Political Discussions
Presidential Address To Joint Session Of Congress
Posted by ReneMonroe • 9/09/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: politics, presidential address to congress
So tonight, President Obama delivered his address to the joint session of Congress and I was wondering how everyone felt about it?
User Comments
-
As I have said on another thread, it was everything I expected and less. He managed to slip in a "blame Bush" in there and invoke the name of Kennedy to try and get his agenda pushed forward. But he was skimpy on the details. I thought he would have a few tonight, but it was not to be. Platitudes only go so far. -
I see civility in this country reached a new low, at least for one GOP rep from SC: www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26970.html-
I was actually surprised that Rep. Joe Wilson actually had the balls to say that. It is one thing to disagree but it is another to call him liar simply because you disagree.
I must say though, that I was rather pleased with the address. He left the door open for bipartisanship but also has come to realize that he may have to shove this bill through without republican support. -
While by current standards Wilson's shout was out of place, sometimes I wonder if we are too civilized in congress. Perhaps something more like UK parliament where catcalls can be common might be more effective at times. -
@XMarks That brings up a funny point. I say funny because I think of Robin Williams standup in Live On Broadway when he does an impression of Marget Thatcher being heckled. It basically went something like"
"Britain's parliament is like congress with a 2 drink minimum. We have to...*member heckles* &^%$ OFF WILLIS YOU BAS$#%&...Will someone please remove Mrs. Thatcher from the chamber." From the dvd, Robin Williams, Live On Broadway.
Somehow I don't think british style politics will go well here in America. Americans are just to uptight for that. However, I do think it would make for some interesting politics though.
-
Even if we only did it once a quarter, required the 2 drink minimum and provided boxing gloves. Put it on pay per view and put the proceeds against the national debt.
Add in a dunk booth were repub can pay to dunk demos and demos can pay to dunk repubs, I think congress may actually become a contributing member of society. -
Yes, Congressman Joe Wilson shouted out during a Presidential speech that Obama was lying. And he apologized forthrightly without being asked. Too bad the Democrats don't have the same integrity.
www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/10/when-will-democrats-apologize-to-americans-... -
Now it seems that not only are Democrats unable to apologize when they boo or accuse a Republican President of lying, but they want to punish Congressman Wilson. This comes after Pelosi stated twice that she would not seek any action against Wilson. Wilson did call the White House the next morning and personally apologized to Obama.
So I wonder if Harry Reid will be punished for calling Bush a liar and if those Democrats that booed him will also be punished. I mean if the Justice Department can go back and punish CIA operatives, then we should be able to punish Reid and the Democrats for what they did.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/11/democrats-wilson-ultimatum-apology-puni...
-
-
I thought Obama did a good job, actually. Although I was distracted by the crowd standing up to applaud, mostly Democrats while the Republicans sat there looking like they were sucking on sour grapes - except when Obama addressed malpractice, which received a standing ovation from almost everyone.
And then I was distracted by the cling-aling-aling sound during part of his speech, and the only thing I could think of for the next few minutes was that some Congressman or woman was going to go home and say "Yeah, did you hear my snapple cap clanging down the floor? That was totally me, and the congressman from (wherever) gave me such a dirty look...."
That and Biden picking his eye boogers on camera...I mean come on LOL!-
Well if Republicans applauded, it would surely come out during the primaries... -
Biden picking his eye boogers was rather distracting I must admit. lol. And the clingy thing probably was a snapple cap...or something. I personally found the whole shout out from Joe Wilson to be the greatest moment of the night simply because he made himself look like such fools.
-
From what I'm reading, that outburst did more to help solidify the passage of this bill than the speech did
But that's just what I heard.... -
"solidify the passage of this bill"
May just be polybore but that creates a vivid image. Kind of like the passage of a bill through congress is like a journey through a twisty turny gastrointestinal tract. In which case that solidifying comment must have occurred in the colon methinks. Next stop... anus.
-
-
The constant applauding, although very tiresome, brought back warm memories of the politburo.
Essentially polybore's thought was, why on earth did Obama not make this speech weeks ago and save us bystanders weeks turgid, irrelevant and hypothetical debate.
Not sure if polybore buys the President's explanation that essentially [he was leaving it for congress to do it's thing but they couldn't holds a mature debate so now I (Obama) has to step in.]
Now don't misunderstand polybore, Obama was right in respect of their (congress) inability to hold a mature debate and essentially had to go all cross and disappointed School teacher with them. Obama absolutely had to do that, wow, what a bunch of clowns.
Having said that Obama should have made his reforms clear in a speech much earlier. Now either he did not because he did not realise the hoo ha that was to blow up or he wanted to sound out the reform before absolutely stamping his authority on it. Not a massive observation to make, Mr Polybore, but depending on which you believe it is a measure of how good a President he will (or will not be).-
I have doubts that they (congress) will now have a mature debate and move forward in a constructive manner.
I don't think Obama wanted to over play his desired outcome because he is not likely to get everything he wants. The more he claims he wants and doesn't get costs him political capital. -
What would the old politiburo do to a guy who yelled "you lie!"?
