Apparently it was some schmuck named Joe Wilson, a Republican congressman from South Carolina. More here.

Seems like Joe Wilson tried to hop on the "outburst" bandwagon so many of his party's supporters have used as of late. Rather than properly debate, let's yell. I'm glad his condemnation was swift and fierce from both sides. Political posturing to be sure, but at least condemned publicly.

Fucking ridiculous children get out of congress.

You never let me have anything nice NetRunner.

well, this will have to do as a distraction for the media to latch on to, instead of his speech.


another article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10wilson.html

'“No president has ever been treated like that. Ever,” Mr. Emanuel said.'

“What we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and countercharges, confusion has reigned.”

Wilson has already apologized for the outburst.

Good on him for apologizing, but he kinda also needs to come clean about being the one who's being untruthful as well. All of the drafts of the bills have whole sections dedicated to ensuring illegal immigrants aren't covered.

Not that I think we should exclude them, but that's a whole other fight we can get into at a later time.

Why should anyone have to explain how to be polite and respectful to a United States Congressman???

Oh wait...I remember now:

Go to youtube, and there are hundreds of comments like "Obama got Owned!", "Obama had his black ass handed to him", and "Joe Wilson is my new hero!"

Oh Videosift...I'm so sorry I was unfaithful...it just happened...I got there and realized it wasn't worth it...take me back!

I wish they would just steamroll this business and get it over with.

Here's a longer and better quality version that ramps up nicely to the outburst if you wanted to change out your embed, NR. It's about 1:24 and it gives you a bit more context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0PqBiNUyqU

^ Actually, I've got the first half sifted as a separate clip.

BTW, did you read the Fox crawl in that embed? The shit those people put in there is just amazing. I wish that were just a YouTube prank, but I find it disconcertingly likely that that's really what they had on screen...

I wonder what was going on in Biden's head when he looked down at the table, closed his eyes and just shook his head.

Don't tell us, tell him:

http://www.house.gov/formwilson/IMA/issue.htm

You can also donate to the man running against him in 2010:

http://www.actblue.com/page/kossacks4miller

Congressmen should really keep their emotional outbursts limited to when they're cheating on their wives.

Un-fucking-believable.

An apology does not begin to rectify this.

-edit
I wrote something funny here, but seriously.. what happened in that clip is ridiculous enough.

Where's QM to justify this? I mean, the congressman is clearly doing the appropriate thing!!!

He shouldn't have apologized.

Now he looks like a weak idiot, even to people who might agree with him.

He should've yelled "Politician!"

To be fair, Wilson thinks our current system gives free medical care to illegal immigrants through emergency rooms since they can't be denied emergency service. He has supported a bill requiring hospitals to report illegal immigrants that receive treatment. It would also allow hospitals to refuse treatment if the illegal immigrant could be transported to their home country without significant chance of worsening their conditionon.

I think his objection is one of definition rather than one of reading ability. He sees emergency room visits for illegals as free medical treatment payed for by legal residents.


As far as the outburst, it was middle-school behavior. I'm glad people in each party disagreed with it, but I think an apology is fine as long as the behavior stops.

Disrespectful? Sure. "No president has been treated like this ever?" Hardly. Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address...

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

So let us not pretend that this is some sort of 'Republican' problem. People from both sides of the aisle are guilty of this, and they're doing it with increasing frequency. Its a little late in the game for neolibs to be clucking their tongues at such behavior now. Such protestations are reserved only for the innocent. From the guilty it is nothing but hypocrisy.

Now - on to substance...

I for one am not so willing to say that Wilson's accusation is wrong. He shouldn't have blurted it in the middle of a speech, but his sentiment is correct. While Obama is not OVERTLY lying about the immigrant issue, he is not being honest, straightforward, or clear either. That's typical political speech though. Skate close enough to the truth that you can always back up and say, "Hey I'm not totally lying." But at the same time play pretty fast and loose with facts.

For example - it is 'technically' true that the immigration bill claims to exclude immigrants. So Obama can make his two-faced claim, "Hey - illegals won't be covered..." And it's the 'truth' right? Not exactly.

This is the same guy that keeps going around claiming that we have "43 million uninsured". Well he BLOODY WELL KNOWS that a huge chunk of those 43 million uninsured are illegal immigrants that he's including in his total to make it sound like 20% of Americans are running around not able to afford insurance. That's bullcrap. He can't go around saying we have "43 million uninsured" that he means to cover, and then turn right around and say "illegals won't have access." But it isn't very compelling when you realize that he's asking for a TRILLION DOLLARS to cover only about 15 million people if he's serious about his 'illegals won't have access' claim. That's asking for almost $70,000 per uninsured person. Pretty expensive plan, eh? No wonder he's trying to bury his facts.

And that's not even touching the fact that not a single one of the plans in the House or Senate has any plan for verification of citizenship. They say that illegals won't be able to get in - but if they have no plan to verify (and ENFORCE!) citizenship then it is nothing but words. And leave us not forget that not a single bill is out of committee yet. Who can say with certainty that there won't be some last minute provision, or scheme, or whatever that jams in an illegal coverage loophole?

So Obama can flap his gums all he wants, but just because it 'says' illegals won't be covered in the bills doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen. I remember the 1986 Reagan immigration & control reform act. Know what? That act 'claimed' that it was going to start enforcing immigration rules and clamp down on illegals. Know what? It DIDN'T! Why should I believe that this bill is actually going to exclude illegals when there is no plan in place, and every past attempt to enforce citizenship has failed completely?

So was Obama lying? Maybe not technically, but in practical reality his claim that illegals won't be getting insurance or medical care is complete load of honk. He's got no plan, he's got no enforcement. As far as I'm concerned, that's as close to a lie as you can get.

I'm tired of letting politicians get a free pass when they talk smack answers to questions and skate by on technicalities and half truths. I don't like it when any politician weasels his way out of the SUBSTANCE of an accusation by hiding behind puffery and bureauratic double-speak. So I'm going to call things like I see it and come out and say that Obama IS lying. Neolibs can pretend that his jargon makes him 'technically' truthful, but it's in every practical way he's spewing lies. Until Obama comes up with a CONCRETE (IE written in a bill and NOT just rhetoric) solid, provable, and enforcable plan that clearly and plainly excludes ALL illegals from ever getting insurance or receiving medical care then he's lying.

