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.
That's what you were able to gather from that? You should really work on your skills of deduction...
I think the skills needed in reading proposed legislation and related analyses would be reading comprehension.
I read exactly what the analysis says.
The proposed legislation could be interpreted to require illegal immigrants to buy insurance.
Deductive reasoning involves looking for something that isn't there. You have to deduce things by extrapolating meanings and intentions. My deductive reasoning tells me that you are reaching for ways to discredit this legislation.
Why are you using the same old, tired, false argument?
Well, first of all, there is nothing disingenous by replying to someone's post with the same old, consistent argument. Nothing disingenous, nothing false. Just because you want to attack intentions, which are suppositions on your part, and I want to focus on what is actually written, the facts as it were, doesn't make you more honest or truthful.
Your position is that HR 3200 doesn't have adequate identification verifications written into it. From that, you infer all sorts of intentions and hidden agendas on the parts of Democrats.
My position is that HR 3200 doesn't have adequate identification verifications written into it. It has some. But they are probably not adequate. But HR 3200 doesn't have to have those mechanisms written in. Other benefits legislation have not had those mechanisms written in, and yet identification verification is performed. They have years to explore all the methods and procedures available, time enough to determine the best method, rather than simply locking the legislation with a method now, and if they determine later a better way, having to change this law (if it becomes law).
Nonetheless, they earn money here, and if they are buying insurance here, they are spending that money here, rather than sending it out of the country. So despite your animosity to their presence, isn't it a good thing when the money stays in the United States? Isn't it a good thing that they buy insurance to pay for their healthcare, rather than go to the emergency room, get treated, and unable to pay the full costs, let the hospital absorb those expenses which get passed on to the rest of us?
So, let's just ignore the fact that they shouldn't be here in the first place. Le's give them a pass on it, and integrate them into our society. After all, their money is as good as anyone else's, right? If we can't beat 'em, let's let 'em join us. It's the path of least resistance. Let's overlook Acorn too.
Let's overlook all the irresponsibility in D.C., the corruption, the lobbying, the big money behind the bills passed "for our benefit". Let's overlook al that because now and then they do something responsible. Let's wink at it all and move on. Let's not worry about rewarding them for breaking the law. After all, laws don't matter.
In summary, see:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
I object to it. Because if they are here illegally, they should be deported. That's why the word "illegal" is used. It means against the law.
So, let's just ignore the fact that they shouldn't be here in the first place. Le's give them a pass on it, and integrate them into our society. After all, their money is as good as anyone else's, right? If we can't beat 'em, let's let 'em join us. It's the path of least resistance. Let's overlook Acorn too.
Let's overlook all the irresponsibility in D.C., the corruption, the lobbying, the big money behind the bills passed "for our benefit". Let's overlook al that because now and then they do something responsible. Let's wink at it all and move on. Let's not worry about rewarding them for breaking the law. After all, laws don't matter.
In summary, see:
I'm not advocating integrating them into our society. Did you see that in my post? Where????
I'm saying that if they are here, and they are earning money here, and they are getting sick here, then it's better to let them spend some of the money they've earned here on insurance here so that their healthcare costs don't burden the rest of us.
Nothing about integrating them, nothing about ACORN, nothing about rewarding them.
Whatever your fears are, there is a pragmatic side to the law. Compelling people who are in this country, legally or not, to be responsible for their healthcare costs, is pragmatism.
Well, first of all, there is nothing disingenous by replying to someone's post with the same old, consistent argument.
Consistent? Yes. True? Only because the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid use for citizen verification was enacted DECADES after the entitlement programs for which it's used. THAT'S why the citizen verification requirement system they use was not included in their original bills, DECADES ago.
Quote:
Nothing disingenous, nothing false.
I just proved the opposite.
Quote:
Just because you want to attack intentions, which are suppositions on your part, and I want to focus on what is actually written, the facts as it were, doesn't make you more honest or truthful.
It is quite disingenuous to argue that several-decades-old entitlement programs didn't originally include the requirement for a citizen verification system that was available only as of the early 1980's.
You're either intentionally disingenuous, or very uninformed. You choose.
Quote:
Your position is that HR 3200 doesn't have adequate identification verifications written into it. From that, you infer all sorts of intentions and hidden agendas on the parts of Democrats.
False. All I've ever said on this is that Joe Wilson is correct, Obama lied about this, which is supported by the Congressional Research Service legal analysis of HR 3200, and that the Dems voted against an amendment requiring citizen verification in HR 3200, as factually noted here:
For those interested, here are the other HR 3200 amendments the Dems voted down, and some they voted for that may not be in your best interest: House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican
Quote:
My position is that HR 3200 doesn't have adequate identification verifications written into it. It has some.
