Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Cairnius wrote:I guess I want my facts somewhere else. I want motivation and leadership from my President, which is always going to involve anger where it's warranted, a pep rally where it's needed, and a nice speech when it's due.
If this were "independence day", where we are being attacked by ruthless aliens, I'm all for motivational speeches. However he was addressing congress and the nation about health care reform. Give me truthful facts. Not a theatrical performance. That's all I'm sayin'.
Well, we agree on some things but not on others C. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I didn't vote for Obama because I didn't feel he would be a good president. From what he is proposing, in my opinion, is not going to help this country one iota. In 3 years he will again most likely not get my vote if he decides to run a second time.
I don't believe in welfare or gun bans or supporting illegals and being a Dem it's what he will do or try to do in the case of guns. Billary Clinton did it (see what I did there? LOL) so I'm not convinced Obama won't try it as well.
So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
The best way to unfeth this economy. Drop welfare. You either survive on your own or you don't survive. You don't like the idea of paying for someones medical care because they refuse to get it if offered. I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
How is paying for someone to get a flu shot any different or worse than what we, as tax payers, already pay for in this country? The HCRB only covers up the real issue, it doesn't solve it or even try to solve it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/10 21:44:13
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Fateweaver wrote: 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
I know this is going a bit off topic but do you have proof of this phenomenon?
Fateweaver wrote:The best way to unfeth this economy. Drop welfare. You either survive on your own or you don't survive. You don't like the idea of paying for someones medical care because they refuse to get it if offered. I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
Show me evidence of a "welfare mom" doing this. Seriously. Have you ever been around welfare recipients? They're friggin' poor.
Besides, welfare isn't nearly the biggest or most expensive issue out there.
Cairnius wrote:
Well, usually when I am talking about one thing and someone else answers with a response to something totally different and unrelated to what I was saying, like you just did twice up there, it's usually my wife and she's had a bad day and she's just not thinking very rationally which is why she's responding to what I'm saying like she's actually speaking to someone else in some other conversation who she is hearing when I'm talking instead of actually hearing what I'm saying.
And yet more evidence towards your inability to appreciate a diverse set of perspectives. There are other parties to a conversation besides you, and they all have distinct motivations.
Cairnius wrote:
So, I asked if someone had hurt your feelings or something today as that's usually what's wrong with my wife when she gets like that...as far as I know you're not female else I'd ask if you were having your monthly visitor or something, the next most likely explanation.
Of course the motivation for that action has little to do with the fact that her feelings were hurt, but rather than she doesn't feel the need to engage with whatever it is you're saying. In the case of your wife that impulse is derived from a feeling of slight, in the case of Ahtman it appears to be derived from the notion that the point he's attempting to express has nothing to do with the actual line of your reasoning, but its acceptance of contested premises as canon.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Fateweaver wrote:
I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
That doesn't happen. You can't afford gak nothing on welfare. If people buy (rent to own) that stuff its gone within a month. To even qualify for food stamps, you have to be making under $22,000 a year (for a household of four). That's making $393 a week to clothe and house 4 people. Welfare doesn't make people rich man. If you think that, you be playin a fool.
Fateweaver wrote:
I know I'll have people retort with their OPINION about how good for the country a socialist, I mean national health care reform bill, will be but please save your left wing rhetoric for some illegal alien coming across the borders because he'll have a better living than I will PLUS health care.
Why would he/she have healthcare? The notion that illegals will be insured under this program is one of the most fallacious arguments out there.
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I only have myself as proof. It is not anecdotal, it is true fact. I live in a state (Minnesota) where being on welfare is something to be proud of.
I do know people like this. The more kids you have the more you get and it is not proportional to the kids you have. Also, WIC allows parents, single or not, to obtain 95% of the name brand foods on the shelf, foods I can't afford to eat.
I'm sure it's not like this in all 50 states but I have proof unfortunately because some of my aunts live like this. Minnesota is a liberal state and that means, here in Minnesota anyway, the illegals and lazies get to live better than I do.
