"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery of party, faction, and division of society"
John Adams
2nd US President 1797-1801
1735-1826
From roughly 1820 to 1860, the United States trod an awful path. With each step, Dredd Scott, Plessey v. Ferguson, Kansas Nebraska act, Missouri Compromise, the elections of 1856 and 1860, we were reminded of the vast cultural difference between an ante-bellum South and a more industrial North.
Intent on establishing it's right to live and behave by its own standards, the South was strong in its conviction that the States reigned supreme over the Federal, that their economy was dependent upon cheap labor, and providing a skewed economic model of many many poor, and a few landed gentry, were and ought to survive. Any threat to that survival, any hint of opposition to their premise, was met with derision, contempt, threats, and scorn. For 40 years, in the interest of preservation of the Union, the balance of the country, the 70% who did not live in the South acceded to this tyranny by the minority
When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, it represented effectively the first loss on issue for the South in the question of slavery, dating back to the inception of the Constitution. "Fire-eaters" as they were called, like Breckenridge, and even James Buchanan, referred to his election as the first step in a tyrannical attempt to strip the southern states of their liberty. Shortly after his election, the most radical states voted to secede from the Union, in open defiance to the election of an opposition candidate.
Lies about the intent of Lincoln were spread far and wide: Lincoln intended to forcibly invade the South; Lincoln intended to forcibly end slavery, despite the fact that Lincoln made it plain in the months immediately following his election that in fact he would protect slave-owners as long as the states remained within the Union. The Southerners could not bear the insult to their 'pride' that a 'slave-lover' abolitionist had been elected. Because he was a Republican they assumed he was, automatically, an abolitionist; Lincoln did dislike slavery - but was not an abolitionist. They believed passionately that they could not afford to lose, not once, not in any way, on the issue of slavery.
This week, President Obama gave a speech, a speech about the crisis of economy we face. He is correct in being concerned that 1/6th of the economy would become 1/5th. He clearly understands having 20% of the economy go to producing nothing except extending life at exorbitant expense, in a highly inefficient way, is a national security issue. We face tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates for medicare and social security; we have a dwindling middle-class which will be totally unable to pay for it. Safety nets like these two programs will probably end unless we correct the abuse and underfunding they've experienced, like the raiding of the SS trust fund in the 1950's. Our elderly population will both be impoverished and suffer vast health care service degradation if we do not act.
Yet, when Obama rightly noted that his bill will not pay for the care of illegal aliens as covered persons, he was met with the most uncivil and hateful reply I've ever had the dishonor to witness in my 40 plus years watching Presidents stand in front of congress. A representative from South Carolina, the first nation to secede, shouted out that the President lies in saying his bill doesn't provide for the coverage of illegal aliens. The truth is, any health care program will pay for emergency room care of ANYONE. It will pay, because that's the law, it's the law now, it will be the law in 200 years, we don't let people die on doorsteps. It is not new or unique to the President's proposal.
Obama wasn't lying to say those people won't be listed as covered persons under his proposal, that their primary care, or prescriptions or any of a host of services won't be covered. I don't even agree with him we SHOULDN'T cover them, but he won't. He wasn't lying - but that's not the point.
Sen. Patrick Leahy said colleagues sitting near him were "just shocked" by Wilson's shouted insult. "None of us had ever heard anything like it," he said.
When you disagree with a President, you sanely, rationally raise your objection to him, you SET THE EXAMPLE you want the nation to follow in providing for civil conduct. More than anything, you show some respect for the Office and traditions. You avoid fomenting hatred, hatred as has been in evidence in various town-halls. Hatred like creating pictures of all of the Presidents except for Obama where you simply show a set of eyes on a black background, or where you draw pictures of the White House lawn strewn with watermelons. Hatred where a group of people decide that the infringements on their 'liberty' of the election of someone from another party, and the implicit changes in policy which the majority rightly have the right to expect can and will happen are so onerous that they must 'act out'.
All of which suggest something to students of history, of our own history.
We are marching again on that path to war, a war so far only of words, much as it was in 1840 or 1850. Because those who sit elected by the minority feel their constituents do not mind ugly conduct, they feel emboldened to do what has never been done before in this country. They dishonor themselves, the institution of our government, and each one of us who are citizens who love this country, by violating traditions of conduct which have stood for more than 140 years.
If we do not find a way to have civil debate, to agree to compromise when the party elected to find solutions seeks to move forward, but more, if we simply are going to scream 'FREEDOM!!!' combined with obscenities in the face of those who seek such change - we are going to see history repeat itself, we are going to see those intractable people use violence when they no longer get their way, and we may see war that goes beyond words. Both sides faced horrible destruction in our civil war, and we would be wise as a result to have both sides now remember the lessons of that war. We would all of us, on both sides, be wise to also remember that the minority did not win that civil war, and that by provoking it the minority was a catalyst precipitating the very events they most feared.
