September 30, 2009
When they do it, it's okay

When a Republican congressman truthfully, albeit maybe in the wrong venue, points out that the president is a liar, it's front page news for a week and he can't apologize enough.

When a Democratic congressman untruthfully slanders, the Republican party as a whole, saying they want the sick to "die quickly", (with visual aids, I might add) the story is buried and the congressman refuses to apologize.

Never mind the fact that, although I'm sure it's not their intention, if socialized medicine does come to America, quick deaths may just be the result.

Posted by MarkGriswold at September 30, 2009 09:30 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Americans are turning away from print media, as well as the lamestream media which has proven beyond a doubt they are nothing more than the propaganda branch of the democrat party. It will take a little more time for them to die out completely, but a quick look at ratings trends shows where they're headed, with the notable exception of Fox News, which is the only network NOT in the tank for the democrat/socialist takeover of the country.

Posted by: scott on September 30, 2009 09:56 AM
2. He should apologize. If Joe Wilson shouted "Democrats lie!" on the House floor while in normal session, it wouldn't have been front page news either.

Wilson would have still been wrong about his accusation according to every single fact-checking organization that's trust-worthy -- nice double-speak with your use of the phrase "points out."

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 10:02 AM
3. You're right John, that Congressional Research Service definitely isn't "trust-worthy". Unless, of course, Obama, Pelosi or Reid are quoting them, then it's the gold standard.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on September 30, 2009 10:29 AM
4.
Obama in that same address:

"It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."

-

False.

What do your fact-checking (the trustworthy ones) organizations say about that, John?


Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 10:33 AM
5. As for illegals receiving benefits, this is breaking news... just happened:

"Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare"

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 10:38 AM
6. Mark, did you read that CRS report? Gary linked me to it. It does not say what either one of you think it does. It does not say that subsidies are open to illegal immigrants. Politifact calls Wilson's accusation FALSE. Factcheck.org said the President is correct.

Just as Gary points out that Obama was wrong in #4, Wilson was factually wrong in his assertion. Your double-speak is hackish.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 10:49 AM
7. John, the President also said the plan would not fund abortions. The Senate just blocked a measure that would specifically have prevented federal funds being used for abortions.

Why was the President "wrong" in #4? Where did he get his facts? This was a major address to Congress, wasn't it?

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 10:56 AM
8. You're right, John. But while some of us choose to take things at face value and believe that no one would ever try to abuse the system, some of us live in a little place I like to call the real world where, just because the bill doesn't specifically include illegal immigrants, it doesn't mean that illegal immigrants won't slip through the cracks.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7ID9jyAavq7MVLdAAMeSVqALeQAD9B1OO0G0

Posted by: MarkGriswold on September 30, 2009 11:10 AM
9. And besides, John, you're missing the whole point of the article. It has little to do with whether Wilson was right or not. It has to do with the fact that there's a double standard. Right or wrong, Wilson was forced to apologize and the story was front page news. Clearly wrong, Grayson refuses to apologize and one hardly sees mention of it in the press.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on September 30, 2009 11:24 AM
10. John-
As always, there's a lot of media out there too willing to read what a bill says, but not do analysis on what it will actually do once the bureaucrats get hold of it.

What about the problem of healthcare given to illegal aliens based on false information or without proper identification? (After all, the dems are on record as actively resisting any mandates that patients verify their legal status.)

We have 10's of millions of illegal aliens in this country who aren't supposed to be here, but we still let them go to school, drive, hold checking accounts, etc. Why would we ever believe the government when they say that illegal aliens wouldn't get healthcare?

The simple fact is that these people broke the law. They need to go home and begin the immigration process the right way. We shouldn't be rewarding them with additional entitlements. We should be shutting them out of jobs, housing and public programs other than free one way bus rides back to the border.

Posted by: john on September 30, 2009 11:31 AM
11. He just said he will not apologize.

Fine. Let's have another House rebuke.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 12:21 PM
12. Let him rant and rave. Give him a megaphone and stick him on the highest hill in the land. Let him prove to the entire world just how much of an idiot he is.

Do you seriously think he's helping his cause with crap like this? Of course not. Let him scream so he - and others like him - are sent packing in 2010.

