Wilson's comment could be a thorn we can't shake.  If one aspect of the legislation covers illegal aliens, then Obama is a liar if it doesn't cover illegal aliens, Obama comes out the hero.  We just have to be careful not to have illegals covered when legislation comes out.  Mr. Wilson, you are so unprofessional!  Your comment may harm us in more ways than one.

I agree mrs. mcnamara and in fact, I too have arrived at that conclusion...

We may have succeeded in ousting king george but apparently the repugnicons are gonna make us pay for that victory if they can.

I agree the Republican leadership are failing to lead, follow, or even get out of the way. They need to step up to the plate and do the right thing. It seems that most of them rely on certain media figures taking control of the party actions. And these guys are leading more with a strange hate propaganda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fox-host-glenn-beck-obama_n_246310.html

Look at the people that follow things like this rather than the leadership that they voted for. People really believe this stuff.

You refer to "biased comments against anyone or anything that happens to contradict their own inherent and indignant self righteousness, it is easy to dismiss, because they have their own ideological agendas and they do not necessarily have to grapple with the facts. (They should, but, you know...)."

Your comments themselves are a perfect example of what you decry.  No matter how frequently you are presented with contradictory facts, you continue to sing the same song.  The fact is the legislation left a loophole and now the Administration has admitted it and is closing it.  Joe Wilson's reading of the Bill was correct.

"[T]he exact opposite of what is in particular pieces of legislation" is what President Obama has been peddling on too many, but not all, issues.  But the CBO and American people called his bluff.

(As an aside, let me guess:  Your opinion is that ACORN is not a largely partisan group that has been corrupt for years, probably criminal; it's all a right-wing smear?)

The Republicans and Democrats supported the Healthy Americans Act which did not increase the defecit and bent the spending curve the right way while expanding coverage. That was worked on for 2 years.  Why isn't anyone talking about THAT proposal?

Ha, you are correct. It is the same old song that I sing. I want something that gives the same Long Term coverage as Medicaid would. I want something that does not discriminate against the disabled. The long term coverage issue is more important than than the cost curve issues. With my wife I am finding out that one disability can turn into several other health issues. The fact that she is denied coverage, where as Medicaid pays for 100 percent when we divorce really pisses me off. I do help pay for it.

I support any plan imposed that actually provides for healthcare coverage, rather than the "if " stipulations that we have today.

 As for Wilson, I believe it was a dog and pony show. He had plenty of time on the issue to express the language and intent. It seems awful odd that he explodes with the comment.( like Wilson didn't know the president was going to say what he did). And it seems awful odd the amount of contributions that he received right afterwards. 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2161711/joe_wilsons_financial_backers_hail.html

clarification: the second quote I picked up from another site.  It is not a statement from the Bill.

No, they can't. Even before the administration kowtowed by making verification of citizenship or legal residence a requirement, it was always assumed that this plan was for legal citizens only. It did not have to be put in this bill, as it was already a requirement. This is just to make the opposition happy, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't already there in the first place. The public plan was to be fashioned similar to Medicare, which is strictly reserved for American citizens. It is also fairly reasonable to state that any private insurance, partially funded, would also be reserved for those with legal status, as a social security number is currently needed for that.

Wilson was wrong. He's a senator. He knows the law, and he certainly would have known about this. He's blurted out his own lie in the hopes of misaligning the truth with suspicion and contention.

Nope...It just means that our president and his supporters are finding it neccessary to redundantly dot every "i" and cross every "t" just to combat the lies and propoganda of the repugnicons.

Please give me an example where unnecessary language was put in a piece of legislation to combat lies and propaganda.  Seems like a "hail mary pass" to me.

The House Bill states: (Sec. 246) titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS," which states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." There's your proof.