See CNN's fact check. (Via my post.)

Also here's a t-shirt design on the subject (via TeeVirus):

^So.....all that that to say he was indeed lying. You sound like a politician, yourself.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin08/p60no236_table7.pdf

Number of AMERICAN Citizen uninsured: ~35M, about 11%

Number of non-citizen uninsured: (doesn't necessarily mean illegal, includes visa and green card holders: ~10M

10 percent of your fellow citizens are fucked when it comes to healthcare. Now, what do you propose to do about that? Nothing, right? Let the market handle it, let 'em pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker;

It's true that Bush was treated badly, but he DID lie numerous times putting the United States in harm's way. He also failed to act appropriately on any number of occasions and acted completely inappropriately in many others, endangering and often ensuring the deaths of thousands of Americans and many more internationals.

Despite his proven record at that point as a liar they only booed him, which is actually pretty normal political discourse when the opposition is saying something you don't like. Yelling anonymously from a crowd that he's a liar is a completely different level.

10 percent of your fellow citizens are fucked when it comes to healthcare. Now, what do you propose to do about that? Nothing, right? Let the market handle it, let 'em pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

"Free" emergency rooms for all (including illegals), Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP. Yeah, we just can't do ENOUGH for the statists. Why can't we be more like Sweden or the soviet union?

I propose not letting the geniuses behind Amtrak run medicine, preventing 100%* of citizens from being fucked.


*minus Congress, who refuse to be on this wonderful plan themselves

Those programs do not cover those uninsured. Try again. And the private industry has completely fucked our system, I don't see how government, in light of all the advanced nations who have such plans, can do worse at all.

afaik, emergency rooms 'do' have to treat illegal immigrants for free, with the state or hospital typically footing the bill

anyway, i'm not a tax lawyer, etc, but i did a little digging and found this... which i guess is a bit troubling... the gist of which is that it appears possible that a 'loophole' in hr3200 could have illegal immigrants included because of a difference in definitions between the ins and the irs

"The controversy over immigrants and taxes generally centers on illegal immigrants. Reliable numbers are hard to find, but researchers generally agree that 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants nationwide work for employers who withhold income taxes and Social Security and Medicare payments from their paychecks. The authors of the Urban Institute study assumed 55 percent do. To get jobs, many of those immigrants use false Social Security numbers. That means they pay into the Social Security system for benefits they will never receive and pay income taxes without ever filing a return to determine whether they have overpaid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html

"H.R. 3200 includes an individual mandate to have health insurance, with tax penalties for
noncompliance. Individuals who do not maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for
themselves and their children would be required to pay an additional tax. Some individuals,
including nonresident aliens, would be exempt from the individual mandate. “Nonresident alien”
is a term under tax but not immigration law. For federal tax purposes, alien individuals are
classified as resident or nonresident aliens. In general, an individual is a nonresident alien unless
he or she meets the qualifications under a residency test. Thus, legal permanent residents, and
noncitizens and unauthorized aliens who qualify as resident aliens (i.e., meet the substantial
presence test), would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance."

http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/CRS_Report_on_HR3200.pdf

"You will be considered a U.S. resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States on at least:
31 days during the current year, and
183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that, counting:
All the days you were present in the current year, and
1/3 of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and
1/6 of the days you were present in the second year before the current year."

so, would an immigrant who has illegally spent 181 days in 2009, 3 days in 2008, and 6 days in 2007 in the us be considered a resident alien, and thus covered by hr3200? or could he just spend 183 days in the us illegally during the past year to be covered?

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96352,00.html

anyway, food for thought... and not a tacit excuse for wilson's lack of decorum

I don't see how government, in light of all the advanced nations who have such plans, can do worse at all.

They already have. Medicare. Medicaid.

10 percent of your fellow citizens are $$$$ed when it comes to healthcare. Now, what do you propose to do about that? Nothing, right?

To start with, not everyone who is 'uninsured' is uninsured because they can't afford it. A huge percentage are young, healthy people age 18-35 who voluntarily choose to not buy insurance because they don't need it. There's another huge chunk of people that are switching jobs and are only 'uninsured' for a brief time while HR catches up. 14 million uninsured are 'poor' which are already elligible for Medicare/Medicaid but deliberately do NOT sign up because they don't want to pay the fees. 27 million uninsured have incomes of $50,000+ a year.

You're like Obama. You paint a rhetorical picture of a huge number citizens that are craving to be insured, but can't because they're too poor. That's a false image that doesn't jive with reality. When the cold, hard facts are analyzed only a TINY percentage of citizens are (A) too poor to afford insurance and (B) not already ellgible for a government entitlement health program. The vast bulk of the uninsured are uninsured by choice, because of predicted temporary circumstances, or because they aren't citzens.

But what about that very small percentage of the poor but ineligible? There's plenty of common sense, non-government ways to control costs & make medical care affordable for them. #1. Tort reform. #2. National portability of insurance (increased competition). #3. Health savings plans. #4. Removal of government regulation. #5. Municipal or State run clinics. #6. Voluntary charitable donations. There's dozens of simple solutions. Regardless, there is NO need for a trillion dollar government boondoggle to address the needs of this tiny percentage of needy citizens by creating a massive plan that covers EVERYONE. That's like using a nuke to swat a fly.

Bush...liar...deserved it...

The place to voice disagreement is not by booing and hissing during the State of the Union address. Just like it isn't the place to voice your disagreement during an address to congress. Basically, EVERY politician lies. And if you belong to an opposing party, you are all to willing to say the 'other guy' is lying, but ignore the lies 'your guy' tells on a regular basis. The place for politicians to voice thier opinion is not right in the middle of a nationally televised speech. Do that crap in debates.

Those programs do not cover those uninsured. Try again. And the private industry has completely fucked our system, I don't see how government, in light of all the advanced nations who have such plans, can do worse at all.

Private industry "fucks the system" whenever the government enables it through price controls and favoritism which reduces competition and incentives.

Real reform that benefits consumers involves booting business out of the government nest and the other way around. Obamacare socialism will cement crony capitalism even further.