Posted by: jimg on September 30, 2009 12:37 PM
13. Mark, Right or wrong, Wilson was forced to apologize and the story was front page news. Clearly wrong, Grayson refuses to apologize and one hardly sees mention of it in the press.

I addressed that in my first comment: He should apologize. If Joe Wilson shouted "Democrats lie!" on the House floor while in normal session, it wouldn't have been front page news either.

john, What about the problem of healthcare given to illegal aliens based on false information or without proper identification? (After all, the dems are on record as actively resisting any mandates that patients verify their legal status.)

Can you think of a single way to verify citizenship that isn't exposed to fraud? If they break the law, then they should be found and prosecuted. We already spend $8 million looking for illegal immigrants on Medicaid. We found eight immigrants. Eight. Who would have thought that illegal immigrants aren't too excited about registering with the government.

The fact is that it is difficult to have iron-clad enforcement that does not also deny American citizens access to health care. Can you imagine denying a citizen health care because he wasn't carrying his papers? Is that the America we want to be?

I am fine with an enforcement mechanism. The House bill ordered the Executive to have one, which is why Wilson is wrong. I am fine with Congress spelling out a tougher enforcement mechanism, but requiring REAL-ID verification when dozens states don't have those cards and many others have literally outlawed that type of identification card is -- frankly -- a stupid idea. It's so stupid that the GOP never expected it to get into the bill but they sure as hell expected to play politics with it.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 01:25 PM
14. #13. Cool. So are you also in favor not spending tax money on educating illegal immigrants? There are more than eight.


Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 01:58 PM
15. Gary, I do not believe that children are illegal immigrants. Children do not have a choice and should not be punished for their parent's crimes.

But let's keep along this line. That'll win the GOP some big Latino support in 2012.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 02:15 PM
16. #15. "Gary, I do not believe that children are illegal immigrants. "

Terrific, but that's not what I asked.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 02:23 PM
17. John Jenson-
How would we keep illegals out of the system?

A card for national healthcare is the way other countries do it. That would be the solution. (Along with a law with some serious jail time for anyone that forges a card.)

Also, to prevent "The dog ate my card" kind of problems, if the patient claims to be covered but can't verify it and needs tream, they would need to pay a hefty downpayment (redeeable upon verification) that they will, in fact, be covered if the national health service can't verify their citizenship.

This second option sounds harsh, but I'm sure a secondardy industry would spring up to help share the risk for people who can't immediately verify. (Kind of like bail bondsman accept some of the risk that their covered defendants will actually show up in court.)

There are probably other ideas out there, but frankly, I'm not the one that's proposing to destroy the system that the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with. If they can't find a solution to the problem that works, that's not my issue.

It's not my job to come up with the solution - it's my right as an American taxpayer to point out that your proposed solution is full of holes.

The big pitch seems to be:

- Healthcare will be better if we put it into the hands of the same people who can't seem to run social security or Medicare without creating billions of dollars of un-planned for deficits.

- Healthcare will be more efficient if we replace an army of private employees at insurance companies with higher paid federal union employees.

- That the same government bureaucrats that can't stop illegal aliens from crossing our borders, taking our jobs, crowding our schools and emergency rooms, etc. can magically keep them out of this program.

And, through all of these "efficiencies" we're going to somehow save enough money to extend free healthcare to 47 million more people including young people who are too irresponsible to show up to work without a hangover every morning, hardcore alcoholics, drug addicts and willfully homeless, etc.

That's a tough sell there John. Thanks for playing and better luck next time.

There are lots of smaller reforms that are needed that could be worth talking about and a better use of everyones time. Tort reform isn't a bad place to start, along with some tax incentives, savings plans, etc.

Posted by: johnny on September 30, 2009 02:35 PM
18. @13

"We already spend $8 million looking for illegal immigrants on Medicaid. We found eight immigrants. Eight."

You are proving our point here John Jenson. Government inefficiency at work.

If you handed that 8 million dollars to a team of private industry professionals that got paid by the head for each one found, you'd certainly get more than 8.

