Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hey, Bush is the one who was very weak and liberal on immigration. Your guy McCain was one of the Fathers of Amnesty...Obama didn't create illegals. The Republicans have long been in the business of encouraging more illegals to come here
so have the Dems.....ESPECIALLY in S.Cal......
Many anti-Obama bumper stickers and avatars I've seen are copycats of the anti-Bush statements, like the "Stuck on Stupid" one someone uses as an avatar here. Or even the "Kool-Aid" references were used against Bush. But stealing is what Republicans do best, so....
Yeah, we learned president bashing from the Dems. The only trait we didn't pick up was that incessant whining... because y'all still own that one and NOBODY can whine better than Democrat -- even though you've finally gotten what you've always wanted! Better toughen up that skin... it's gonna be a l-o-n-g four years.
LOL Wow you guys are hilarious. I seem to remember a lot of righties bashing clinton and all you righties ever seem to especially since the country voted you into the minority is whine incessently. LOL
This whole thread is chock full of incessently whining righties who are whining that an illigial MIGHT break the law and get benefits despite the FACT that the bill clearly say that they won't.
Thanks for the laughs.
...yea i know what you mean Dr......you should check out some of the threads where all these leftist are whining and crying..........hey Doc.....open your eyes....the right and left have cried for the past 20 years.....and with all this bullshit your spouting here i have to think your doing a little whining of your own......He lied right to your faces. The democwats purposefully voted down the Heller amendment. They know damn well they are going to give illegals health care.
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
You are being misinformed. There is no amendment needed.
Hey, Bush is the one who was very weak and liberal on immigration. Your guy McCain was one of the Fathers of Amnesty...Obama didn't create illegals. The Republicans have long been in the business of encouraging more illegals to come here
so have the Dems.....ESPECIALLY in S.Cal......
Don't try to pin this on the Democrats only.
As much as I want Obama defeated in '12, maybe he SHOULD win so these stinkin' RUSHpublicans can get their act together and actually show us if they have real ideas...maybe purge the parasites out of the party.
1) President Obama is not being truthful because the Republicans attempted to insert an amendment in the bill such that the proposed plan would not cover illegal immigrants and they were voted down in a straight party line vote by the democrats.
2) Given the bills in the House and Senate are over 1,000 pages each and are written in pure legalese it will be up to the beaurocrats to imlement the bill once it has been passed, and without specific guidance to omit the coverage of illegal immigrants they will be covered. If this were not the wish of the Democrats why would they vote down the amendment (mentioned above)???
Why would you assume that, without that specific guidance, illegal immigrants would qualify for healthcare? Do illegals qualify for any other government program?
For the very same reason that until a bill was passed that locked it in for all existing government provided healthcare insurance programs that abortion will not be covered regardless of any further modifications to those programs -any modification to any existing government healthcare insurance program had to include a specific ban on abortions every single time -or these programs would have had to cover abortions. And that is according to US courts. Since abortion is a medical procedure, unless paying for abortions with taxpayer funds is specifically banned from legislation involving government healthcare insurance -the courts have said abortion MUST be covered. So rather than have this be an eternal issue with liberals trying get away with legislation that failed to always include this ban when these programs were modified in any way, Congress passed a bill years ago banning the coverage of abortion regardless of any future modifications to these programs. But that ban only applies to already existing government provided healthcare insurance programs. Not ANY future ones -those would once again require a specific ban. And more than a few Democrats in Congress -like Pelosi, as well as Obama himself -have lied and insisted that ban applies to all future programs as well -BUT IT DOES NOT. Democrats have been insisting that because abortion isn't even mentioned at all in their bills, it somehow means abortion would not be covered. A show of hands from those who believe that idiocy please. That is a lie -and the fact they refuse to include these bans in their legislation now PROVES IT IS A LIE. Democrats have dug in on this, refuse to include these specific bans -all while publicly insisting that Republicans are just making up phony issues with this. Even though it would be a ridiculously easy way to remove this as a point of contention or a debatable issue and just include the specific bans. But that would require that Democrats be honest in the first place instead of trying to secretly include the backdoor coverage for both abortions and illegals! Which is EXACTLY what they are trying to do -all while lying by insisting there is no way for abortions or illegals to be covered. Because hey, they aren't even mentioned in the bills! And apparently that satisifies some dolts out there. ROFL How can you possibly expect any US court to rule that abortion, a medical procedure - is somehow banned from coverage in a government funded medical insurance program THIS TIME - UNLESS IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS SO -when it has already ruled that it requires such a ban or it will be covered?
