Congressional Research Service: ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants

posted at 10:12 am on August 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Mark Tapscott discovers a nugget in the analysis provided by the Congressional Research Office on HR3200, the House version of ObamaCare coming to the floor.  While Barack Obama insists that the idea that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is a “myth,” the CRS points out that the bill does nothing to prevent it.  Since HR3200 doesn’t require people to establish citizenship or legal residency before applying to exchanges for health insurance, including the public option, taxpayer money will certainly flow to illegal immigrants:

In what he called the “first myth” being spread by critics of his proposal for a government-run health care system, Obama said they are wrong in claiming illegal immigrants will be covered: “That is not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table.” Obama said.

Well, Mr. President, that idea must have been tucked under a stack of background briefing papers over there in the corner of the table because the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:

“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”

CRS reports do not get released to the public.  CRS offers private analysis to members of Congress on request, but rarely do they see the light of day.  However, David Freddoso got his hands on a copy of the 11-page analysis, “Treatment of Non-Citizens in HR3200″ late last night, and confirmed Tapscott’s reading:

In its subsection on health insurance subsidies (known as “affordability credits”), HR 3200 does state, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” That would seem to solve the problem, but it’s more rhetoric than reality. The bill contains no verification requirement or enforcement process for citizenship or legal residency, as exists for other federal benefit programs. The only verification required for the subsidies pertains to family income. Beyond that, as the CRS report notes, everything is left in the hands of the Health Choices Commissioner.

House Democrats defeated all attempts in committee to add an enforcement mechanism that would require proof of citizenship or legal residency for those getting subsidies.

CRS also notes that “undocumented aliens” who have a “substantial presence” in the US would be required to buy health insurance (page 4) through the exchanges in HR3200.  They would also become eligible for “emergency Medicaid,” although not normal Medicaid (page 6) for up to five years.

What about Section 246, which I said would prevent the spending of money on illegal aliens?  The CRS analysis is less than impressed with that portion of the bill.  Section “246 would bar unauthorized aliens from receiving any premium or cost-sharing credit,” it says, but that may be hard to enforce.  It also states later that “absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits” — or in other words, HR3200 fails to provide it entirely.  I gave it a little too much credit, apparently, more than Congress’ own analysts do.

Be sure to read it all.  If Congress tells us that no money will go to cover illegal aliens, we can show them the CRS report and ask them to stop spreading myths.

Update: Congressional Research Service, not Office.  Had it right in the story, not in the headline.  Sorry about that!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Yeah yeah yeah. Pretend there’s a crisis when there isn’t one, shove through legislation solving a problem that doesn’t exist but that happens to benefit your side and then wrap the cheap ribbon of phony patriotism around it.
Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

There you go, BB making fun of the Statists again, you’re a natural at it.

Chainsaw56 on August 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Really? Because it is a fact that health care costs are ridiculous and climbing and that tens of millions are uninsured.

Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Since you and your fellow liberals are so concerned about people without insurance, I suggest you all get together and form a national insurance fund and donate. There are hundreds of thousands … if not millions of filthy rich liberals in this country. You want insurance, you donate and give it to them

It’s your idea … you pay for it. Donate generously, illegals are counting on you as well.

darwin on August 28, 2009 at 1:58 PM

It’s your idea … you pay for it. Donate generously, illegals are counting on you as well.
darwin on August 28, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Good point, Why don’t the leftist take all their millions – the Kennedys, George Soros, and all the rest take their money set up a system and leave the rest of us alone?

How’s about it BB, why don’t they do that?

Chainsaw56 on August 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM

I love this.
I just heard on CNN news (no, I do not listen to CNN anything, I was listening to Rush and this was the top of the news on the radio),, anyway, they reported how some guy at a town hall said illegal immigrants should not be receiving free health care! Then they played a clip of the mobster yelling “I shouldn’t have to pay for illegals!” Then, of course, the CNN announcer came on next, defended Obama and said “Obama has repeated care for illegal immigrants is not even on the table.”
Absolutely amazing! We have no media in this country other than the internet, talk radio and Fox news!