Mn welfare system says you are REQUIRED to look for a job but that's a crock of gak way of saying "If you apply once a year for a job at McDonalds we won't take your welfare and food stamps from you". It's an ultimatum but one enforced with as much enthusiasm as being assigned to watch paint dry.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Fateweaver wrote: You either survive on your own or you don't survive.
No one survives on their own a social system. That entire premise is intrinsically flawed.
Fateweaver wrote:
I do know people like this. The more kids you have the more you get and it is not proportional to the kids you have. Also, WIC allows parents, single or not, to obtain 95% of the name brand foods on the shelf, foods I can't afford to eat.
If you can't afford name brand foods I find it extremely unlikely that you actually pay income taxes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/10 21:58:07
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kilkrazy wrote:When you drop welfare, will you start with the banking bailout, the car industry bailout, the Freddie Mac bailout, or the farming industry bailout?
I will have a shake, and a chicken sandwich with an order of fries... Hello? Hmm, this restaurant seems to be politically affiliated for some reason...
Dogma wrote:No one survives on their own a social system. That entire premise is intrinsically flawed.
Yep... that about sums it up right tharr... pass the rum, this whole pirating thing sucks major cannonballs...
If you can't afford name brand foods I find it extremely unlikely that you actually pay income taxes.
Brand name sushi? Hmm... this may be a pretty neat... omg that is rank...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/10 22:02:47
Fateweaver wrote:
I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
That doesn't happen. You can't afford gak nothing on welfare. If people buy (rent to own) that stuff its gone within a month. To even qualify for food stamps, you have to be making under $22,000 a year (for a household of four). That's making $393 a week to clothe and house 4 people. Welfare doesn't make people rich man. If you think that, you be playin a fool.
I live in a state where it does happen. One of my aunts is not married, has 3 kids at home, her and her bf sit around smoking weed (not selling it as I know they don't deal it), they live in a new house, drive a car that's only a couple of years old and twice per month when she gets the money into her EBT account hits Wal-mart and will buy $500-600 worth of groceries at one time. You be playin' a fool if you think it doesn't happen.
Don't even get me started on the minorities in this state. LOL.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Fateweaver wrote: 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
I know this is going a bit off topic but do you have proof of this phenomenon?
I have never heard of your scenario.
It's a little urban legend Reagan and co. cooked up...the "welfare queen" who kept having kids so she could get rich on welfare. She supposedly drove a Cadillac, etc. It was rhetorically clever (if disgusting) in that it played on prejudices, etc. without doing it overtly. Anyway, everyone "knew" these welfare queens existed, but no one could ever find one.
Someone wrote a book debunking it and won a Pulitzer.
Edit: Apparently we're told Minnesota is a giant welfare state in which this happens, even though the economics of that don't make any sense. In which case the answer is giving MN to Canada.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/10 22:04:28
Holy hell, this thread exploded! I haven't even had a chance to read it all! I wasn't going to post, simply because this seems like a thread that is everyone against one person who just won't listen to reason, but I do have one question, and I apologize in advance if this has been brought up already. Cairnius, since you so wholeheartedly support and worship our president, and you seem like someone who is genuinely concerned about health care reform, why have I not seen your anger and rage directed toward a major problem that WON'T be fixed by any of the current plans, namely tort reform? Do you realize how big of an impact lawsuits, mostly by ambulance chasing lawyers, have on the cost of health care? Do you realize that because President Obama and his wife, and not to mention many members of the Democratic party have extremely close ties with trial lawyers? Don't you think things like this, which are much simpler and could be free to fix, deserve attention to?
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
Its important to note a single payer system is not the same thing as public option. Under a single payer system it is possible that illegals would covered by the plan; depending on how it was administered (one that depended on physician claim reports, for example). However, Obama didn't propose a single payer system. He alluded to one, but didn't support it.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
Its important to note a single payer system is not the same thing as public option. Under a single payer system it is possible that illegals would covered by the plan; depending on how it was administered (one that depended on physician claim reports, for example). However, Obama didn't propose a single payer system. He alluded to one, but didn't support it.
