question here that is importnat:

            HOW DO YOU WANT TO BE TREATED BY A HOSPITAL?

            Do you want your bleeding artery sewn up right away or only after your citizenship or legal status has been verified?

            If keeping some idiotic beureaucrat (probably a republican) out from between me and the doctor who'll save my life means that the occasional illegal immigrant will has his or her life saved as well...

            Well, I can live with that.

            (If you say you can't, then you'll have hospital checking status before rendering services. It would be inevitable. How crazy must one be to want that?! Not to mention that it's just a basically inhuman position to support anyway!)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by benjr (September 10, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
            3  
            So we need to prove our citizenship to get treated?? How about LEGAL aliens and other non-citizens who are here legally? Do they get left out as well?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by NewBee (September 10, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
            2  
            Why is it always about race with you people?
            What do you mean YOU people?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by no.rompan9616 (September 10, 2009 10:28 am ET)
        4 1
        Right... because anyone who is not a citizen is an illegal immigrant.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:42 am ET)
          2 9
          Never said that either. Wow, the misinformation that is spread by inferences at this web site is amazing.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Whispers (September 10, 2009 11:20 am ET)
            6  
            That is certainly the implication of what you first said. You said "proof of citizenship". You didn't say "proof of legal residency".

            It's not our fault if you don't proofread your own posts.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by progressiveright (September 10, 2009 10:38 am ET)
        5  
        There are checks in place and by the way the oath taken by Doctors states that they are to help and do no harm. Not treating someone would be doing harm. Right now we pay for illegals if they even seek medical care. Most do not for fear of being found out and deported.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 10, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
          6  
          You got it! Most of the Right's fears about subsodizing illegals, the poor, the uninsured, the unemplyed are completely irrational BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THEM!!! And we're paying more becuase they tend to go to the ER when their on death's door instead of going to a PCP early on and having [whatever's wrong with them] fixed when its easy and still (relatively) cheap. Unviseral health care ALONE, will result is huge cost savigns on that alone: it encirages people to seek care early and keeps more of them from ending up the (expensive) ER and (more expensive) ICU.

          But by all means, conservtaives, lets keep things just the way they are. We'll keep paying MORE, just to have more people DIE, rather than pay LESS and have more people recover and live.

          Conservatives are sofa king stupid on this issue.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by rm (September 10, 2009 10:45 am ET)
        6  
        So, which is more important:

          getting vaccinations to as many as possible, or

          denying care to illegal immigrants?


        If you consider the ER example "extreme," consider what will happen to public health when a large population of people doesn't take their kids to be vaccinated because SOMEONE in their family may be illegal, or may "look" illegal enough to get caught up in a raid, and they think the hospitals and clinics are ICE enforcement agents. Even citizens and legal immigrants will respond to that chilling effect.

        All it takes for a health catastrophe is for a bunch of people not to get vaccinated. Then all the adults whose vaccinations are decades old will be vulnerable too.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 10, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
          5 1
          Conservatives are more worried about making sure the 'wrong' people don't get helped than they are in making sure that the 'right' people aren't hurt. This is true about almost every position they hold, but is particularly apt in health care.

          Even if you accept the psychotic notion that ALL people aren't just PEOPLE (accepting that there even are 'right' people and 'wrong' people), it's still an absurd position to have!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (September 10, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
            5  
            To nutjobs, the only patriotic people are people who aren't poor.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 10, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
              6  
              Or gay. Or non-Funny-Mentalist Christian. Or a women who doesn't choose to be subserviant to a man. Or not white.

              And of course they can exclude, at will, anyone they deem to be not sufficiently hard-core, Right-Wing Republican.

              I really hate these hypocritical self-rightous bastards.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (September 10, 2009 11:12 am ET)
        5  
        "Dems are looking for a back door to allow coverage for illegals. Republicans have repeatedly asked for language inserted in any bill that would require proof of citizenship. The Dems have refused."

        Then how did the following wind up in H.R. 3200?

        Sec 246 - NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

        Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by LynnTTT (September 10, 2009 11:52 am ET)
        4  
        You do realize that getting citizenship is not easy to get? You can't just come with a legal visa and immediately apply. There are residency requirements, and you generally have to stay in the US 3-5 years before citizenship gets easy. The HR3200 bill states that no Federal monies will go to support anyone not in the country legally, but non-citizens are not exempt from the requirement that they carry coverage. And they may meet to income requirement. Don't you want as many people as possible to carry insurance?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by SouthernBeale (September 10, 2009 11:53 am ET)
        3  
        <i>Dems are looking for a back door to allow coverage for illegals.</i>

        And you know this how? Did you pick it up through you magical tin foil hat or is there actually some documentation somewhere confirming that this is, indeed, the Democrats' strategy.

        I'm guessing the former.

        The problem with Republican fearmongering about non-existent boogey men is that come election time it inevitably backfires. Democrats don't NEED to offer illegal immigrants free healthcare as a way to secure the Latino vote. We win just by sitting back and watching the Republicans unleash their racist Nativist fury.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (September 10, 2009 11:59 am ET)
        4  
        The Dems are not looking for a "back door to allow coverage for illegals." The bill says it's for legal residents. The possibility that some people will game the system doesn't mean that the Prez is lying or the Dems are trying to create a 'back door.' These sorts of things are generally left to the deptartments tasked with administering the new legislation. They are rarely written into the bill. All that needs to be in the bill is what's in there now. Legal residents only.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hasday1 (September 10, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
        1  
        The real issue is whether or not they would be eligible for subsidies, which they would not. That they would be mandated to purchase basic health insurance like everyone else is a good thing. Mandating that everyone carry health insurance eliminates the free-rider problem that currently plagues the system. Given that hospitals have to treat anyone in need, regardless of immigration status, no distinction should be drawn between illegal immigrants and non-illegal immigrants.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by inkslave (September 10, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
        3  
        Right. We should cut them off from health care, immunizations, etc. Because they deserve to be infected, and to infect everyone they come in contact with.

