THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Besides no one is complaining about the signs or papers they were holding up trying to draw attention to them.  Mush like the smirks and expressions of Dems when Bush spoke they might be ill mannered, but I can’t think of any time I ever heard someone shout out during a speech by the President.

Also Joe Wilson’s opponent in 2010, Bob Miller, raised over 60,000.00 since last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

(Editor’s note: I can’t see this link from the office.  If someone can confirm or not that this is ill-mannered Joe, just make a comment below.)

Is there a link or something to an article that is missing, Tango?  Because I don’t have any idea what you are referring to.

Obama addressed Congress, and Joe Wilson, a congressperson, yelled “You lie!” to Obama when Obama said that his bill would not cover “illegal immigrants”.

It was the American equivalent of throwing a shoe at foreign president.

Wilson’s outburst neatly typifies the GOP’s approach since the elections.

There are many sound critiques of, and improvements that could made to, the current health care reform proposal from a conservative, free-market perspective, such as reducing the reliance on an employer-based system, meaningful malpractice reform, etc.  My guess is, if the Republicans in Congress wanted to achieve these goals, they could easily do so.

But they don’t want to—they have one goal only—to kill any reform effort, as they believe (correctly) that this will hurt Obama and the Congressional Democrats, just like in ‘94.  (Interestingly, many of the interest groups that were behind the effort to kill Clinton’s plan have adopted a neutral or even positive stance this time around.  The current anti-reform effort is being led by the GOP in Congress and the Beck/Limbaugh people.)

So, the debate is not on the sort of issues being raised in right-leaning think tanks (which could be addressed in any final legislation), but rather over “death panels,” “illegal aliens,” and “socialism.”

As Tom Friedman wrote in a New York Times piece earlier this week, we now have a “one party democracy”, as the opposition party has no interest in actually governing.

During last fall’s election, McCain attacked Obama over the notion of a President agreeing to talk to leaders of certain countries without pre-conditions.  The theory seemed to be that it made no sense to talk to, say, Iran, without some indication that their leaders actually were willing to bargain in good faith and compromise. 

Maybe McCain was right about that . .

OK, I hadn’t followed the news conference, although I did hear something on CNN late last night about “heckling,” but I figured it was probably just some leftist media propoganda…

Tango (I assume you put the editor’s note on #2):

The video linked to is of one of GWB’s State of the Union Addresses.  He’s speaking about Social Security (I think) and there is some audible grumbling from (presumably) the Democrats.  Really just an undefined low rumble.  It’s not even close to the shouting that happened during last night’s speech.

I presume that “Jerks” was trying to say that interrupting the President during a speech wasn’t unprecedented, but that was a poor example and not really a true comparison to what happened during the speech last night.

Complaining about the outburst only draws attention to the billions of health care dollars spent on felons. It’s not a winning strategy for the statists, especially with examples of rudeness to previous Presidents by the very class of people professing outrage.

You’re absolutely right that Wilson did about the worst possible thing he could have done in this circumstance.  It is the political equivalent of… oh, I don’t know… the intentional walk.

What’s scary is that this happens all the time in the US government (and I would assume elsewhere, though I don’t know), to as great a degree as it does in baseball management, but the politicians are responsible for far more important things.

Yes, while politicians are generally a lot “smarter” than baseball managers (I think), that just means that while managers do 130 stupid, counterproductive things per season, politicians only do 28.  But then on top of those stupid things that politicians do, they have so many agendas and are beholden to so many special interests that they end up doing 130 counterproductive things anyway.

Newsweek says that Democrats are reluctant to do anything with tort reform because Obama got 40 mil in donations from trial lawyers while the Repubs only got 10 mil.  Let’s assume that that is true to some extent (that Dems are reluctant to get on the tort reform bandwagon for fear of losing campaign money). An entire party’s agenda being fueled by who gives money to their campaigns rather than what is right or wrong for the country?  How sick is that?  It’s a wonder we make any progress in this country.  Are we to believe that Dems and Repubs are operating with integrity and what is good for the country with respect to the health care debate or are they motivated by the special interests?  If that’s try about tort reform, wouldn’t it be true about EVERYTHING else?