The southern economic system was doomed, not because of abolitionists opposition to slavery, although slavery was wrong. The southern economic system was doomed because it was not sustainable. Our current health care system is economically not sustainable either. The decision is not correctly to keep or not keep our current system, the decision which should be on the table for agreement is how we will change our current health care system, and how drastic the schism will or will not be. It is a choice.
first of all KR, may I suggest you look at whose writing you are responding to in your comments?
ReplyDeletePenigma, not DG; although I admit to having input to Pen's ideas.
Earlier today KR, I agreed with my friend Mitch that for anyone else to have booed President Bush, it was equally wrong - and no one actually knows who booed, the assumption is that it must have been democrats, despite your own assertion that many conservatives and republicans did not support Bush.
I have put my money where my mouth is today by emphaticaly declining requests for contributions related to this event, btw.
Actually KR, you show excellent discernment in some reading of this - the opening quotation and this line IS actually my small contribution, made when I promised to give this a quick look before posting it this morning for Pen because he was busy:
"...be wise to also remember that the minority did not win that civil war,"
[Just shut up or you will get the same? Yikes!]
KR, that sentence you quote - only partially, and out of context - came after "Both sides faced horrible destruction in our civil war, and we would be wise as a result to have both sides now remember the lessons of that war." That preceding sentence makes the meaning that I took to be the essence of Pen's theme, that we ALL of us risk great loss by this kind of schism, and that those who, in a minority, would unwisely precipitate an increasingly hostile schism would be wise to learn the lessons of history and contemplate their potential for loss before they go forward promoting that schism. It is not as you pose it, a threat to conform or 'else'.
I would respectfully suggest to you that an extensive reading of civil war history strongly suggests that the South was not very realistic about it's strengths and weaknesses before it acted. And that had it been mnore realistic, we would not have had the god-awful bloody conflict we did.
While I may have some bias, as Pen's co-blogger, in his favor, I do think he followed a very thoughtful and clever exploration of the different meanings of the word civil in what he wrote.
KR wrote:
ReplyDelete"that ObamaNationCare supporter bit an opposing persons finger off. OUCH!"
First of all, again let us look at this event. The person with the bitten off pinky himself stated, in a subsequent interview, that he was in the process of throwing his second punch when his finger ended up inside the other person's mouth . It is not at all clear that the other person intended to bite off anyone's finger, or that the bite was voluntary. It is AS likely that that second man's jaw clamped down involuntarily as part of the action of himself being hit.
The pinky-guy was not some kind of innocent pacifist in this, he was as much or more of an aggressor.
Now, as a person who has a need for expertise in bite inhibition in dogs, as well as a familiarity with the relative bite capacities of different breeds, I know what it takes to bite off a piece of someone, far better than most people know. I have had dog bites, including having a giant breed clamp down on my forearm, and feeling his canines scraping across my radius and ulna before ripping back out of my arm.
You remember that jest over on SitD that compared me to the Cheers character of Diane because of the Baudelaire quote? Let me remind you of the content of that quote, the translation: "like a strong animal watching prey it has already marked with its teeth". Believe me when I tell you that I understand that moment, that contact of the teeth; it is not an idle metaphor. It is a reality; I know how much force it takes for a 9 month old puppy bitch to crush the skull of a deer she has brought down, or a littermate to rip off a front leg, or for another littermate to rip open the abdomen. For human teeth to remove part of another human's little finger, well, while it can be done, very few people have that kind of jaw strength for it to be an intentional act. Human teeth are not as strong as dog teeth.
I think it is high time for conservatives to STOP pointing partial pinkies at the biter for being some kind of evil or violent individual in that incident. Particularly as the victim was so willingly throwing punches.
KR,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, your penchant for snipping comments has tripped you up.
You failed to include "as covered persons", as such, my comment, and the President's were ENTIRELY correct. You need to read the bill, and read up on various facts - the bill PROHIBITS, much to my disagreement - any enrollment of illegal aliens.
You would do well to check your facts before commenting again.
As for your quote of Mr. Obama, as I don't have a transcript, I cannot, at the moment verify him calling prominent politicians liars, but suffice to say, he did not name those politicians, he called the comments made lies - regardless, given your penchant for misquoting, I am, for the moment, unmoved to act and disinclined to believe your claim. I would suggest you look up the word obfuscation as it is quite applicable to your comment.