-
Concrete shoeskees?
-
Labyanka prison...?
God bless America
-
-
Obama came out last night with an exceptional speech designed to kick start his health care plan, but like so many of his speeches, this one lacked any detail and offered up more lies and distortions to distract the public.-
Well thank God we aren't going to cover illegal aliens, we can keep our doctors and not one dime will be added to the deficit! (more like millions and millions of dimes...)
-
anticsrocks,
Yeah, I'm feeling all better now that Obama explained the hope and change of health care for me. (Sarcastic as hell...) -
I guess you guys missed the part where he talked about using the money we already spend on health care but in a more productive manner (re-prioritizing the budget), and that people on the public option would be paying a premium just like anyone on a large group based plan to fund it?
And why would we lose doctors over this? -
If there were savings in the system, why not just implement them to drive down costs and extend Medicaid to cover the 12-15 million long term uninsured? Why remake the whole damn system? Power, that's why.
-
...
-
-
@anticsrocks "Yes, Congressman Joe Wilson shouted out during a Presidential speech that Obama was lying. And he apologized forthrightly without being asked."
Actually, Rep. Wilson was pressured by others, such as Sen. John McCain, to apologize. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats when it comes to apologizing. There isn't a single politician that will apologize voluntarily if they can get away with whatever it is that they said.
Plus, if you are going to yell out at the President during his address, then at least have fact on your side. Rep. Wilson didn't even have that.-
ReneMonroe,
Senator Harry Reid called Bush a liar, but "Never" apologized.
Plus I think Wilson had the facts:
"H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchanges whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently." Congressional Research Service
opencrs.com/document/R40773/
And if H.R. 3200 bill did not allow illegals, then why did "...Democrats in the so called "Gang of Six," began moving quickly to close the loophole Rep. Joe Wilson helped bring to light with his outburst during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night."
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/10/rep-wilson-outburst-leads-senate-dems-c...
Lies are lies and both parties guilty. It just seems like the Repubs get hammered more than the Dems...
Another example is Pelosi claiming the CIA lied to her... Has she proved her case? Was she threatened with censure?
Just my observation -
Actually section 246 states EXPLICITLY that non documented workers will not receive insurance.
www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:965
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
45
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
How is that in anyway unclear?????????
Jesus people, try READING the bill first! - that includes Wilson! -
Anok,
I read that, but I'm not a lawyer and the last I knew, you are not either, so if the the CRS says there is a loop hole and the "Gang Of Six" are scrambling to close a loop hole, then maybe there is more to this issue then what you assume.
Jesus people, Take off your "Obama Love Goggles" try looking at all the facts.... -
@Anok...Sorry to burst your bubble my ninja friend, but the Congressional Research Service - the non-partisan research arm of Congress - says otherwise.
"In what he called the "first myth" being spread by critics of his proposal for a government-run health care system, Obama said they are wrong in claiming illegal immigrants will be covered: "That is not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table." Obama said.
Well, Mr. President, that idea must have been tucked under a stack of background briefing papers over there in the corner of the table because the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…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."
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al. "
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-won...
Just because El Presidente says something over and over, does not make it true.
@Rene...Wilson is spot on, on this one. The CRS backs him up. -
@Anticsrocks, @AmmoBob
Politifact.com says it quite clearly. On covering illegal aliens, they rated Rep. Wilson and others, false. On verification measures they rated them half true. True in the sense that the bill does not purpose specific measures to prevent illegal aliens from signing up. However, the bill does give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to create those measures.
Here is the link on the verification issue,
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/10/house-republicans/h...
Here is the link on the coverage issue.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wils...
As for Sen Harry Reid calling Bush a liar with regards to Iraq and 9/11, at least Sen Reid was correct in that account. The other thing. Sen Reid did not shout it out during a presidential address.
Rep Wilson lied about his accusation. Period.
@Anok, thank you for actually reading the bill and seeing this plain fact for yourself. Kudos to you! -
And again..
Obamacare won't cover illegal immigrants? Yes it will, says Congressional Research Service
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-won...
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.
CRS is well known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation's best thinking.
www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ -
perhaps either side of the argument could be advanced by explaining how the "exchange" operates, and how it counts as a "benefit" or not.
-
@Csiunatc
Well actually that article is misrepresenting what the CRS said. What the CRS said was that illegal aliens could possibly PURCHASE insurance through the insurance exchange just as illegal aliens can currently purchase private insurance.
As for signing up for the public option, that more in likely could not happen because first, they would have to have a valid social security number and tax info to prove eligibility.
Second, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the power to create additional verification requirements to prevent illegal aliens of taking advantages of any loopholes.
I guess thats what happens when we use an article from the OPINION section of the Washington Examiner as a source. Nice work on that one. -
1. Show me where it says that the Public Option will be subject to other regulations than the private entities trading on the exchange.
Yes, that's right. It doesn't.