        This hangup over "paying for illegals" misses the point. If everyone is covered, if everyone is getting prenatal care and preventive care, then the massive costs we currently foot for ER visits by people who wait until they are about to drop dead will drop. AND, we can do a better job of controlling pandemics and other illnesses.

        The H1N1 virus will not ask for your immigration papers before it infects you, or the person you catch it from.

        Redgardless, it will cost less than the Bush tax cuts.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by thomasc (September 10, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
        1  
        A requirement for proof of citizenship would deny coverage to LEGAL RESIDENT ALIENS. The democrats' opposition to requiring proof of citizenship has nothing to do with illegal aliens. Joe Wilson doesn't understand that because he's a rightwing freak and a moron. It is absolutely stunning that anyone who frequents this site could make the same idiotic mistake. Does Kydem09 oppose granting coverage to aliens who are in this country LEGALLY? That's what the idiotic "proof of citizenship" requirement would do.

        It's really that simple.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by creeksneakers2 (September 10, 2009 11:35 pm ET)
        1  
        kydem09:

        There already is a requirement that applicants for Medicaid provide proof of citizenship. It was passed in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act and went into effect in 2006.

        Since passage, the requirement has only prevented a handful of illegal immigrants from getting Medicaid coverage. It has also caused severe delays for thousands of needy participants. So the proof of citizenship requirement has turned out to be a terrible idea, unless the aim is to keep eligible people off Medicaid to reduce costs, or if politicians wanted something to satisfy anti-illegal immigrant groups. This is why Democrats voted against another proof of citizenship requirement.

        http://www.gwumc.edu/medctr/news.cfm?view=news&d=7663
        Report Abuse
      • Author by richrdh (September 11, 2009 12:37 am ET)
        1  
        Why should health care workers have to check for proof of citizenship? We have enough information to gather, let alone trying to decide if someone is a citizen!! And think about it, does everyone need to carry around their original birth certificate?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 11, 2009 12:40 am ET)
        1  
        Without having to provide proof of citizenship, many illegals will in fact be covered by any health care reform.

        How DARE they !! The audacity of them. Everybody knows the flu virus that's going around is a citizen.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by oneleft (September 11, 2009 7:50 am ET)
        1  
        "Dems are looking for a back door to allow coverage for illegals."

        shouldn't that be "I think Dems are looking for a back door to allow coverage for illegals."? Unless you have some handy facts lying about you'd like to share...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (September 10, 2009 9:17 am ET)
      17 2
      The right long ago figured out that most people go for "the truth is in the middle" as an idea of deciding what to believe. By pushing the debate as far to the right as possible they can create a fake middle close to their real ideas. Its the same reason they floated the death panel stuff.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
        3  
        Dead-on, Wookie, they've been sliding the crazy scale for years now. Even the most uninformed and ignorant viewer may be able to tell that Glenn Beck is nuts, but he just calibrates their brains to the point that Bill O'Reilly seems fair and reasonable.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
        1  
        You are exactly right, wookie. That is the real game here. The argument should be about a hybrid government-insurance system and a single-payer system. This is the argument most of the industrialized world had over a generation ago. Unfortunately, we have become so skewed to the right in our media that the argument is now should we have any government regulation of healthcare or should we just wait for the end of the world and make sure illegal aliens don't get any medical treatment. Truly bizarre and sad and, most importantly, stunts our progress as a people.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by goesto11 (September 10, 2009 9:27 am ET)
      11  
      On some level, it's almost irrelevant whether the bill includes language covering or denying coverage to illegal immigrants.

      If an illegal immigrant shows up at an emergency room with appendicitis, hospital staff are not going to shove that person to the sidewalk and watch him/her writhe in pain. They're going to treat the illness.

      And if that illegal immigrant can't pay for it, you and I are going to pay, just like we pay for true US citizens who don't have insurance.

      I'm a huge bleeding heart Obama fan and I want his initiatives to pass, but I think concentrating on the bill's language on this issue is a moot point. The fact is, we as compassionate humans must care for others, and that's going to cost us.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jubilee (September 10, 2009 9:35 am ET)
        1 8
        goesto11 is right; illegals won't be turned away, from hospitals, schools or the border. And they will keep coming, and, as (s)he points out, "we as compassionate humans" will bear the cost.

        Keep this fact in mind. Where there are emergencies, health care won't be denied.

        What about regular checkups, minor illnesses, dental care and the like?

        Will compassionate humans require all us taxpayers to foot that bill, too?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (September 10, 2009 9:48 am ET)
          8 1
          Jubilee - The simple answer is NO.

          Since anyone today can get TREATMENT in an ER, all of us taxpayers end up footing that bill in the end.

          What we are discussing in this debate is HEALTH CARE.

          That is not treatement such as when you go into a hospital.

          The bill explicitly denies care to non-citizens.

          You can easily go to FactCheck.org to get all the details of this lie.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (September 10, 2009 9:51 am ET)
            10 2
            Well, Bush had 8 years to build the border fence/wall and deport the 13 million illegals. Just another problem left for Obama to fix.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by goesto11 (September 10, 2009 9:58 am ET)
            9 1
            One problem is if illegal immigrants aren't insured for routine, preventive doctor visits, they end up seeking no medical treatment until they reach a health crisis.

            That's why they use emergency rooms. And emergency room visits are more expensive than routine, preventive doctor visits.

            Again, we pay for their health care either way, whether it's preventive care or emergency care. I believe compassion obligates us to do this.

            Unfortunately, that's not an idea that plays well with the masses.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:30 am ET)
            2 9
            Emergency rooms should be able to turn away ANYONE, white, brown, black, purple or orange, if they do not have a true emergency. The ER should not substitute as routine medical care. The laws on this need to be changed to prevent people from using the ER for general medical care, except in cases of true emergency.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NG_Officer (September 10, 2009 10:42 am ET)
              9 1
              what constitutes an emergency in you mind?
              I'd love to know how you would legislate your idea.