As well, I would ask you, if you support a bill requiring alients to show proof of citizenship or be denied care at Emergency Rooms/Hospital addmission for emergent care (which is the ONLY locus where care is obligatory) - are you saying you would prefer to let them 'die on the stoop?'
In relation to Mr. Leahy, and the objection by Democrats to Mr. Bush, it has LONG been the practice of the Congress (opposition members) to boo or hiss, but NEVER EVER call the President a liar - you have, once again, conflated two distinctly different things. However, I personally think such conduct as booing is unprofessional, I condemn it, but do you then condem it as well as it relates to Obama?
K-Rod, you are correct and yet incorrect. Here's how I reconcile that seemingly inconsistent statement.
ReplyDeleteThe health care reform bills, as I understand them, do not allow anyone who is not lawfully in the US to benefit in any government plan. That would include, I presume, a "public option" in the unlikely event one is actually approved as part of the final legislation. However, hospitals and physicians now do not ask immigration status, and in fact are prohibited by doing so by CURRENT LAW. To force hospitals and other health care professionals to ask that status prior to treatment of anyone is just plain wrong. Morally, legally and ethically.
Rep. Wilson did not "sink to the level of Obama". He never came close to Obama's level. Rep. Wilson violated the decorum of the House of Representatives, and has acknowledged that he did wrong. I don't believe for a minute that his outburst was "spontaneous", but I don't have any proof other than my skepticism.
Section 246 of the Health Care Reform act contains the following language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." This means that if a tax credit is to be granted to anyone, for the purchase of insurance, it can't be granted to an illegal alien. It was pointed out by the American Association of Immigration lawyers that attempting to claim a benefit of citizenship can have dramatic and dire consequences for anyone who claims it and isn't thus entitled. The consequences include deportation and a lifetime ban on reentry to the US. I confirmed this information with a professional colleague of mine who practices immigration law. (I do not practice in that area) President Obama was not lying. Source: Factcheck.org
Actually, it was Penigma who posted this article, so any mistakes of fact are his, not DG. Furthermore, please provide me some fact checking on your claim that Democrats booed President Bush. I would like to know the date and event where it took place, and would like to know if they called him a liar during a speech.
As Penigma has repeatedly said, biting someone's finger off is unacceptable behaviour. So are the busloads of protestors taken to town hall meetings, the shouting of obscenities during those meetings, and the generally disruptive tactics done by republican operatives. The outright lies perpetrated by a number of Republicans, both elected officials and others are a further example of egregious conduct by Republicans. I don't judge people based on their party affiliation, I base it on their conduct.
I will leave it to Penigma what he meant by the remark that the minority did not win the civil war.
ROFL!
ReplyDeleteTHE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE was written by Penigma. He deseres the credit.
I-DG - gave it a quick edit, contributing mostly spellcheck with a little cleaning up of a few sentences, the addition of the quotation - because I can and it was fun - and a few added sentences at the end.
One of those sentences added was this one - KR, ToE -
"We would all of us, on both sides, be wise to also remember that the minority did not win that civil war, and that by provoking it the minority was a catalyst precipitating the very events they most feared."
As it was my humble contribution, allow me to address it. The south was the minority adversary in the civil war - 11 confederate states compared to 23 union states; I had checked the difference in numbers on the two sides, but no longer have them at my finger tips - the difference was considerable with the larger side being the union, overwhelmingly.
And while I'm addressing statements, I also tweaked the "we are marching to a war of words"; we are putting more effort into drawing political battle lines than we seem to be putting effort into intelligent, honest, good faith solutions. That did not benefit the minority side in the civil war; it may not work out the way they expect for the current miniority either. That statement means it may not be in their own best interest to push for greater division, and that the other side, the majority may be much less intent on that division than they are. It's a 'be careful what you wish for' warning.
KR,
ReplyDeleteTo be blunt, your conduct is emblematic of the kind of derision I'm specifcally referring to in the post.
Either we find a way to talk civily, or eventually, our nation faces the same fate it did in 1860 - cut/paste misrepresentations are not civil, nor is twisting words into something they aren't, nor is it purposefully mischaractarizing the legitimate attempts of a President starting off at centrist position as attempting to ruin the country.
KR said,"(And plueeeze, don’t dedicate this post to me, you are more likely to be the poster boy of such woooouuud behavior.)"
ReplyDeleteThat is your opinion, but it is one in which you are alone, a one-hand clapping.
You've been treated civily - more than civily to be honest - patiently to be correct.
Our health care crisis IS in fact one of staggering proportions - bibilical is something both not germaine nor important to contrast - but we spend VASTLY more on a non-productive economic entity than we should or can afford to keep doing without wrecking our economy.