Check out "bounty hunters" and "skip tracers" on the internet. I'd bet you dollars to donuts 80% of the business listings you find would be able to do the same work for a small fraction of the cost.

Posted by: johnny on September 30, 2009 02:48 PM
19. johnny, A card for national healthcare is the way other countries do it. That would be the solution. (Along with a law with some serious jail time for anyone that forges a card.)

DO YOU HAVE YOUR PAPERS?

Also, to prevent "The dog ate my card" kind of problems, if the patient claims to be covered but can't verify it and needs tream, they would need to pay a hefty downpayment

Well that certainly wouldn't affect American citizens at all. Nope, everyone -- particularly the sick -- has bundles of "downpayments" waiting around.

There are probably other ideas out there, but frankly, I'm not the one that's proposing to destroy the system that the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with.

The plans don't destroy the employer-based insurance system, they reinforce it.

It's not my job to come up with the solution - it's my right as an American taxpayer to point out that your proposed solution is full of holes.

No, it's not your job. You're right. But you do have the ability to recognize the policy problems of requiring REAL-ID for verification when many states have outlawed issuing those ids.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 03:02 PM
20. Grayson just on the House floor:

"I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."

Everything now is a holocaust and we're all racists.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 03:06 PM
21. I'll try again. John, you don't want illegals getting health care coverage. How about education?

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 03:08 PM
22. Gary, I responded that a child is not an illegal immigrant so I cannot accept your premise.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 03:30 PM
23. #22. Let me I ask my question again. Do you think illegal immigrants should receive public education?

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 03:34 PM
24. Gary, I responded that a child is not an illegal immigrant so I cannot accept your premise.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 03:38 PM
25. Lemme check... yeah, see I never said the word, "child" anywhere. So, now that we've cleared that up, can you answer the question? It's really easy.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 03:42 PM
26. John wrote:

DO YOU HAVE YOUR PAPERS?

I do when I drive. Or carry my concealed weapon. Or when I re-enter the country. I don't have to carry my papers otherwise. Why should Government-provided health insurance be any different?

And there are Government databases confirming each of these, in case I forget. The Government official/officer can confirm or deny my claim to the various privileges immediately with their computers. Why not a computerized list of citizenship?

It's quite simple - prove your citizenship (or, alternatively, your permanent residency) and you're put on the list. Don't prove your citizenship, you're not on the list, in which case you better carry your passport with you.

It's what other countries do with their nationalized health insurance plans, so if we're to mimic their plan why not use their standard of identification?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 30, 2009 04:21 PM
27. The democrats lose whatever shred of respectability they may have had (and there wasn't too much to begin with) with this kind of thing. They have no shame about it. I well remember back in the 90's when the republicans were simply trying to increase Medicare by a smaller percentage than the previous year (not cut, increase but by a smaller increase, remember) and some yahoo democrat gets up and screams "They're coming for the sick; they're coming for the elderly, etc" It was absolutely ridiculous.
Now comes the democrats who want single-payer, which absolutely WILL doom the elderly and cause them to have less and worse care, and THEY are the ones accusing others in this way?
No respect whatsoever deserved for democrats. None.

Posted by: Michele on September 30, 2009 06:19 PM
28. Dan, Why should Government-provided health insurance be any different?

Because you will not die if you cannot drive, carry a gun, or cross the border. Isn't that kind of obvious?

It's what other countries do with their nationalized health insurance plans, so if we're to mimic their plan why not use their standard of identification?

Seriously, which side of the aisle do you think is against a national ID card with health care information on it? I'd be fine with an ID like that but the GOP wouldn't. (And maybe for good reason.)

A card can still be stolen, manufactured, or lost. You're going to want some form of verification that the card is real. Another amendment that will make it harder for poor people to get health care -- and when it gets rightfully voted down the GOP will scream "YOU LIE!"

There is going to be a verification method and just like anything else it will be susceptible to fraud and will increase the barrier of entry for the poor or those who don't speak English. Those problems are going to occur in any system and we should think hard about minimizing those problems. That's why using the political football over unrealistic amendments isn't helpful.

Michele, increase Medicare by a smaller percentage than the previous year (not cut, increase but by a smaller increase, remember) and some yahoo democrat gets up and screams "They're coming for the sick; they're coming for the elderly, etc" It was absolutely ridiculous.