JellyToast on August 28, 2009 at 2:17 PM

BB –

Really? Because it is a fact that health care costs are ridiculous and climbing and that tens of millions are uninsured. I’m pretty sure that most CEOs of the Fortune 500 — whose pre-recession profits were less than their health care costs — would agree that there’s a crisis.

And, with climate change, I’m with the preponderance of scientific consensus. And, unlike with voter ID, there’s no obvious political payoff for climate change legislation. We just think it needs to be done.

As to climate change – consenus does not a scientific fact make. And the destruction it would cause to teh U.S. economy is, in fact, the real reason for it and in the left’s eyes would be a political benefit. So you are wrong on all counts.

As to teh healthcare “crisis” – if the costs are the problem, why does the bill only address insuring more people? Nothing in that bill addresses costs. Instead, it leaves that to some future beauracratic genuis who will “bend the curve” through rationing.

The healthcare bill proposed right now has absolutely nothing to do with costs. No rational argument has been made as to what, precisely, exists in the bill that would allegedly reduce costs.

You really are an idiot and you are ignorant.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 2:18 PM

I wonder why Mexicans come here illegally for medical care when Mexico has government run health care.

darwin on August 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I love how the left tries to pretend the healthcare proposal is about “costs”. If it is about the high costs of medical care – i.e., the cost of tests, dr’s visits, hospital stays – why is there nothing in the bill to reduce costs? No tort reform or anything else that would reduce the actual cost of providing care. The bill only addresses insurance coverage – which is not the same thing.

Indeed, the bill will increase costs b/c the gov’t will become involved, which history has proven always increases cost. The left can point to new example where gov’t running something decreased costs.

Again, why must the left always lie? How do they live with themselves?

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Hey BB -

You never answered. Since I don’t have transportation, have a hard time getting off work, and don’t like authority, should I be allowed to purchase a gun w/o an I.D.?

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM

I went over to LGF today to see if Charles had gone back on his medication. Well the news isn’t good on that front, but I did stumble across a project they have going there where they attempt to list questions about the health care reform effort that need to be answered before any vote should be taken on the bill. There were pretty good questions.

Then I got to the first question for which there was an answer. The question concerned coverage of illegals. They quoted factcheck.org and stamped it “false” without comment. Now I’m sure they didn’t have the benefit of the CRS pointing and laughing at the issue before they went to press (they do now and can change it of course), but just how knowingly dishonest do you have to be to claim that illegals would not benefit, knowing that the bill did not specifically exclude them as all entitlement bills do, and knowing that attempts to plug that gap were voted down?

LGF is now running interference for the Obama/Pelosi health-care proposal. I could understand his objection to neo-nazis in Europe and the push for creationism being taught in schools as principled stands, but it isn’t that, apparently. He’s gone ’round the bend.

Now I have no objection to people changing their minds. If you want to be a liberal, go right ahead. But don’t construct an elaborate fantasy world around you to make it look like you were pushed. Either walk that road like a proud man or woman, or go find the answer somewhere for yourself. Hiding behind the Republican boogeyman is just cowardly. What a shame.

Immolate on August 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Gee, so a guy who works for a race baiting extortionist organization thinks that vote ID disproportionately affects Democrats, who would have thought?

Matt A. Barreto is an Associate Professor in political science at the University of Washington, Seattle and currently the director of the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race (WISER).

Pretend there’s a crisis when there isn’t one

So there isn’t a crisis then? Which side are you on? Asking people to produce an ID is a requirement at virtually every single transaction people have relating to the government, how is it manufacturing a crisis to have them do it in the one single instance when they don’t have to?

then wrap the cheap ribbon of phony patriotism around it.

Am I an un-American evil mongerer according to your heroes and role models, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

You contribute nothing. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but recycled talking points from the DNC are freely available in the MSM. We know your pathetic counter arguments better than you do.

NoDonkey on August 28, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Really? Because it is a fact that health care costs are ridiculous and climbing and that tens of millions are uninsured.

Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Since you and your fellow liberals are so concerned about people without insurance, I suggest you all get together and form a national insurance fund and donate. There are hundreds of thousands … if not millions of filthy rich liberals in this country. You want insurance, you donate and give it to them

It’s your idea … you pay for it. Donate generously, illegals are counting on you as well.

darwin on August 28, 2009 at 1:58 PM

If I can get my money back for that stupid war you guys started, it’s a deal.

Hey BB -

You never answered. Since I don’t have transportation, have a hard time getting off work, and don’t like authority, should I be allowed to purchase a gun w/o an I.D.?

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM

No. Downside to selling a gun to the wrong person are far greater than the downside of giving a vote to the wrong person. And — as much as we all love guns — voting is the more fundamental right.

Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Can I get my money back for the VietNam War that you ba$tards started (see how stupid this exercise is)?

Oh, and if “Global Warming” and your “carbon footprint” is causing you to get your thong in a twist, why don’t you do the honorable thing, put the gun in your mouth, and pull the trigger. You know, for the planet…

PimFortuynsGhost on August 28, 2009 at 2:56 PM

No. Downside to selling a gun to the wrong person are far greater than the downside of giving a vote to the wrong person. And — as much as we all love guns — voting is the more fundamental right.

It is?

Which amendment exactly is the “right to vote without an ID because I lost it, dude”?

NoDonkey on August 28, 2009 at 3:06 PM

So many of you choose to remain uninformed/misinformed, but what the heck, I’ll link this anyway:

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

Read it, or just go back to believing everything you read via email/letter from the RNC.

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Yeah, buddy. When I want to know the truth about a situation, the first place I’ll go is to a Soros-sponsored website. Not.

kingsjester on August 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Yeah, buddy. When I want to know the truth about a situation, the first place I’ll go is to a Soros-sponsored website. Not.
kingsjester on August 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Soros doesn’t own factcheck.org… it’s funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. You may be confused because Soros takes advantage of misdirected traffic created by people typing .com instead of .org.

The Annenberg Foundation’s creator, Walter Annenberg, was a good friend of Ronald Reagan.

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Oh. You mean the same Annenburg Foundation that employed Barack Obama and Bill Ayers in its Chicago Office? Sure, I know a lot about them. They fund a lot of PBS Programming as well. Not interested in that clearly “unbiased” cough cough site.

kingsjester on August 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Read it, or just go back to believing everything you read via email/letter from the RNC.

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM

That’s hilarious, when the RNC writes me their letter goes straight to the trash.

I might as well light my money on fire than give it to those milquetoasts.

I don’t watch Fox News and I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I read MSM publications like my local paper (filled with AP stories gushing over the health care “reform” Bill), the Economist, the New York Times, etc.

And I still think this Bill sucks. Is that OK?

NoDonkey on August 28, 2009 at 3:51 PM

If I can get my money back for that stupid war you guys started, it’s a deal.

Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Wars end, government run medical care doesn’t … besides the fact that your democrat Congressmen voted for it. Also the cost of this health care fiasco is four times the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

This is totally a progressive idea that no one wants except a small minority.

YOU pay for it … leave us, and our pockets alone.

darwin on August 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

“Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

The wording on this leaves me to wonder if what they really mean is that the States will still bear the majority of the financial burden of illegal health care costs.

Nothing I saw in the bill alters EMTALA so illegals will still be covered under this mechanism.

batterup on August 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Sieg heil, Barack! (Or do you prefer Barry?)

Cybergeezer on August 28, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Because once it’s done, they’ll have the fed agencies in charge of excecution, interpret in a way that will include everything that they told us it wouldn’t do.

Then they’ll gloat and congratulate themselves for putting yet another one over on us.

NoDonkey on August 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM

That’s exactly right. They’ll have some mealy-mouthed language in the bill to give themselves political cover (like what’s in the House bill now), and then the “Health Choices Commissioner” will write regulations that spell out the proof required to establish eligibility. Look for something like this: “Checking ‘yes’ in the box on the application which asks ‘Are you a U.S. citizen?’ will be deemed conclusive proof of elibigility. No further evidence of citizenship shall be required.”