Government is fully capable of totally destroying once-thriving industries and beyond that, entire nations. What will it take for liberals to realize this already gigantic government is not under their control? This misplaced idealism is a leash of kite string on an 900lb gorilla.

Thank you, Joe Wilson, for the first honest, unvague statement heard during an Obama speech.

First of all, you all are the liberals. Further, I keep seeing people spouting the term "neolib" around, as though they don't realize it was coined to describe the deluded masses that bow down before the church of Milton Friedman.

No, we're progressives, thanks.

The private sector should not control inelastic marketplaces.

Winstonfield, what do you base your assertion that a significant portion of the uninsured are voluntarily choosing to be uninsured on?

It seems to me that those young healthy people would want to be insured even more since it would be cheaper for them and cover them in cases of accidents or latent conditions which mean they weren't so healthy after all. At the very least, it strikes me as risky behavior on their part.

Pennypecker, no one called Bush a liar in your clip, you liar.

Joe Wilson's opponent has now raised over $330,000 in less than a day.

Once one removes 'fear' and 'racism' from conservative playbooks, one removes 90% of what conservatives have to talk about. Mr. Pennypacker and Mr. Quantumushroom are easy examples of this concept. Last night, we say a republican unconscously lash out to the president, on something that was not true to begin with. The individual in question, has since asked for an apology. Most likely threaten by his congressional superiors, since no one seemed to come to his side. Even though THIS, is the subject they seem to promote in the conservative styled ads on tv, and the talk show hosts.

Two thumbs up to Diogenes for putting up the information.

And yes, Mr. Bush lied about a great number of things. Back in 1999, then Gov. Bush of Texas was saying 'as president, I will not conduct nation building on foreign soil'. Yeah, we all know that was a lie. And the one in 2003, about promoting fair and honest business trade, was over shadowed when he had the leading energy giants together, behind closed doors and off the record, to talk about the energy crisis at the time. Finally, my personal favorite: WMDs. Maybe Mr. Pennypacker or Mr. Quantumushroom could point out to us all those weapons of mass destruction we were suppose to find in Iraq. You know, the 'massive stockpiles' of 'WMDs', like nuclear warheads we (the USA) accussed Saddam of having? Yeah, defend Bush, go ahead, I dare you.

Immediately after the President gave his speak, a Republican rebutal was made. This idiot said, Republicans are ready to come to the table in a biparistan fashion, to work on health care reform. I say "To bad", they had their chance, and just like with EVERYTHING else they have had to deal with in the last two decades, they pissed away opportunity to serve the public good. They had their chance, and they blew it off, and NOW, they get to pay for it.

The President has some really good ideas. He explains them as a professor would on an issue. He uses education, decency, patience, and fairness. Its to bad his Republican opponents behave like children so often. But then again, are we to expect Republicans behaving any other way anymore?

>> ^Throbbin:
Joe Wilson's opponent has now raised over $330,000 in less than a day.



Well, hell, if the socialists have that kind of money, then let's just let THEM finance WelfareCare?

Rotty, it's not like Wilson's campaigns have been underfinanced. Guess who's been paying for his: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/10/obama-speech-disrupter-a-health-industry-darling/

Spiker,

I'm not surprised. You don't get into office without moral compromise. I don't think the original intent of congressional representation was meant as a career. I've always felt there should be term limits in Congress also. Both sides are dirty and guilty.

I think what Mr Wilson did was rude and unecessary. But congress has a history of unsavory and criminal acts. There should be better issues (as you have pointed out) for not re-electing someone than just basic incivility.

Push the plunger and flush 'em all; a fresh start might be just what we need.

I keep seeing people spouting the term "neolib" around

I’m use the word ‘neolib’ as a generic malediction the same way neolibs use the word ‘neocon’ to refer to any/all things conservative.

We’re progressives

Progressive is a word liberals coined because they didn’t like being called liberals anymore. But 99.9% of the time a self-proclaimed ‘progressive’ cannot be distinguished in any substantive way from a liberal on policy matters, politics, voting habits, or rhetoric.

Winstonfield, what do you base your assertion that a significant portion of the uninsured are voluntarily choosing to be uninsured on?

If a person can afford insurance, but they choose to buy other things instead, then they are VOLUNTARILY choosing to be uninsured.

Studies have shown that the bulk of the uninsured are working, healthy adults (40/60 male/female) who earn $40,000 a year or more between the ages of 18 and 40. As you yourself stated, cheap catastrophic medical coverage is readily available for people in this group.

Statistics also show that just about every household in the U.S. has 2+ television sets, DVD players, cable or satellite, video games, 2+ cars, junk food in the pantry, eats out 2+ times a week, & spends several hundred dollars a year on entertainment such as ball games, movies, and so forth. Such persons don’t need government subsidized insurance. They need to learn how to sacrifice a few luxuries and stick to a budget.

Once one removes 'fear' and 'racism' from conservative playbooks, one removes 90% of what conservatives have to talk about

I have found that such accusations are more representative of the accuser than the accused.

Defend Bush. I dare you.

You make the common mistake that many neolibs do. Simply because I'm clearly not a fan of Obama, it doesn't conclude that I'm a 'defender' of Bush. I have no problem with people who want to call him a liar. Bush is a politician. They’re all liars, cheats, crooks, and scumbags who should be ridden out of the country on a rail. That includes Bush, Obama, and everyone else. All I said was that the middle of a nationally televised speech is not the place for interruptions and rudeness. That goes for Bush, Obama, and everyone else. Bad form Wilson, and bad form all the booing Democrats.

Republicans are ready to come to the table in a biparistan fashion, to work on health care reform. I say "To bad", they had their chance.

Obama’s got supermajorities in the house & senate. Use them. The majority of the country doesn’t like his plan because it’s vague and expensive. If he pushes it through anyway, then he & the Democrats are going to have hell to pay in 2010. I hope not a single Republican votes for this stupid plan when it comes up. Let the Democrats own it. If it is such a ‘popular’ plan, then let them take all the credit. The reality is – the plan is NOT popular and neolibs want Republicans to take some of the blame.