Oh, you can't read between the lines? The public option is still a plan that the person receiving it must pay premiums on. Because it is government run, the premiums will be lower, as it will not have the costs that other insurance companies currently have. This automatically makes it more affordable.  This is a public plan, named because our government will run it, like Medicare. (This does not have to be stated directly, because this is inferred by the very nature of calling it a public plan.) Unlawful residents would have to prove that they can be covered, whether they need subsidies or not. This being a "public" plan MEANS you have to pass citizen criteria. Illegals can't. You are splitting hairs where it is not necessary. You, and Wilson, and all others like you are creating a problem where there simply is none. No government funds will be used to subsidize unlawful residents, as stated above. Now, what exactly does this mean? If you are illegal, you cannot sign up for it if you are needing subsidies, and you will not be able to sign up for it if you don't, because you will not be able to fit the criteria required to enable you to be in a "public" plan. It will be government run; this MEANS that you HAVE to prove eligibility. This cannot be more clear.

Do illegals now currently get health insurance coverage in this country. I'm sure of it. Is anyone raising a stink about it? Not to my knowledge. Does anyone really care? Not to my knowledge. The insurance companies get their premiums; they already limit services. They already refuse care due to pre-existing conditions. They pretty much set their own guidelines, and can do whatever they want. However, they can insure anyone they want, and deny anyone they want as well.

This public option is intended for all the people who do not currently have coverage, Why would anyone even worry if someone may actually slip through the cracks and get this coverage. It is specifically stated that they would not be able to get subsidies, so why would it matter if they somehow fall into this plan? Even if this happens, the numbers would be exceedingly small, because most illegals do not have additional money to actually buy health insurance of any kind, and most would prefer to stay under the radar. Why would they risk it. Their main option right now is going into the emergency room for a serious illness or injury, which they will be treated for, due to medical ethics.This is what creates much more costs for taxpayers, anyway..

As you can see, the problem of who actually qualifies for coverage is NOT the main issue of health care reform. I also trust that our president and Congress will scrutinize this bill, which is not finalized yet, to make sure ALL THE T's ARE CROSSED AND ALL THE I's are DOTTED. If Wilson had  a problem with some of the wording, or lack of it, in the current draft of the bill, shouting out at the President's address was not the time to do it. It certainly would not resolve any issue he had at this time. All he had to do was approach the president prior to his speech, in a dignified manner, what his concerns were. President Obama has been bending over backward to try to accommodate the opposition, but collaboration was certainly not Wilson's intention. He blurted out "You lie" in total disrespect, and total unfairness.

Every single person on this country KNOWS health care reform is badly needed and absolutely necessary. The bigger problem is immigration reform. This is what is needed to address these underlying issues that you are so worried about.

Barbara,

You draw a lot of conclusions and are surprisingly mildly defamatory for someone who obviously doesn't do the research.

You don't "read between the lines" with legislation.  If it is not explicitly stated, then a court can interpret it otherwise.  And, speaking as an attorney, statutes are strictly interpreted by their express language unless an internal conflict is found which allows an examination of legislative intent.

The lesson is, when you draft legislation, be explicit and plain in what and whom you mean to include and exclude.  And, in many instances, illegal aliens have been found to be covered by workers compensation insurance unless a statute explicitly stated that they were not.  In the vast majority of states they are covered.  And I can tell you by experience, when they are seriously injured, they take the treatment because we are very lax on enforcing the rules.

Medicare is a "public" system too as you say, as is medicaid.  Guess what:  About 5-10 minutes on www.google.com reveals that Illegals are getting Medicare and Medicaid despite the law. 

So the facts nor experience support your analysis.  And the Administration appears to disagree with you as well in that they now are indicating that the Bill IS lacking and an explicit provision IS needed.  I expect this new system will not have the same flaws as that in Medicare and Medicaid, which likely will be revamped.

You say, "You, and Wilson, and all others like you are creating a problem...."  What do you mean by the bolded portion?  You sound just like a racist, but that is of course the prejudice of partisanship; not fact-based, just defamatory.

Noone disagrees, not even Mr. Wilson, that his outburst was highly inappropriate.  He has apologized and said he will never do it again. And the Dems openly booed and hissed at President Bush; that was inappropriate as well.  Wilson's breach of ettiquette was worse, however.