They used this same kind of tactic in the last amnesty bill. After critics pointed out that offering amnesty to the illegals already here would lead to a flood of new illegals trying to get in on the amnesty, they wrote in a 2-year U.S. residency requirement. What kind of proof was the amnesty-seeking illegal alien required to produce to show that he or she had already been living in the U.S. for two years? An affidavit. For those who don’t know, an affidavit is nothing more than a statement, signed in front of a Notary Public. So they were going to accept as conclusive evidence of 2-year residency a piece of paper from the illegal, saying “I swear that I’ve lived in the U.S. for two years.” And hey, nobody needed to worry that the illegals who wanted amnesty might lie in an affidavit because that would be against the law — and an illegal alien wouldn’t dare break our laws, right?

AZCoyote on August 28, 2009 at 4:19 PM

NOTICE:
There will be goose step practice at your local high school this weekend!

Cybergeezer on August 28, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Annenberg Foundation
Finances

for tax year ending 6/30/2003

Total Assets $2,676,000,851.00
Grants Awarded $0.00

Top Grants Made:

Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame
——————————————————–
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $1,450,000.00 2005 – 2006
Natural Resources Defense Council $805,000.00 2002 – 2005
World Wildlife Fund $78,333.00 1993 – 2000
Sierra Club $77,500.00 1999 – 2001
Environmental Defense $66,666.00 1993 – 1994
American Oceans Campaign $5,050.00 1999 – 2000

Nope, not a leftist organization.

daesleeper on August 28, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Hat tip to the people at activistcash.com

daesleeper on August 28, 2009 at 4:29 PM

I hate to say I knew it, but hey

Can Congress force me to buy health insurance?
you ask
The Congress CAN”T ( WON”T )do that to you if you are one or more of the following :
Illegal alien
Criminal illegal alien
Anchor baby
Union member ( SEIU)
Cholo/Chola
Represented by any race based action group (LaRaza, PRLDF)
But you are scroood if you are legal resident/citizen with a job/ business, pay taxes ,take care of your family and never even had a parking ticket in your life. This is the exact type of people that keep bringing up that pesky constitution thingy into this debate.Who needs people like these ? Not the Huss or his minions

The objectives of this so called reform ( sarc.) are :

1. Cut medicare spending for seniors ( so they exit faster and sooner ) to use the resulting savings for funding abortions. DEATHS all around…yaaay
2. Since AMNESTY could not make it through the Congress,
call it HEALTH-CARE and get it this time. Why do you think ACORN, LaRaza, LULAC, PRLDF, SEIU and even Geraldo Rivera are campaigning for it?

macncheez on August 22, 2009 at 7:43 PM

This whole “healthcare” frenzy is not for those who have health insurance, or can afford health insurance, or are eligible for govt backed health insurance. IT IS FOR THE ILLEGALS.

I’d like to see McCain’s views on all this

macncheez on August 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding such noteworthy leftist organizations as the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy; the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for Justice; NARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; the Center for American Progress; Campaign for America’s Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect; MoveOn.org; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; MADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group.

From discoverthenetworks.org

Soros doesn’t own factcheck.org… it’s funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. You may be confused because Soros takes advantage of misdirected traffic created by people typing .com instead of .org.

The Annenberg Foundation’s creator, Walter Annenberg, was a good friend of Ronald Reagan.

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM

I believe I sank your battleship.

daesleeper on August 28, 2009 at 4:38 PM

The Annenberg Foundation’s creator, Walter Annenberg, was a good friend of Ronald Reagan.

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM

So does that mean we should believe Obama and his handlers that illegals will not be getting taxpayer funded health benefits? Thats all you got? No facts, no numbers, just
” oh he was friend of Reagan”?
How does it matter who was friends with whom a few decades ago?
Is Annenberg alive? Does he decide who the money goes to? Who decides who gets the foundation’s money?

And BTW Reagan started this whole amnesty cr@p which has gone out of control
Lets verify before we trust

macncheez on August 28, 2009 at 5:07 PM

If I can get my money back for that stupid war you guys started, it’s a deal.

Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Pretty lame there .