The President has some really good ideas. He explains them as a professor would on an issue

If by that you mean he blathers vague, non-committal platitudes then sure. :eyeroll: Not a single thing in his speech last night was new. There’s 6 different drafts in congress, and Obama isn’t talking specifics about ANY of them. America wants specifics – and Obama’s still trying to blow sunshine up everyone's skirt as if he was still in an election campaign. Cram the platitudes Obama and start talking facts. Talking like a professer? Pht - yeah - a Liberal ARTS professor maybe. He sure isn't talking like a physics professor, and that's what America needs right now.

Winstonfield, you have a point, but I doubt it's much comfort to people like the ones in this video who fall through the cracks.

No, we choose the word progressive because it distinguishes us from the term liberal which is already reserved for one that believes in specie backed currency, a lack of government intervention in the marketplace, and strict constitutionalism.

specie backed currency, a lack of government intervention in the marketplace, and strict constitutionalism

That describes fiscal conservatives - not modern day political liberals.

I doubt it's much comfort to people like the ones in this video who fall through the cracks

I firmly believe that the number of people that meet this definition are extremely miniscule in the grand scale of things. Their plight is keenly felt, but ultimately small scale. The needs of these persons can be met at an individual, municipal, or state level. There is no need for a nationalized system to account for them.

That's the main difference really between 'neocons' and 'neolibs'. A neolib sees 1% of the population that's having a problem and comes up with a plan that strongly impacts 100% of the population to address it. A neocon sees 1% of the population that's having a problem and comes up with a plan that tries to address the problem while effecting as little of the population as possible.

No, it describe liberals, such as Hayek, Von Mises, and Jackson.

The term "neolib" specifically refers to the rejuvenation of their ideas by Milton Friedman. Friedman moderated them slightly by suggesting that the only way in which government should interfere with markets is through monetary policy. His ideas were largely adopted by the republican party in response to Carter.

You, sir, are the "neolib". Unless of course you are a "neocon" in which case you believe the government should interfere with the energy markets via foreign intervention.

About time Obama is shown for what he is... a liar. However, if it were me, I would have just walked out instead of shouting out.

The socialists are so spun up, they can't even see that Obammy has lied to them also. It's just beautiful.

To those of you who for some reason are siding with the truthfulness of the asshat who yelled "You lie" like a spoiled, petulant child; you're wrong, of course.

Are you guys distinguishing between the fact that bill does not provide coverage for illegals, but also does not provide for fraud detection by illegals who file taxes? And if you are so horribly right, if this loophole doesn't exist.... WHY ARE THE SENATORS IN CHARGE OF THE BILL CLOSING THE LOOPHOLE?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/10/rep-wilson-outburst-leads-senate-dems-close-loophole-health-reform/

I don't want to be flamed here, but things ain't exactly clear cut here, are they?

You know what?

This thread is all about people who can deal with complexity and nuance, and those who can't.

To an absolutist, where every issue is black and white, and people are either "for or against us", disagreement with the president on this issue makes Obama a liar. If it wasn't this particular 'loophole', the absolutists would latch onto some other small part of the long bill.

Once one removes 'fear' and 'racism' from conservative playbooks, one removes 90% of what conservatives have to talk about. Mr. Pennypacker and Mr. Quantumushroom are easy examples of this concept.

One should always fear an ideologue who wants to remake America in his bizarre communist image, especially when he has the unquestioning support of state-run media. Anyone with an INKLING of historical perspective knows Obama is a fascist wolf dressed as a centrist lamb.

Bush was booed by taxocrats in '05 for telling the truth during his speech, while Obama was lying through his Teleprompter.

As far as the illegal "controversy" goes, anyone who believes that illegals will somehow be barred from taking advantage of the next round of "free" entitlements deserves a giant F for FOOL branded into their forehead. Illegals are a too-important voting bloc for traitorcrats.

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

Using the letters of Obama's name to start words really has changed my point of view!

This thread is all about people who can deal with complexity and nuance, and those who can't.

Was there ever a cop-out so easy to make and so devoid of pith? I trow not. It is ever so when those pesky, nasty, mean old facts and logic end up troubling the counsels of the followers of a pied piper. The persons unable to grasp nuance and complexity in this debate are the ones who are blindly following Obama, and taking everything he says at face value. Obama is in trouble. His numbers are dropping horribly. He's lost the support of the public, and his own party is wobbling.

Last night was not a speech for the public (who he's lost). Not was it a request for Republican cooperation (which he doesn't need). Last night was a warning shot at democrats who are getting nervous at how much the public is against this vague, undefined, secretive, expensive, socialistic bill.

"The time for bickering is over..." That was aimed smack dab at his own party to shut their pie-holes, line up, ignore their angry constituants, and goose-step where he tells them to go. Obama is telling the eroding Democrats in his party anything/everything he thinks he needs to say in order to give them just enough CYA to cram his bill through over the objections of the people. In doing so he's trying to get the entire country to ignore the details. He's trying to soar his bill through with rhetoric alone, and he's hoping there are enough Obama-zombies out there to make it work without too much political blowback.

Obama's claim that the bills do not cover illegals is window dressing. There is more than enough evidence and historical precedent to lend credence to the accusation that the bill will end up covering illegals as sure as the sun rises. I'm sure Obama really BELEVES that just because it 'says it' in the bill then that means the issue has been dealt with. Actually taking the time and effort to make his bogus claims reality is for his minions and flunkies to deal with at some unknown future time...

"... And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." -Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"

An excellent commentary on the two Joe Wilsons: http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/tale-of-two-joe-wilsons-tale-of-two.html

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: There is more than enough evidence and historical precedent to lend credence to the accusation that the bill will end up covering illegals as sure as the sun rises.

It certainly appears that the bill will apply to illegals, meaning that they will be required to pay for insurance. And they will continue to pay more for more services they can't collect while propping up our economy with cheap labor. Anybody who demonizes migrant workers is either doing so to exploit them, or is completely misinformed. Stop whining about any crumbs they may get, you eat because they work the fields, say thank you.

The bills under consideration do not provide health care to anybody, it's not single payer universal plan, like civilized nations have, it's simply a mandate to pay for insurance while creating a public option which people will also have to pay for.

I don't have health insurance, have not for about a decade, I don't have the cash flow to pay the obscene costs, and even if I did, I don't trust that I would get anything for all that money. The only reason the health insurance industry has a market at all is that they sell to businesses. If they sold to people directly, the customers would look at most policies and realize they have a better than even chance of not paying when it was needed, no sane person would bite.