Only ONE BILL has even been proposed specifically banning coverage of illegals, one Pelosi has already said will never be passed by the House anyway -but without any requirement that participation requires proof of citizenship. Which makes the ban entirely meaningless because our courts have already ruled in the past that people only need to prove citizenship before participation in any government program when proof of citizenship is specifically REQUIRED in order to participate. Language that simply states it is intended for citizens is not sufficient language to justify the demand to prove citizenship -according to the court. Our modern courts have bastardized our Constitution by deciding that in the absence of specific language, benefit of the doubt will go towards the expansion and greater power of government instead of what will best protect the rights of citizens (without infringing on the human rights of noncitizens). Something that no doubt has the founders spinning like tops in their graves.
Even if you did not know that a specific ban and specific language must be included to insure abortion and illegals are not covered, COMMON SENSE should have told you there must be something you are not aware of to explain why Democrats, especially the leftwing extremist kooks like Pelosi, are all so VEHEMENTLY and rigidly opposed to the inclusion of such bans! Got any common sense or not? If Democrats were actually being honest (BWAA HAA HAA) and didn't have a desire to see that abortions and illegals were covered, then the inclusion of the few lines necessary to insure they are not -included somewhere in their massive piece of bullshit that guarantees a bureaucratic nightmare anyway - would remove this stumbling block from their neverending quest for government run healthcare, RIGHT? Come ON here -if they really believed their proposed bills AS THEY EXIST was really sufficient to prevent the coverage of abortions and illegals -then why do they so strongly oppose ending that debate entirely by including the specific language insuring abortions and illegals will not be covered? Pretty obvious that Democrats MUST have reasons, reasons they have not been honest about or even bothered to tell the people -about why they refuse to include these specific bans. So what could those reasons be? HMMMMM? The answer lies in those past court rulings.
You people who think government -ANY government -is trustworthy and that those who wield power should ever be given the benefit of the doubt, can readily and always be taken at face value, that government is a benign entity that actually has your best interests at heart, or stupidly believe that those who wield power and give lip service to claiming to have only the "purest" motivations cannot possibly be the corrupt liars they really are - clearly are not only completely ignorant of the thousands of years of mankind's history and experiences at the hands of government of every single conceivable kind and stripe, but do not understand how government even works. But especially not even YOUR OWN.
Our courts do not EVER rule in accordance with what the people believe their representatives have SAID is intended by their legislation or what the people were even promised was not included by lying ass politicians who have no qualms about deceiving their own constituents and the entire nation if doing so will further their own agenda. The courts don't rule in accordance with legislators' intent even when they know exactly what that intent was. But will rule in accordance with what is and is NOT specifically included in that legislation. Only who gets the benefit of the doubt when there is an absence of specific language has changed -not the fact that this is how courts make their rulings. If it doesn't have a specific amendment that not only bans illegals from participating but also requires proof of citizenship in order to participate - then our courts will almost certainly rule that illegals MUST be covered. Courts have already ruled in this way regarding the "right" of illegal aliens to access our education and healthcare systems already. No language that specifically banned them from accessing these systems and no language specifically requiring proof of citizenship and therefore no legal grounds to ASSUME these systems were intended only for the US citizens who thought they were creating them for their OWN benefit. And not for the benefit of everyone and anyone else who managed to sneak across our borders. Therefore, the courts have ruled, the benefit of the doubt goes to illegals who have a "right" to be parasites on our education and healthcare systems. The benefit of the doubt did not and will not in the future go to the US citizens who only have the "right" to foot those massive bills.