As for not condoning conduct - well, I guess that's a start, but again, your complaints seem one-sided, you "don't condone" but spend most of your time singularly complaining about Obama. I concur IF your quote is correct that Obama is out of line, wrong, and complaints about Wilson would be atleast slightly hypocritical, however, Wilson's conduct went FAR beyond what Obama did, do you agree? Further do you think Wilson was wrong? Does he deserve condemnation, not just 'not condoning'?
As for the Soviets, your comment is hopefully humor, as our similarity to the Soviet Union is so laughably NOT the case that it makes such a comment appear per force to need to be humor so as to not think the commentor uncivil/extreme. We have .5% of our economy publicly owned, we are the LOWEST taxed westernized economy on the planet, we are the ONLY industrial power in the world without public health care provided through a government program for the entire populace, AND we are almost alone in experiencing negative wage growth in the past decade (the decade of the BUSINESS President). In short, we cowtow to business, and we've been taken for a ride. Paul O'Neill refers to it as the raiding of the public trust, but heck, what does he know, he was only Treasury Secretary and CEO of Alcoa (among other things). To put it another way, your complaints about us becoming socialist are 180 degrees on their head, we are bought and sold by corporate interests - we are a nation whose government operates at the beck and call of business, not the other way around. Even the 'bailout' was MOSTLY about helping investors, not taking control of business other than to try to keep those same businesses from running the economy into hell, let alone the ground.
KR, on another point -
ReplyDeleteYou are simply incorrect, illegal aliens are REFUSED coverage - so that simply isn't accurate, put whatever lipstick of tangential argument you want on it, it doesn't matter.
You appear to be confusing COVERAGE with CARE - they are not the same. Someone may get SOME care, because we don't let people die on hospital doorsteps, but that doesn't mean they are a covered person who can:
1. Schedule appointments
2. Recieve prescription medicines paid for in the system
3. Receive diagnostic and other testing or surgical services
In truth, I find your continued misstatement really a problem - because you are exagerating the reality that aliens (or anyone including the indigent) are ALWAYS cared for in emergency situations, and claiming it means they are participants in health plans, they are NOT - if so, please identify which of the ultra-poor who have no insurance, receive insurance reimbursement from those insurance companies.. you are making a fatuous and falacious claim.
So, again, do you advocate such a position? Let's assume that someone provided an identification which CLEARLY showed they were an illegal alien, are you insisting they be denied care?
Further, since illegal aliens ALREADY receive CARE, not coverage, are you saying we should change it, and refuse to pay hospitals for emergency care (which is currently done through Medicare) for the indigent, since they too are NOT participants in insurance now?
KR, you said Obama said,"
ReplyDelete"...the claim... made... by... prominent politicians... It is a lie..."
When in fact what he said was, "There are those who claim our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants — this too is false," It was after THIS comment that Wilson shouted, "You Lie".
These ARE NOT the same things - one is saying "Those" politicians are not named, and he did not say "IT IS A LIE" - he said the claim is false. False means incorrect - it does not mean those making the statement are being accused of lying, though of course, I think some dont' care whether they are speaking truthfully, or whether, their comments might be mistaken for something else. This is yet another example of what I am speaking about. He didn't say what you've claimed - and the intent is ENTIRELY different.
You have apparently mistated this quote from Obama, and should retract your claim until you provide the exact quote you are referring to.
KR wrote:
ReplyDelete"That one hand wise crack sounded like a slam on the disabled. I have a friend without a hand, not very funny, Penigma. (Although he jokes about it all the time.)"
Which refers to the logic question if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it did it make a noise; what is the sound of one hand clapping; and other completely theoretical questions along similar lines.
I have a friend with no hands, KR, from a dynamite cap accident when he was twelve. Also cost him his sight. He was one of the first to have inovative surgery splitting the two bones in each forearm so they work a bit like chopsticks. He can clap. A one handed person can clap using their hand and their leg or other surface. Do you really want to assert that Pen was being insensitive to someone with a missing body part????????
I don't believe anyone here is being disrespectful in that regard; nor do I believe you really think so either.
KR,
ReplyDeleteYour feigned indignation over the comment about one-hand clapping is yet further example of your willful intent to be uncivil.
Another is this - THIS is the text of the President's comment.
"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."
You cut out the ENTIRE point and meaning of the message - those who claim that there are panels to be setup to kill off old people ARE LIARS - do you deny that they are liars? The LIE stemmed from people being given the right to receive compensation for end-of-life counseling - the bill contains NO such provisions, and the idea that Americans would stand by while it happened is GROSSLY insulting. The President was right that those people who promulgated the comment were liars, YET, he named no one.