Well in the state of California, and in other states I am sure, illegals can get a driver's license, which is a legal form of ID, and can therefore count for registration. They have access to social programs here, even though they don't pay taxes...
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
Fateweaver wrote: You either survive on your own or you don't survive.
No one survives on their own a social system. That entire premise is intrinsically flawed.
It is not flawed. You work a job, buy a house, own a car, get health/med insurance if you can afford it. If you refuse to do any of those things on your own you suffer. My family has never gotten handouts of any kind, even when my dad was out of work for a while and my mom was just a SAHM. It was tough. To say you can't survive without the gov't helping you is BS.
Fateweaver wrote:
I do know people like this. The more kids you have the more you get and it is not proportional to the kids you have. Also, WIC allows parents, single or not, to obtain 95% of the name brand foods on the shelf, foods I can't afford to eat.
If you can't afford name brand foods I find it extremely unlikely that you actually pay income taxes.
Okay, I meant years ago WIC was not something to be proud of and years ago it mostly got you the generic foods and nothing fancy. Now it gets 95% of the foods on the shelf. WIC is a joke worst than welfare. How does making $4k/month with 1 kid allow a family to get 8 gallons of milk for free every month or up to 24 boxes of cereal a month for free?
As far as the bank and car bailouts are concerned I didn't support them. The money for AIG bailout should have gone to every tax payer in the country. That would have done a lot more for the economy than getting some bank out of hot water. The cars for clunkers program is also a joke.
Of
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
I will freely admit I do not have a copy of the House Bill and cannot back that up. But I trust this individual.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Fateweaver wrote:I live in a state where it does happen. One of my aunts is not married, has 3 kids at home, her and her bf sit around smoking weed (not selling it as I know they don't deal it), they live in a new house, drive a car that's only a couple of years old and twice per month when she gets the money into her EBT account hits Wal-mart and will buy $500-600 worth of groceries at one time. You be playin' a fool if you think it doesn't happen.
Don't even get me started on the minorities in this state. LOL.
I be playing the fool indeed, and with quite a bit of grace and majes... OH CRAP STAIRS!!! goddamit...
Dude that argument is about as stale as the bread the Corsican Brothers used to break their way out of jail... But yes, please continue with the rest of your diatribe against the poorest and most unfortunate people in our society. We all know that your state represents the VAST and overwhelming majority, and regardless of the validity of the points you make, the punch behind that is really quite strong... in a sort of, a kind of, a bit of a meaningless way.
Well rocks totally fly sometimes when they are falling, and all rocks fall sooner or later... so the laws of physics must apply to the... wait, I heard something about juice and cookies? I would like some juice please... thank you. This delicious point of juice aside, I do think you are obviously arguing a very unreliable point, with little to no ground to stand on but the immediate and more importantly, directly reflective of your life situation, rather that a scope worth proper anticipation, precipitation, procrastination... got a bit carried away with the pumpkin there... sorry.
Fateweaver wrote:How does making $4k/month with 1 kid allow a family to get 8 gallons of milk for free every month or up to 24 boxes of cereal a month for free?
Is the answer agricultural subsidies? I feel lucky today!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/10 22:18:52
Fateweaver wrote: 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
I know this is going a bit off topic but do you have proof of this phenomenon?
I have never heard of your scenario.
It's a little urban legend Reagan and co. cooked up...the "welfare queen" who kept having kids so she could get rich on welfare. She supposedly drove a Cadillac, etc. It was rhetorically clever (if disgusting) in that it played on prejudices, etc. without doing it overtly. Anyway, everyone "knew" these welfare queens existed, but no one could ever find one.
Someone wrote a book debunking it and won a Pulitzer.
Edit: Apparently we're told Minnesota is a giant welfare state in which this happens, even though the economics of that don't make any sense. In which case the answer is giving MN to Canada.