Here is the definition of an illegal immigrant: a person from Mexico

I would say that this is America.  People are allowed to be Not Nice from time to time.  Wilson committed a breach of etiquette.  I am more concerned of his being complicit in sending kids to die for no reason and giving trillions of dollars to the wealthiest people in the world because said wealthiest people saw the opportunity to do so.

It bothers me that people are more concerned (in the Republic of Nice) with being polite than with a political class constantly inflicting ruinous policies.  If Wilson were a principled person (which he almost certainly is not) he could scream to his heart’s content at the ongoing power grab of the health industry and I couldn’t care less.  Hell he can take a few of his compatriots and leave the room in protest. 

With regard to the substance of his complaint, Obama has been quietly working for amnesty and is in the tank completely for ethnic lobbies and business lobbies who favor illegal (and massive legal) immigration for obvious reasons, and his bill offers no provisions to ensure that illegal aliens are not given access to taxpayer-funded medical insurance.  He is also completely in the tank for the abortion lobby and favors the Freedom of Choice Act, which would enforce that all hospitals, regardless of their religious affiliation, provide abortions and which would overturn every restriction on abortion at the state level.  Connect the dots.  He also lauded the great achievements of government of days gone by, calling Medicare a success and even saying it was fully-funded, when medicare is the single greatest unfunded liability in the country, so yes, it’s safe to say Obama told a fair number of lies.  If we had more people screaming liar at Bush, during the buildup to the war and the TARP fiasco, we might be in a better spot now.

Rex/12: having a humane immigration process, and giving women the rights to her body sounds like something that most developed countries offer.

No one denies that Obama has these things on his agenda.  And, if someone wants to add stronger ID check, then do so (will cost taxpayers).  Are you saying that Republicans WANT to tax US Citizens more to have a stronger ID check to ensure that illegal aliens don’t have access to insurance?  And instead, they would prefer that illegal aliens continue to use the ER room, free of charge?

Frankly, you should WANT them to have insurance.... they will actually PAY for health services. 

How about this: no illegal alien is allowed to get car insurance.  And, of course, the police won’t know who is an illegal alien until they have a car accident.  And when they have an accident, they flee.

It’s almost like people think that having access to insurance is some sort of free ride.  Do you understand how insurance works?  It’s a money-losing proposition.  The premiums you pay cover the benefits you receive PLUS the admin costs to the insurance company PLUS the insurance company profits.  On average of course.

But, that’s better than having an illegal alien with no premiums, no insurance, but still get some benefits by going to the ER!  Those people are in a net positive.

Personally, I’d like to see Texas build its communist wall around the state and lock out the illegals and then watch and see what happens to its economy when farmers have to pay people $10 an hour to pick their crops for them.

The fact of the matter is that illegal immigrants are mostly young males that work their ass off and in prime physical condition. As we know, most young males do not go to the doctor. I went 16 years without a doctor visit from 16 to 32.

Illegal immigrants are a net positive economically to this country.

Texas is also an interesting case for illegal immigrants and crime. El Paso has the lowest murder rate in the United States despite being just across the border from Juarez which is a jungle. There are tons of illegals in El Paso.

Rex 12:

First, Obama doesn’t have a “bill.”

Second, Section 246 of the House Education and Labor bill (probably one of the more “liberal” versions of the legislation) reads in its entirety:

“Sec. 246.  No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens.

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

First of all, is there a specific plan or proposed law that Wilson and/or Obama are referring to, and if yes, does it entail illegals getting health care or not?  This is a factual issue, is it not?  And if it does entail illegals getting health care, in what capacity?  Are they required to pay into it?  Or is it just they get to walk into any doctor and get health care for free?

It is not just as simple as “illegals getting health care or not” is it?

But, more importantly, G-d forbid we should give free health care to some woman or her child who is here illegally.  I mean anyone who is here illegally should be denied health care, police protection, etc., right?  After all, many of them (not all of them) don’t pay any taxes, right?

I don’t understand that thinking. I really don’t.  Those are two separate issues.  Everyone living in this country, legally or not, should be afforded health care for humanitarian reasons, in my opinion.  I don’t think that should even be something that is debated.  The separate issue is enforcing our immigration laws to reduce the number of people who are here illegally.  I don’t see how one has anything to do with the other.

Plus, when you give some government services, isn’t that a way to get them into the system so that you can document them?  Or is Obama or someone else proposing that we give people government services like health care and we do it anonymously?