Don't kid yourself on this one. Congressional Democrats, as well as Obama, KNOW THIS for a fact -which is why they so vigorously and VEHEMENTLY refuse to include the language that would ban coverage of abortions or illegals.
Without the inclusion of a specific amendment banning the funding of abortions, taxpayers will DEFINITELY end up footing the bill for it in any new healthcare legislation passed by Democrats. No ifs, ands or buts about that one -without a specific ban the courts have already ruled in the past that abortion, which is a medical procedure, must also be covered. And without the inclusion of a specific amendment banning the inclusion of non-citizens AND requiring proof of citizenship in order to participate, it is also a dead certainty that illegals WOULD be covered as well. And that is why Democrats so vehemently and vigorously oppose including any bans on either. And apparently they have no problem with deceiving the American people about it either. When it turns out both are covered they will just claim they had no idea the courts would rule that abortion and illegals must be covered under their bill. They will claim they had no idea courts would rule that way because HEY, it isn't as if they wrote a bill that said so. They just wrote a bill that DIDN'T ban it -which our courts have said amounts to the same thing.
Given the past rulings of our own courts on both of these issues, rulings that are readily available to anyone who wants to read them -you have to be either ignorant about past rulings or not understand how those rulings may apply to future bills. Or someone who does know about all these past rulings, as our elected government officials all do -and still choose to be a blatant liar anyway in order to deceive the very people who put you into office. No secret which I think Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Obama etc. are on this one.
The UNDERLYING point unto ALL of this? WHY...is Government involved in this from the start? Where is the right of Government (In this case the FED), involved at all?
Can ANYONE point to it in the Constitution? You cannot., And before ANY of you start harping on "precident"? SCREW PRECIDENT. That isn't the point.
They have NO BUSINESS in this. Healthcare coverage is NOT a RIGHT...it is a RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens to do for themselves.
Get real, the Constitution was written when the population was only 72,000,000 and we're at 305,000,000 and climbing.
I think that this figure may be incorrect. I'm not sure if there was even 72 million people in all of Europe in 1789.
Care4all said:obama was wrong on his claim on this...true the house bill does NOT make abortion as a mandatory coverage by private insurers like the bill does with preexisting conditions etc....but the private insurers, as private companies can choose to offer abortion as a medical procedure they will insure, and if the citizen with affordability credits chooses a private plan that is offering coverage, then fed tax dollars could possibly go towards abortion, if the person buying the policy is female, is younger than 50, is sexually active in the 3 days she is fertile in the middle of her menstrual month, is not using any birth control, whose partner does not use a rubber, who is more likely not married, and who doesn't want a child and believes abortion is ok...then yes, tax dollars could go towards it, the way the plan is written now...and as said, obama is wrong on this as it stands now!
AND in a June 15 letter to Congress, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote "once the [Democrat health care] proposal was fully implemented, the number of people who are uninsured would decline to about 36 million or 37 million...Roughly a third of those [receiving coverage] would be unauthorized immigrants..." A Third! Imagine when word of this guaranteed benefit drifts south--the number of illegals in this country will reach 30 million!
But the lies last night weren't limited to Obamas's statement that illegal aliens won't get coverage.
The President also claimed he will provide health insurance free of charge to those who can't afford it, the care will not be rationed, premiums won't go up, health risk factors won't be considered, no one will be excluded, taxes will not increase, and that none of this will cost the taxpayers a dime! Imagine: a huge federal entitlement for free! How dumb does Obama think we are?
No not at all. I was just presenting the facts of the matter.....like i said feel free to read into it what you want.
I want all people in the world to be able to have the same coverage and health care I do....however if your not an american citizen I dont want to pay for said coverage and care, that is your home country's responsibility.
Well yeah, and we all agree here. I don't want to pay for health insurance for illegals either.