2. HHS "will have the power to".
But HWMC voted down an amendment that would prohibit it on complete party lines.
Just because they "may create the limitation later" doesn't mean that they will, and until they do, it IS open to illegals.
Just because you don't want to admit that this is correct doesn't make it any less so.
And Just FYI, Politifact states in the last line of the link that YOU Provided..
"We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied." We rate Wilson's statement False."
THAT proves their "false" is an opinion, hardly a fact. -
@csiunatc
I see. So it is okay to take the opinion of an editor of the Washington Examiner, but not that of a non-partisan watchdog group. hmm sounds a little hypocritical.
As for your assertion that HHS will not create any provisions to mandate verification is really born out of your own paranoia with regards to Obama.
You can make allegations to what will happen in the future all you want. Until it happens however, it is simply an an allegation without any shred of proof.
If there needs to be more provisions with regards to verification, then fine. No rational person would have a problem with that. However, with regards to the exchange, all citizens would be purchasing insurance then. Keyword there, purchasing. The issue is with the affordability credits.
Thus if the tax credits (which is what the affordability credits are) go through the IRS, which they probably will, then illegal immigrants would not be able to get the credits since they don't file taxes. How can someone get a tax credit if they do not pay taxes in the first place?
Your allegations have no basis sir, other than pure paranoia. This is irrational fear simply because people like you do not want this president to succeed on anything. -
I won't get into the particulars of what is being argued here. Just wanted to say that the Washington Examiner is a pretty obnoxious conservative rag when it comes to national politics and its opinion section. The only thing it's good for is the local coverage, which the Washington Post's Daily Express doesn't do as much of. Each of these papers is one of those free things that are peddled at the entrance to Metro stations in the DC metropolitan areas.
And apparently this guy owns it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz
Not as many people read it as the Post's free Express. Not sure if it actually makes a profit, though I suppose it's conceivable.
Politifact? It has an established and positive reputation recognized, I thought, across the political spectrum, at least by those who think truth matters. -
There will be no FEDERAL funding offered to undocumented workers. This outlines what the GOVERNMENT will do. The government is NOT a PRIVATE insurer.
Private insurance companies have the responsibility of deciding who they will offer coverage to. Private insurance companies are NOT run by the government, nor funded by any public monies.
Unless you want to regulate who private insurance companies can sell insurance to - this myth which insists that the GOVERNMENT will offer insurance to undocumented workers is nothing more than propaganda. -
So, they might be able to participate in the exchange, because it is not a "benefit" per se?
-
The exchange was explained simply as a comparative insurance shopping list the last time I read anything about it.
It would include the public option plans, and private insurer plans side by side, for the purpose of getting the insurance you want in one easy comparative place.
But to answer your question, "yes". Private insurance is not a publicly funded or government run benefit, and thus if undocumented workers can find a way to purchase private insurance, and the insurance companies let them, that's on them.
Years ago when I worked for a specific company I knew a lot of immigrants who were here illegally - many who had false paperwork, paid taxes just like everyone else, enjoyed employer based insurance (if they qualified) and some who even bought individual insurance plans from private companies.
How they did it, I don't know. Those with false paperwork probably had the fortune of running across a lazy underwriter who didn't bother to validate their SS number (or in the case of our employer based plan, a lazy HR department who also failed to check the SS number upon hiring). Those without paperwork may have been able to find a company or agent willing to fudge the application, or simply didn't care.
And there are LOADS of illegal immigrants with private car insurance, as it is required by the (my) state in order to register a car and drive it on public roads. Proof of insurance must be in the vehicle at all times - so they're obviously buying these policies from companies. -
so, because they might benefit from a law, it should be considered a "benefit" and thus we should be outraged... I'm all caught up now ; \
-
Anok, I am curious but how would you argue that the 10th Amendment does not disallow government run healthcare?
-
@Rene...So a website is more honest, accurate and trustworthy than the Congressional Research Office? Yeaaaahhh, riiigghht.
"As for Sen Harry Reid calling Bush a liar with regards to Iraq and 9/11, at least Sen Reid was correct in that account. The other thing. Sen Reid did not shout it out during a presidential address."
I never said Wilson should or shouldn't have done what he did. He was wrong in his choice of venue. However, he apologized. Whether it was at the behest of his fellow Republicans or not makes no difference. He still apologized. And besides, this begs the question if Wilson's colleagues forced him to apologize, why did the Democrats not pressure Reid to apologize?
The CRS bears out the facts that illegal aliens will be covered. If El Presidente was telling the truth, then both of the amendments expressly forbidding illegal aliens to be covered would not have been voted down by the Democrats.
Further, you say that it is okay for Reid to call Bush a liar because he (Reid) was right. That is your opinion, it is not fact. And whether someone is correct in their assessment of who is and isn't a liar, if it is wrong for Wilson, it is wrong for Reid. Period. Any other stance taken is a double standard. -
The 10th amendment refers to the powers of the states VS the powers of the Federal Government.