It has none, as was noted by the CRS.
Quote:
But HR 3200 doesn't have to have those mechanisms written in. Other benefits legislation have not had those mechanisms written in, and yet identification verification is performed.
That is where you're being disingenuous. Ask yourself when the other entitlement programs began, and then when the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program began. Answer those questions and it's easy to see the flaw in your logic.
Quote:
They have years to explore all the methods and procedures available, time enough to determine the best method, rather than simply locking the legislation with a method now, and if they determine later a better way, having to change this law (if it becomes law).
False premise. They can enact a verification system in the bill now and change/add to it through legislation at a later date, if/as necessary.
Quote:
Now where is the falsehood in my reasoning?
Your implication that SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) could have been included in the legislation enacting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as you posted here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Why does enforcement have to be taken up simultaneously with this bill, possibly opening a whole secondary line of division? Why not separately address identification verification? Social security, medicare and medicaid all separately address the issue.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 09-17-2009 at 10:35 AM..
So, let's just ignore the fact that they shouldn't be here in the first place. Le's give them a pass on it, and integrate them into our society. After all, their money is as good as anyone else's, right? If we can't beat 'em, let's let 'em join us. It's the path of least resistance. Let's overlook Acorn too.
Let's overlook all the irresponsibility in D.C., the corruption, the lobbying, the big money behind the bills passed "for our benefit". Let's overlook al that because now and then they do something responsible. Let's wink at it all and move on. Let's not worry about rewarding them for breaking the law. After all, laws don't matter.
southward bound gets it! It is very dangerous for the U.S. to deliberately set a precedent that would legally establish the fact that law doesn't matter.
I'm not advocating integrating them into our society. Did you see that in my post? Where????
Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that you said it; but that is what is going to happen. It is already under way, no matter that there is opposition to it.
Consistent? Yes. True? Only because the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid use for citizen verification was enacted DECADES after the entitlement programs for which it's used. THAT'S why the citizen verification requirement system they use was not included in their original bills, DECADES ago.
I just proved the opposite.
It is quite disingenuous to argue that several-decades-old entitlement programs didn't originally include the requirement for a citizen verification system that was available only as of the early 1980's.
You're either intentionally disingenuous, or very uninformed. You choose.
False. All I've ever said on this is that Joe Wilson is correct, Obama lied about this, which is supported by the Congressional Research Service legal analysis of HR 3200, and that the Dems voted against an amendment requiring citizen verification in HR 3200, as factually noted here:
For those interested, here are the other HR 3200 amendments the Dems voted down, and some they voted for that may not be in your best interest: House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican
It has none, as was noted by the CRS.
That is where you're being disingenuous. Ask yourself when the other entitlement programs began, and then when the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program began. Answer those questions and it's easy to see the flaw in your logic.
False premise. They can enact a verification system in the bill now and change/add to it through legislation at a later date, if/as necessary.
Your implication that SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) could have been included in the legislation enacting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as you posted here:
It's actually your posts that are disingenous.
I didn't say that previous programs didn't originally include SAVE, did I?
That's where you become disingenuous.
I said the original legislation for these programs didn't have verification programs, but as they are currently applied, they do.
My argument is simply that it is possible after a program is enacted into law, to modify that program as needed with verification methods.
NOTHING you have said disputes that statement. NOTHING.
southward bound gets it! It is very dangerous for the U.S. to deliberately set a precedent that would legally establish the fact that law doesn't matter.
And again, your use of "deliberately" suggests intent. You are giving yourself psychic powers by suggesting that you can read intent, and clearly you know the future because you are predicting it. But it's just prediction and opinion. It's not assessing the proposed legislation, if all your criticism is based on supposition, not on what the legislation actually says.
I didn't say that previous programs didn't originally include SAVE, did I?
You said they (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) didn't include a citizen verification requirement when they were enacted. Go back to when those programs were enacted, and tell us which citizen verification program was in effect at that time. We'll wait...
Quote:
I said the original legislation for these programs didn't have verification programs, but as they are currently applied, they do.
Are you seriously not understanding why that is so?
Quote:
My argument is simply that it is possible after a program is enacted into law, to modify that program as needed with verification methods.
It is also possible to modify an already existing citizen verification requirement, so why leave one out of the bill? Why would the Dems vote down a requirement for citizen verification? That makes no sense.
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.
Let's not worry about rewarding them for breaking the law. After all, laws don't matter. 