              And if every Ameriacan citizen had health coverage, there would be no need "to turn away ANYONE, white, brown, black, purple or orange" as you put it
              Report Abuse
              • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (September 10, 2009 11:52 am ET)
                5 2
                you might be surprised how many people go into the ER and say they have flu symptoms. Sniffles. Fever. They get a PRESCRIPTION for the Advil they could go pick up at Walgreen's, but hey, then they'd have to PAY for it, when Medicaid will pick up the bill. It happens EVERY DAY. Taxpayers pay for it, by funding Medicaid, and PAY FOR IT AGAIN BY PAYING THE PATIENT'S DOCTOR WHO DIDN'T EVEN SEE THE PATIENT.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (September 10, 2009 10:52 am ET)
              4 2
              this is a good point. Not only are people using ER's for their primary care and not paying for it, (pay attention now...) IF THEY'RE ON MEDICAID, THEIR DOCTORS ARE GETTING PAID FOR NOT TREATING THE PATIENT! Since medicaid is also paying for the ER visit, they (we) are paying twice. this is the dirty little secret that few will talk about. eliminate this loophole and skadillions of dollars (conservative estimate, it may be bazillions) could be saved.

              Don't hold your breath.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by stanton.carol6110 (September 10, 2009 9:44 am ET)
        5  
        you help that person...if they are in extreme health crisis. Like I said AMERICAN is loosing its MORALS....they President will not turn his back on the dying...we will not let him. He never said he would..all he is saying is 'GIVE HEALTHCARE A CHANCE"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 11, 2009 12:42 am ET)
        1  
        If an illegal immigrant shows up at an emergency room with appendicitis, hospital staff are not going to shove that person to the sidewalk and watch him/her writhe in pain. They're going to treat the illness.

        THEY BETTER NOT !! I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK !!!!!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by stanton.carol6110 (September 10, 2009 9:40 am ET)
      8  
      Whatever...all i know as it was totally unprofessional, and uncalled for...this man has no respect for the congress, nor for his own party. He made himself and his party look like a bunch of hoods...and rasist people. You need to show your President some respect, he was elected by the Majority of AMERICANS. He deserves respect. he gives respect. If it were me I would have had that guy removed from the room...made a public specticale so it Never happens again. I think the heckler should be removed from office.
      AMEN
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (September 10, 2009 9:48 am ET)
        10 4
        It's another step toward someone nutjob calling the president a ni**er.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Daddy-O (September 10, 2009 9:59 am ET)
          6 4
          That was PRECISELY the word he left out. Tell me he wasn't thinking it. Just try to tell me that.

          These people are ANIMALS.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Looking_4_Truth (September 10, 2009 10:05 am ET)
          7 4
          Very true. They must be drinking lots of racist, right-wing, incompetent Kool-Aid in the Carolinas. They've got DeMentia, Scandalford and now Wilson, who demonstrated the most egregious offense and disrespect I have ever seen toward a sitting President during a session in the chambers (and on national TV, no less!). I'm sure the people of South Carolina are impressed. That's why Wilson's opponent reportedly received around $100 thousand in donations overnight. As for his hurried apology, "Not Accepted!" There should be some sort of punishment, and not some weak-knee slap on the wrist. AMEN
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:34 am ET)
            3 12
            Punishment for exercising his right to free speech? Perfect answer dingbat!!!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bill.bilderback7234 (September 10, 2009 10:46 am ET)
              12 3
              You don't understand what "free speech" means. It does not mean that you can say anything you want any time you want without fear of consequences. He violated the rules of conduct of the body he voluntarily (indeed, eagerly and with great difficulty) joined. That is why he should be censured.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
                3 6
                Yes - I agree - Wilson violated common decency and should be punished just as the Democrats were punished after President George W. Bush was booed and heckled at his 2005 State of the Union address! Bush had the nerve to suggest repairs to the Social Security trust fund. We all know he was wrong to suggest fixes - the Social Security system is perfect - well funded and available for all outr children to enjoy even 60, 70 or 80 years from now!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (September 10, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  Bush had the nerve to suggest repairs to the Social Security trust fund.

                  Wrong again. Bush had the nerve to propose handing it over to the Wall Street fat cats. How'd have that worked out?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 4:41 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    I know I've suggested it before, but would it be too much to require a license to practice sarcasm? Wingnuts just don't have the hang of it.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:53 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    Wow, MacSimpleton doesn't even realize he just brought up a subject the right has gone to great strides to erase from memory for the last year. G-Dub wanted to invest Social Security into the stock market that just crashed! Are you trying to argue in SUPPORT of President W. with this nugget of gold?
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by sylvainsylvain (September 10, 2009 10:46 am ET)
              10 1
              I know we shouldn't feed the troll, but here goes...

              I'll try to explain this simply, because that's all you can understand. Not punished by the state, not punished by the government, not taken to Guantanmo, nothing like that.

              Punished by the body he belongs to, the U.S. House of Representatives.

              Or, perhaps, in addition to punished by the House, punished at the polls by his opponent.

              Does that make sense, troll? Or do you need more help?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Whispers (September 10, 2009 11:27 am ET)
              6 2
              You do understand, do you not, that employees of the United States Government are not allowed complete freedom to say whatever they want, at any time, while performing their work duties!

              Joe Wilson is free to say whatever he wishes. He is not free to do so on the floor of Congress. Not while he is drawing a paycheck from American taxpayerss.

              It is utterly ordinary for an employer to be able to place limits on what an employee is allowed to say in the course of his duties. Can you think of any corporation where a board member would be allowed to publicly call the CEO of the company a liar during a public meeting?

              Dingbat.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (September 10, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
              7  
              Didn't Van Jones have a right to free speech? How about the Dixie Chicks?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Looking_4_Truth (September 10, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
              6  
              Obviously, others have tried to explain the idea of "free speech" to you, what it means and how it applies, but it seems to be beyond your comprehension. So you choose to take what I posted out of context to feed whatever delusional state your mind operates.