Selling insurance as a public option is not a power granted to states or the government - nor does there seem to be too much of a problem with regards to some federal regulation on insurance sales (or any market) so long as states still have the right to dictate laws regarding insurance within federal parameters based on a need for interstate collaboration and clarification.
The US government already offers programs to people either federally or through the respective states (with federal funding) for various things - such as medicare, medicaid, veteran's benefits, grants, etc et al. If those programs do not upset the 10th amendment (and they do not) then I don't see why this one would, either.
Ooh - edit - but the 10th amendment argument does bring up a good point about the GOP's proposal to make insurance sales across state lines a contender. In order to do that, each state would have to defer to a federal law regarding the sale of insurance - due to the fact that each state regulates it' sown laws regarding insurance, and insurance agents cannot sell insurance in states which they are not licensed due to not knowing the state insurance laws. -
Each branch of government has the ability to interpret the constitution as it sees fit, until challenged by another branch. though the judicial branch generally has the final say, WHEN it weighs in.
Various agencies potentially violate the 10th Amendment including: The CIA, the NSA, The FBI, the National Guard...
Anyone eager to pull the plug on those? -
*raises hand* I nominate the CIA!!
-
Imagine the tax money we could save on all those (though we would, in 10th Amendmentland, restore the state militias in their place)
Oh, yes, I forgot the Fed, above -
@anticsrocks it wasn't that Rep Wilson called Obama a liar. He has every right to do that. It was the venue and the manner in which he choose to do it in. Thats all. As for Bush being a liar, well thats really actually simple. He said Iraq had something to do with 9/11, well it didn't.
Then he said Iraq had WMDs and guess what? There were none. So yeah, that pretty much makes Bush a liar. A liar who started a pointless war that has killed how many Americans now? I believe its somewhere between 4000 to 5000.
And no, Sen Reid shouldn't be forced to apologize for speaking out for the truth either as long as it was done in a respectful manner, as in not during a presidential address to congress. -
@Rene...so by your logic Cong. Wilson is only wrong because of WHERE he chose to shout "You lie!" And because, again by your logic, the person who is doing the name calling is correct, then that makes it okay, other than venue. Guess what, Wilson is correct, the CRS has already reported that illegals will be covered. Besides, Cong. Wilson has already apologized, so what is the big deal?
As far as the Bush admin lying on purpose to go to war with Iraq, that is preposterous. Just as crazy as the birthers and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
From Wikipedia, even the liberal nutjob, John Kerry said Iraq had WMDs back before it was fashionable to say otherwise...
"Intelligence shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq was heavily used as support arguments in favor of military intervention with the October 2002 C.I.A. report on Iraqi WMDs considered to be the most reliable one available at that time.
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) - Congressional Record, October 9, 2002"
And the NGIC (National Ground Intelligence Center - a Defense department inell unit) report that was released in 2006 got little to no attention from the far left, main stream media. I wonder why? It showed WMDs found in Iraq.
"Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.
The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.
The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons."
smallwarsjournal.com/documents/ngicwmdreport.pdf
Let me remind you what Colin Powell said to the UN...
"Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents.
If we consider just one category of missing weaponry —— 6,500 bombs from the Iran—Iraq war —— UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons.
Because of the NGIC report, we now know that Powell's number of 550 unaccounted for CW rounds was amazingly accurate. Coupled with previous reporting on precursors and on accounts provided by Ken Timmerman, who could now logically contradict Powell's pre—war intelligence on CW? Ironically, the people who most regret the information provided during the speech are Powell himself and his former military aide. Somebody had better give them a call and tell them that at least on the CW intelligence portion of his speech, Powell was right."
www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/saddams_wmd_discovery_and_deni.html -
"The 10th amendment refers to the powers of the states VS the powers of the Federal Government."
You are right. As the 10th amendment says...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This would obviously mean then that since the Constitution does not give the right to the federal government and that since it also does not prohibit it from the states that it then belongs to the states and the people. Just as it says the fed has no business in it.
"Ooh - edit - but the 10th amendment argument does bring up a good point about the GOP's proposal to make insurance sales across state lines a contender. In order to do that, each state would have to defer to a federal law regarding the sale of insurance - due to the fact that each state regulates it' sown laws regarding insurance, and insurance agents cannot sell insurance in states which they are not licensed due to not knowing the state insurance laws."
Actually, this is not entirely all that correct. Under the Articles of Confederation the the States had separate markets which lead to massive economic problems including excessive tariffs and taxation as well as the manufacturing of their own currency which lead to inflationary problems and conversion issues. This is why under the Constitution the States came under the same market. To fix said issues. The same principle is the claims for the GOP and their desire for selling of insuurance across state lines. So we adopted open markets not federal markets.
And Agit8r I agree. Many bureaucratic agencies are very questionable in regards to being unconstitutional. -
This would obviously mean then that since the Constitution does not give the right to the federal government and that since it also does not prohibit it from the states that it then belongs to the states and the people. Just as it says the fed has no business in it.
How does the government entering into a market constitute a breach of the 10th amendment? They are not exercising power over the states, they are offering a public option insurance plan into the market.