Oh and I agree that Wilson yelling that out is no big deal.  And that is exactly how Obama treated it - as no big deal. He accepted the apology and said, “Let’s move on.” Another example of why I love the guy…

#16
The issue is concerning the provision in the bill quoted in #15, which involves federal credits to people with low incomes. While the bill states that illegals aren’t to receive the credit, there is no enforcement whatsoever, only a verification of income, and when an amendment was offered to provide that enforcement it was voted down.

15 - Sec. 246 only bars undocumented aliens from receiving affordability credits.

Pres. Obama’s statement that Rep. Wilson objected to was that illegals would not be getting insurance coverage.

Sec. 152 states that to avoid discrimination, insurance coverage shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics. This covers not just the government option, but all current private insurance.

In addition, FactCheck stated that an amendment to use the same verification system in place and currently used by Medicare and Medicaid was voted down in committee along party lines.

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
a) In General.--Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

There are plenty of persons from Mexico that have lawfully entered the USA. 

I welcome them.  Their contributions are immense.

There are plenty of persons from Mexico that have unlawfully entered the USA.

I do not welcome them.  Though their contributions are immense, they are felons, and should be treated as such.

My guess is that while you may not ever have committed a felony that went unpunished, you have probably committed lots of misdemeanors.  If you like to drink (which I have no problem with), you have probably driven while drunk which may or may not have been a felony.  How about we say that you and all your friends are criminals and should be treated as such?

What a bunch of rhetorical B.S. ("they are felons and should be treated as such") How about we do the best we can to enforce or change our immigration laws and leave it at that. Otherwise, like I said, we are ALL guilty of something and apparently deserve the same, bigoted, throwaway line. Why is that rhetoric necessary as if they did something terrible to you or your family?

Yeah, they entered the country illegally and you and all your friends probably cheat on your taxes and your wives and drive drunk from time to time (among lots of other transgressions, illegal or otherwise).

Seriously dude (to use a Tango expression), have some understanding, some compassion, and most of all, some perspective. You may need and expect those things sometime yourself!

Well, laws change can’t they. Our good conservatives once made miscegenation a felony. And I’m sure a good portion of them still wish it still was. But we’ve wised up and left them behind and now they seem like idiots.

Heck, we even got a president out of it.

In case anyone’s still watching this thread:

This is a topic I know more than a little bit about, having worked in the field for over a dozen years.  So I’ll try to clarify a couple points.

First, being in the United States without documentation is not by itself a crime.  There is no criminal penalty for mere illegal presence.  It is a crime (a misdemeanor) to enter illegally ("without inspection"), and it is a felony to reenter the United States illegally after being deported.  But overstaying a visa, or entering illegally and then remaining?  Not crimes.  You can argue whether they should or shouldn’t be, but they’re not.

Tango makes a couple very good (and generally ignored) points.  Illegal aliens do get health care.  By law, hospitals (ERs) have to treat all comers until their condition is “stabilized.” In practice, this becomes a kind of health care safety net.  And in my experience pregnant women almost always receive health care until and after giving birth.  Tango also makes an excellent point about “coverage for illegal aliens” in any health care plan.  To really exclude all illegal aliens, we’d need a serious national ID card system.  And even if we had that, it’s unlikely that dependent family members who are here illegally would be investigated by insurers (including a “public option” government insurer) for legal status.  It could be done; to my knowledge, no one’s ever made such a proposal.

I’m what would be called a medium-core libertarian.  I strongly favor more open (not completely open) borders and more legal immigration to the United States. (I also believe the U.S. and Canada should create basically open bilateral immigration system.) But we have to face facts here.  Open borders and a greatly expanded welfare state don’t function well in unison.  If we want to expand the welfare state (and again, in general I’m skeptical), then we need to face the consequences honestly and openly.  Maybe not by shouting “you lie,” but definitely by recognizing—in open debate, without calling anyone a liar—that the interplay between high levels of illegal immigration and health care reform is complex, and may require us to make some choices (ID cards, more government monitoring of its people) that we’d otherwise be able to avoid.

It would seem that the “You Lie” outburst led to an effort to place enforcement provisions in the bill to ensure that illegal aliens will not get covered.