But to say the President has been "bending over backward" to be accommodating is absurd. Only after a tremendous public outcry has he made overt statements to try and bring the extremes together; prior to that he wanted to ram through a partisan Bill by August.  We will see if he backs up his new-found bi-partisanship with action.

So the weight of the evidence would appear to support Mr. Wilson's reading of the House Bill, not yours.

Racist mr. dunham ?

In what way was she racist ?

As for the rest of it...I find her posts to be much more intelligent than your own.

I didn't say she was racist; read it again.  And I am as concerned about your negative opinion of my intelligence as Michael Jordon would be of your negative opinion of his Basketball skills.

So do we in the US.  That is not the question.

You are entitled to voice your opinion.  There is no evidence of racism here, nor of your other conclusions.  I think that, especially with racism, you do a tremendous disservice to the cause when you make unsupported charges that undermine the credibility of genuine claims.  Remember the boy who cried wolf.

Thanks for stating the obvious that I'm entitled to voice my opinion - that is the whole point of the message boards.  Sometimes one has to look deeper than the obvious.  Everyone sees or hears or feels or experiences something differently.  My reference to You lie as being a racist remark rings stingingly in my ears.  As I said, the angry erruption came upon mention of undocumented immigrants, non-citizens from foreign countries, thereby of a different race.  To me, Wilson's remark has more to do with immigration policy than with  healthcare reform. That is my opinion; that's the way I heard, the way I read it, and the way I interpreted it - reverberating with sociopolitical undertones.

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious again, your subjective experience and interpretation is yours.  But to accuse another human being of racism is so serious that it requires more than your sujective hearing based on one incident.  It requires objectivity and EVIDENCE to support that allegation.

In this country, we believe a person is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.  Mr. Wilson is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and that presumption.  His emotional outburst about the perceived misrepresentation being made is not sufficient evidence to back up that serious an accusation.

The issue was the proposed Bill and what he believed to be a significant misrepresentation, not race.  He was upset because he believed America was being lied to.  Anything else going on in his heart is unknown, if there was anything else to begin with.

Let's be careful in condemning fellow Americans even if we condemn their conduct.

Good point James.  I admit this comment made me re-think my thoughts bc I can't get into Wilson's head.  We are all human and capable of error. May I suggest you read "An Innocent Man Executed in Texas," in the Criminal Justice section of change.org.  It is about a man wrongly accused of arson and murdering his children and is sentenced to death even though the evidence found against him was not substantial.

Thanks Michelina.  I will definitely read the article.  You are a woman of integrity.  Have a great day.

Michelina,

I read the full article on the case.  WOW.  Clearly the man should not have been executed; he should not even have been convicted.  It's a travesty.  There was far moe than "reasonable doubt" in that case.  I hope his parents sue.

I could certainly understand why you called Wilson's tourette-symptom out burst deep routed racism. There are some very good reasons why anyone would make that connection. 1. The fact that Wilson is suspiciously connected to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which, in prior years  was a group that proudly recalled the history of the Confederacy, but has now been infiltrated by predominantly white supremacists. Wilson, a United States Representative, should not be affiliated with this 'newly' self described hate group. 2. I do not imagine Wilson ever calling any other president a liar in Congress, when in fact, other presidents have fudged on the truth. I am particularly referring to President Bush and his justification for the war in Iraq, and his noble statements that "we do not torture". Does this have ANYTHING to do with the fact that Obama is our first black president? Even from a practical standpoint, it is precisely because Obama is our first black persident, that a member of Congress should show a certain amount of civility and respect, knowing that egging our president during a speech about a topic which has needlessly become very controversial, smacks of absolute racism. This is not about needing an explanation in the bill; this is about accusing our president of doing something completely underhanded and unfair, which, in essense he is NOT doing, and which is sure to rattle the cages of all those who tend to disagree with him, including those who happily need more ammunition to promote their own agendas favoring racism and bigotry. Based on what I have read and come to know about Wilson, I believe he borders on racism, and this is troubling for our nation, as he stirs up hatred and contempt. This is just plain wrong, considering his status.