But it's hard to argue that offering a public option is a breach of the 10th amendment while completely taking away state's rights to create their own laws regarding the sale of insurance isn't.
In order to make the cross-border proposal work, every state would have to adopt the same laws - or else trade will be chaotic. And who will make those laws? The government, meaning they would actually restrict state's rights.
While providing guidelines for interstate trading is a part of the Federal government's job - they are guidelines, not the abolishment of state's laws/rights altogether.
I do hear a lot of people talking about interstate trading for insurance, but I not only wonder about what we're talking about, but also about the fact that few of them seem to fail to consider.
The majority of insurance companies out there already operate in every state. Blue Cross, AIG, Statefarm, Gieko, Aetna, Metlife etc et al... all they would have to do, is get the companies to charge the same rates in every state.......
There's really no "competition" in other states if you get what I'm saying. Only competition between companies... -
The point is that what the 10th amendment says goes. We have to abide by our own rules and if we dont like those rules we have to change them first. Government isnt supposed to do whatever they want when they want. They are supposed to be accountable unto themselves. If the the constitution doesnt give it to the fed or take it from the states then it belongs to states and the people. This is a matter of principle. My point is that if we don't like the principle we have to change it first, "not" ignore it.
And yes some cross state regulation has to be taken but the states are supposed to be open in that manner not isolated from each other. Again its principle coming out of the confederation into the federal.
And yes there are major corps that operate nationally but there are also smaller companies that do not. Those are the point of the argument. To give those little companies business and provide competition for the larger ones - that the larger ones then have to lower themselves to the smaller ones to remain competitive and in business. This is part of the collusive problem the small companies have a hard time competing with the larger ones making it so that there are few large companies to buy from.
Note this is uncompetitive capitalism which is where Agit8r and I's point of our economy becoming a collusive oligopsony comes in. -
Well, there are a lot of things that violate or come close to violating the 10th amendment, so apparently we pick and choose what we'll accept, and what the 10th says doesn't go.
However that isn't even the point - no one has yet been able to show how offering a public option takes anything away from states, or violates the 10th amendment. I haven't seen a single argument yet that shows what the violation actually is.
What (exactly) does the public option take away from states?
Regarding smaller insurance companies - you've provided a logical fallacy. If they were able to compete on any level - across state lines or in state - then they wouldn't be small companies, they'd be large companies. And the large companies would already be in competition with them.
They are not, and they are not even contenders. Opening state lines will not make them contenders, either.
The whole thing has become a rote argument that people repeat like "tort reform". Most people don't even know what that means.
But you are right, we don't have a truly competitive market. Not due to regulations, but due to the fact that companies damn well know that if they keep their prices in line with each other, they will all get a slice of the pie, and they can all raise their prices incrementally and people will simply accept it.
It's a back door monopoly. Or really, a corporate oligarchy if you will. They have no intention of undercutting each other, state lines or otherwise!
So what it comes down to is a larger pool to choose from, no competition still, and more federal laws in lieu of state laws, which does violate the 10th amendment.
Why are conservatives pushing for this? It's giving more power to the federal government, which is against what they believe, no?
What's the real reason? What's the underlying factor we're not seeing? Because to me, it makes no sense at all to ask for that.
Unless they honestly, truly believe that small companies will provide competition for large companies, and large companies will compete with themselves?
Competition is bad for business - it aint gonna happen! -
Actually it does violate the states because it undermines their opportunity to effectively doing it themselves. If a state decided it wanted to do something federal outweighs state and thus yes it does undermine the states. Again it still comes back to being accountable to our own principles.
And yes competition is bad for business. That's where the fed is supposed to come in because competition is good for the economy. This is where the fed should be looking into advancing antitrust laws, consumer protections, and other things. They could also get rid of lobbying as well and stop being business bedfellows... But that's not gonna happen. Government isn't accountable and so it is the responsibility of the people the accept less than what they deserve and settle for less. You can't do anything about your officials in a democratic society ya know? So might as well just let them do what they want and take the best of what they are willing to give you. -
I'm willing to agree that there being a uniform SET of regulation among the states could protect Commercial Amity, but pitting them in competition against each other would clearly not.
-
I agree. The separate governments competing against each other as they did in the confederacy is not the way to go. I just don't think isolating them from each other is effective either; just the same thing in the opposite extremes.
-
Actually it does violate the states because it undermines their opportunity to effectively doing it themselves.
States don't sell insurance. Private companies do. This pits the government run program against private corporations, not the states. -
No, no, states don't offer competition for private insurance. They just regulate... or at least some do.
if it was sold across state lines, the states would be forced to compete with one another, a la pre-constitution. They already do this when "creating jobs" which is why we have a governor of Texas saying "we beat Oklahoma"
-
-
You are relying that a provision stating they "MAY" create restrictions in the future. And when i say that they "May not"... i'm paranoid?
No rational person would have a problem with that? Glad we agree.
This is why every democrat in the HWMC voted against it... Guess they're not rational.