This is exactly what the GOP is doing today. It is ridiculous.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 09:12 PM
29. Dummo Kid recently said I never link to my proof when I say things. Here's a link that shows dems were never serious AT ALL about attempting to block illegal aliens from getting government healthcare.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60939-senators-turn-back-id-requirement-for-immigrant-healthcare#

So illegal aliens going in for medical services - sometimes $1000s or even 10's of $1000s of dollars worth of medical work will be required to show less ID than we do when we write a check.

Wow, that's some well thought out healthcare system there.

At this point, I can't help but think that maybe the dems are purposely filling this thing with poison pills so they can all look "principled" and "in touch with their constituency" when they vote against it.

Posted by: johnny on September 30, 2009 09:20 PM
30. John said:

Because you will not die if you cannot drive, carry a gun, or cross the border. Isn't that kind of obvious?

And you won't die if you don't have health insurance. You still get health care, just emergency care. You don't die, John, please leave the hyperbole out of it.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 30, 2009 09:22 PM
31. I responded that a child is not an illegal immigrant so I cannot accept your premise.

You can "respond" all you'd like in that non existent fantasy world that is liberalism, but in the eyes of our country's immigration laws, they are indeed "illegal". We can't just let someone cut in line because they want a better life for their child as that is the excuse of everyone trying to enter...just replace the word "child" with "parent, brother, mother, aunt, father, etc". This is why we have a legal immigration process, john. That way, everyone is in the same line. Sounds pretty fair across the board doesn't it?

Posted by: Rick D on September 30, 2009 09:27 PM
32. Sorry Mark,

Ya got that backwards. Joe Wilson was incorrect in calling Obama a "liar". No where in the current bill is anything that would provide coverage to illegal immigrants.

Grayson is correct in his characterization of R's saying they just want sick people to "die". They have offered nothing in response to the Dems' request for health care reform.

god knows we need it.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on September 30, 2009 10:15 PM
33. republicans want to make the rules... LIVE WITH Your Own Damn Rules! cry cry cry... what are you, a liberal?

Posted by: Richard Lamborne on September 30, 2009 10:54 PM
34. Hi guys,
We are a group of practicing physicians who have a blog devoted to educating people about Health Care Reform from an insider's point of view. There are many posts including one on HR 3200 and illegal immigrants (http://www.takebackmedicine.org/?p=1217) and tonight one about that DBag Alan Grayson (http://www.takebackmedicine.org/?p=1530)
Please feel free to read, use as desired and forward to others that you think would enjoy this information. If you visit, leave a comment, say hello and share a thought.
Yours,
BNK MD

Posted by: Brian K on September 30, 2009 11:48 PM
35. Dan, And you won't die if you don't have health insurance. You still get health care, just emergency care. You don't die, John, please leave the hyperbole out of it.

Some people die because they lack health insurance. There is no nice way of putting this fact.

And the rest of my post?

Rick D, You can "respond" all you'd like in that non existent fantasy world that is liberalism, but in the eyes of our country's immigration laws, they are indeed "illegal".

No one asked me what current immigration laws were. Are children subject to fines and prison terms as their parents are? I seriously doubt it.

But we have long allowed the children of illegal immigrants to participate in our public education. We should educate any child who lives in this country, regardless of who their parents are. I think it is simply the humane thing to do.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 12:35 AM
36. #35. So you finally answered the question. You don't want illegals being covered under the public health plan but you do want them covered under the public education plan. Okay.

Why the difference? If it's "humane" to educate them, wouldn't it be "humane" to cover them under the public health plan? Why the difference, John?

And what of illegal adults being covered under the public education plan? Are you for that too? And yet you ask where we can possibly cut the budget? I never specified the age of the immigrant in my question. Illegal adults get state public education help.

Why educate the illegals at all, when after the graduate, they can't drive, or work? What's the point?


Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 05:38 AM
37. John J: Are children subject to fines and prison terms as their parents are? I seriously doubt it.