However, you continue the same line of garbage about how proof of citizenship must be required to prevent this bill from COVERING aliens..
It specifically has language excluding illegal aliens - there is NO question of that, and Rep. Wilson's comment, in addition to being horribly innappropriate, was also wrong, as you are wrong.
I asked you a simple question, would you have us let illegal aliens die in hospital waiting rooms?
Please answer that question rather than continuing to duck what the REAL implication of your stance would mean by hiding behind deceptive misquotes, and missatatements of my points.
Finally, it is rather obvious that you don't see the corrosive impact of buisness on politics, I grasp further you don't agree that business/money and corruption have taken over Washington, but I hope you allow me to respectfully disagree with you rather than have you continue with your needlessly immature insults. You've not taken anyone to task other than yourself.
I made no commentary about Pravda - and I suspect the ex-Soviets are laughing at our foolishness in trying to fund a government on no money (ie. deficit spending) because of our unending tie to doing everything for the wealthy, and nearly nothing for the middle class, again, I suspect you've simply quoted people out of context simply for your own devices, rather than grasp the ACTUAL intent.
KR,
ReplyDeleteThis exchange is perfectly emblematic of my point.
My initial reply to you failed to acknowledge that in fact, the President did call 'prominent politicians' liars, by saying what they said was a lie.
While his comment was true, it is at least similar to having Wilson call out "You lie" - and in that, we must acknowledge the misconduct of both. I do acknowledge that Obama's comments may have precipitated Wilson's.
That said, I will ask you two questions -
What right does the President, or any of the rest of us, have to object to wontonly malicious conduct? I don't think it should be on the floor of the US House, but if not there, where, and to what extent?
Second, do you acknowledge that perhaps it was the conduct of the far right, in promulgating this lie, that precipitated Obama's conduct?
In short, we have a string of improper acts, Obama's included - and this 'path' is one which is reprehensible ON BOTH SIDES. Do you agree? Do you feel that lying about the President's proposal is improper?
Assuming you do, how do you reconcile misrepresenting the point Obama makes, namely that they are doing everything possible to prevent covering illegal aliens, and as well paying anything for illegal aliens outside of denying them emergency care and letting them die.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteFrom MSNBC
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx
Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll...
Rod - What is your point here? Is it that you think somehow this means that Obama previously WAS going to allow illegal aliens to enroll? Or more correctly, that somehow it is Obama's fault if people break the law, and as a result, because Obama couldn't provide PERFECT adherence to the law that meant he was lying?
What a crock of BS if so.
When someone breaks the law, it doesn't make the provision itself one which is providing for services for the lawbreaker. Maybe that's not your point - but then, you don't appear to have one if it isn't.
BTW, you still haven't answered whether you feel the current law, the one which requires us to keep the 'non-identified' from dying in hospital ER's is wrong. You've yet again ducked the pertinent issue - you've yet again proven you aren't intersted in civil discussion as well. Do you feel that Obama's proposal, which doesn't change the law AT ALL, doesn't involve the question of paying for emergency care at all, doesn't change that postion AT ALL, do you think somehow that lack of actually doing anything different from current law, that complete compliance without change to what we currently do somehow changes the law and makes it so we provide additional coverage to aliens... If so, please explain how his total silence on this point somehow changes this law - further, please explain how, since it doesn't change it, it pays for aliens as a change to the law. And lastly, please explain what you would prefer be done with aliens (illegal ones I mean). Do you prefer they be left to die, yes/no? To be succinct, stop dancing and give an honest answer - face the truth that nothing Obama has proposed in any way changes from current law with respect to illegal aliens. If you want to try to take someone to task, you have to first start by speaking honestly, and dealing honestly - that's how it works.
KR, your other comment was nothing other than insults, with the only minorly useful comment being the one about there only being two options.
ReplyDeleteHere's the question KR, either you keep people who have a life-threatening situation from dying, and thereby PAY for it in SOME way - or you don't pay for it by denying care. There ARE only two choices in those kinds of situations, treat them, or they die - I can think of dozens of solutions to the other kinds of care, but that care isn't paid for anyway - so answer the quetion - either you treat them, or you don't pay, and they die - if you have another solution name it, don't hide behind asking others for solutions, name yours. You seem to want to portray a picture of having the answer - let's here it, how do you keep from paying for illegals who will die in 10 minutes without treatment AND keep them alive?