I have first hand evidence of this happening. As I said, don't even start me on the minorities and how well they live in this state. You only have your states welfare laws to go by. Every state is different. Mn is suffering because of the stupid amount of welfare handed out and the stupid amount of people on it. What is keeping this state afloat is the taxes that the Mall of America brings into this state. It brings in $2-3B annually from taxes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I concede. Apparently my eyes deceive me because it is what it is when I see it daily and I have family that are abusing the welfare system but apparently numbers pulled from websites and OTHER states welfare reports trump what I witness first hand.
Ah well. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I was just asking politely someone why they don't mind the current welfare system but have a problem with paying for someone else who has strep throat or a broken arm.
Minnesota is a liberal welfare state. Any number of sources will tell you that much. Believe it or not, I don't care. Apparently I lie and the interwebs are right. I'm out of here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/10 22:21:55
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well in the state of California, and in other states I am sure, illegals can get a driver's license, which is a legal form of ID, and can therefore count for registration. They have access to social programs here, even though they don't pay taxes...
The people that generally utilize social programs don't pay taxes either. At least not the taxes that fund the programs. To a certain extent we just have to accept that there will a given amount of 'bleed' caused by the presence of illegals. Obviously we should attempt to minimize this (how we should do that is more up in the air), but objecting to the notion of healthcare reform because we might pay for people who aren't citizens/permanent residents/temporary residents doesn't really jive with the current situation.
All that said, I can't imagine that we would have to allow illegals to access the system as there are means already in place to prevent them from doing so. Though there are certainly programs floating around that don't take such measures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
I will freely admit I do not have a copy of the House Bill and cannot back that up. But I trust this individual.
Yeah, I'm seeing it now. Technically illegals would be able to obtain coverage as they are not strictly prohibited from doing so, but I find it unlikely there would be many of them on the program as I can't see it being as simple as raising your hand and asking for insurance once the program is implemented (especially given the need to prove that you are not otherwise insured).
If you're interested its here staring on page 72 and ending on page 76.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:
Okay, I meant years ago WIC was not something to be proud of and years ago it mostly got you the generic foods and nothing fancy.
Cheating the system has become a culturally celebrated ability. This is not something which is limited to welfare recipients.
Fateweaver wrote:
Now it gets 95% of the foods on the shelf. WIC is a joke worst than welfare. How does making $4k/month with 1 kid allow a family to get 8 gallons of milk for free every month or up to 24 boxes of cereal a month for free?
They don't spend money on healthcare, which is part of what WIC is meant to fund.
Fateweaver wrote:
As far as the bank and car bailouts are concerned I didn't support them. The money for AIG bailout should have gone to every tax payer in the country. That would have done a lot more for the economy than getting some bank out of hot water.
Actually, it probably wouldn't have. The 2600 dollars doesn't go a long way when people are losing their jobs in droves due to the absence of credit.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/10 23:00:07
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Health care is a FINITE resource, meaning the more give to those who are not working, the less there is left over for me and my family.
The more taken up by illegals either through abuse of the E.R. or through some sort of universal coverage, the less there is for me.
I work hard to give my family gold plated coverage, you want the same as me, good work 60-70 hours a week and you'll get there.
Oh and don't spend all the money you make because someday you will lose your job and its a good idea to have savings. And no an adjustable rate ARM is not a good idea.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
I will freely admit I do not have a copy of the House Bill and cannot back that up. But I trust this individual.
Forward this analysis to them. I'm curious what they say.
We suspect it's rare that the president gets heckled during a speech to a joint session of Congress, but Rep. Joe Wilson didn't hold back.
"You lie!" shouted the South Carolina Republican. This was in response to President Barack Obama's statements on illegal immigrants.
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants," Obama said. "This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
So who's right here? Wilson or Obama?
Incidentally, Wilson apologized for the outburst after the speech, but said he still disagreed with Obama's statement.