Absolutely absurd.  You sound like Joe McCarthy trying to convict people based upon shadows of associations and evil assumptions.  I stand by my previous posts on this which you should really read over and think about.

And think about this---you are upset because Wilson accused the President of doing something "he is not doing"; and your response is to accuse Mr. Wilson of something he is not guilty of because of the same passion on the issue which drives you both.  Pot meet kettle, as they say.

Absurd mr. dunham ?

I dont think so.

Are you aware that there are still folks who are insisting that president obama isnt really a natural born american ? 

One other thing sir...

I too would naturaly believe that if a congressman spoke out like that, that 1 : He was being totaly unprofessional and 2 : That he was and/or is motivated by something other than "The good of the people" in that action.

Of course, Mr. McHugh, of course.  You are my moral compass that always points south. ;O)

"If Wilson had  a problem with some of the wording, or lack of it, in the current draft of the bill, shouting out at the President's address was not the time to do it. It certainly would not resolve any issue he had at this time. All he had to do was approach the president prior to his speech, in a dignified manner, what his concerns were. President Obama has been bending over backward to try to accommodate the opposition, but collaboration was certainly not Wilson's intention. He blurted out "You lie" in total disrespect, and total unfairness."

The president deserves more respect and saying that he is an "Undocumented Worker" is just crap.

Mary,

Who said the President was an undocumented worker?

Watch the news James.

I agree with you, Harold; the illegals are here because they are wanted here. It should be their employers' responsibility to make sure they have adequate pay, on the job protections and necessary benefits. They may be illegal, but they are still human beings. However, the cost of their health care should not be a burden on the taxpayers. So many taxpayers cannot even pay for their own. The reponsibility should rest entirely on those who bring them here to work for them. This cost should absolutely be the responsibility of those employers, because they benefit from this cheap labor, knowing they are here illegally. This, again, is tied to the urgent need for immigration reform.

In the vast majority of states if illegals are injured in the course and scope of employment thay are afforded workers compensation benefits.  Beyond that, they are owed nothing. 

They don't come here because they are wanted, they come here because they can game the system and want a better life.  And yes, the employers that end up paying their WC benefits deserve to if they made no attempts to confirm citizenship (which many don't.)  And they always get emergency care.

But we need, as you said, to get serious about enforcing immigration laws.

If it is like Medicare and Medicaid, it doesn't operate based upon tax returns and is not a tax credit per se.

I agree James.  Barbra, illegals are here because they wanted to be here and they are here illegally.  Send them back and save American jobs.  Arrest those who have broken the law and fine those who hire them.  No health care for cheats like illegal aliens!  I'm sick of the mushy crap and want America to be America!  We are a melting pot, but we have laws that protect the honest hard working American.

I disagree with you mr. dunham in regards to your statement that theyre not wanted here...

True that many illegal aliens play the system but then, so do many natural citizens in effect americans.

And mr. turner...

Do you really think that there are that many americans willing to do the work of an illegal alien when they can get much better job training to do work that pays much better ?

I dont and the few that would...Would have been forced into low paying jobs anyways due to circumstances other than the illegal immagration problem.

Currently there are an estimated 9 to 11 million illegals in the U.S., double the 1994 level. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering by crossing the Mexican border.

FAIR research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year." The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000.8........

Immigration causes average wage decline of $1,700

Two decades' growth in the supply of immigrant workers cost native-born American men an average $1,700 in annual wages by the year 2000, a top economist has concluded.5

Hispanic and black Americans were hurt most by the influx of foreign-born workers, says a report by Harvard University's George Borjas, considered a leading authority on the impact of immigration....

"What past immigration has done -- and what the temporary worker program will continue to do on a potentially larger scale -- is to depress wages and increase profits of the firms that employ the immigrants," Borjas said. "The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status."