K-Rod, present law does not allow illegal aliens access to medicaid, and in fact, in most states, an applicant for medicaid and most other federal services must show that they are legally entitled to them. In some cases, that's as simple as showing a birth certificate. In some cases, however, it can be difficult for older Americans to do that.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, there is a difference between being eligible for government programs such as medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc, and recieving emergency treatment for life threatening injuries or illness.
You have indicated an understanding of medicine. I'm not sure enough of your background to know whether this is from professional training, or just professional experience, etc. However, given your attitude, I am going to take the liberty of treating you as a hostile witness. That means I am going to ask you leading questions I wouldn't normally be allowed to ask on direct examination.
1) Isn't it true that you advocate allowing people to die if they can't afford care?
2) Isn't it true that you don't care whether or not a person is here legally or not, if they can't afford to pay for their treatment (whatever it is) they shouldn't receive it?
3) Isn't it true that you support asking every person who goes into an emergency department their immigration status?
4) Isn't it true that if a person is brought into an emergency department and is unconscious, that you will withhold care until their status is determined?
5) If an illegal alien goes to an emergency department (or is brought in by ambulance) and is injured or suffering a life threatening injury, isn't it true that you believe they should be allowed to die?
Now, I HOPE that you will see how ridiculous that sounds. If in fact, you do not support those things, then all you have to do is answer each question with a NO, its not true. However, based on your recent arguments on this topic, it appears to me those would be reasonable questions to ask you.
I think you are missing the point about the illegal aliens Pen. Yes the bill says person not legally in the US cannot be covered, but nowhere in the bill does it say they must prove they are here legally. Kind of like saying you must have a license to drive and then forgetting to give the police the right to ask to see it. It is not so much what the bill says or intends as the fact that what it does not say opens it up for abuse. And no I am not in favor of illegals dying on the doorstep, I am also not in favor of them having checkups and appointments paid for those of us here legally.
ReplyDeleteTtucker, there is nothing in the current bill which will allow for that. If they want to pay cash for a check up or an appointment, they may do so. However, even under CURRENT LAW, they can't apply for nor can they get public funds for those things. The present bill mirrors current law in that it forbids illegal aliens from routine services.
ReplyDeleteI understand that they are amending the present health care bill to require those who are using any form of the government funded option to show proof of legal residence in the US. I don't know the stage of that, but I submit to you, those who are are harping on this issue are showing their bigotry and xenophobic attitude. Its pretty ugly, but not suprising considering many of the right wing's attitudes these days.
The other problem I have is this: When we deny illegal aliens routine doctor visits to deal with mild problems what could in many cases be dealt with in a clinic or doctor's office, because they are (a) illegal and (b) can't pay cash, then if they don't get better on their own, we inevitably end up with them in the emergency room, where we may spend many thousands or dollars more in a critical care setting. Therefore, for those who are interested in fiscal responsibility, I submit that it makes more economic sense to allow everyone, illegal or not, to receive some sort of basic services to help prevent life threatening situations. And, for K-Rod, I presume that you will answer the questions I posed above. I won't continue a conversation with you on this thread until you do.
K-Rod, you completely ignored the questions I posed to you, as you have completely ignored the other previous questions. When you do attempt to answer, you dance around the questions. I won't insult you by calling you a politician. I actually think better of you than that. However, dancing around questions and refusing to answer questions directly is what many people have come to expect of politicians.
ReplyDeleteSo, I call upon you again to answer the questions I posed to you above in the form of questioning a hostile witness. Please answer each as a yes or no answer.
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteI deleted your re-post of the exact same message - it contained (for the edification of those not already sick and tired of this foolishness).
1. One line which insulted me
2. Another line insulting me
3. A line insulting 'People' involved in health care reform
4. A line asking why there aren't more than two options about whether to let people live or die who present themselves at ER's for treatment
5. And finally two lines insulting someone else - calling the person a bigot.
These are not the format of acceptible comments - and they will be refused. If the other blog moderators slip up and let one through, never fear, I will attempt to go through and remove them.
If you chose to post here, you follow the rules, if you don't chose to follow the rules, you won't post.
For your specifically KR, I would refer to your posts as the essence of sophistry. Your comments seem to have no reflection on something seeking discourse, but rather seeking to create animosity, to insult, and to confuse/dissemble about the issues at hand.
In the case of health care, applying for ANY coverage such as Medicare or Medicaid, already carried the burden of proving one's identity - the fact that some blue-dog Democrats didn't get that does not make it the case that there was 'more to do' to protect against covering illegals - it also doesn't mean Obama's proposals would have covered them (except through illegal actions by illegal aliens seeking coverage for which neither Obama nor YOU are responsible.)