This, of course, means that Wilson’s outburst was, for those who do not want illegal aliens to be subsidized, a productive strategy, and further reinforces by general point that a bit of incivility in a Dem. Republic is not the worst thing in the world.  It also means that Obama *was* in fact lying, and the provision against illegal alien coverage was toothless rhetoric aimed at enabling the covert *de-facto* coverage of illegal aliens.  Whether this is a good thing or not is another question, but Obama *was* essentially lying about this, and the Obama Kool-Aid men should come to terms with this.

Again, the issue is one of general perspective.  The people do not want illegal aliens to be covered because they want to curtail, not increase, incentives to illegal immigration, and they believe the political class is selling them out in favor of cheap labor and “diversity"-enhancing social engineering.  Americans have historically not cared about the legal formality of whether one came in legally or illegally and they would be more inclined to be generous if they felt that their government were acting in good faith.

It is still politically incorrect to favor a strong reduction of immigration period, but in one sense, the question of legality is a bit of a fig leaf-although an important point of order in itself.  The real issue is the *rate* of immigration, legal and illegal.

What logic.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-health-immigrants12-2009sep12,0,3465175.story

Though drafters of the evolving healthcare bills have been considering the issue for months, it was catapulted into the national spotlight Wednesday night during Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress.

Democrats note that both the House and Senate versions of the bill already contain language that specifically bars illegal immigrants from receiving federal help to purchase healthcare coverage.

Republicans counter that a written ban means little without tough enforcement provisions, which they say Democrats have refused to include. At their meeting Friday, members of the Senate Finance Committee discussed adding enforcement safeguards to their bill, which will be presented as soon as Tuesday.

It is unclear what such provisions should be, and whether they would guarantee that no illegal immigrants receive subsidized insurance.

(There is one major exception to rules preventing benefits for illegal immigrants. The government requires hospitals to provide care for emergency patients in severe pain, and in certain circumstances Medicaid will pay for poor patients’ emergency care regardless of their immigration status.)

“Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States,” the bill says.

In July, Democrats rejected a Republican-sponsored amendment that would have required buyers of this subsidized insurance to supply official documents to prove they are legal residents.

The Democrats said that requiring this sort of proof would put a costly burden on private insurance companies, and that they feared it would deter low-income Americans from buying health insurance. They voted instead to have a future federal health official devise rules to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining the insurance subsidies.

“The bill says the benefits should not go to illegal aliens, but the Democrats voted down every amendment to enforce that,” said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas).

That’s what you want to pin your “you lie” proclamation on to say that Obama was “essentially” lying? 

The Obama koolaid tastes better than the Rush load of crap.

Anyway, thanks for playing the mudslinging game.  Now stop.  This place is better than Congress.  If you feel like insulting people, go somewhere else. 

And don’t have the last word.

I don’t understand people who are saying that Obama was “lying.” I really don’t.  You can’t claim that something is allowed even though it is not allowed simply because it is not enforced well.  That is preposterous logic.  That is like saying that if I say that possession of marijuana is not allowed I am lying because that law is rarely enforced.  WTF?

Sure, Obama can address the issue of enforcement, but that is TOTALLY different than whether benefits are going to be allowed to illegals.  Either they are or they aren’t (or somewhere in between I guess), according to the various bills.

I’ll admit that there could be a gray area, but it does not even sound like there IS a gray area in the bills.  As I said several posts ago, this is a factual issue.  Either the proposed bills allow for illegals to obtain benefits or they don’t, or it is somewhere in the middle.

Obama is not required to qualify everything he says or addresses, is he?  Is he required to say, (otherwise he is lying) “The bills do not allow for illegal aliens to get health insurance, but we are going to have a tough time enforcing that, therefore if I say that illegal aliens are not going to get health insurance, I am lying.”

Again, it is preposterous to call Obama a “liar” for simply stating exactly what it says in the bill or bills.  If you want to criticize him for not talking about the enforcement of that particular measure, that’s fine.  All someone has to do, though, is to ask him about that.  “Mr. President, what are the governments plans to enforce the provision that would bar illegal aliens from getting health insurance?”

And of course hospitals which provide Meicaire coverage are going to be required to treat everyone in ER regardless of their legal status.  I mean, JC, we are a freakin’ civilized country.  Someone walks into the ER bleeding to death or having a heart attack, doctors in a civilized country don’t wait to ask them if they are here illegally or if they have any money to pay for their treatment.  I even spoke to some very conservative private doctors about this issue and they told me that they are ethically required to treat anyone in an emergency without regard to whether they can pay or not.  That should go without saying.

