Light, now you are playing the game the President is playing.
The bill AS WRITTEN IN THE HOUSE and the bill AS WRITTEN before Wilson's comments created a path to coverage for Illegal immagrants .
WITHOUT QUESTION the bill provided coverage.
Right now the bill in the senate provides language to require proof of legal status. HOWEVER the dems in the House have not added such language.
That means that once the bills pass, the dems in the conference commettee will get to decide without a further vote.
I have answerd the question. The bill DID cover illegals by not excluding them and by not requireing they provide any proof of citizenship.
Section 246 of H.R. 3200 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". To suggest that the bill covers illegal aliens is disingenuous.
It would be great if both sides could debate this with the facts and not sensationalist fear.
Section 246 of H.R. 3200 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". To suggest that the bill covers illegal aliens is disingenuous.
It would be great if both sides could debate this with the facts and not sensationalist fear.
While HR 3200 states illegal immigrants can not receive benefits, every time amendments are put forward to ensure enforcement – they are voted out leaving many loopholes.
Section 246 of H.R. 3200 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". To suggest that the bill covers illegal aliens is disingenuous.
It would be great if both sides could debate this with the facts and not sensationalist fear.
While the report found that federal subsidies to obtain health coverage would be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal residents, it also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system, something that critics say creates a loophole for undocumented immigrants to receive subsidies anyway.
While the report found that federal subsidies to obtain health coverage would be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal residents, it also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system, something that critics say creates a loophole for undocumented immigrants to receive subsidies anyway.
There may be (and probably is) an issue with verifying whether someone is an illegal immigrant or not, but that is a separate issue. The bill does include wording barring funds for illegal immigrants. Therefore, it is very close to a flat-out lie saying that the bill covers illegal immigrants.
If people have an issue with the verification process, then let them say "I have an issue with the verification process". Twisting it to be able to say that the bill covers illegal immigrants is nothing but sensationalist fear mongering.
There may be (and probably is) an issue with verifying whether someone is an illegal immigrant or not, but that is a separate issue. The bill does include wording barring funds for illegal immigrants. Therefore, it is very close to a flat-out lie saying that the bill covers illegal immigrants.
If people have an issue with the verification process, then let them say "I have an issue with the verification process". Twisting it to be able to say that the bill covers illegal immigrants is nothing but sensationalist fear mongering.
A wise attorney once told me I will let you write the bill if I get to write the definitions. By not defining how they will keep from funding medical care for immigrants they are in fact providing it, regardless of meaningless verbiage.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
There may be (and probably is) an issue with verifying whether someone is an illegal immigrant or not, but that is a separate issue. The bill does include wording barring funds for illegal immigrants. Therefore, it is very close to a flat-out lie saying that the bill covers illegal immigrants.
If people have an issue with the verification process, then let them say "I have an issue with the verification process". Twisting it to be able to say that the bill covers illegal immigrants is nothing but sensationalist fear mongering.
I probably cut the link short, but I'm not going to search for it. LOL!
Quote:
The House Bill Does Cover Illegals
Technically, Obama was correct that his plan does not cover illegal aliens because Obama has no plan that has been released, only concepts. So if Obama says his plan doesn't cover illegals, then by definition it does not cover illegals -- at least until we see the language in his plan. Similarly, the Senate HELP Committee bill defines an "eligible individual" in numerous places throughout the bill to include only citizens and legal residents (including for the public option, at page 111 of the bill).
So using the two measures, the non-existent Obama bill and the draft Senate HELP Committee bill which was not a full Senate proposal, Obama was correct.
But if the standard is the full House Bill, HR3200, then it appears that Obama was incorrect. There is nothing in HR3200 that excludes illegal aliens from the various coverage provisions (with a few limited exceptions). The Congressional Research Service agrees with this assessment (full report embedded below). For example, with regard to health care exchanges, the CRS found:
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.
Twisp,
In this link, read the second paragraph under Summary. It won't let me copy it. It does carry a mandate to have health insurance.
Treatment of Non-Citizens in HR 3200 http://www.scribd.com/doc/19592760/T...ens-in-HR-3200
Section 246 of H.R. 3200 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". To suggest that the bill covers illegal aliens is disingenuous.
It would be great if both sides could debate this with the facts and not sensationalist fear.
Facts are important. AND you bring up a very important fact.
The bill says "No illegals"
But
The bill provides no way of deserning if one is illegal.
So we leave people who are illegal to use the honor system and refrain from taking government sponsored health insurance.
Facts are imporant Twisp. but some facts without all the facts really constitutes NO FACTS.
your fact while factual, fails the sniff test. BECAUSE there are more facts.
We arent talking about what the bill "says" we are talking about what the bill DOES.
And what the bill does (HR3200) is cover illegals.
PS
I suppose if the president said we dont have illegals crossing the Mexican boarder you would see that as true because it is a fact that we have a law saying you cant do that.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
The Constitution created a federal government limited to its enumerated powers. Everything Congress is allowed to do is spelled out in Article I. The 10th Amendment makes it explicit: "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."
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement in healthcare – yet Congress may soon require everyone in America to buy insurance.
Studying a bit on the subject, these are the things that I've come up with as part of the problem or possible solution. One possible solution is in the last paragraph. I keep hearing about Tort Reform needing fixing, but something didn't ring true, because I think we need it, unless I've missed some other point on the issue. If anyone has any further ideas, I'd love to hear them.
I've listed the quick points on Tort Reform.
Tort reform
Undermines the bedrock principle of the nation's judicial system
Trial lawyers are the people's first line of defense to secure redress of grievances for private or civil wrongs committed against them, ie, Enron, WorldCom, etc.
Errors in diagnosis, misread charts, medication errors... all can cause irreparable harm to their victims.
It is for these situations that the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to a fair trial before a jury of their peers.
Skyrocketing insurance premiums are not a result of malpractice litigation, and the high cost of medical care stems more from "offensive medicine" (profiteering by doctors seeking to make an extra buck), rather than "defensive medicine" purportedly resulting from fears of malpractice suits.
In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that costs associated with medical malpractice claims only amounted to 2% of overall health care spending.
Furthermore, multiple studies suggest that the high cost of medical insurance has virtually no correlation with the frequency or amount of malpractice payouts but is actually a result of insurance companies playing the market and—in some cases—intentionally misrepresenting the influence of malpractice payouts in order to keep premiums high. http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/...s.xsl/8689.htm
Any change in medical malpractice laws should occur at the state level and be tailored to meet conditions in the individual states.
Tort reform is an affirmative action program for corporate miscreants. We should not try to federalize the laws of medical malpractice.
A possible solution - is it enough?
I heard several people say, Newt Gingrich for one, that two things are needed in order to have reform - transparency in quality and price. If we can have these two, eventually, we can fix this problem.
Linear Mode