I have car insurance, it's legally mandated, the coverage is meaningful, and the cost is reasonable, and it's not the free market that made any of those things happen.

Illegals...

This isn't a question of 'abusing migrant workers' as you seem to believe. This is simply a matter of the US enforcing its own rule of law. Illegals should be deported the second they are identified. No questions. No excuses. Let the chips fall where they may afterwards. You seem to be basing all your arguments on what 'civilized' countries do. Therefore, since all other civilized countries enforce strict border controls and have strict laws that deport illegals - then you should be in favor of the US enforcing its own border laws, should you not?

I don't have health insurance, have not for about a decade, I don't have the cash flow to pay the obscene costs, and even if I did, I don't trust that I would get anything for all that money.

You're wrong when you say you can't afford insurance. You are paying for car insurance right now. Therefore you can also buy catastrophic medical care coverage. It's cheap - less than $60 a month. Anyone can afford that. Start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem and fit that cost in your budget right now.

Your (and everyone else's) problem is you mentally treat medical insurance in a completely different way than you treat any other kind of insurance. Life insurance, car insurance - you don't expect them to pay for routine, day-to-day crap. You accept that those insurance policies kick in only for extreme emergency situations. But for some bizarre reason you don't think that way with medical insurance. You want medical insurance to cover stubbed toes, routine check ups, broken fingers, aspirin, and anything/everything even vaguely 'medical' in nature.

Well it is time you grew up and stopped treating medical insurance like it is some sort of special exception to the insurance biz. It is an emergency plan to be used only in dire need. Basic day to day medical expenses should be paid out of your own pocket. Cowboy up, pilgrim. Buy a catastrophic medical plan today, and stop thinking that medical insurance is some sort of special dispensation.

Americans think of medical insurance as end-to-end coverage because that is how the medical insurance industry markets itself to consumers. Blame your private market.

Illegals are here because of the private market as well, and their lobbyists. The laws aren't enforced because they would hurt the bottom line of the agri-industry, and disrupt the whole food supply chain.

But I bet you blame the government or the consumer for both issues.

______________________________

It makes sense to have end to end coverage because in the long run routine checks prevent problems from exacerbating, and thus becoming more expensive.

__________________________________

The nativists in our country totally lose it if they think a chicano (citizen or not) will get any benefit, even if having such a program would ultimately help the nativist.

With swine flu and all the other recent bugs floating around, it's rather short sighted to refuse health care to mexican nationals. I don't want an epidemic to spread because some nativist barred a coughing migrant worker from a clinic.

Americans think of medical insurance as end-to-end coverage because that is how the medical insurance industry markets itself to consumers. Blame your private market.

The private market didn't create that dynamic. That particular brand of odiousness exists because of Ted Kennedy's abominable HMO bill in 1973. Before that point, insurance very much WAS treated more like auto insurance. But in 1973, any company with more than 25 employees was REQUIRED to offer employees a federally certified HMO. The government of course forced companies to offer HMOs that were 'like' the federal one - which was a plan that covered (ta da!) all medical expenses and not just catastrophic ones.

You may try to pretend otherwise - but the current insurance environment is not the result of a private-sector initiative. No sane actuary or statistician would in a million years try to run health care that way. The improper perception that consumers have today of health insurance is a result of a government spawned intrusion into what was previously a perfectly functional and affordable private market.

But I bet you blame the government or the consumer for both issues.

Like most of these kinds of things I have a tri-pronged 'blame' that I assign. #1 (most important) is government for creating the legislative environment. #2. Private industries for not being more restrained and sensible. #3. Citizens who stupidly, or selfishly try to game the system created by government & industry. NONE of these issues would exist if the government kept its big bazoo out of everyone's business.

It makes sense to have end to end coverage because in the long run routine checks prevent problems from exacerbating, and thus becoming more expensive.

Bull. Doctor visits are not 'preventative' care. Doctors are extremely reluctant to 'prescribe' common sense lifestyles. Believe me - I know. Doctors don't order you to stop smoking, drinking, over-eating, or being a couch potato. They don't 'prescribe' that you eat vegetables and exercise 6 hours a week. They don't do checkups to test how many push ups you can do or do blood tests to see how much junk food you eat.

What keeps people healthy is NOT visits to the doctor. Good health is a result of common sense lifestyle choices. Good eating, regular exercise, and proper ergonomics. None of those require a doctor.

I don't want an epidemic to spread because some nativist barred a coughing migrant worker from a clinic.

How about you DEPORT 'em so they can't infect you in the first place?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
then you should be in favor of the US enforcing its own border laws, should you not?

Since I have no interest in starving to death while the agricultural production of California rots in the fields, no, that would be a stupid idea. They subsidize our economy, not the other way around. If we did not need them so badly your argument might make sense, but reality intrudes on your little tirade.

You're wrong when you say you can't afford insurance. You are paying for car insurance right now. Therefore you can also buy catastrophic medical care coverage. It's cheap - less than $60 a month. Anyone can afford that.

So I could pay $720 a year, and have a deductible of what $20k? Sorry that's more than my entire monetizable net worth. I can't reach the deductible, so the insurance will never kick in, so its just throwing money away, and we are, of course, assuming that they would actually cover me if anything happened, which is a dubious proposition in itself.

Your (and everyone else's) problem is you mentally treat medical insurance in a completely different way than you treat any other kind of insurance. Life insurance, car insurance - you don't expect them to pay for routine, day-to-day crap.

I expect them to pay what they claim to cover, health insurance routinely does not. My GFs cousins was hired to deny coverage claims, she sits at home, gets folders full of medical records, and without seeing the patient or their physician comes up with an excuse for the company not to pay. That's not how I expect car insurance to work, I have legally mandated coverage, not some company bureaucrat sneaking loophole after loophole into an "insurance" contract which can deny just about any claim.

You accept that those insurance policies kick in only for extreme emergency situations. But for some bizarre reason you don't think that way with medical insurance.

You pulled that right out of your ass. I have no problem with the idea of emergency only coverage, I have a problem with the fact that they don't actually provide it...and then they want to charge more than getting actual service costs in countries with full service universal.

Well it is time you grew up and stopped treating medical insurance like it is some sort of special exception to the insurance biz.