One more thing. While we don’t want to “encourage” people to come here or stay illegally, we also don’t want to discourage people from not getting any health care for fear of ending up in jail or deported.  Again, we do have some humanity in this country, do we not.  “Mr. Gonzalez, we are only going to treat that broken arm if you let us put you in jail and then deport you, so you probably want to fix that arm yourself.”

Seriously, can’t we do the best we can to enforce our immigration laws and STILL treat people who are sick or injured and are in this country for any reason?  It is also a matter of degree. It is not like a hard working Mexican is the same as a murderer or rapist on the run, is it?  Is it really all that horrible if we treat the poor guy and don’t get to throw him in jail and deport him at the same time?

One reason this issue has gone viral is that Obama has lied, and/or gone back on his word, on so many issues. He said or claimed all of the following things while campaigning for President and has not followed through on any of them:
-He said he wouldn’t appoint any lobbyists if he became president.
-He said he would use public financing for his presidential campaign
-He said he would remove troops from Iraq immediately (his position on this did change several time later in the campaign, but this is where he started).
-He said he opposed any bills that were rushed in front of the Congress when no one had a chance to read them.
-He said he opposed the Bush policy of capturing/arresting people and holding them indefinitely without charges.
-He said he opposed immunity for telecoms which spied on Americans.
-He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making less than 250K (and in the same speeches called for “cap-and-trade”, so he was caught in a lie on the spot there).
-He said that we need to renegotiate NAFTA and GATT or withdraw from both treaties.
And that’s just off the top of my head. So, you can where this fervor and distrust comes from even though I agree he was not lying in this case (though I will say he was being sly in not addressing the legitimate concerns of enforcement).

mgl - per my reading of H.R. 3200, illegals will be required to have insurance, otherwise would be disciminatory, but they are barred from one particular form of federal assistance in paying for that coverage. Obama claimed they would not be covered.

Brian, as you saying that the provision that says that it only covers legal residents does not apply you whatever it is you are reading?

And Phil, it is so BS of you to say this:
“-He said he would remove troops from Iraq immediately (his position on this did change several time later in the campaign, but this is where he started). “

You may it seem that you have to be stubborn, and cannot change your mind if new information, or new ways at looking at existing information gives you better option.

Seriously, stop with all the Rush talking points.  I don’t mind the anti-Obama talk, and I welcome it if it’s done in a way that we can discuss it, but pure bs like that quote makes it impossible to have a discussion.

Here’s how to decide if you can post: if you thnk it’s possible that we can find a common ground, post.  If you are going to post so lopsided that you are using this thread to vent, and are so entrenched in your position, DO NOT POST here.  Seriously.

This is a discussion thread, not a town hall.

Yes, I am pro-Obama, as most non-Americans are.  But, I am not blind.  I think he spoke terribly the first time with Gates, and the special Olympics.  But, the Fox news method of attacking every single thing he says or MIGHT do (as if he already did it!) is ridiculous.

Move the discussion forward, or get out of the way.

Sheesh.

Wow, Tango is turning into a mini-me! 

Brian, please post the part of the bill you are talking about.  As I said, maybe there is a gray area. Or maybe you are misinterpreting the bill and its wording.  Or maybe Obama was “lieing.” I still don’t know.

Phil, ALL politicians lie and renege on their promises.  Even the great ones.  If both those things are requirements for being a good public official, then no one in the history of government in any country in the world has ever been a good one and ever will be.

That being said, it is indeed disingenuous to talk about a politician going back on his word as a negative thing without discussing whether he simply changed his mind or not and why he may have done so. All good and intelligent people change their minds all the time for a variety of reasons.  Being consistent in your opinions in and of itself has about as much value as being consistent in baseball. If a politician/person never changed their mind just for the sake of not being called a “waffler,” they would be a very ineffective and unsuccessful politician/person. 

So clearly making a list of all the things that a person said they thought or were going to do sheds no light on how competent, intelligent, or effective that person is, without a dialog about why they may have changed their minds or actions on each of the issues.