              As for the "dingbat" remark, I don't recall posting anything derogatory or calling you any sort of name. As a matter of fact, I didn't post anything directly to you at all. If anyone wants to comment on any post I make rationally and expressing a point of view, whether I agree or disagree, feel free, and I'm open to if. If you wish to embarrass yourself and post emotionally charged, idiotic rancor, feel free to do that as well. It and you, are easily recognizable. Grow up!!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
              1 6
              kydem09 - why don't you understand? FREE SPEECH ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE SPEWING LIBERAL TALKING POINTS! Independent thoughts are NOT allowed! You MUST read or write from the Liberal's script (or teleprompter)!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (September 10, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
                6  
                Grow up. The nutjobs were allowed to have their tea parties. The teabaggers were allowed to shout down debate at town halls.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by NewBee (September 10, 2009 6:53 pm ET)
                4  
                why don't you understand? FREE SPEECH ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE SPEWING LIBERAL TALKING POINTS!
                I'm all for punishing folks who misuse the Caps Lock key.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
            1 6
            I agree - Wilson should be punished - JUST AS THE DEMOCRATS WERE PUNISHED FOR HECKLING G.W. BUSH during his State of the Union earlier this decade! Oh, that's right - DEMS ARE HYPOCRITS! Rules and Laws don't apply to them! :)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 3:25 pm ET)
              1
            Did we forget about President Bush getting booed in 2005 at his State of the Union Address? I don’t condone either but apparently either everyone here has a short memory or thinks that booing Bush was Different somehow.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
              1  
              Booing and cheering are common in presidential addresses. Please show us where a Democrat shouted "You Lie" or anything close to it while the president was actually speaking. Then you have something equivalent. You do understand what equivalent means, don't you?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
                  1
                So and entire group of democrats disrupting a State of the union address is in no way similar to one way yelling liar at an Obama speech? I didn’t give a crap then and I don’t give a crap now but wow no similarities hu?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 12, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
                     
                  The fact that you do not see the difference between the parties booing and cheering the ideas they agree with and disagree with and a member of the House screaming "You Lie!" in the middle of the speech tells us all we need to know about you and your party, hi.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:33 am ET)
          3 13
          You people are the most racist, disgusting people. How you could possibly infer that Wilson wanted to call the president that term is what's offensive here. You should be ashamed of the way you throw the race card around. It only acts to diminish actual racism in this country. You are the reason race relations are moving backward. If I could, I'd give you a thousand thumbs down for your ridiculous racists rhetoric.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pros2pros2940 (September 10, 2009 10:40 am ET)
            8 1
            You expect that some will just come right out with a racist statement ? It's the code words they use for cover.

            Kinda like these folks and this stuff has been pandered to by the right for decades.

            [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg]
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 10:53 am ET)
              3 9
              Do I need to remind you of history? As I recall MY history lessons, it was a REPUBLICAN president who worked to end slavery. The Dems were against it. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed had it not been for the overwhelming support of the minority party at the time (Republicans). In fact, a larger percentage of Republicans voted for it than the Democrats. As for this stupid pic you posted, as far as I know these guys are Democrats.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 10:58 am ET)
                8 1
                Recent history please!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
                  1 5
                  Jeremiah Wright and Van Jones - are those two examples of racist Democrats recent enough for you? One was Obama's spiritual leader for over 20 years and the other was a key choice for a leading advisory position inside the Obama Administration! Does that make Obama a racist? Could be - but he has three more years to change that perception or else history will certainly judge him as one.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
                    5  
                    You're begging the question, MacDaddy. Try to ask questions free of logical fallacies if you don't want to look like just another right wing troll.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (September 10, 2009 7:19 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Sounds to me that you judged obama as a racist before he ever took office. Hmmm, wonder why the deep seated fear and loathing of a black man, eh macdonalds?
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by NG_Officer (September 10, 2009 11:04 am ET)
                8 1
                Ever heard of the term Dixiecrat, dingbat (since you so eloquently used the term earlier)?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
                    4
                  Sure have, you need to do your own research on that. Dixiecrats subsequently became Democrats. Dingbat!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
                      4
                    Allow me to clarify my comment, Dixiecrats initially went back to the Democratic party, although some of them eventually splintered off as Republicans.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by snoopy (September 10, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Allow me to clarify actual history to you. Dixiecrats en mass became republicans. Y'all own em now, they're your base. Enjoy!
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 11:09 am ET)
                8 1
                tell me again what an "illegal" looks like, you never answered my question! Also the Party of Lincoln is no more, the truth is the Republican Party is mostly made up of representatives from the Southern States that fought a war against the Union and wanted to continue and expand slavery. The South is the most backward part of the nation and have the highest poverty rates, lowest pay scales,lest union representation and harshest prisons . They rank the lowest in education and healthcare and the highest in oppressive policies both in the workplace and in legal affairs. Try and keep up with current events.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (September 10, 2009 11:09 am ET)
                10 1
                You seemed to forget history yourself.

                First, why were all of those "democrats" democrats to begin with? Well, that had to do with Abe Lincoln being a republican, and he repealing slavery. Where were those democrats living at the time? The South. What happened to those democrats as soon as LBJ and before him, JFK started talking about civil rights legislation? They all turned to Dixiecrats, and THEN became members of the republican party, which is where most of them are today, or were (Thurmond, Helms, and a few others come to mind).

                And, are you so sure about what you're saying about the republicans helping to prop up the Civil Rights Bill? Cause, the vote tallies say you're wrong.

                By party
                The original House version:[9]
                Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
                Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

                The Senate version:[9]
                Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
                Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

                The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
                Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
                Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

                Now, I'm pretty sure that this bill was voted in overwhelmingly by both parties, according to the numbers seen above.