Why not car insurance is? I am required to carry it, and the gov makes sure it actually covers something, that seems pretty reasonable, especially compared with the scam that is the US medical system.

It is an emergency plan to be used only in dire need. Basic day to day medical expenses should be paid out of your own pocket.

That is one option, an option which is more expensive, and less effective.

Face facts, it is simply pragmatically stupid to pay more money for worse product, and that's what the health insurance companies offer. You are free to be a fool and buy it, but don't try and keep others from buying the superior, cheaper product just because you have an ideological issue with the government actually doing something useful.

I'd also point out that the kind of insurance you're required to carry by the government is liability insurance, which doesn't cover you at all. It covers the people whose property you might damage, or the medical expenses for any injuries you cause other people.

Banks who issue auto loans usually require you to purchase collision insurance as a condition of the loan. They would probably mandate that you also do the manufacturer recommended maintenance, if they felt that a failure to do so would present a risk of destroying the value of the car before the loan is repaid.

With all insurance, they're just hoping you pay premiums and never actually make a claim. With medical insurance, it's essentially guaranteed that people will make claims, and the only variables are the size of the claims and when they occur.

If it makes you feel better to stop calling it insurance and call it something like Health Maintenance Organizations, or Medical Service Plans, or Health and Human Services, that's fine, but don't expect that everyone else will follow your lead. Most people don't get hung up about the name "insurance", but instead look at what the actual product offering is, and how well it's working.

In a larger sense, I wonder why so many people try to make utterly semantic arguments about what they think words should mean as if it is somehow grounds for changing what people actually do. It's like getting bent out of shape because someone talked about the sun rising, or referred to dialing a phone.

Since I have no interest in starving to death while the agricultural production of California rots in the fields, no, that would be a stupid idea.

The fear-based fantasy that America would starve if we enforce our immigration laws is - as always - an amusing and fascinating delusion when it manifests itself. You really and truly believe that humans are brainless puddings that can't move, think, or live unless some government plan is marching them around, don't you?

So I could pay $720 a year, and have a deductible of what $20k?

$720 a year? If you can't afford that, then you qualify for Medicaid. The most expensive HDHPs on the market have maximum out of pocket limits of $5K for singles and 11K for families. If you're SMART (like me) then you'll also have an HSA or cafeteria plan where you set aside a chunk of your income every paycheck for health expenses. Try it for a while. You'll find that it is neither difficult, nor painful as long as you plan ahead, budget sensibly, and exercise a little common sense and frugality. I know I speak truth, for I speak from experience. I've been doing this for years, and I've never once had to worry despite having a family member who experiences serious medical needs on a regular basis.

My GFs cousins was hired to deny coverage claims, she sits at home, gets folders full of medical records, and without seeing the patient or their physician comes up with an excuse for the company not to pay.

Your example here falls flat, because auto insurance and life insurance companies do the exact same thing.

Why not car insurance is? I am required to carry it, and the gov makes sure it actually covers something

Not sure why you keep implying that medical insurance companies don't actually cover anything. That's patently untrue. When a member of my family got cancer, they were given $250K of medical care and I only paid $5,000 out of my pocket. Everything else was (say it with me) COVERED! Did I have to deal with red tape and the occasional bureaucratic snafu? Sure. It happens. But this insane vision you're trying to peddle of US medical insurance covering NOTHING is just plain bunk. They may deny an OCCASIONAL claim (and often with good reason), but you are trying to say they deny ALL claims. That is absurd, and puts your basic credibility in question.

oh my lol.

So much bullshizzee in these comments.

Obamy had been wondering what to do for a while. Needed to slap down some bitches Took out his pimp hand, but also hedged his bets - (a public option isnt a deal breaker? whatevs).

He's a smart politician, and made some wiggle room for the conservative/marginal dems. The fella who called out has stained his career with moderates/libs with his silly publicity stunt, and emasculated himself in the eyes of the Rush crowd with his emphatic apology.

Twas nothing of note.

You guys should see Aussie parliament - its more tactile ("pack of lies" vs "liar") but is much more ... robust and squabblish (sp? word even?) than anything in US congress.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

40% of America is uncovered.

How much of a % do you think gets cancer?

Does this disparity strike you as wrong or right?

Uhhhh... fact check that. Something like 40 million are uninsured... which is more like 13%.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: You really and truly believe that humans are brainless puddings that can't move, think, or live unless some government plan is marching them around, don't you?

The gov really has nothing to do with how our food gets picked, except that they more or less stay out of the way. You are suggesting that they remove the only population willing to do the work at the wages offered by the market. Markets do right themselves, they do this only after the effects hit consumers. Products with long production cycles, such as agriculture, can fall to inaccessibility before the market corrects.

Strictly enforcing immigration laws in California, besides being infeasible, would bankrupt the ag industry, and force a giant federal bailout, massive price increases, and food shortages, that seems a lot more governmentally invasive than what I suggest doing, and leaving them the fuck alone, letting them work, and even collect on some of the services they are paying for.

If you can't afford that, then you qualify for Medicaid.

Oh, and that's okay? But having a similar system which covers everybody is not? Sorry you lost me there. If I am near the line, cycling in and out of Medicaid would put me in a preexisting condition death spiral pretty fast.

If you're SMART (like me) then you'll also have an HSA or cafeteria plan where you set aside a chunk of your income every paycheck for health expenses.

Ah, paycheck, I pay self employment tax, don't have the same options for write offs as you.

a little common sense and frugality.

Frugal? Really? please don't mess with me on frugal, I own my house, I have $0 in debt, I spent about $500 a month for living expenses for myself and my GF. Next.

Your example here falls flat, because auto insurance and life insurance companies do the exact same thing.

1) life insurance is a scam.
2) auto state min coverage is highly regulated in most states. If you bought up to cover your own car expect to be taken to the cleaners, my whole point is that only highly regulated insurance is worth buying.

Not sure why you keep implying that medical insurance companies don't actually cover anything. That's patently untrue.

They don't cover nothing, they do systematically not cover things which they claim to provide, and require arm twisting and lawyers to pay up. It's not that I am sure that they won't pay, that is not my contention, it's just that I'm not sure that they will, and that makes buying their policies seem like a pretty stupid move, even if it were economically feasible.