The only other way in which an illegal would have been paid for, and the point you were asked, but dissembled about, was whether you wanted to refuse them treatment in life threatening situations. That's a yes or no question - I GET that you don't want to answer it because it will either paint you as an extremist if you say "YES, refuse them treatment", or it will paint you as a hypocrite if you say "No, of course we shouldn't let people die" - and thereby pay for their care - EXACTLY as Obama and the Democrats would do, no more, no less. I GET that you don't like the question and so you have ducked it - but it's still the question on the table. Insulting me for being even-handed and criticizing Obama and for taking myself to task for NOT being perfect - that isn't a reply, nor is calling other people bigots. It's especially poor conduct when you do it to someone who has so ably demonstrated their faculty for dealing with every walk of life, every type of person, every ethnicity, every attitude, in ways which far exceed anything you've exposed about yourself as meeting the same level of work - that's not saying you DON'T provide the same level of fairness, but clearly, the person in question has quite convincingly showed themselves to be ANYTHING but a bigot. Your comments were beneath contempt. If you want to assail someone's comments, fine. If you want to argue points, fine - but if you want to merely insult the person, your comments are not welcome here.
TOE, if you look at what I said I agreed with you there was nothing in the bill that allowed illegals to apply for healthcare benefits, the point is that until they actually put in the verification part there is nothing stopping them either. Also everyone is still wondering where the money to do all this will come from. We are going to run up a huge bill doing this and covering 10 million more people who are not citizens makes the bill even higher. There is nothing bigoted about requiring proof of citizenship to enroll in a program that is made for and paid for by citizens.
ReplyDeletett wrote:
ReplyDelete"TOE, if you look at what I said I agreed with you there was nothing in the bill that allowed illegals to apply for healthcare benefits, the point is that until they actually put in the verification part there is nothing stopping them either."
It's good to see you commenting again more tt!
If I might assert what appears to be an assumption - there is a concern in some quarters that it will be easy for illegals to apply AND receive health care coverage, as distinct from emergency care.
And I would expand on that, an expectation, fear or concern that IF it becomes to easy to get good quality medical care, either cheaply or freely, that it would be a further, greater inducement and temptation to encourage illegal entry into the US. That is a logical next thought.
My question however, is that a valid fear? IS it easy now to get benefits that require citizenship, without proof of citizenship? Not that I am aware, but if someone else has information to the contrary, I am certainly open to it.
I have read about instances where the opposite was true, where there were citizens who were born here of immigrant parents, and where there was a great deal of pressure put on them to provide extensive proof of that birth, as an example. ToE, I would imagine that your colleagues who practice immigration law would be familiar with working with those kinds of cases - the legitimae citizen who faces denial of services because of too MUCH proof required? Could you ask?
(grin) - thanks ToE, for your patience with all of the questions I task you with.
By far the most common case I have seen, (and I have not had a chance to ask any of my professional colleagues about this), is when someone isn't able to provide a birth certificate. This can be for a number of reasons, but the most common one is that the person was not born in a hospital. This is quite rare today, but as recently as 50 years ago, it was uncommon, but occasionally happened. If then, the family for whatever reason did not register the birth, a birth certificate was never issued. Proving citizenship can be difficult at that point.
ReplyDeleteThe easiest way, usually, is to find enough people who were alive at the time of the birth to allow the person to apply for a birth certificate. It involves affidavits and sometimes interviews with the appropriate witnesses. Once a birth certificate is issued, then usually the authorities will agree the person is a citizen and entitled to whatever benefit they are claiming.
There are some states which are notoriously more difficult than others in making people prove eligibility. (Missouri comes to mind.. their bureaucrats are mind-bogglingly stupid in their interpretation of laws regulating medicaid)
Interestingly enough, one quick and relatively inexpensive solution for solving the "problem" (I put it in quotes because I do not really think its a problem) of illegal aliens obtaining coverage would be the issuance of a national ID card to every citizen or legal resident. Of course, this very idea also is anathema to most conservatives. As I have repeatedly said, however, I think that those who are harping on the issue of illegal aliens obtaining free health coverage are showing their own bigotry and xenophobic bias. (NOTE: Coverage IS NOT EQUAL to Care)
TTuck,
ReplyDeleteAny benefit program you enroll in for the government normally requires proof of identity (as ToE related).
While it's certainly possible someone could defraud the system, that doesn't mean the program was intended in any way to cover illegal aliens, nor does it mean that Obama misstated the reality - namely that the program specifically identifies NO premium support for, or the acceptance of, any person who is not a legal resident of the United States.