                And also:
                "The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[17] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election."[18] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. However, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer have argued that this development was based more on economics than on race. [19]"

                Civil Rights Act 1964

                Now, you may want to go back, and read your history of the subject, because it appears you just made up your own.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wookie (September 10, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
                  6 1
                  Kydem is floating a lot of the Hannitized drivel that Al Franken covered in his book. Even in Lincoln's time the Dems were split over slavery. Later Dems like FDR and Truman pushed civil rights ideas by executive order.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  My numbers are wrong how? I said the Democrats could not have passed Civil Rights legislation without the overwhelming support of the minority party, which was the Republicans and that a larger percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats. Your numbers only reinforce what I stated.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Handsome Pete (September 10, 2009 11:18 am ET)
                8 2
                Sorry, but the Dems who were against the Civil Rights legislation (Dixiecrats) left the party and were welcomed with open arms to the Republican Party. Both parties have history of racism, but the GOP has a (much) more recent history of it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
                    5
                  Again, is not the former KKK Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops, Sen. Robert Byrd the longest serving elected official in the DEMOCRAT party??? Since he's still there, I believe that its MUCH more recent!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 4:50 pm ET)
                    4  
                    It's about as recent as The Pope's involvement with the Hitler Youth. To your credit, you didn't need to go back 150 years to make your false equivalence, so you're slightly ahead of the other wingnut. Congrats.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by kydem09 (September 10, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  As you all love to say, prove the GOP's racism.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NewBee (September 10, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    As you all love to say, prove the GOP's racism.
                    We don't have to. We simply let you speak.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (September 10, 2009 11:32 am ET)
                6  
                As I recall MY history lessons

                Were you home schooled?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by magnolialover (September 10, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Probably, because the revisionist history he likes to present, is not really what happened at all.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
                2 4
                EXACTLY! The Democratic Party has been the home of George Wallace & Robert Byrd (and now Jeremiah Wright and Van Jones)!

                The picture that was posted was probabaly from a rally organized by George Wallace!

                Again Dems - THE TRUTH HURTS!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 10, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
                4 1
                Do I need to remind you of history? As I recall MY history lessons, it was a REPUBLICAN president who worked to end slavery. The Dems were against it. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed had it not been for the overwhelming support of the minority party at the time (Republicans). In fact, a larger percentage of Republicans voted for it than the Democrats.


                Don't stop the history lesson now!

                After the 1964 presidential election, in which Republican Barry Goldwater appealed directly to the white Democrats of the South, the GOP began to consciously morph itself into the White Man’s Party in Dixie. Like the Dixie Democrats, the Republicans fashioned campaigns that essentially ran against Black people. It became the Dixiecrat party, and has structured every national campaign strategy around its race-based stronghold in the southern states.

                Republicans started courting the voting block they couldn't previously get (white southerners). In this case, by the time the majority of blacks moved to the Democratic party (around the 1960s), a great many of the previous white southern Democrats, still didn't want to move to the Republican party, because it was the party of Lincoln and "black person lovers".

                The old "Dixiecrats", didn't start switching to the Republican party until the 1970s.

                NOW that's a complete history lesson!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (September 11, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
              1 1
              So liar is code for ni##er . Dam Olberman called bush a ni##er like 50 times last night. And do ya think you get a little newer picture.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Whispers (September 10, 2009 11:28 am ET)
            4 2
            It's not racism, dope. It's regionalism. South Carolina does not have a history of acquitting itself well on the subject of race relations. Suggest you read up on their history of revering the Confederate flag.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
            1 5
            How can libs be racist? They've always supported their great leaders such as Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd, who's a former leader who held titles of "Kleagle" and "Exalted Cyclops" in the KKK That must be why he is so revered by liberals!
            Byrd once wrote the following: "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Maybe THAT is why he is considered such a great leader of DEMOCRATS!

            The GOP is the party of Lincoln! The GOP - NOT DEMOCRATS - is the party of the leaders who fought for equal rights for all during the 50's and 60's! George Wallace, a famous leader of Democrats during the 60's took office saying "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Again, he was a DEMOCRAT and ran three times for President AS A DEMOCRAT!
            In more recent times, it was Republicans who promoted, nominated or appointed great Americans like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleeza rice, so exactly who are the racists??? Bush helped all minorites - not just African Americans. He appointed more white females (50) than Carter (32), Ronald Reagan (27) or George H.W. Bush (31) and more Hispanic females (12) than Clinton (5).

            Sorry Dems if the TRUTH hurts!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by funnymanpants (September 10, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
              4 1
              >>How can libs be racist? They've always supported their great leaders such as Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd

              That was a nice rant. You conveniently left out people like Strom Thrumond, and the fact that the GOP in Lincoln's time has nothing to do with the present GOP. It is pretty laughable that you name the GOP as the party that fought for equal rights in the 60s.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 6:27 pm ET)
                3 1
                Yea, Strom Thurmond the Republican senator that fought integration and civil rights tooth and nail, and ran for President on a segregationist platform. Come to find out that he had a daughter with an Afro-American woman that he kept secret until his daughter stepped forward only to be attacked by the great scum-bag congressmen from S.C. that called President Obama a "liar" last night. Check out this :

                Flashback: Rep. Wilson Also Had To Apologize After Attacking Strom Thurmond's Illegitimate Daughter
                Most Americans first heard about Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) last night for his now-infamous "you lie!" outburst.

                But it isn't the first time for Wilson. Back in 2003, not long after the death of Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Thurmond's bi-racial, out-of-wedlock daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, came forward to say that Thurmond was her father. (Thurmond, who spent most of his career as a staunch proponent of segregation and Jim Crow, had supported the family financially for decades.) Wilson made headlines for telling The State newspaper that Washington-Williams should have kept the shameful secret to herself.

                Wilson later had to apologize to Washington-Willaims, Thurmond's family and perhaps implicitly non-awful people everywhere.

                --Josh Marshall
                Report Abuse
            • Author by funnymanpants (September 10, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
              4 1
              >>Sorry Dems if the TRUTH hurts!