And how can someone get a tax credit if they don't pay taxes? how about all the illegals taht use Tax ID's.
Skirting the tax laws isn't impossible, and often not even hard. Which would open this wide for Illegals.
Lets see what your beloved Politifact says about that.
"So let's recap. There is explicit language in the House bill that says illegal immigrants should not receive the subsidized benefits. But we find the Republican conference is right that the legislation does not directly mention verification procedures and, for that reason, it's possible that illegal immigrants who are determined to beat the system might be able to get around the ban. But it's likely that the IRS would, at least indirectly, help to police that. And, the health choices commissioner would have the authority to set up a verification system. On balance, we rate the Republican claim Half True."
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/10/house-republicans/h...
Since you consider them so non-partisan...
My allegations being considered "paranoia, Irrational and whatnot is only proof of your inability to argue the facts.
Your oppinions are nothing but Obamaist Kool-aid...
See how little arguments like that add to the value?-
and yet you prove my point indirectly. You are arguing that this bill is going to allow for illegal aliens to get health insurance. I am arguing that, yes it may be possible for illegal aliens to screw the system to get those benefits. However, to say that there are no measures in place to help prevent that is false. Thus why your accusations are based on paranoia.
Prove how illegal aliens will be able to take advantage of the system, then show the solution that will work along with not taking away from the benefits being proposed. That is what I am saying. No matter how many provisions are in the bill that would aim at preventing illegal aliens from taking advantage of the system, it will still be able to be done.
However, one good way of looking at that. The system could then be used to find illegal aliens, in theory, and then deport them. Which is what should be happing. I gonna take a guess here and make the assumption that you wouldn't expect that coming from a liberal now would you?
You are right that more could be done. You are wrong that nothing is being done. Rather than make wild accusations that are based on pure partisan facts, try taking the facts as they are and use them to try and improve the bill, not kill it. -
I Guess the Senate Finance Committee are now partisan Republicans.
They're working on removing the loophole that obviously doesn't exist...
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-health-immigrants1...
Sigh... -
There you go again, csi, clogging up these discussions with logic and fact...
-
And again, the "loophole" is NOT connected to FEDERALLY FUNDED benefits. The research you have provided talks about how illegal immigrants might be able to purchase PRIVATE INSURANCE.
Are both of you willing now, to let the government tell private insurance companies who they can and can't sell insurance to? -
DOH,
Yes, if the government is going to put a public option on the SAME exchange, they would have to limit at least THAT option so that no taxpayer money goes to illegals. -
Taxpayer money is NOT going to the private insurance policies or policy holders LMAO.
The fact of the matter is that the government has stated that it will not insure illegal aliens, and that is the TRUTH, not a lie!
But, if you want to limit who private companies can and can't sell to, by all means - start a movement to do just that. Call your representatives, and ask them to create legislation that penalizes every company that sells a product to an illegal immigrant. -
Just imagine! Having to show proof of residency to buy a loaf of bread? Or pay cash for a flu shot? Buy gas? Buy insurance with their own hard-earned money?
Yeah, this illegal alien stuff is just another straw man. Use fear of illegal aliens to block reform of our health care system. Wish I would say I was surprised. -
I'll tell you how we can stop the constant migration of immigrants who do not wish to (or can't) go through proper channels...
Penalize all of the companies that hire them and pay them way below minimum wage - but more than they can make at home.
These companies encourage the transportation and migration of immigrants. And the American populace encourages the companies by purchasing the products from the companies that use illegal labor.
Another area that can stop illegal immigration? Sex trade industries. Legalize and regulate prostitution and you will see a drop in the smuggling of immigrants into the states who are then bought and sold on the black market for sex. -
@Anok...you are right and the Congressional Research Service is wrong about H.R. 3200 covering illegal aliens? Wow.
@mark...so you support the idea of an open border, letting anyone in with no conditions? -
I don't recall commenting on our immigration policy in my previous comment, as you well know, just the fear of illegal immigration being used as a straw man weapon in the health care debate. Course, we know how well the little piggie's straw house held up when the wolf came a calling and started to blow.
-
one wonders what effect our policies in Latin America has had on immigration from the 1980's onward... o_0
-
You mean people preferred leaving home to living in the middle of a civil war? Who'd've thunk it?
In all seriousness, that was certainly a push factor. Maybe that contributed to Reagan's willingness to go for an amnesty?
Of course, since then there are other push-pull factors that seem to be mainly economic, but which could very well be security related. On security, think Columbia earlier and Mexico today, for example. -
No Antics, I am right in repeating what the report actually says - which are one in the same thing with what I h ave been repeating over and over again.
The report says immigrants might be able to purchase from PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES. HR 3200 states that NO FEDERAL FUNDED BENEFITS WILL BE GIVEN TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Federal funded benefits = government run health care programs. IE the public option.
Private insurance companies are NOT government run or federally funded!