If Obama or anyone else changes their mind about something, which I am sure he has done and will continue to do many times, without what I consider to be a good reason, I will be the first person to criticize it.  But in no, way shape or form, does a “list” of things that he or anyone else has done differently from what he said he was going to do, factor into the equation other than as a starting point.

It’s funny how when it comes to sports analysis, some people are critical thinkers and desire rigorous and precise analysis.  But when it comes to politics and social issues, the BS “talking points” start to fly!

From the speech:

“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false.”

What he did was essentially call out the other side as liars.  Given that there is a lot of ambiguity in how this bill, if passed, will actually work in this regard he should not have done that.

What he should have said is to leave out any reference to what other people are saying and simply state “This bill will not provide health insurance credits to illegal immigrants.”

Had he done so, I can’t speak for Wilson but it seems to me that there would be less anger on the other side (nobody likes being called liars) and the response might have been to wait until after the speech to explain why he disagreed with the president instead of shouting out on TV.

All of my “lieings” = “lying”.  I don’t know why I have trouble with the spelling of that word, but I do. I also have trouble with “paid.” I often write “payed.” I think that used to be allowable actually.

mgl -

from Factcheck.org

Obama: There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Factcheck says Sec. 246 rebutts this

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

But 246 talks about who qualifies for a certain type of government payment, not who can or cannot be insured, which are the words Obama used. I agree with Rally’s comments on this.

Sec. 152 does talk about who qualifies for coverage

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
a) In General.--Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

Health insurance coverage can not be denied for non-medical reasons.

I still have no idea.  Section 152 does NOT necessarily apply to immigration status.  I’m sorry, but I know nothing more now than before.

I have no idea what an affordability payment is or how it relates to health care.

The question is, “What is Obama ‘proposing’?” since that is what he referred to when he said that the “reforms I am proposing would not apply to illegal aliens.”

So what is he proposing?

An anti-discrimination law or part of a law or bill that bars discrimination based on ANYTHING does NOT necessarily apply to a particular class of people just because those people possess that trait when there are other things that might apply and take precedence.  For example, are people in prison for the rest of their lives eligible for this kind of health care?  Obviously they get their own “health care” in prison, but what if an inmate applied for regular health insurance or, say, welfare?  Do you think that they would have to give them welfare if welfare recipients could not be denied welfare based on their race or color?  No.

An anti-discrimination law or provision only applies when the thing that is described in the law or provision, such as race or religion, is THE reason for the discrimination.  That would be like saying if I am black I have to get any job I apply for because blacks are not allowed to be discriminated against in hiring practices.  That is only if you are denied a job BECAUSE you are black and for nothing else. If illegal aliens are denied health insurance because it is not allowed for illegal aliens, that is not a violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the bill.

Again, this is a factual issue, and I have yet to see the proper facts.  I’ll poke around on the internet and try to find it myself.

Brian, since you said that Obama clearly lied, I figured you would have the pertinent facts to back that up.  Apparently not.

I went on factcheck.org and in 2 seconds - the link was right on the home page - I read this:

“Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.”

Brian, why didn’t you quote that?

I am glad that “factcheck” agrees that because something may not be enforced hardly makes a person a liar when they say that something is not allowed, if it in fact is not allowed.

Who is it that said the anti-discrimination provision super-cedes the fact that the bill in question expressly forbids illegal aliens from receiving benefits?  They are dead wrong for the reasons I mentioned and obviously know nothing about “the law” to even think that.

In any case, section 152 says:

“Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act...”

So that CLEARLY means that if the bill otherwise prohibits health insurance for undocumented aliens, then the discrimination provision does not apply anyway.

So the question is, “Does the bill prohibit aliens (the human-kind) from receiving insurance or not?

According to the fact check quote I got from their front page, the answer is 100% yes, yet Brian says that factcheck.org says something different. I think.  Maybe I am confused.

It is a very long Bill (over a thousand pages), but apparently affordability credits is the method by which people get government sponsored health insurance.  (Maybe it is more complicated than that.)

If that is the case, then section 246 clearly prohibits illegal aliens from getting health insurance under this new proposed plan. End of story.

Is there something else in that Bill which allows undocumented aliens to receive health insurance?  (Yes, we all know that they can get free treatment in hospitals.)

So, how exactly did Obama not tell the truth?

Again, from factcheck.org:

“ Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes “SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE,” which says that “[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.”