No. It's apples and oranges argument, John. We have immigration laws and we have criminal laws as you're aware. Immigration law determines the legal status of everybody in this country and we have been notoriously lenient on enforcing those laws for the past 30 years while people pour over the border en masse while others who have chosen to take the legal route to entry are backed up out the door and up the street. You really think that is fair? Do you not believe we should apply immigration equally among those wishing to immigrate here? If not, why not?

We should educate any child who lives in this country, regardless of who their parents are. I think it is simply the humane thing to do.

False. If they have not met the criterion for legal status, they must be repatriated to their country of origin (along with their parents of course) and stand in the line with everyone else that would like to be here and has waded through the legal channels patiently while seeing lawbreakers awarded special treatment and recognition from people like yourself, John.

Posted by: Rick D. on October 1, 2009 06:07 AM
38. Is anyone struck by how much our federal government is beginning to resemble the Jerry Springer show on both sides? There is absolutely no one on earth who can stink up a room as effectively as a career politician. Throw the bums out!

Posted by: katomar on October 1, 2009 08:31 AM
39. John wrote:

Some people die because they lack health insurance. There is no nice way of putting this fact.

Really? If it's a fact, then there must be proof... Can you show it?

And the rest of my post?

When you get the very first part wrong, why worry about the rest?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 1, 2009 09:03 AM
40. Centrifuge John and Unkl Witless:

YOU LIE!

Please see page 7 of the CRS Report on HR3200, specifically the section entitled "Exchange":

H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently participating in the Exchange. However, as discussed above, H.R. 3200 would only mandate that resident aliens would be required to have health insurance.

Emphasis added. That's the CRS' official analysis of HR 3200 and the FACT that HR 3200 does NOT restrict illegal aliens from participating in the HIE. The Congressional Research Service states that HR 3200 allows illegal aliens into the system.

So, John and Witless, and President Obama:

YOU LIE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 1, 2009 09:22 AM
41. Pelosi has spoken. No apology required.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 09:46 AM
42. It seems to me that a lot of commenters are focusing on the claim being spoken and not the action itself. Joe Wilson's comment was explicitly against the House's published rules of decorum. If Wilson would have blurted BS, it would not have been against the House's rules. In the case of Congressman Grayson, while the comment itself is tactless and across the lines of decency, it isn't against the House rules of decorum and is not different that actions of Republican House members. For example, an Arizona Congressman recently made an over-the-top statement about Obama being against humanity. He later clarified that he meant unborn humanity, but it wasn't until days later and not to the group he presented the claim to. Republican congressmen have also made claims that the Democrats were trying to kill Seniors. The claim deals with scaling back the Medicare Part D (I believe), which means it wouldn't cover dental, vision, and some other optional add-ons. Again, it was over-the-top. Have these congressman also been taken to the woodshed over these comments.

The answer is no. The rhetoric is getting out-of-hand on both sides, but Republicans shouldn't be calling for the same Wilson type response for Congressman Grayson's outlandish comments to Wilson's because the action itself was not against House rules, like Wilson's was.

Posted by: tc on October 1, 2009 10:22 AM
43. Except for one thing, tc... the fringe left whackers infesting us were far more worked up about WHAT was said then they were about how or where.

THEY called Bush a liar all the time.... that was swell.

THEY called him a liar and a wide variety of others things on the very same floor of the very same House.

So, sorry. This fringe left scumbag needs to get his political ass handed to him in a basket, PRECISELY like the left insured Wilson's re-election by making such a fuss over his intemperate, but entirely accurate remark.

The venue and the method were the cover. The substance was the accurate observation. Had Wilson hollered out, for example, "You're right!" do you think the leftists would have bitched?

Posted by: Hinton on October 1, 2009 10:49 AM
44. Dan: Learn to read. That says that illegal immigrants can but insurance with their own money, just like they can today. But the bill explicitly says that the government will give them no financial help.

Stop calling people liars when you are unable to understand what you read.

If it's a fact, then there must be proof... Can you show it?

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 11:05 AM
45. The Democrat infanticide party is the Last ONE TO LECTURE about wanting people to die quickly. How much quicker can yu get someone to die than to kill them in the womb?