We've been monitoring claims about health care reform and illegal immigrants for some time now. Most notably, a chain e-mail claimed that page 50 of the House bill gave free health care to illegal immigrants. That page didn't say that. Rather, it included a generic nondiscrimination clause that said insurers may not discriminate with regard to "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." So we rated the chain e-mail's claim Pants on Fire.
We read all 1,000-plus pages of the health care bill and were struck by the fact that it is largely silent on health care for illegal immigrants. Keep in mind that experts estimated there were 6.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States in 2007, out of a total of 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Right now, there are laws on the books that require hospitals to treat severely ill people who arrive at the hospital, regardless of immigration status, and we didn't see anything that would change those laws, either.
Most illegal immigrants are also now excluded from Medicaid, the government-run health care for the poor. We didn't see anything that would change that.
One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for "affordability credits." These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.
Still, given all that, we have heard from people who said that other aspects of reform could benefit illegal immigrants.
One of the most detailed responses was from the anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform, called FAIR. You can read their statement on the matter on their Web site.
Primarily, they argue that illegal immigrants would be permitted to purchase insurance on the national health insurance exchange because the bill does not include a mechanism for verifying citizenship. So illegal immigrants would have the chance to purchase insurance in the public option, a government-run health care plan that would offer basic coverage at a low price.
FAIR also argues for more robust verification measures for the affordability credit and making sure that illegal immigrant parents won't be able to receive coverage if their citizen children are eligible.
FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange. We don't see anything in the bills that would hinder that. A Congressional Research Service report issued Aug. 25, 2009, confirmed our observation. The House bill "does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange—whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently," the report said.
But it's worth pointing out that illegal immigrants participating in the exchange would be paying for their insurance like everyone else. That's similar to the current system -- we're not aware of any particular restrictions that stop illegal immigrants from buying private insurance now. Under health care reform, illegal immigrants would be able to buy private insurance or the public option.
When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants. We hope to look at this issue more in the days ahead, because some hospitals are particularly concerned about recouping their costs for treating illegal immigrants, and we're curious to know more about that problem and how it might or might not be solved by reform.
The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option -- if it passes, and it might not -- on the new health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost. Obama's said "the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," which Wilson said was a "lie." Actually, Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn't apply to those here illegally. We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied." We rate Wilson's statement False.
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
generalgrog wrote:If this were "independence day", where we are being attacked by ruthless aliens, I'm all for motivational speeches. However he was addressing congress and the nation about health care reform. Give me truthful facts. Not a theatrical performance. That's all I'm sayin'.
I agree with you in principle...I just don't call that a theatrical performance. That's not what it was. He wasn't emotional at all...I actually find Obama rather reasoned and cold in his speeches. He may get "stern" at times but that's about it. He gives very professional speeches. They're inspiring but not schmaltzy. I think he said precisely what he had to say - here's what I want to get done, enough with the bs. It was exactly what needed to be said.
"Success is moving from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Cliff Bleszinski
It's been mathmatically shown that spreading the money used to bail out AIG amongst every legal taxpayer in the country would have amounted to everyone getting over $100k/per person.
$100k would have paid off my house, bought me a new car (or nice used one) and maybe allowed me to go shopping thus stimulating the economy more.
AIG bailout only allowed it's shareholders to reap benefits and of course the execs got millions each even though they failed as a business. Really crappy to reward failure by bailing a company out and then still allowing the execs to walk away with millions.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Fateweaver wrote:So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
What I meant to say was this: there are people who have the money to purchase health care, but they choose not to because they don't want to spend it. These are people with discretionary income at their disposal. I am saying that if someone has discretionary income and they CHOOSE not to purchase health care then I have absolutely zero problem with forcing them, by law, to purchase health care for themselves because otherwise I'm paying for their stupid asses when they go to the hospital. They're fething me on account of being irresponsible, so I have no problem with, from their perspective, the government fething them.
People need to take responsibility for themselves, and stop suckling off the government teat.