              Here's an actual *scholarly* summing up of the two parties:

              The Democratic Party’s embrace of racial liberalism and the Republicans’ move toward racial conservatism in the mid-twentieth century represent a momentous transformation in American politics. Sometime between Reconstruction and the passage of the major civil rights acts of the 1960s, the two major parties essentially switched positions on civil rights issues. While there is a scholarly consensus on this very general statement, once one moves to more specific claims concerning the causes, timing and sequence of this shift, the consensus quickly erodes.In this paper, we hope to shed new light on some of the theoretical issues that surround the civil rights realignment. We will do so by examining a new data source: state political party platforms. As we will demonstrate, these data indicate that outside of the South, the Democratic Party took the lead on civil rights issues far earlier than conventional wisdom suggests. Furthermore, rather than acting exclusively as an intermediary between national party elites and masses, party activists (i.e., state party convention attendees) played an important, early role in shaping their parties’ positions on civil rights issues.
              More generally, we argue that northern Democrats’ ideological commitments and coalitional partners generated a strong incentive to adopt the more pro-civil rights position as grassroots activists – both within and outside the party -- forced the issue to the top of the national agenda. By contrast, northern Republicans had much less intraparty pressure to embrace liberal civil rights policies.

              link
              Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (September 10, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
              4 1
              Where would you clowns be without Byrd to misrepresent? The fact is, Byrd renounced and apologized for his Klan membership and his earlier statements many decades ago. His constituents accepted his apology and returned him to office. I don't think I would have, but they did. The main thing to remember is that for many decades he walked the walk. He was a civil rights champion and gained the gained the support of African Americans in his state.

              The people like you who confound the Dixiecrats with Democrats in general are unteachable idiots or liars. Often both.

              Here is a fact. Because of its membership, the republican party is decades away from nominating a non-white for the office of President. It's simply not going to happen.

              As for political appointments, because of the earlier efforts of Democrats and liberal, WPE Bush had more women and minorities available to him for appointment than did earlier Presidents.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (September 10, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
              4 1
              The GOP is the party of Lincoln!
              Is that why Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("humiliating to the South"), and a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday? Is that why he promised to eliminate the Fair Housing Act ("If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.")? Is that why he supported Apartheid in South Africa and tried to grant tax-exempt status to a segregationist university?

              Maybe it's just my imagination, but I thought that this man was revered by Republicans even today. Meanwhile, liberals denounce racist remarks by Byrd from any time period, and he quit the KKK half a century ago anyway. So that doesn't seem like a particularly strong argument for you.

              Moreover, calling someone a racist without justification is not "racist" in itself. That's not what the word means. Kydem should say "race-baiter" if that was the argument he wanted to make.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 10, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
            7 1
            How you could possibly infer that Wilson wanted to call the president that term is what's offensive here.


            YOU want people to think that Wilson is all for for telling the the truth, but WHY during 8 years of the Bush administration, did Wilson not yell out LIE for:

            The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

            Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

            You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam. President Bush, 9/25/02

            There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties. President Bush, 9/17/03

            There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

            There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

            We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/16/03

            Bush says Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

            Bush citing of a United Nations International Atomic Energy report alleging that Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon

            Bush claimed that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

            Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

            We found the weapons of mass destruction. President Bush, 5/29/03

            The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. President Bush, 1/28/03

            Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. President Bush, 10/7/02

            The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes. President Bush, 9/26/02

            Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. President Bush, 1/28/03

            Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. President Bush, 5/1/03


            LIE after LIE and yet not ONE single word from ANY Republican?

            LIES that caused the loss of over 4,000 AMERICANS? More than were killed on 9/11?

            The Republican party is 90% White, and I'm suppose to believe that race has nothing to do with calling the first African American president a liar on national television, right?

            So I should believe that because of all the times Republicans called the former White president a liar, right?


            Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (September 10, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
          6 2
          Yup. But instead, they'll just talk about seceding from the union, "state's rights" and that uppity Kenyan in the WH.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
        2 4
        "I think the heckler should be removed from office." I agree - and a rule like that would have resulted in EVERY DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS being removed from office when they heckled George Bush during his State of the Union address!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jen7 (September 10, 2009 9:51 am ET)
      10 2
      Just turned on Fox. Megyn Kelly was on and started a segment with Obama saying he wanted the bickering to stop, then showed a clip of him accusing liars of lying. Then had a Republican on to whine how mean Obama was. No opening of Joe Wilson disrespecting the President and everyone there by calling him a liar. Fox News, at it's best.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (September 10, 2009 9:54 am ET)
        8 1
        That's the new Fox News line.

        If you complain about their lies and partisan right-wing hackery, then you yourself are just a lying partisan hack.