Posted by: Unborn baby on October 1, 2009 12:33 PM
46. Please pay attention to tc, Hinton. He doesn't approve of Grayson's comment. I don't think it was appropriate behavior from an elected official either.

The accusation presented is why the Democrat is being treated differently than the Republican... and you've been given your answer. They're NOT the same thing.

It doesn't matter how the media treated it -- fairly or not.

It doesn't matter that plenty of Democrats treated President Bush as poorly as plenty of Republicans are now treating President Obama.

Your answer is that Rep. Grayson is speaking falsely to his colleagues in a speech to those colleagues, while Rep. Wilson breached the House rules of decorum during a televised speech by a guest in the Congressional chambers.

Posted by: Mickymse on October 1, 2009 02:16 PM
47. Joe Wilson broke House decorum during a televised speech by the President. A few hundred Democrats broke House decorum during a televised speech by the President in 2005.

One Republican vs a few hundred Democrats.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 02:25 PM
48. Gary @47
Which specific house rule are you referring to?

I know for Wilson, there is a specific rule about calling the President a liar. Now what Wilson could of done is sneezed BS. That statement isn't called out in the house rules.

Posted by: tc on October 1, 2009 03:17 PM
49. # 48. I didn't use the word "rules". I am merely pointing out that the difference between this year and 2005, is that only one Republican acted out, unlike all of the Democrats (including Obama) who heckled the President in 2005.

And for that the Republic was in a crisis!

And the GOP and the President didn't throw a hissy over it in 2005.

And I don't care if Grayson apologizes or not.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 03:56 PM
50. John,

The CRS says you're wrong. Who you going to trust - a partisan hack site called Media Matters, or the Congressional Research Service?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 1, 2009 06:14 PM
51. I never said that tc "approved" of Grayson's conduct.

What I said was that the primary issue... the main issue concerning Wilson was NOT when or how he said what he said.

As I pointed out, had Wilson (or any other R) screamed out "You're right!" the left wouldn't have said a thing.

The violation of that "precious-when-they-want-it-to-be" decorum would have been, in theory, just as egregious under that circumstance.

Would the left had hammered him? Would ANYTHING have been done about this? Would there have been any moronic, time-wasting resolution?

Of course not.

Again, as I pointed out, the issue was WHAT he said, and only secondarily how, where and when he said it. The number of leftists in both the Senate and the House who called Bush a liar or much worse over his tenure geometrically exceeds that of the number of R's who violated decorum.

It's odd that violating decorum is such a HUGE deal when the decorum BEING "violated" involves a leftist president... but those same people did the same crap to Bush and didn't give it a second thought.

As pointed out, many of these same people condemning Wilson did the same thing in larger numbers when the speaker was Bush.

It's the sniveling, rank, leftist hypocrisy of it all that's the thing.

Posted by: hinton on October 1, 2009 07:41 PM
52. It's the sniveling, rank, leftist hypocrisy of it all that's the thing

wait, you mean like when rethugs claim dems want to kill the elderly w/ death panels?

you guys are friggin hilarious.

Posted by: mike on October 1, 2009 08:20 PM
53. Liberalism is a mental disorder, Rep. Grayson just demonstrated that again.

Death panels was a concoction of Sarah Palin who doesn't speak for me or millions of other independents.

Posted by: KDS on October 1, 2009 09:08 PM
54. Speaking of hissys... the White House is now going after FOX News. Chris Wallace was right. He's never seen a bigger bunch of babies than are in this White House right now. And those babies better keep an eye on Kevin Jennings.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 09:08 PM
55. Hinton @51
I think calling the President a liar, no matter the location is against house rules (i.e., I don't believe the rule is limited to the house floor). Of course, there is the whole semantic issue (liar versus lied versus didn't tell the truth, etc.). I can't remember the line Churchill used but it was brilliant word play of getting to the same point.

Posted by: tc on October 2, 2009 07:54 AM
56. Hinton,
RE: My reference to Churchill
I looked it up the term Churchill used in parliment was "terminological inexactitude."

Posted by: tc on October 2, 2009 07:57 AM
57.
"THE EGO HAS LANDED"

Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 08:13 AM
58. Dan, The CRS says you're wrong. Who you going to trust - a partisan hack site called Media Matters, or the Congressional Research Service?