I'm happy to share risk, but I need to have some assurance that my risk will be mitigated as well, and the current system does not offer that to my satisfaction.

Strictly enforcing immigration laws in California, besides being infeasible, would bankrupt the ag industry

I don't share your pessimism. If we built a real wall instead of a flimsy fence, enforced our laws, and tossed out all the illegals then the market would simply adjust itself to the new reality. Worker visas and market innovation would take care of everything by itself.

Oh, and that's okay? But having a similar system which covers everybody is not?

No - just informing you that you ALREADY have options if you are that pathetically down and out. There is no need for a 'new' plan to cover you.

Ah, paycheck, I pay self employment tax, don't have the same options for write offs as you.

HSA medical care is always tax deductible - self employed or not. There are numerous companies who do this either through company payrolls, or by signing on to their plans as an individual citizen where you make personal deposits. If you make income, you can set up a tax-free HSA.

Frugal? Really? please don't mess with me on frugal, I own my house, I have $0 in debt, I spent about $500 a month for living expenses for myself and my GF. Next.

Cool. I also own my house and have zero debt. Good feeling, isn't it? I fail to see how you can own a home, have zero debt, only $500 a month in total living expenses, and yet still claim to be unable to afford a measely $60 a month for medical insurance.

2) auto state min coverage is highly regulated in most states. If you bought up to cover your own car expect to be taken to the cleaners, my whole point is that only highly regulated insurance is worth buying.

Boy - you REALLY don't know much about medical insurance do you? If you are running around operating under the delusion that health insurance is not the most tightly regulated industry in the United States, then this conversation is pretty pointless because you're entire mental frame of reference is in some alternate dimension that only you occupy.

They don't cover nothing, they do systematically not cover things which they claim to provide

This is completely untrue. Are there exceptions? Sure, but they are the exception and not the norm. You have a completely opposite perspective of what really happens. I've had medical insurance for the past 22 years, and in that entire 264 months I have had ONE time when insurance denied a claim. I spent a grand total of about ten minutes on the phone, and bingo it was covered.

And I'm not some singular case. The vast majority of health insurance users are perfectly happy with thier plans. Study after study shows that everyone is getting along just jim-dandy. Your apocalyptic visions of 'routinely denied' care are nothing more than your warped perception of reality. You are focusing on outliers, and calling it the majority. You are cherry-picking the exceptions, and trying to portray them as the rule. What you THINK is happening just isn't true.

You can say I'm wrong if you want, but the statistics prove that I'm correct. All you have is your opinions, and anecdotal stories that you have heard 3rd hand from people that no one has met. What is more, you have personally admitted that you are NOT a member of an insurance policy and you never have been. Your credibility is nil because you quite simply don't know what you're talking about because you AREN'T involved in the system.

You're like a guy who has never built an airplane in his life who thinks airplanes always crash because all you ever see is news stories of crashing planes. How about you stop basing your opinions on rumors, exaggerations and anecdotes and actually try flying the plane for a while?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:and yet still claim to be unable to afford a measely $60 a month for medical insurance.

So you suggest that my GF and I each increase our monthly income/expenses by 30% to purchase a policy which, due to not being able to pay the deductible, we will never be able to collect on in the case of emergency? Do I need to reexplain why this would be stupid?

I spent a grand total of about ten minutes on the phone, and bingo it was covered.

Lucky you. I have at least three friends who have had to spend days arguing to get polices to pay for their parents, who, due to their conditions, where not able to do it for themselves. Perhaps they were initially denied because they meet demographics for people who don't fight. That would be a pretty effective cost cutting strategy, it would not be a good way to convince me that they offer coverage I want to buy.

I have also seen, also second hand, the functioning of the Canadian medical system, hell I payed for it while I lived there for two years. I would pay for a system like that in a minute, probably for about what you are suggesting I pay for coverage I could never collect on.

You are focusing on outliers, and calling it the majority.

No, I focus on outliers because insurance is ABOUT focusing on outliers. Remember I don't expect to get hit by a bus, in all likelihood I will not. To sell me insurance you need to do three things:

1) Convince me that outliers happen, and that I should do something to protect myself.
2) Convince me that you offer a service which is the best way to protect myself.
3) Convince me that if I pay you I will be protected if I ever become an outlier.

The last two criteria have not been met.

Your credibility is nil because you quite simply don't know what you're talking about because you AREN'T involved in the system.

Neither of us has downed a glass of bleach, that does not make us incompetent to comment in the utility of such action.

You pay into this system. If doing so is stupid, as I assert, then you are acting stupidly, You have as much a vested interest in defending your action as I have in defending mine.

Look, you want an open market in health insurance, so deal with the fact that the market needs to:

1) convince me they offer something I want -- fail
2) provide it at a price point which does not exceed my valuation of it -- fail
3) provide it at a price I can afford -- fail

You also need to deal with the fact that buying insurance has opportunity costs. Making enough money to pay for meaningful coverage would probably require me working somewhere other than my house. Add a daily commute to my schedule and the probability of me becoming an outlier jumps considerably. Creating the conditions whereby I join the insurance pool constitutes a significant risk to my wellbeing.

So you suggest that my GF and I each increase our monthly income/expenses by 30% to purchase a policy which, due to not being able to pay the deductible, we will never be able to collect on in the case of emergency? Do I need to reexplain why this would be stupid?

For major medical costs, what would you prefer? To owe $6,000 or so in deductibles or $200,000 for the fully monty? Do I need to reexplain why you'd have to be totally stupid to willfully choose to not have catastrophic medical insurance?

Lucky you. I have at least three friends who have had to spend days arguing to get polices to pay for their parents, who, due to their conditions, where not able to do it for themselves.

And I personally know literally hundreds of co-workers, friends, family members, and associates who have never had a single trouble in getting medical coverage. EVER. Playing duelling banjos over anecdotes is pointless. I rest my case on the statistics. Over 86% of this country is perfectly satisfied with their medical coverage. You CANNOT get those kinds of numbers if the problems you have imagined in your head are as rampant and wide-spread as you are claiming.

The last two criteria have not been met.