But if the bill says that they cannot receive taxpayer benefits, which it does, then that's covered.
If we were to deny them the ability to PURCHASE health insurance, then they would be MORE of a drain on the taxpayers, not LESS.
I've read through the bill and I didn't see that in there anywhere.
As far as I have read the bill doesn't say anything about non-citizens/illegal immigrants in regards to coverage.
I'm not trying to doucebag you but what section of the bill was that in? I got the PDF saved at home and I'll go read up. If it says that then i'll STFU about this.
1) President Obama is not being truthful because the Republicans attempted to insert an amendment in the bill such that the proposed plan would not cover illegal immigrants and they were voted down in a straight party line vote by the democrats.
2) Given the bills in the House and Senate are over 1,000 pages each and are written in pure legalese it will be up to the beaurocrats to imlement the bill once it has been passed, and without specific guidance to omit the coverage of illegal immigrants they will be covered. If this were not the wish of the Democrats why would they vote down the amendment (mentioned above)???
So, instead of us reading the pertinent portions of the bill and coming to our own conclusions, like we've been doing...
You want us to go to some conservative opinion site so they can tell us what it says?
No thanks, I think I'm perfectely capable of reaching my own conclusions given the material already at hand.
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
You are being misinformed. There is no amendment needed.
my eyes are wide open budrow.. you can write hr3200 til your herd of cows come home. the gov cannot control what illegals do, cannot stop them from coming cannot stop them from getting on the welfare dole, cannot stop them from getting social security, cannot stop them from stealing ID.. so what gives you the confidence that they can stop illegals from getting on the "public option" especially since the demoncwats voted down the Heller amendment. you are the second fool that's tried to tell us it's "written in the bill" big effen deal.. the gov. is a proven miserable failure.. look at california if you need more proof..
Good. Now will you tell Joe Wilson to STFU? If he refuses to read the bill (which is what the good people of SC pay him to do, by the way), where does he get off calling Obama a liar?
Each attempt to include specific language banning illegals in an amendment has been voted down by the Democrats. Wilson was wrong in saying it out loud in that joint session, but he was right in that Obama knowingly was lieing.
Each attempt to include specific language banning illegals in an amendment has been voted down by the Democrats. Wilson was wrong in saying it out loud in that joint session, but he was right in that Obama knowingly was lieing.
That's because there is already specific language barring Immigrants from getting free or subsidized insurance already.
What the Republicans are trying to to do is to bar illegal aliens from purchasing health insurance at regular prices
Which is fucking moronic for so many reasons.
Health care negotiators in the Senate pressed for a way to ensure that illegal immigrants can't get access to government-funded insurance, a contentious issue now front and center after a Republican congressman's outburst during President Barack Obama's speech.
The issue is one of several thorny problems that came up as a small group of negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee met Friday morning. Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is aiming to finalize legislation on Obama's health overhaul by next week though whether it's bipartisan or not remains to be seen.
Members of the group said they thought they'd settled the question of illegal immigration, but it came to the fore this week when Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie" at Obama during his speech Wednesday. Obama had said illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered under his health plan.
Senators said that's forced the committee to work on provisions verifying legal status before an individual can get coverage.
"We've always been there, but we have to make sure to get the right process and language," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, one member of the so-called Gang of Six of three Republicans and three Democrats whom Baucus is leading.
Such verification can be tricky. Many Democrats fear that verification procedures keep legal residents from getting insurance, and in the House, they rejected Republican attempts to add verification requirements to the House health care bill.
The bill specifically states that federally funds are not to be used to subsidize or fund illegal aliens.
That is what Mr Obama stated in his speech.
The question presented was whether Mr Obama "lied". Clearly he did not.
There would be no way for illegals to receive said federal funding, as they would have to apply for it. The government would not be able to grant the funding unless they were citizens.
So, the point of the Republican verification system is either to deny illegals access to health insurance at all, or it is a completely poiontless argument.