Frankly, we heard a LOT about supposed voter fraud leading up to the 2008 election due to some small number of ACORN subcontractors signing people up more than once to vote - because they were being paid to sign up as many people as possible. However, both prior to 2008 and during 2008, the incidence of voter fraud was diminimus - less than 1/2 of one percent of votes were even questioned, let alone found to be in any way fraudulent.
The point being, it seems to me this concern is perhaps being made more of than it warrants. While there is the possibility of 'cheating' it's hardly likely.
KR fatuously stated on a comment which was rejected "I have debunked just about every point of this blog post. The author has been shown to be wrong again and again."
ReplyDeleteHa! Now THAT'S funny!
As regards proof of citizenship - you've proved you don't know the law, not much else. While there is some 'concern' about illegals being provided coveage (meaning those illegals breaking the law), that's not the same as proving something "covers" illegals when it says exactly the opposite.
Your comments have been shown, if anything, to be wildly tangential, sophistry in the extreme, creating the false impression that Obama seeks to or is ambilivant to covering illegals - when of course no such thing is true. The fact that some conservative Democrats will assist Republicans in pandering to 'illegal alien' phobia and therefore propose additinal identity verification - ok - but that doesn't make it right to claim Obama wasn't doing everything he needed to, or that further work was necessary to prevent it.
"New disinformation need not apply."
Which is why the balance of your insulting post was NOT posted. You've now tried 4 or 5 times to post something I've told you is unacceptible. Play rough about the comments (meaning attack comments) if you like, but you will not be permitted to continue to attack people. You've crossed far over the line, and you are not welcome to continue.
If you desire to fool yourself/delude yourself about how you've taken people to task, that's your choice of course - but your comments are being rejected because they are insulting, base, repetitive sophistry, and for no other reason whatsoever. TTuck and JAS have presented far more cogent arguments with far more substance and not once have ANY of their comments been deleted or rejected. When you factor in your evaluation of your comments, please factor in that you yourself have frequently complimented JAS on the points you felt were on point. I agree that his points were of more depth and substance and YET, NONE, not one, was ever rejected. When you can explain that to yourself - perhaps you then can understand why your comments are being rejected. In the right-wing (and some of the left-wing) blogosphere, your conduct is the norm, comments which are simplistic, base and twisted to be whatever topic you want to discuss, but on this blog, as you've been told time and again - there is a requirement that you actually DISCUSS things - rather than resort to insults. I believe you've detrimentally harmed that goal, and I've allowed it in the interest of open dialogue to my regret. No longer, improve your comments or don't post. Your comments will be rejected unless approved through me. Given that people other than you, on the right, who write comments of MUCH more depth and substance are getting their comments posted, I flatly reject the notion you've proven anything, or proved anyone wrong - except with TWO circumstances related to quotes, not points. Good luck to you if you chose to continue your present course, as you won't be allowed to continue to post here and so we won't be seeing your comments.
If you instead chose to change - then your comments will once again be welcome, but they are not currently welcome as they are currently being presented.
KR fatuously asked:"Why are you so afraid to publish the truth?"
ReplyDeleteGee KR, when you provide a truthful - that means full of TRUTH - commment, it likely will get published. For that matter, when you actually address the points and questions holistically, rahter than applying your version of comment sophistry, it will get published.
What's truly funny is that Terry, JAS and TTuck get their comments, which have far more depth, detail, and TRUTH in them than nearly anything you've posted (not anything but almost anything) - and they hold a politically opposing view, and yet, their commments are published.
What you've said above is false - I think you know it - but if you don't know it, consider the above - your comments are not civil, they are not seeking a way foward in finding a better solution to issues (for the most part at least) - whereas the comments from many others are.
DG, you hit on my point exactly. We have a problem with immigration and healthcare right now. Adding healthcare benefits for illegals would make both problems worse. Until the past week, as I think K-Rod pointed out, the healthcare bill did not have the same standards of citizenship verification that almost all other government benefits do. After all the fraud and corruption from Washington and Wall Street(and both of those are bi-partisan) the past several years people do not want a bill with loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. My major problem with the whole thing is I bet less than 10 members of the entire congress have read the entire bill end to end, but they are going to vote on something that will change the way our healthcare works forever.
ReplyDeleteTtuck, sorry to have to ask, but what is so much different about how they now want to have someone establish their identity from how they WERE going to?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understood, to enroll in any government program you have to provide a valid ID, Driver's licence, birth certificate, etc.. What more are they going to require?
Regardless, I'm not at all convinced that there was some sort of rampant likelihood of fraud - that's been the claim since Reagan, that we could find all kinds of waste fraud and abuse, but it never actually turned out that way in practice.
Anyway, any illumination you could offer would be appreciated.
Cheers.