Ironically, this makes the argument (at least for Andrew Romano in Newsweek) that health care reform *should* extend to illegal immigrants.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215340/output/print

"What's more, employers currently have a clear economic incentive to hire undocumented immigrants: they don't require coverage. A plan that mandates insurance for native workers but not their illegal counterparts actually makes life harder on the blue-collar Americans competing for jobs (and railing against immigrants) because it means that hiring them will cost more than hiring a recent transplant from Mexico City."

But if we apply the laws we have and also fine employers for the practice, American wages will be elevated for that segment and there would be more jobs available.  With unemployment at about 10% and likely to climb higher, I am sure there are a few citizens who would appreciate that.

I'v worked in maintenance and building trades for over 20 years. Only recently have large janitorial contractors like ABM and Unicco cleaned up their act and largely owing to actions by the SEIU. But there are thousands of mom and pop shops bidding low to get work in local buildings and hiring illegals to hold the line.

Small businesses - construction, handyman, landscaping, house painting, dry cleaners, assembly, repair shops - actively seek workers off the streets instead of hiring. From my own experience, I posted dozens of low wage jobs for which, not a single American applied. It was dirty, unpleasant part-time work.

These people do what new immigrants have always done, take the jobs no one wanted. To say that they are "gaming" the sytem is to ignore the risks they take and the places they must have come from to be here working as they do. It doesn't solve the problem to parrot a hate agenda. They would not be here if employers did not want them. Enforcing the laws against employers would help. But no one, government or business, is eager to enforce laws which raise the bottom wages and hit the bottom line.

So many of these arguments remind me of the fact that many native born and immigrant white laborers in free states feared an influx of freed slaves into the low-skill market.

But none of this was my point. While there are fears from one side that the bill is too loose (though all that's needed is income verification to prove need) and gyrations from the other to prove their xenophobia in more convoluted language ignores the fact that they are here, will not soon be going, that they affect our health, and that we are paying, directly or indirectly, more for health care because of the situation.

Either we care for them directly to protect our health or we pay for their ER visits and for the health problems which arise from their presence in our workplaces and schools. The questions before Congress, if any will act like adults, should be: what course of action is the most effective for health? for costs?

A little more realism and a lot less parroting and posturing is sorely needed.

Looking over FAIR's reporting/ agenda, it is important to note that there is a distinctly anti-immigrant, legal or otherwise theme at work. While I will not dispute the facts of their case or of the NAS report, wages are being suppressed by immigration simply because it offers a broader labor market to employers. Thus, it seems, more open and freer markets across borders produce an undesirable economic effect for the consumer while benefitting suppliers.

Shall we look again at the health insurance debate concerning who wins and loses in preserving the private sector?

Freeing up trade and opening borders to competing goods has always been viewed by the most conservative market economists as a blessing. The type of right-wing analysis being embraced by FAIR would seem to be reactionary rather than traditionally conservative. In the strictest economic terms, labor will migrate to the jobs and employers will pay the least for the most labor. Isn't that how we conduct our personal business in a capitalist society?

I didn't see the link above but the studies are worht reading: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16981

Finally, the labor lefties and reactionary righties have some common ground on wage protectionism.

But nothing on this common ground, not even the prospect of raising wages establishes business rules for the treatment of illegal immigrants to mitigate the risks to our health.

Waiting for meaningful immigration reform and enforcement before addressing this issue is like not putting out fires until we stop using flammable building materials. Raising the issue as it was raised the other night in public, in chambers, or in rallies and town halls does nothing but stir up resentment and keys on emotion where reason is required.

Moreover, the health risks brought over the border by illegal immigrants underscore the health risks to all of us for those impoverished or otherwise without care.

There is a real problem, they are among us and we are exposed. Driving them underground will not solve the problem. They will still be there among us. Treating them will leave unpaid liabilities that will cost the taxpayer. This is what we need to deal with while they dither with immigration reform.