I'll ask again, do you want the government to regulate who private insurance companies can and can't sell their policies to? -
I will answer your question Anok. I am not in favor the the Federal Government telling private companies who they can sell insurance to. But that is not germain to the issue at hand. H.R.3200 may exclude illegals from coverage, but it is without teeth. That is what CRS said, that there is no enforcement. So saying that illegals won't be covered is dumb when there are no rules to ensure that that happens.
-
-
Here's a blog post with more on Wilson, who apparently didn't just make a mistake, but was expressing some more deeply held beliefs. Well, we've been seeing them all year in these United States.
Be warned: the post talks about race, and some right-wingers here are going to get upset if they read it. Moreover, its language is anything but polite. But neither was Wilson, regardless of his insincere apology, the one he gave because he had to.
field-negro.blogspot.com/2009/09/niggers-always-lie.html-
Still waiting on Harry Reid to be pressured by HIS party to apologize. Guess no one should hold their breath on that one.
-
It's true.
If you watch the video in slow motion, you can catch that he actually says "j'gaboo lie!"
jk... but I had you going for a sec, didn't I -
mark, you really, really, REALLY like to play that race card, doncha? If one didn't know better, it might be inferred that somebody holds racial views that are a tad bit, shall we say bigoted...
-
To you calling people out on racism is a mere tactic. To me it's a moral necessity brought on by a reality in these United States. And as I've said before, not everyone who denigrates the president with terms like "el presidente" and the like is a racist. But that doesn't mean the phenomenon is any less real.
-
Maybe so, but some people sure seem to look for it in every issue...
-
Some people just have their eyes open. This is an incredibly diverse and vibrant society. It's very different than the place that Archie Bunker had to grudgingly get used to. But that doesn't mean everything smells of roses.
I've spent too much time studying racial, social, and gender hierarchies in the past to turn a blind eye to them when they appear in the present. If that bothers you, use the block function on your profile page. You will then be able to ignore me more easily when I say something on these boards. -
ah geeze, in SC they aren't even mad at their Governor for cheating. They're mad because he was getting down with a ferinner
-
-
@csiunatc First of all, I never said that there wasn't a loophole, what I said is that there were provisions in place to help prevent illegal aliens from taking advantage of the system. Secondly, if the senate finance committee is working on closing all possible loopholes, good for them.
@anticsrocks. I also remember the great USA and Britain giving Saddam Hussein those weapons which is why Colin Powell was able to make that wonderfully accurate prediction about how much WMDs Saddam Hussein would have if any. The accusation of the Bush Administration was A. That Iraq was involved with 9/11, which they were not, and b, that he was trying to accumulate weapons grade uranium, which he wasn't.
As for Wilson, politifact.com has already proven what he said was false. Rep. Wilson was saying repeatedly before he got caught in his lie, that the bill would INSURE, illegal aliens, not that there was a loophole in the bill that would allow illegal aliens to take advantage of the system. There is a very important difference in the language there. If I remember correctly, politifact.com gave Wilson the rating of what again...oh yeah liar!
Also, if what Colin Powell said was so profound, why didn't America's allies help with the war in Iraq. Oh yeah thats right, the Bush administration was also using 9/11 to justify the war, again saying, that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists and providing funding/training.
Oh by the way, here is Bush admitting that there were no WMDs...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Here is Condi Rice and Colin Powell, Before 9/11, saying that Iraq is not a threat.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
Oh and Colin Powell saying Iraq was a mistake.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24
Dick Cheney caught linking Iraq with Al-Qaeda and then denying the link.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ
So yeah, the administration lied. Its really that simple.-
I am glad the rest of us don't live in that world you live in, then Rene. And you keep ignoring the fact that the CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE SAYS ILLEGALS WILL BE COVERED.
You must like to use only the links that prop up the venom you wish to spew. -
Anti: you should try reading her posts before attacking them. She very clearly states reality.
-
It says illegals might be able to purchase PRIVATE INSURANCE. WHich is something they already do.
Federally funded benefits are clearly labeled as off limits. The government will NOT insure illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants will NOT receive federally funded benefits.
If private insurance companies want to sell to illegal immigrants, then apparently, they can and do.
Are you willing to allow the government to regulate who private companies can and can't do business with? -
@Anok You provide such wonderful points here. However, I am afraid that no matter what proof we offer, they will just not realize that they are wrong. Sometimes thats just how it is unfortunately.
-
Thanks Rene - I try
-
But Condi and Colin were clearly lying (see above)
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/presidential-address-to-joint-se...
-
-
@anticsrocks You call it venom, the rest of us call it reality.
-
Demonize and separate, but tell me this, how do you address the CRS report that says illegals will be covered?
HR 3200 is the House version of Obama’s health care reform, and although Obama claims illegal aliens will not be covered, this report from the Center for Immigration Studies disputes that claim.
CIS:
Based on our analysis of Census Bureau data, we estimate that there are 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States who could be covered by the new health care reform bill (HR 3200). Even though HR 3200 states that illegal immigrants are not eligible for the proposed taxpayer-funded affordable premium credits, there is nothing in the bill to enforce this. An amendment was defeated in committee that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, used by almost all other means-tested programs of this kind."
refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/cis-illegal-aliens-would-...
