Home › Blogs › Jacob's blog ›

Joe Wilson's vindication

Submitted by Jacob on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 14:10
in

The main bills from the House and Senate -- HR 3200 and the Senate HELP bill, respectively -- both explicitly stated that illegal immigrants were not to benefit from the federal funds being put towards health care.  In fact, it's repeated a couple of times, for emphasis I suppose.  

But conservatives, one such example being Joe Wilson, were concerned with this issue not because they were illiterate and simply couldn't read those simple lines, but because they knew that without verification of legal status at the time of care, there was no way to know for sure whether or not illegal immigrants would receive the federal funds allocated for those who cannot afford care but have shown up in an emergency room requiring treatment nonetheless.

At the time of his outburst, Republicans and Democrats were appalled by the behavior of their colleague.  Democrats claimed it must have something to do with racism, because, in their (arrogant) minds, it could not possibly have dealt with a legitimate concern that he felt was not being properly addressed.  To Republicans, well, he shouted "You Lie!" at the president.  Enough said. 

But if the Democrats' assertion that this was a racially-charged, ideologically-empty accusation was correct, why did the Baucus bill that was released a week later expand so thoroughly on the exact issue that Rep. Wilson accused the president of lying on?  The Huffington Post, FactCheck, the AP, etc. all "debunked" the myth that illegals would receive funds from the new health care legislation time and time again, but if that was really the case, why was any change of language, let alone such a thorough expansion, even necessary at all?  Simply to appease Republicans?  Well, yes, and to make sure, once and for all, that illegal immigrants could not receive taxpayer money.  You won't be hearing any more shouts about lying from conservatives on this issue anymore (in relation to the Senate Finance version, at least) because the Baucus bill finally puts it to rest like all of its predecessors did not. 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Please

Submitted by Mead50 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 14:27.

A white man from South Carolina with a fondness for the Confederacy commits a massive breach of decorum to heckle the first black president....what kind of a nut am I to think that race was a factor?

where do I sign up for my national id card?

Submitted by bob on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 16:51.

What I find so amusing about these illegal immigrant arguments is that we're still having this conversation.  I remember this stuff back from the early 90s.  So let's see. During the 80s's Republican led executive until 92.  Unable to solve this problem.  Republican led Congress through most of the 90s. Unable (Unwilling?) to solve this problem.  Republican led Congress AND Executive incapable/unable (Unwilling?) to solve this "problem" during most of the 2000s.   Whine whine whine all the time, but fundamentally,incompetent.

So they won't "solve" this problem either. But let's think about what the republicans really are proposing. To PROVE you can sign up for health care, you must show that you are legally here.  Ok. How do you do that? Raise your right hand and say (in English no doubt) I'm legal. Trust me. 

Yeah that's probably not going to work.

Perhaps we can just disqualify everyone automatically that has a foreign sounding name? Or an accent?  Or wears euro trash clothing or drives a Toyota?  I don't know that might not weed out everyone.

Or do they really mean that they want a national ID card system?  Hmmm. National Id Card. That would work  So you must prove that you are here legally by registering with the federal government, get fingerprinted, show your birth certificate (unless you're black, a president and born to a Kenyan father then you're obviously not legit) show several forms of id, take pictures of your grandparent's tombstones,  and wahlah! Be granted your Republican Plan's National ID card.  It might be a passport but ultimately somehow we have to generate an ID for EVERYONE.  Social security cards won't work.  Too easy to forge.  So yep, how else will it work to prove you're not an illegal immigrant if we don't have a system for identifying everyone and everyone doesn't carry their Id around with them? It's kinda like Soviet Russia but only more Conservative. Comrade, are you an illegal immigrant? Prove it.  Show me your "Joe Wilson Id".  Don't have it? You look mexican enough. We must take you to the Ronald Reagan Memorial Gulag!  So bottom line folks, under the republican proposals, if you want to be sign up for a government subsidized health plan or probably any health plan, get ready to sign up with the FEDERAL government for that official NATIONAL ID card.  How else could you prove that you're not here illegally if you don't have the card?

Stupid ideas are easy. See I just gave you one! :-) Implementation a bit harder. Try again Bub.

 

 

You're missing the point

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 19:39.