And I want to leave you with this thought, if FAIR is correct, how come the States with the highest percentages of immigrants

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405table1.html

receive the lowest amount of Federal dollars back per taxpayer if they cost us so much money?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Harold,

You are making a false comparison of apples and oranges.  A glutted supply of workers reduces the individual value of the worker and hence the wage.  Employees are not "consumers" in that context.  Competition for limited jobs is not the same as competition between providers of goods and services.

But the same principle holds true that low demand for a plentious product reduces the value of the product.  Reduce the availability of the product (workers) and the employers must compete for the limited resource which drives up value and therefore wages.  

With regard to your last question; again it seems a non-sequitor but as long as we are going to hypothesize---I'll say governmental incompetence?

I reversed the words "supplier" and "consumer" in the first paragraph but I am well aware of how labor markets operate. However, the going wisdom of all free-trade advocacy is that freer and more open markets, in all respects, including increased wage competition, benefits all. The desire for higher earnings is part of the profit motive.

With regard to immigration, legal or otherwise, you will no more succeed in undercutting corporate profit by cutting off the supply than you will waging a war against illegal drug demand.

What you are suggesting is manipulating the market by artificially limiting the labor pool because the market does not serve to protect native wage earners. You are saying that competition is not the answer and that American labor does not grow through this adversity. That is a change in your insitence on finding a market solution to problems and insisting on limited government.You are looking for governmental activism on behalf of a population that, in your estimation, does not merit access to health care without a profit-taking gatekeeper.

But the problem remains, we are paying and will continue to pay for health care costs related to illegal immigration and we need to protect ourselves. This is not being confronted by our leaders on both sides of the aisle who hide behind elaborate legal language because they are afraid of childish and hateful constituents.

We need to stop diverting ourselves with people who are victims in their own countries and victims of a profit-at-all-cost market. Like many of our forebears, they are strangers, are not comfortable, are not welcomed, and they only want to provide for families and have the dignity of work. There are serious problems with Americans dying for lack of health care and those can be solved within our means and in spite of immigrant presence.

How is it governmental incompetence if immigrants cost so much more money than natural-born Americans (though, I didn't see the comparative costs) and, yet, areas with high immigrant populations receive less Federal money per tax dollar than areas with few immigrants?

Should I just assume that folks in South Dakota and Mississippi, two reliably red states, prefer not be taxed but to live off other peoples' taxes? Sounds like a bunch of hypocrites "gaming" the system or worse, "Welfare Queens." Maybe it's because the States paying more tax money have higher incomes and better economies than States with fewer immigrants?

"And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart."

Zech. 7:10

I will always agree with the quote.

Immigration and the war on drugs are significantly different.  We could very easily give effect to our laws rather than not even attempt to enforce them.  No question the American worker would be better off if we did.

I have not changed my position at all.  Employment and competition in the market are opposite ends of the horse.  There is no real similarity between enforcing immigration laws and it's impact on workers and Coke competing against Pepsi for a larger share of the market.

Assume whatever you wish.  You put two charts together and asked a question which would require research to answer.  Neither of us have done it; and it is not clear that the two can be harmonized to make a point as they were generated for separate purposes.

Our war against the garden gnomes and their constant retreat in the face of facts and logic is legendary.

I'd prefer to read the legislation myself.  Without the newly-created addition of the ID check, Wilson was right in his reading of the bill as stated above.

Any student of Shakespeare would recognize the Democrats and Obama acting similarly to Desdemona in the play of "Othello":  innocent of the charge, but influenced by the fact that they were accused at all to act in a way that suggests they were guilty.

Undocumented workers were barred in the bill before.  They're barred now.  The difference is an extra layer of bureaucracy that anyone going through the Exchanges will have to go through.  If adding a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy is a victory for a conservative Representative from South Carolina, we are truly living in interesting times.

They were only barred from the affordability credits, and without a verification procedure.  They could have availed themselves of the "public option", No?