You're a real tool. I posted a screenshot of the bill. The CRS does agrees with me, fool: illegal aliens do not get subsidies. That's what the CRS says. That's what fact-checking organizations say. That's what Obama said.

You're wrong. You're lying. And you don't understand policy.

(You quoted the CRS saying that illegal immigrants can buy insurance WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. Just like today.)

Posted by: John Jensen on October 2, 2009 05:13 PM
59. John,

I guess you can't follow: participating in the HIE means they are benefiting from tax dollars. Even if they contribute towards it, they still are getting benefits of taxes.

John, you lie.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 2, 2009 07:03 PM
60. "I am fine with an enforcement mechanism. "

Ahem - JOHN JENSEN, you are aware of course that Seattle is a sanctuary city? If you are so converned with enforcement, why haven't you been down to City Hall to complain?

Posted by: pbj on October 2, 2009 07:38 PM
61. And John, why are you for illegals getting public education but not public health insurance?

If the feds were crafting public education for the first time, instead of health care reform, would you be against illegals being included?

Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 08:50 PM
62. If you want to stop illegals from getting healthcare, or any other government benefits, then you need to bring us up to at least 20th century standards for national ID. ALL modern democracies have a national ID system, except for us. Many have, or are developing fully computerized systems, including biometric information, health and education info.

Of course, we have a pathetic piece of easily forged paper called a "social security card", and no other national system. Unfortunately, there is a large faction of religious and anti-government fanatics in congress who are against this (some kind of "number of the beast mythology")

Posted by: Proteus on October 3, 2009 09:43 AM
63. Proteus,

We already have SAVE, which is an eligibility (including immigration status) program used by SSI, Medicare, Medicaid and many others.

The Democrats in committee shot down all attempts to even add that minimal check to HR 3200 and other legislation. It already exists, is not a new program, but we can't use it...

When you purposely vote against using EXISTING verification systems used by other Government programs, you have to really question the commitment to "no benefits for illegal aliens", don't you?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 3, 2009 11:51 AM
64. Nice try Dan. SAVE is unfortunately pretty useless. There is no mandate to use it. There is NO biometric ID, so tens, or hundreds of illegals can share the same legal SSN/ID, not to mention it can take over 2 weeks to process. If SAVE was so great, we wouldn't have so many illegals faking I-9s.

Bottom line, we need modern, biometric based, hard to forge NATIONAL ID cards, if you ever want to secure our borders, and prevent illegals from getting jobs and benefits. Its clearly NOT in the best interest of the GOP to do so...since their corporate masters rely heavily on illegal immigrants to keep wages low. Not that the dems are much better....

Posted by: Proteus on October 3, 2009 07:40 PM
65. Proteus,

I agree we need something better than SAVE! But at least SAVE is better than nothing until we get something better. Of course, the Democrats in Congress shot down even using SAVE, as bad as it is. Tells you what they REALLY think about "no tax dollars for illegal aliens" when they refuse to even use the weak picket fence of SAVE.

That's the point. You'll never get something strong with the Democrats in control because they simply do not see a problem with providing health insurance for illegal aliens. They say they don't want to provide such insurance, but they have consistently shot down ANY attempt to enforce such a restriction, even with a porous program like SAVE.

Actions speak louder than words...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 4, 2009 08:04 AM
66. #65 It's just like when they say the Public Option won't kill the insurance industry and create a single-payer system. They *want* a single-payer system but cannot convince the people to do it, so they have to do it through deceit. Same as with the illegal alien deal. They *say* they won't cover illegals, but know damn well they will be covered by stripping out all enforcement mechanisms.

Posted by: Gary on October 5, 2009 07:48 AM
67. Illegal aliens don't collect social security right now, or SSI. They don't get Medicare, or Medicaid. What on earth makes you think they'd get any other federal benefits, such as health insurance?

Its at the state level that illegals obtain benefits, and thats because we don't have a consistant national ID system.

If you stop businesses from HIRING illegal aliens, we won't have a problem. If they can't get jobs, they'll go back home.

Posted by: Proteus on October 5, 2009 01:29 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?