        Isn't this fun??
        Report Abuse
    • Author by latanza (September 10, 2009 9:57 am ET)
      6 1
      Eric, you always seem to cover the meet and potatoes! As of now, we cover illegals. We treat any and everyone in our hospitals especially if it is a trauma wound. Illegals as a practice don't seek health care though because of their status as "illegals". What would happen if this bill passes is that the alien population will decrease. This is an expectation and consequence of illegal entry. We are absorbing the cost of these individuals and most of the capital that they earn here in their unregistered and sometime illegal performances are sent back to their country or island. We are receiving less input and the output has been noticed drastically. These are called "ghost expenses". These ghost expenses are damaging to our econonmy and the alien work force is subtracting a large part of America's gain and recyclable dollar. Because at some point, everyone will need to be hospitalized or medically attended, this would be a tool for accountability of legal citizenship.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by toombsie (September 10, 2009 10:00 am ET)
      8 1
      This is the failure of the media that has been steadily getting worse for the past 40 years. The media just reports what people say but never analyzes the truth of the statement. They take government reports on foreign affairs at face value without doing the research themselves to see if the government is lying. They report what congressmen say but never report whether it is actually factual. They give habitual liars like Karl Rove and Sarah Palin a medium to spread their lies in newspaper print. In other words, they continually fail to do their job and they are hurting the nation as a whole because of it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 10:21 am ET)
      8 3
      This is part of republican,i.e., conservative tactics in their attempt to destroy healthcare reform. Divide and conquer. They understand the racial divides in this country and are masters at dog-whistle words and hot button issues. A party that sold a war with a lie and divided a nation in pursuing it; labeling those (who were correct by the way) who disagreed with it as kooks and looney lefties(60-70% of the American people)is not blinking an eye at employing this dog-whistle "illegal" or grandma will be killed to try and scare people away from something that is in their interest. They've done it before and their pushing this "illegal" lie in another cynical attempt to divide people in favor health insurers profits.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MacDaddy (September 10, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
        2 6
        congero6189599 - above, you wrote: "The South is the most backward part of the nation" - a statement like that makes YOU the RACIST! Is the South backward because they don't have the dying factories of the North that are controlled by Unions? Is the South backward because they have a LOWER unemployment rate than the old economies of the North? Is the South backward because populations are moving out of the North and into the South? Is the South backward because, in general, they tend to favor better education for children through the use of school vouchers instead of subjecting their children to the failing public schools in inner cities of the North (such as those in Detroit, Washington DC, NYC, Hartford, Newark, Camden, Trenton, Philadelphia, etc., etc.)? Is the South backward because some great American innovations occur in great scientific centers of the South? YOU'VE PROVEN YOUR RACIST CREDENTIALS - NOW GO BACK TO WORK CAMPAIGNING FOR ROBERT BYRD!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (September 10, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
          3 1
          Why would it be "racist" to say that the South is backward? Is it insulting the "race" of southerners, or what?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (September 10, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
            3 1
            He's misreading what I wrote. I explained exactly what i meant by backward. I'd like for him to answer your question as well as the one I asked him up top!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by benjr (September 10, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
          2  
          I don't think that word means what you think it does. . . Being from the South does not give you a racial identity. Also, while I know that people are moving into the Southwest (A VERY different area than what most people consider the South), do you have any proof that people are leaving the north to go to the old South (east of the Mississippi)?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by themidnightreview.com (September 10, 2009 11:13 am ET)
      9 2
      Denying illegal immigrants health care and yelling "you lie" at the president will probably place him near the heart of many of his constituents.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rev2009 (September 10, 2009 11:46 am ET)
        3  
        These people on the right are ceding any moral authority and Christianity. We have the ability, knowledge, and resources to treat the sick and heal suffering. As a Christian, I must advocate for healing the sick, treating the poor, and yes, loving my fellow man enough to treat the ear ache of the illegal immigrant. If I were not a Christian, I suspect I would feel the same, but I have a powerful example to follow in Christ and I hope to continue to do so.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (September 10, 2009 11:59 am ET)
        2  
        Sure. and as the author of this blog shrewdly suggests, perhaps may garner him some swell job offers... http://driftglass.blogspot.com/
        Report Abuse
    • Author by SouthernBeale (September 10, 2009 11:50 am ET)
      1  
      Sadly, if you want any real information these days, <a href="http://sobeale.blogspot.com/2009/09/he-lied.html">one must go to the blogs</a>. For the most part.

      Kudos to PolitiFact for getting it right. And Jake Tapper for at least Tweeting about it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by obamaisasocialist (September 10, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
        5
      I say we need a bipartisan commitee to see if Obama is a liar
      Report Abuse
    • Author by deborahlcundiff (September 10, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
      1 7
      As far as Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst? I say, hurrah to Joe Wilson for having the guts to call it like it is. I took pen in hand last night when the Pres started speaking. I counted 76 untruths.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (September 10, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
        5 1
        >>I say, hurrah to Joe Wilson for having the guts to call it like it is.

        Factcheck.org, polifact, and CNN have all judged Wilson's claim to be false. So he was lying, not Obama.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NG_Officer (September 10, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
        4  
        if you truly had pen in hand, you could post these lies for all to see...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 10, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
          3 1
          What are the chances that the other 75 "untruths" are more things that don't jibe with what Fox "News" told her?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (September 10, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
        5 1
        How on earth did you wield a pen given your lack of an opposable thumb?

        Randy
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Chibob (September 10, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
          1 1
          a) What Obama said was completely, factually true. Health care reform does not seem like a good forum for immigration reform. To me at least.
          b) If I understand the proposals correctly, and I have actually read them, the following is true:
          1)An illegal immigrant cannot get tax credits or other
          subsidies
          to buy insurance.
          2)An illegal immigrant CAN, however, buy insurance, at "book"
          rates from one of the co-op markets.
          3)An illegal immigrant who BUYS insurance can then use that
          insurance at an emergency room, or to pay for other medical
          care(thereby eliminating the need for visits to the emergency
          care.
          4) As is true now, if illegal immigrants show up with at the
          ER with a skull fracture, they will be treated. To me, this is
          based on something beyond government policy, but is just a
          matter of basic ethics and compassion.

          Given the real-world situation we are in with regards to immigration, this seems like a reasonable situation. If they are insured (at their own cost) they will be less of a burden on the medical system. It also seems unlikely that medical professionals will accede to becoming, in effect, enforcers of immigration law. That's just not the way doctors and nurses act.

          We need to do something definitive about illegal immigration, but health care reform is not the place to do it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by insaneloki20024664 (September 11, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
            1 1
            1. They wouldn't be insured at their own cost since the program would be government (taxpayer) subsidized.

            2. The argument is academic since there is no bill. There are proposals that have yet to go through the full debate process in either house of Congress.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by thomasc (September 10, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
          2 1
          Both that idiot Joe Wilson and certain commenters here have confused completely misrepresented the democrats opposition to requiring proof of citizenship. Require proof of citizenship would deny cover to LEGAL, RESIDENT ALIENS, something that not even the most rabid and racist rightwingers have advocated. Opposing the proof of citizenship requirement IS NOT a backdoor means of insuring illegal aliens and WOULD NOT result in coverage for illegal aliens. Conversely, requiring proof of citizenship would deny coverage to aliens who are in this country LEGALLY.

          It's really that simple.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by insaneloki20024664 (September 11, 2009 5:01 pm ET)
            1 1
            If you are a legal resident of this country you will have proof of your citizenship and/or proof of your legal residence in this country and therefore eligibility for government programs. Requiring said proof would only bar people illegally in this country who do not posses such proof from accessing government services and voting.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by NewBee (September 10, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
        3 1
        I took pen in hand last night when the Pres started speaking.
        He reflexively took something the size of a pen (in his case) in his hand but alas you cannot write with it, at least not easily.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tom_Shaftoe (September 10, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
          1 1
          However many similarities those two objects share, clearly the one to hand was an inferior writing utensil.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (September 11, 2009 10:27 am ET)
        1 1
        I respectfully submit that deborah is confusing things she doesn't LIKE with things that aren't TRUE.