Fateweaver wrote:The best way to unfeth this economy. Drop welfare. ...I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
How is paying for someone to get a flu shot any different or worse than what we, as tax payers, already pay for in this country? The HCRB only covers up the real issue, it doesn't solve it or even try to solve it.
I have always felt that welfare should be attached to honest effort to find work, or rather perhaps we can put people to work in order to earn welfare checks. In a lot of cases, we're looking a physically-able people who could be taught some kind of manual labor skill and perform work for thier money. There's plenty of work to be done around here...
No offense, but if you're going to start quoting percentages and fractions of where your taxes go, that's not difficult information to come by. First, taxes are not 1/3 of your income. No one without a LOT of income pays 33%. You're likely paying 25% at the most between State and Federal if you live in a tax-heavy State like Mass. where I'm from - but if I were to make some deductions based on your statements you don't sound like a member of the upper class who is swimming in money, no offense, so you're not losing 1/3 of your income to taxes.
I believe that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security comprise the largest portion of the Federal budget, without going to look it up again, so that would be the majority of where your tax dollars are spent.
The real issue, if you will, might be that not enough people can make enough money to purchase health care, and that is, indeed, a larger issue of having moved as a nation from a production economy to a service economy when service jobs can be easily outsourced. America no longer really has any industries other than the arms industry within which we are "brand leader." Anything we can do besides produce weapons someone else can do just as well or better.
Perhaps if we got back to building things we could start more companies, hire more workers, earn more money and everyone could afford to purchase health care and we wouldn't need anything but private insurance companies, though things like making it illegal for insurance companies to cancel your insurance due to illness just makes sense. You've paid into the system to get that insurance. The insurance company runs the risk of actually having to pay out for your health care. Tough gak if they don't like it, they should stop being a health insurance company if they don't want to pay for their clients' medical care. There would still be work to do per regulation even if we remained a 100% private insurance system for all time. The companies are literally getting away with murder on a regular basis.
"Success is moving from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Cliff Bleszinski
fateweaver wrote:
So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
Rhetoric much?
I suppose its unfair that you probably have to get auto insurance too. After all you're a safe driver so you should be exempt. So you can spend more money at the pub. My great great grandfather didn't get 40 acres and a mule either. We all learn to cope.
But Home cooked meals actually might help the country! See also: The Cosby 'Pound Cake' speech A little good parenting might not be out of order, and reading a history book or two, but I digress.
Health insurance for all our citizens isn't just a good idea. Its socially responsible. Making our country find ways to make it better and more efficient will spur the economy. I'm certain lots of folks are looking for another Tennessee Valley Authority. I'm a fan of public works projects but this is just as efficient, and better thought out than the TSA.
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
Fateweaver wrote:So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
What I meant to say was this: there are people who have the money to purchase health care, but they choose not to because they don't want to spend it. These are people with discretionary income at their disposal. I am saying that if someone has discretionary income and they CHOOSE not to purchase health care then I have absolutely zero problem with forcing them, by law, to purchase health care for themselves because otherwise I'm paying for their stupid asses when they go to the hospital. They're fething me on account of being irresponsible, so I have no problem with, from their perspective, the government fething them.
People need to take responsibility for themselves, and stop suckling off the government teat.
Fateweaver wrote:The best way to unfeth this economy. Drop welfare. ...I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
How is paying for someone to get a flu shot any different or worse than what we, as tax payers, already pay for in this country? The HCRB only covers up the real issue, it doesn't solve it or even try to solve it.
I have always felt that welfare should be attached to honest effort to find work, or rather perhaps we can put people to work in order to earn welfare checks. In a lot of cases, we're looking a physically-able people who could be taught some kind of manual labor skill and perform work for thier money. There's plenty of work to be done around here...