MGL - just because a lot of politicians (not all) do it, doesn’t make it OK. And what new information has come out on ANY of the points that I discussed.

It’s not as if Obama said: “you know, I thought hiring lobbyists was a bad idea, but then this changed my mind.” Or “NAFTA changed, so my position changed.” Of course, the treaty didn’t change at all. He just went ahead and changed his position because where he was politically demanded that he did. And yes, I consider that deceiving and a lie.

And Tango, if you think being anti-war and against Bush-era police state policies are Rush-style talking points, you really need to stay out of this discussion.

If we agree that 1)the bill says that illegal aliens will not be covered and 2)there is no or ineffective enforcement of this: Is somebody a liar if he says that the bill will result in health insurance for illegal aliens?

Phil, do any of those points have anything to do at all with this discussion?  In a discussion about those things, we could discuss many reasons why it was or wasn’t reasonable that he changed his mind.  But what has that got to do with what the health care bill says?  As MGL has been saying, this is a factual issue, and we can discuss whether or not Obama lied by looking at the facts.  It’s all there if you actually want to discuss the issue.  Ad hominem attacks do nothing but demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issue at hand.  Do you really think that just because you feel that someone has lied about something else, it’s appropriate to just call him a liar for anything you want without justification or without checking the facts (which are all available to you if you care to look) first?

You’re not even trying to discuss the issue at hand.  You’re just throwing out random unrelated anti-Obama rhetoric that has no relevance to what he said regarding the bill.  And yet you have the gall to tell people who are actually discussing the bill in question and trying to get at the heart of what it means on the issues being discussed to stay out of the discussion?

"Is somebody a liar if he says that the bill will result in health insurance for illegal aliens?”

I really don’t know.  Let’s not be ridiculous.  Illegal aliens are not going to be lining up to get health insurance because if they somehow do, it is not going to be easy to catch them.  That is a ridiculous proposition.

I seriously doubt that many illegal aliens will be getting health insurance.  Some, yes. Many, no.

If Obama said, “Under my plan, exactly zero illegal aliens will get health insurance, then yes, technically he is lying, but even then, when we know exactly what someone means, then no, it is not a “lie.”

Phil, I don’t have any problems criticizing Obama or anyone else for any of those waffles, as long as we are clear on the facts, including why he “changed his mind.”

I love his Presidency so far, and there are probably 78 things I could criticize him for, and another 254 things that I have no idea whether he is doing a good job on or not…

Kincaid,
The name of the title is “You lie!” As I said above, everything Obama says has to be subject to great skepticism because of his history of deceiving. I don’t think Joe Wilson yells “you lie!” or has so many coming to his defense if Obama had not lied/broken his promises so often(or “changed his mind”, if you are an Obama supporter). So my points are relevent to this discussion.
And I don’t see how pointing out facts about Obama qualifies as an ad hominem attack. If I cited Willie Bloomquist’s career numbers and said he is an awul hitter, is that an ad hominem attack? No, that’s a statement of fact based on evidence.

If we had a thread talking about a trade the Yankees made, would anyone say it was out of bounds to discuss another trade they made in order to look at the thought process and history of the Yankees’ trades?

Rally/#39, I don’t think that would be a lie either.  That’s why reducing the issue to a black-and-white classification of “you lie!” without a real discussion of what the bill means is meaningless.  There can be opposing, to some extent at least, viewpoints that are not flat out lies.  There can also be statements that are compatible, like that the bill prohibits subsidized health care to illegal aliens and that some of them will end up getting it anyway, that are made to sound at odds so that you have both sides calling the other liars when they are just representing the truth in different ways.  An outcry like Wilson’s is essentially meaningless and obscures the facts of the issue.

