:tinfoilhat:
its funny that you dont believe it because its actually not bullshit ive been looking up his claims for the last few hours and hes right on all of them so far. its easy to laugh when u dont read the bill. And yes we will provide care to illegal aliens, this has been known long before this video came out.
Who are you Joe Wilson? That shit was debunked by every major news source except Fox News the minute he said it.
I can’t seem to find it, but I’ve quoted the actual verbiage from the bill that specifically excludes illegal immigrants. I don’t know why people act like this stuff is some mystery that average people can’t read. It’s a bill written in english. In big text no less! In a searchable PDF! :lol:
Because idiots are lazy and depend to be spoonfed information from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/919578.html
Wonder where they’ll go once we pass our reforms? Might be a great new business model for that fancy airport in Niagara Falls. Offer cheap flights for US and Canadian citizens to a country where they can get the treatments they need.
or from MSNBC and Keith Olbermann? :walter:
Eh I don’t think it’s because people are lazy or stupid. I think some people are just willing to assume whatever false reality is necessary to support their opinions.
For instance, this section really does exist in the bill:
[/FONT]
[SIZE=2]But people will still claim that we will be funding healthcare for illegal aliens.[FONT=DeVinne]
[/FONT][/SIZE]
There are two bills still out there.
They will have to vote again on the final bill, we will what is in there.
They know we are The United States of ADD, they will vote on the final bill late at night while we are distracted by the latest video game or Hollywood buzz.
This reminds me to make my rant on how much I hate USPS… I bet I’d hate universal health care just as much if there ever came a point where I had to use it.
The argument that this will cover illegal aliens doesn’t come from the language of the bill at all, but from Supreme Court precedence.
Here is a quick read:
"In the late 1970s, the State of Texas enacted legislation that denied a public school education to the children of illegal immigrants and denied state aid to municipalities that attempted to educate those children. Many illegal immigrants filed suit and all of the cases made their way to the Supreme Court. In a landmark ruling, that most lawyers know about, and that every professor of constitutional law knows about, called Plyler vs. Doe (1982), the Court ordered Texas to make the same education available to illegal immigrants as it does to citizens. In so doing, the Court held that: (a) the Constitution protects “persons;” and (b) persons are citizens as well as strangers, people born here and people who end up here, people here lawfully and people here unlawfully; and © in the area of social services, whatever benefits the government makes available to the general public cannot be kept away from a class of persons based on their immigration status or that of their parents.
It is because of this ruling that Proposition 187 in California, which attempted to do via a referendum what Texas attempted to do via legislation, was invalidated. It is clear from the broad language in the Plyler case that providing an education is in the same class of social benefits as providing health care." (LINK)
So the bill can have whatever language in it that they want, and even explicitly deny coverage for illegal aliens, but in the end it wouldn’t matter.
Now this only really applies if the bill gets passed with a public option and gets challenged in the Supreme Court. The court could go against precedence in this potential case, but that’s unlikely given the current composition of the court.
Finally something worth reading to chew on.
So the above says that per the supreme court it is unconstitutional to deny social services to illegal aliens.
So the verbiage in the bill denying healthcare credits to illegals is unconstitutional.
So ultimately illegals will benefit from any and all health care in this country regardless of what any individual bill says, unless the constitution is ammended.
That’s really interesting, in that it both proves my argument that this bill won’t provide healthcare for illegals wrong while at the same time rendering the arugment moot.
:eyebrow:
^How hard is it to just make them all legal? :gotme:
“No illegals will get healthcare” may mean nothing.
I just heard that that if you are in a union you will not have to pay the “cadillac plan tax”. If this true I may finally go off the deep end but for now I won’t because I heard it on FauxNews Channel. If they do try to pull this off…
from what I understand they raised the dollar amount before the Cadillac plan tax kicks in.
so it’s a typical fox news half truth since it’s not an exemption for unions, but it is a change that will benefit many middle class union members and was done to appease the unions.
Do you know what the numbers are? I am wondering if it will affect my company.
peter schiff does an amazing job of explaining what happens when government involves itself in health care…http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9523
Great video. He really explains it very well.
an interesting view from the outside (BBC news) at how dumb americans are:
I LOL’d at
“It’s like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.”
Why do people often vote against their own interests?
Angry opponents of the health care reform during a townhall meeting
Americans voicing their anger at the healthcare proposals at a “town hall meeting”
The Republicans’ shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.
Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Last year, in a series of “town-hall meetings” across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama’s proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?
Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called “the paranoid style” of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
Michael West
Drew Westen argues that stories rather than facts convince voters
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: “Under the governor’s plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he’s modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries.”
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
“I’m beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It’s fuzzy math. It’s trying to scare people in the voting booth.”
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
“Obama’s administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans’ Depression, caused by the Bush administration’s ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.”
Reverse revolution
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What’s The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.
He believes that the voters’ preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America’s poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank
Thomas Frank thinks that voters have become blinded to their real interests
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
“It’s like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.”
As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.
This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: ‘But we’re doing this for you’, that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.
Canadian Premier travels to U.S. for heart surgery:
"Those who tout the creation of a single-payer health care system in the United States point to the system in Canada as the model for one that would be fair and available to all. Unfortunately not everyone in Canada shares that opinion.
It seems that Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, is coming to the United States for life-saving heart surgery. The spectacle of a prominent Canadian politician, a stout defender of the government-run health care system in Canada, opting out of that same system is rather too glaring not to notice."
“It’s not like we lack the medical knowledge and technology and science to provide these things — we just don’t have a system that allows our providers to meet market demands. Our ban on private finance and our ban on competitive for-profit delivery of publicly funded goods and services is a huge barrier to doing those things, to providing for the needs of Canadian patients.”
Found this while browsing Google news. More fuel for the fire.
Well I suppose that would be relevant if anyone had proposed a single-payer system but since they haven’t…super?