"President Obama's assertion that illegal alien would not be covered under AAHCA is directly contradicted by an August 25 report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, issued by the Congressional Research Service. The nonpartisan research arm of Congress concluded, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens - whether legally or illegal present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently - participating in the [Health Insurance] Exchange."
Once in the Exchange, participants are free to enroll in the government run health insurance program. This public option, established under H.R. 3200, would be heavily or entirely subsidized by the American taxpayers. While illegal aliens are barred from receiving "affordability credits" to help pay for private insurance, CRS noted the absence of any mechanism in the bill to verify citizenship or legal residency."
www.news-medical.net/news/20090911/HR-3200-health-care-reforms-will-benefit...
See, this is being implemented via the IRS Tax Code, and the tax code does not differentiate between legals and illegals. Now who refuses to realize they are wrong?
Go ahead and call me some more names, but it doesn't negate the fact that by simply changing the wording in the bill this entire debate would be put to rest. I think the question you on the left need to ask yourselves is why does our fearless leader, our leader who ran on being the bipartisan, reach across the aisle guy, our leader who is a uniter, why doesn't he just change the bill to eliminate the coverage of illegals? -
Well first of all, President Obama has stated that the public option needs to be funded purely by the premiums that its participates are paying. Tax dollars would not be going into the public option under Obama.
Second, the bill allows the HHS to have the authority to create any program that will eliminate any possible illegal alien interaction. I have never stated that the bill is perfect as is. However, the bill would not directly make it legal for illegal aliens to participate. Illegal aliens would have to use any loopholes in the system to try and obtain coverage ILLEGALLY.
As for the assertion in your link that states that IRS tax code would not be able to weed out illegals, that is false. If the tax credits were to go through the tax code, they would need a valid social security number. Illegal aliens do not have these. So yes, they would be stopped from getting the affordability credits.
However, as far as the exchange is concerned. Yes illegals would be able to PURCHASE health insurance through the exchange just as they are able to PURCHASE health insurance through the private industry. That little tidbit is why Republicans only got a half-true on this issue. Here it is on politifact.com
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/sep/10/illegal-immigrants-and...
As for you issue with "name calling." I have not posted anything calling you a "name" on this discussion. While I have strongly disagreed with your interpretations of the CRS report, I have reframed from calling you a "name." If there is anyone that has, I will apologize for them like the good liberal that I am.
Lastly, and this is more of an FYI then anything. I do not support the idea of illegal immigrants obtaining any kind of health care here in America. I believe in that wonderful thing called deportation. Now this will probably get me some heat with other liberals but oh well.
As I have stated before, if worst comes to worst, and illegal immigrants do find a way to obtain coverage through this system, which they probably will no matter how many safeguards are there, I believe the system should then be used to find them and then deport them.
Finally, our "great leader" as you have called him, is not that great of a leader. I am not that blind to that plain and simple fact. There is much that I, as a liberal, disagree with Obama on. It just so happens, that I agree with his desire of health care reform. I support the public option, I support eliminating the idea of pre-existing conditions, and I support the general idea as a whole. Yes there are specifics that need to be ironed out. However, I do not believe that the idea should be killed because certain members of BOTH parties are unwilling to compromise.
-
-
@Anok Again you bring up another wonderful point about immigration. Companies should be penalized who hire illegal immigrants for simple, cheap labor. Not only would it cut down on illegal immigration but it would help create jobs in our already stressed job market.
-
Reducing illegal immigration is about reducing incentives. That includes going after companies that hire illegals as well as free healthcare, citizenship for their kids, free education, etc. I think some politicians backed off immigration reform right now because having 10 - 20 million people leave could further decimate the housing and rent markets.
-
Good point, I agree.
-
it'll never happen. Not only would that law cut into their profits and end-of-year CEO bonuses, but it would "force" the company to raise their prices to "cover" that loss - and Americans care more about cheap trinkets than immigration.
-
Fighting illegal immigration is simply about enforcing the laws that are already on the books.
It is illegal for companies to hire illegals,
It is illegal to cross the border without permission
It is illegal to be in the country without permission
None of this requires anything different than the will to enforce it.
That will is what is lacking, for many reasons. Part of those reasons are special interests and monetary, others are purely political.
There are scores of people who stand to lose from enforcing the laws, those that stand to gain from it are the Citizens and Legal residents of the country. But as usual, politicians have no interest in promoting what is best for them. -
As soon as the majority of immigrants stop registering as Democrats then you will see the party in power in Washington right now begin howling for border enforcement.
-
-
interesting -
I was reading this the other day, and it reminded me of this:
books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=Aedanus+Burke+...
maybe it's a South Carolina thing...-
LOL, okay I had to scroll up because at first I was thinking the Burke in this passage was Edmund Burke, not a judge from S. Carolina.
-
oh, right. It does sound similar
-
Egads! Even almost spelled the same...
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