That statement (that illegal aliens will get health care under the bill) doesn’t necessarily oppose Obama’s claims.  Almost no matter what you do to the bill or what enforcement provisions are in place, that would still be true.  You could put any provision the bill’s opponents want in, and you could still say that and it wouldn’t be a lie.  Additional enforcement would cut down on the likelihood that an illegal alien would get the benefits of this bill, but not eliminate it, at a higher cost.  The issue of what the bill should say or what it should accomplish in practice isn’t a black-and-white matter of they are or they aren’t; it’s more a matter of how much extra are people willing to pay to cut down on the chances that the enforcement of the bill will be thwarted, and should that decision of what to pay be left up to the providers charged with enforcing it or should it be regulated in the bill.  One side is saying that the government should not force providers to raise costs significantly to enforce every provision more tightly, while the other is saying (as far as I can tell), that without requiring that additional cost, the bill is weakened.  Or something along those lines (that’s an oversimplification, I know, but just for demonstration’s sake).  But that’s not really an issue of truth or untruth.  The statement that illegal aliens will get health care under the bill will almost always not be a lie.  That still leaves pretty much every issue of the bill unresolved.

The matter of what the bill does say and what it does or does not prohibit is a matter of truth and untruth, however, and I don’t think you can just flatly classify Obama’s statement as a lie.  I can see criticizing the pro-bill supporters for only representing the truth as it benefits them, and for not openly discussing the real issues of the bill beyond catchy talking points either, but again, that’s not really an issue of truth.

It is an ad hominem attack because whether or not he lied on other issues has no real bearing on whether he lied here if you have the facts to determine whether or not he was lying in this case.  If you have no way of evaluating his statement directly, it may be appropriate to consider his character and history and motivations to determine how much you can trust what he said, but when the facts are all right there, it is lazy, disengenuous, and irrelevant to ignore them and base your opinions off of things unrelated to the specific topic at hand.

If the Yankees make a trade, you evaluate that trade based on the value of that trade, not on other trades.  If the Yankees trade Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes for Michael Bourn and then trade Melky Cabrera for Hanley Ramirez, you don’t say, man, they probably screwed up that Melky trade because look at what they did with Hughes and Chamberlain.  If you have the facts to evaluate the trade on its own merits, you do.  If you suspect they know something you don’t and believe you don’t have access to the evaluations that they do, then you can give some consideration to their history.  The less confident you are in your own knowledge and evaluation of the situation, the more you might consider other factors.  In this case, all the facts are there.  Ignoring those facts and instead posting attacks on Obama’s character or his past record when the means of evaluating what he said independent of who said it is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem attack.

If you read what I said above, I concede Obama was not lying in this case (though he was being sly by not discussing the issue of enforcement). That being said, you cannot talk about Obama and lying without talking about more than one issue. To continue with the analogy, it would be like talking about one good trade the Yankees made and ignoring the ten awful ones they did make.

Why are you so obsessed with keeping this thread on such a narrow plane? Why is one thing Obama did perfectly relevant to dicuss but nothing else is?

Seriously, now. Aren’t the Republicans known for lying and cheating and deceit? It’s their stock and trade.

Wasn’t it Bush that said he was going to bring ethics back to the White House and then took unethical behavior to a whole new level?

I mean this is a party that screams and yells about socialism and the deficit yet wants to INCREASE defense spending. There is no limit to it.

Is there a more socialist program in the history of the world than the United State military? This group has no credibility.

Jamesian is absolutely correct. One thing we have to do is get past the false left-right paradigm in the country and move in the direction of one or two new parties.

Just for the record, we are confusing Phil with Brian.

Phil said this:

”I agree he was not lying in this case (though I will say he was being sly in not addressing the legitimate concerns of enforcement). “

And Brian said this:

“per my reading of H.R. 3200, illegals will be required to have insurance, otherwise would be disciminatory, but they are barred from one particular form of federal assistance in paying for that coverage. Obama claimed they would not be covered.”

That appears to be incorrect.

And, I don’t think that Obama was being “sly” in not discussing enforcement.  Why would he even bring that up unless someone asked him about it.  Is there really any rational person who thinks that illegal aliens “gaming the system” is going to be a huge problem?

Hey at least Obama didn’t campaign on a platform of “no nation building” and “over extending of the military”.....

That the Tiger takes such personal umbrage to my Obama-skepticism (and that he absurdly accused me of escalating rhetoric when a cursory view of the exchange proves the converse) simply makes my flippant reference to Jonestown seem more apropos than I would have originally imagined possible.  The man is a baseball authority, and treats his discussions on the subject accordingly.  He seems yet to learn how to adjust to other arenas where he is simply an observer amongst many. 

For the record, I loathe Rush. Keep up the good baseball work.

Dude, hate the game not the playa…

In other words attack the premises of the argument not the person making the argument.