        F'rinstance, I'll bet she thinks it's not true that a black man is President of the United States...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2009 5:13 pm ET)
        1  
        "As far as Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst? I say, hurrah to Joe Wilson for having the guts to call it like it is. I took pen in hand last night when the Pres started speaking. I counted 76 untruths." deborah

        And yet you failed to post even one of them to support your nonsensical statement. Makes one wonder how confident you are in your "untruths".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bpcbabe (September 10, 2009 8:47 pm ET)
         
      two points:
      I haven't seen anyone point out that we do have universal healthcare in this country -- only you have to be over 65....
      second, in all fairness, the Wall Street Journal got it right:
      "... One, Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, shouted "lie" when Mr. Obama said his plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants, though the Democratic bills circulating in Congress do exclude illegal immigrants from eligibility for subsidies."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by icesailor (September 11, 2009 7:25 am ET)
         
      The only MSM outlet to give "Fair And Balanced News" is Fox News. No other news is required. They have become the official news outlet for the United States. "NOTUS".

      Why let a little thing like a true fact get in the way of a good (untrue) story.

      We are screwed as a democratic country. We have the best economy that money can buy. Not OUR money but THEIR money. The Corporate "persons" who will soon have more speech rights than we REAL persons.

      Remember Chief Justice Roberts saying he respected settled law and would respect Starre Decisis? How can you tell when a lot of Repugnants are lying? Their lips are moving.

      How did we get into this mess? Money.

      Icesailor.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by insaneloki20024664 (September 11, 2009 9:37 am ET)
      1  
      Congress should be more like the British Parliament. There your lucky if all your called is a liar. when the President, any President, is in front of a joint session of Congress then should at least include a question and answer portion and allow himself to be taken to task on his statements. If he is truly beholden to the people this should be no problem.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NewBee (September 11, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
        1 1
        then should at least include a question and answer portion and allow himself to be taken to task on his statements.
        Ha! Can you imagine Bush Jr. being subject to hostile questions from Congress?

        I watch British "Question Time" with bemusement when I catch it. I do think our leaders should be able to speak on their feet. Obama would be great at this. Recent Republican presidents would be horrible. For that reason alone I would support the idea as it would expose the Republicans as the low-intelligent blowhards that they are.

        Here's how the Obama vs. Wilson exchange would go in a Question Time scenario:

        Obama: This reform does not cover illegal immigrants

        Wilson: You lie!

        Obama: OK. Show me the passage where illegals are covered. In fact, there's a passage that specifically forbids it.

        Wilson: <crickets>
        Report Abuse
        • Author by insaneloki20024664 (September 11, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
          1 1
          There is no bill yet so there is no passage to point to.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NewBee (September 12, 2009 12:32 am ET)
            1 1
            Now the cons are crying "There is no bill yet"? Then what the hell was Wilson talking about then if there was nothing to dispute.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by insaneloki20024664 (September 12, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
              1  
              I never said Wilson wasn't an idiot. The fact is there are several suggestions under consideration but no primary bill to point to.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NewBee (September 13, 2009 1:21 am ET)
                   
                I never said Wilson wasn't an idiot
                This thread is about Wilson. My post was about Wilson's cajoling of Obama. You can't deny Obama a defense by saying there is no concrete bill without acknowledging that the same fact undermines critics as well, Wilson among them.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by NewBee (September 13, 2009 1:21 am ET)
                   
                I never said Wilson wasn't an idiot
                This thread is about Wilson. My post was about Wilson's cajoling of Obama. You can't deny Obama a defense by saying there is no concrete bill without acknowledging that the same fact undermines critics as well, Wilson among them.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by PAG (September 11, 2009 11:35 pm ET)
      1 2
      To all who are confused? The president did not lie his plan is to make all illegals citizens against the will of the people so that means they will no longer be illegals. Wilson is correct because any American with his or her head screwed on will stop the president from granting these free loaders citizenship. The free loaders that are hurting our economy by draining our tax dollars that are supposed to be there for our childrens schools, Our hospitals, and when we retire because we worked for it and paid taxes for retirement. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against immigration when it is legal my parents are immigrants but they did not just waltz into America and say give me. If you don’t believe me read the book How to Become a Citizen of the United States Ninth Edition 1920 which my parent had to follow to be a citizen. Published by Charles Kallmeyer Publishing Company New York you might find this book in the library of congress if they don't destroy it first.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 12, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
        2 1
        The free loaders that are hurting our economy


        YOU should become informed BEFORE posting such nonsense!

        The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

        The agency estimates that for 2005, the last year for which figures are available, about $9 billion in taxes was paid on about $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, which would include illegal immigrants who drew paychecks under fake names and Social Security numbers.

        The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover retirement checks to legal workers.

        The IRS also has been issuing Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, or ITINs, for 12 years to foreigners without a Social Security number. It's believed that many workers who seek the ITINs are in the country illegally, and the IRS reported that there were 2.5 million tax returns filed with an ITIN in 2004.

        In 2006, then IRS Commission Mark Everson told Congress that "many illegal aliens, utilizing ITINs, have been reporting tax liability to the tune of almost $50 billion from 1996 to 2003."


        An IRS spokesman said more recent figures aren't available.

        The Social Security and Medicare taxes from mismatched W2s for the same period was $41.4 billion, Hinkle said.

        That adds up to roughly $90 billion in federal taxes during they eight-year period.


        The tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales taxes, property taxes and excise taxes (such as the gas tax), are significant.

        Many illegal immigrants pay up at tax time...


        You started your post with "To all who are confused?" It appears YOU are confused!




        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.

Weekly Columns

Feed Icon