No offense, but if you're going to start quoting percentages and fractions of where your taxes go, that's not difficult information to come by. First, taxes are not 1/3 of your income. No one without a LOT of income pays 33%. You're likely paying 25% at the most between State and Federal if you live in a tax-heavy State like Mass. where I'm from - but if I were to make some deductions based on your statements you don't sound like a member of the upper class who is swimming in money, no offense, so you're not losing 1/3 of your income to taxes.
I believe that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security comprise the largest portion of the Federal budget, without going to look it up again, so that would be the majority of where your tax dollars are spent.
The real issue, if you will, might be that not enough people can make enough money to purchase health care, and that is, indeed, a larger issue of having moved as a nation from a production economy to a service economy when service jobs can be easily outsourced. America no longer really has any industries other than the arms industry within which we are "brand leader." Anything we can do besides produce weapons someone else can do just as well or better.
Perhaps if we got back to building things we could start more companies, hire more workers, earn more money and everyone could afford to purchase health care and we wouldn't need anything but private insurance companies, though things like making it illegal for insurance companies to cancel your insurance due to illness just makes sense. You've paid into the system to get that insurance. The insurance company runs the risk of actually having to pay out for your health care. Tough gak if they don't like it, they should stop being a health insurance company if they don't want to pay for their clients' medical care. There would still be work to do per regulation even if we remained a 100% private insurance system for all time. The companies are literally getting away with murder on a regular basis.
I agree with this entire paragraph.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldgrue wrote:
fateweaver wrote:
So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
Rhetoric much?
I suppose its unfair that you probably have to get auto insurance too. After all you're a safe driver so you should be exempt. So you can spend more money at the pub. My great great grandfather didn't get 40 acres and a mule either. We all learn to cope.
But Home cooked meals actually might help the country! See also: The Cosby 'Pound Cake' speech A little good parenting might not be out of order, and reading a history book or two, but I digress.
Health insurance for all our citizens isn't just a good idea. Its socially responsible. Making our country find ways to make it better and more efficient will spur the economy. I'm certain lots of folks are looking for another Tennessee Valley Authority. I'm a fan of public works projects but this is just as efficient, and better thought out than the TSA.
I won't even start on the unfairness of certain peoples not needing car insurance and certain others needing it by law. Car insurance is different in that most auto accidents are multi-car. If somebody rear ends me it would be very difficult to collect if that person had no insurance and even then getting auto insurers to reimburse you at times is like trying to squeeze blood out of a rock. Most house fires are accidental, then their are natural disasters. House insurance is not required IF the house was payed cash and in full but you are awfully fething dumb if you don't take house insurance.
Leave medical and health insurance optional. Making me pay a fine of so much a year because I feel I don't need it or maybe can't afford it (I somehow doubt my insurance premium under the Obamanation will be less than the $80 I pay per month) is plain absurd and is going to downright piss off more people than just me. If I can get the same coverage for half the price under the new Bill than I'll be the first to sign up but ONLY because I want to, not because I feel I have to.
How does a home cooked meal stimulate the economy anymore than eating at BK? Grocers and BK get their fruits and veggies and meat from farmers. Only thing eating at home might do is support the local mom and pop supermarket but if that family shops at Wal-mart they are feeding the corporate machine just the same as anyone buying movies or cd's or dvd's.
Not saying anything wrong with staying at home and doing things as a family but we have to be realistic. We, as Americans will continue to use the technology we keep developing. Expecting the citizens of this country to give up iphones and ipods and internet and ps3 is like expecting the Obama administration to send you a check in the mail for $200,000. It's not going to happen and to think otherwise is just plain absurd.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/11 07:39:49
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Fateweaver wrote:It's been mathmatically shown that spreading the money used to bail out AIG amongst every legal taxpayer in the country would have amounted to everyone getting over $100k/per person.
No it hasn't. That's complete and utter rubbish. There's about 150 million tax payers in the US. Giving each of them $100,000, costing $15 trillion, or slightly more than US GDP. The AIG bailout was in fact $85 billion, or around $600 per tax payer. You said it was mathematically shown that is was $100,000, when it was $600.
$100,000... $600.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