Yes they have for over 86% of the country. You - for some reason - are stubbornly refusing to accept the factual demonstration of that reality. That's your choice. It is unfortunate that your inaction that results from your delusion is burdening the rest of society though.

You also need to deal with the fact that buying insurance has opportunity costs. Making enough money to pay for meaningful coverage would probably require me working somewhere other than my house. Add a daily commute to my schedule and the probability of me becoming an outlier jumps considerably. Creating the conditions whereby I join the insurance pool constitutes a significant risk to my wellbeing.

Well - not to put to fine a point on it - but what is working in your house doing for you? Not much, by your own admission because you claim that you are too poor to even pay $60 a month for major medical. Getting a job with a commute might increase your travel expenses... But - you know - it just MIGHT increase your monthly income to the point where you don't have to worry about it. You're right. Everything has an opportunity cost. What is the opportunity cost of your working at home at a low-paying job? How much earning income have you 'given up' to be that poor?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: To owe $6,000 or so in deductibles or $200,000 for the fully monty?

So, now you are claiming I will be an outlier. I refer you to your own response to that argument.

And I personally know literally hundreds of co-workers, friends, family members, and associates who have never had a single trouble in getting medical coverage. EVER.

And I personally know literally hundreds of people who have never needed it. This argument is also a wash.

Yes they have for over 86% of the country.

So anything that 86% of the population believes is right? Need I list all the stupid things most people do? You have probably posted such a list here at some point yourself.

It is unfortunate that your inaction that results from your delusion is burdening the rest of society though.

Your commute puts a burden on the rest of society. You are putting others in harms way as a consequence of your decision(delusion?) that you should drive a ton+ of steel at hight speed down an asphalt byway twice a day. All decisions have externalized costs, in all likelihood my life has fewer than yours.

Your apparent outrage at the "burden" I place on society sounds like a call for imposed universal coverage if ever I heard one. You want "freedom", but you are offended that I use mine. I don't want it either, I'm just not willing to volunteer for the system as it currently exists.

Well - not to put to fine a point on it - but what is working in your house doing for you?

Oh, where to begin.. I:

- have free time coming out my ass.
- have an exposure to automotive health risks at least an order of magnitude lower than average.
- can pay all my bills.
- have no debt.
- don't have a boss.
- do something I enjoy.

Getting a job with a commute might increase your travel expenses... But - you know - it just MIGHT increase your monthly income to the point where you don't have to worry about it.

That's the thing, I don't have to worry about it, I don't need another red cent than I have, I don't expose myself to risk unnecessarily.

You have exposed yourself to risk, and then decided to mitigate that risk by paying somebody who promises to take care of you in spite of your decision to put yourself in harms way. I have simply elected not to put myself in as much risk.

How much earning income have you 'given up' to be that poor?

How much freedom have you 'given up' for more money? You want money, I don't, I want my time. I address my risks in a different way than you do, but that does not mean that my non-insurance-mitigated risk is, on balance, greater than your insurance-mitigated risk.

So, now you are claiming I will be an outlier.

You are saying that you don't want to pay for major medical insurance because you can't/won't pay for the $5,000 or so in deductibles before it kicks in. All I'm saying is that if you ever have an accident or need a lot of medical treatment, then having that policy would mean the difference between you having to pay $5,000 (affordable) or $200,000+ (unaffordable). Which would you prefer?

So anything that 86% of the population believes is right? Need I list all the stupid things most people do? You have probably posted such a list here at some point yourself.

It proves beyond argument that your motivations for remaining 'insuranceless' are groundless. Your fear that you would 'not be covered' is untrue, because the vast majority of people are covered and are perfectly satisfied. No one can help you if your expecations are unrealistic though. That is YOUR problem, not 'the system'.

Your commute puts a burden on the rest of society.

Which is why USAA (my auto insurance) gives me a $75 per quarter 'Safe Driver' discount, I guess. I'd love to telecommute though, but that just doesn't work really.

You want "freedom", but you are offended that I use mine. I don't want it either, I'm just not willing to volunteer for the system as it currently exists.

I wholeheartedly support your freedom to be a selfish, unthinking jackass. But you have no right to complain about suffering the consequences of being selfish, unthinking jackass. You have chosen not to participate in the system, even though you can afford to pay. Now you're whining that medical care costs too much without insurance. You made that bed. If you find the accomodations uncomfortable, then look in the mirror.

That's the thing, I don't have to worry about it, I don't need another red cent than I have, I don't expose myself to risk unnecessarily.

In short, you're lazy, a coward, and don't want to grow up and be a more productive member of society. You aren't exactly building a case where anyone who actually works for a living will sympathize for you...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
It proves beyond argument that your motivations for remaining 'insuranceless' are groundless.

I do not concede that facts are determined by popular opinion.

But you have no right to complain about suffering the consequences of being selfish, unthinking jackass.

I'm not complaining. I don't want health insurance, I mitigate my risks in other ways. It does not follow that I should support the US maintaining an expensive and inefficient system when the evidence is in from around the world that it can be done better for less.

Now you're whining that medical care costs too much without insurance.

Medical care in the US is too expensive, with or without insurance, because the method we use to deliver it is grossly inefficient, stating these facts does not constitute whining.

and don't want to grow up and be a more productive member of society.

You assume that making money = being productive. You suppose that whatever people pay you for contributes to society, I make no such assumption. It's obvious that many socially and culturally productive activities can be done without renumeration, and that many remunerated activities are not only nonproductive, but destructive.

You presume I don't contribute simply because I don't demand payment. I could just as easily assume that you don't contribute because you do demand payment.

History Lesson: Democrats didn't bat an eye when Rep. Pete Stark called President Bush a liar on the House floor... Twice... In the same speech. (Fox Nation) wwlaveck

UPDATE

Well well - now we see both why Wilson wants to call Obama a liar and why Obama thinks he isn't lying...

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/obama-ties-immigration-to-health-care-battle/?feat=home_cube_position1

Yeah - Obama knows his plan will cover people who are CURRENTLY illegal aliens - but he isn't a liar because he's just going to give them all amnesty and make them citizens. :eyeroll: What a douche.

Obama is a liar in the truest sense of political speech... Great article on his general slipperiness. Obama hides his intentions behind half truths, rhetoric, and technicalities. To quote Obama, "He's a jackass."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091703329_pf.html