What I find so amusing about these illegal immigrant arguments is that we're still having this conversation.  I remember this stuff back from the early 90s.  So let's see. During the 80s's Republican led executive until 92.  Unable to solve this problem.  Republican led Congress through most of the 90s. Unable (Unwilling?) to solve this problem.  Republican led Congress AND Executive incapable/unable (Unwilling?) to solve this "problem" during most of the 2000s.   Whine whine whine all the time, but fundamentally,incompetent.

You're missing the point of the exercise, though. Republicans aren't showing "incompetence" on this issue; it accomplishes exactly what they want it to accomplish, which is to play racial politics. That's what the ranting about illegal immigration is about, and that's all it's about--playing the race card. It's aimed at creating, in Americans, resentment (and stoking existing resentment) over the fact that there are so many brown people who speak with funny accents (or, worse, don't speak English much at all), and then exploiting it. It's the new version of "keepin' tha' niggers in line.". That's why the conservative politicians who harp on the "issue" have no real policy proposals to deal with the so-called "problem" (which, in itself, is almost entirely their own invention), and, in fact, don't do anything about it. Joe Wilson reacts so viscerally toward Obama's pointing out that his ilk had been lying about illegal immigrants in the health care reform bill because Obama was pulling the rug out from under such an effective "issue."

It's true, you'll be utterly befuddled by the Republican's constant gripe about the "issue," given their utter inaction on it, and lack of any realistic policy proposals. The "issue" does, however, serve its real purpose quite well.

Or do they really mean that they want a national ID card system?

That's a chilling idea, particularly in the shadow of the previous administration, but yes, it has been thrown out there.

http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/

Far from any sort of

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 16:56.

Far from any sort of "vindication," the "Baucus" bill, the 5th major health care reform bill in the congress, merely becomes the 5th major health care reform plan that doesn't cover illegal immigrants.

A couple of points

Submitted by Jacob on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 14:43.

First, it's probably a good thing the Republicans haven't "solved" the immigration issue, or at least the more conservative Republicans.  

Second, your claim that our system of verifying legal status is to raise your right hand and swear on it... My initial reaction is "what on Earth are you talking about?"  I'm not sure if it's worthy of a response.  Having people present an official form of identification is unreasonable to you?   I can't even argue with logic that says "well we have no way of doing it (which is untrue) so just forget the whole thing."  

Lastly, as for the "Baucus" bill (not sure why you put it in quotes, considering what has been released is the Chairman's Mark and, Max Baucus being the chairman, is aptly called Baucus' bill quite frequently in the press), you claim that it is merely the 5th piece of health care legislation that excludes illegal immigrants for eligibility, but, if you read my initial post -- which it seems like you did not -- you would see that my argument is that the expansion and clarification of the language dealing with illegals indicates that there really was something inadequate in the previous versions.  I guess you don't really care about reading the arguments and responding to them though, but would rather just go on an unintelligible and nonsensical rant on the hatred that constantly and exclusively originates from the right.  

You've mixed up two entirely

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 16:24.

You've mixed up two entirely different posters. I'll respond to the parts that were aimed at things I'd written.

The point of the immigration "issue" isn't to solve anything; it's to play racial politics. It isn't a "problem" of any real magnitude, and the very few proposed "solutions" we get from those on the right who howl about it (such as a new Berlin Wall on the southern border) are nonsense.

Baucus is the top recipient of health care industry contributions in the Senate, and he's acting as their paid stooge to try to defeat the "public option." I put the "Baucus" in "Baucus bill" in quotes because it wasn't written by Max Baucus, but by the former Vice President of Wellpoint (Baucus himself probably doesn't even know what's in a lot of it).

I didn't mention your argument about the "expansion and clarification" of language because it isn't worthy of mention--it doesn't even rise to the level of an argument. It's a matter of public record that none of the 5 bills now under consideration cover illegal immigrants. There's no way to spin that into some sort of "vindication" of Joe Wilson.

Lets accept what you say.

Submitted by Mead50 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 14:49.

my argument is that the expansion and clarification of the language dealing with illegals indicates that there really was something inadequate in the previous versions.

For the sake of argument, lets accept what you assert here. That justifies Wilson shouting "you lie" at the President in the House on live national TV?

Answer: No.