Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, what Obama said is not true now, but it might be true by 2013.
Not at all. Obama didn't lie. The bill explicitly forbids federal funds being used to pay for illegal immigrants healthcare. There are already rules and laws in place to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits. And some illegal immigrants circumvent the existing laws and rules.
So it's perfectly logical to use the time between now and when this proposed legislation takes effect to consider how the laws are currently being circumvented, and determining ways to prevent that happening when the new program goes into place as long as those obstacles aren't obstacles for legal citizens to receive said benefits.
If the public option is taken out of this legislation, the entire issue would be moot, wouldn't it? Is it that you don't want illegal immigrants to receive federal monies to pay for their healthcare (which is the point of the Heller amendment), or that you don't want illegal immigrants to receive healthcare in this country, period?
Delusianne pointed out that the rules you've cited, exist, but don't appear in the language of the bills that originated programs like Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Identification issues were addressed separately. Now tell us all why identification issues related to this legislation cannot be addressed separately.
You are presenting this as if when the bill passes it doesn't contain such a provision that there is doom and disaster.
I'm stating that the Dems show every intent of passing a bill that does not contain a provision for citizen verification. So far, that's true.
Quote:
When, of course, it will be YEARS before the new law takes effect, and in that interim there will be plenty of opportunity to address identification verification, if a public option goes through. And that public option is certainly not assured. Otherwise, you are arguing that unauthorized aliens should be exempt from the requirement of buying private insurance. That surely cannot be your intent?
Actually, that's what Obama claims is his intent. Listen to what Obama said right before Wilson shouts, "You Lie!":
Obama's exact words:
"The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
And the bill doesn't have to have anything in it about identification verification, because that matter can be addressed as we proceed in this process. I take it, you agree with that.
As far as Obama's exact words----the reforms he is proposing don't apply to illegal immigrants. His proposals never address illegal immigration at all. The proposed legislation may incorporate the reforms Obama is proposing, but the proposed legislation is a product of the House of Representatives. The proposed legislation rests on the premise that unless specifically stated otherwise, the new legislation does not change old laws and rules in place that currently address illegal immigrants and their access to federal benefits. The new legislation even specifically states that nothing in the bill should be construed to mean that illegal immigrants will have access to federal benefits.
The report analysis that you cite does not say that illegal immigrants are being given access to federal benefits. It does say that the new legislation could legally be interpreted, based on precedent, to require illegal immigrants to purchase insurance, but from private providers, not from the public option.
It is unreasonable of you to think that such a public option will not have screening measures in place, when other federal benefits programs currently do have screening measures. The only question is not whether there will be screening, since any application system is a screening mechanism, but how in-depth that screening will be. Heller's amendment proposal was about how in-depth that screening would be, but the Democrats on the Ways and Means committee decided that on this, as on numerous other amendments that were proposed and decided against, that a fuller exploration of options was in order.
No - there's an insurance mandate in the bill, with or without the public option.
Why shouldn't they receive health care if they can pay for it?
I actually agree with you on both points. Amazing, huh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They dont exist in HR 3200, wont in the Senate Fin Comm version, wont in the final version.