CWforFreedom on August 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM

If I can get my money back for that stupid war you guys started, it’s a deal.

Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Hey, if I can get my money back for democrat wars … WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, Bosnia … you can have your money back for Iraq.

Deal?

darwin on August 28, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Really? Because it is a fact that health care costs are ridiculous and climbing and that tens of millions are uninsured.

Bleeds Blue on August 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM

http://www.atra.org/wrap/files.cgi/7964_howworks.html

TEXAS: Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth; Aids Access to Healthcare

In 2003, the Texas state Legislature passed H.B. 4 to further reform the state’s civil justice system. The bill addressed issues such as: limits on noneconomic damages; product liability reform; punitive damages; medical liability reform joint and several liability; and class action reform. Voters also approved a constitutional amendment, Proposition 12, in 2003, which eliminates potential court challenges to the law that limited noneconomic damages to $750,000. Since the enactment of H.B. 4 and the subsequent passage of Proposition 12, Texas has made great strides in growing its economy and providing jobs and accessible healthcare to its citizens.

Success in the business community:

Texas was awarded the 2004 Governor’s Cup award for the largest number of job creation announcements (Site Selection Magazine, 3/05).
Texas also was selected as the state with the best business climate in the nation by Site Selection Magazine (Site Selection Magazine, 3/05).
Successes in the medical community:

The American Medical Association dropped Texas from its list of states in medical liability crisis (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Malpractice claims are down and physician recruitment and retention are up, particularly in high risk specialties (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
The five largest Texas insurers cut rates, which will save doctors about $50 million, according to the AMA (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Malpractice lawsuits in Harris County have dropped to about half of what they were in 2001 and 2002. There were 204 cases filed in 2004, compared with 441 in 2001 and 550 in 2002. There were 1,154 lawsuits filed in 2003, attributed to attorneys trying to file before the new law took effect (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Harris County has seen a net gain of 689 physicians, an 8.4 percent increase, according to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Texas Medical Liability Trust, the state’s largest liability carrier, reduced its premiums by 17 percent (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Fifteen new insurance companies have entered the Texas market (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
Health Care Indemnity, the state’s largest carrier for hospitals, cut rates by 15 percent in 2004 (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
American Physicians Insurance Exchange and The Doctor’s Company also reduced premiums (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
The American Physicians Insurance Exchange saw a $3.5 million reduction in premiums for Texas physicians in 2005. In addition, beginning May 1, 2005, 2,2000 of the 3,500 physicians insured by the company would see an average drop of 5 percent in their premiums (The Heartland Institute, 5/1/05).
Texas: Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth

In 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a series of bills to reform the state’s civil justice system. These bills addressed: limits on punitive damages, joint and several liability, sanctions for filing frivolous suits, limits on venue shopping and out-of-state filings, modifications to deceptive trade practices and medical malpractice reform.

According to the study, The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas, the total cost of the Texas tort system in 2000 was $15.482 billion. Without reforms, it is estimated that the total cost would have been $25.889 billion. Of the $10.407 billion in total direct savings, approximately $2.777 billion may be attributed to improvements at the national level while $7.630 billion in savings were from reforms in Texas. Of the total savings, $2.542 billion went directly to benefit consumers.

The Perryman Group. The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas Overall Economic Impact on State’s Economy. (August 2000)

Facts to Consider: Benefits to Consumers

It is estimated that reforms enacted in 1995 resulted in savings of $2.542 billion that directly benefits consumers.

$1.796 billion in annual cost savings from reduced inflation ($216 per household)

$7.056 billion in annual total personal growth income ($862 per household)

The net result was a savings of $1,078 per year to the typical Texas household.

The Perryman Group. The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas Overall Economic Impact on State’s Economy. (August 2000)

izoneguy on August 28, 2009 at 5:35 PM

I said this yesterday- I’ll pay for illegals healthcare, but it has to be on a one to one trade with Mexico and Barry goes first.

anniekc on August 28, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Hey, if I can get my money back for democrat wars … WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, Bosnia … you can have your money back for Iraq.

Deal?

darwin on August 28, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Okay, that was a great comeback…and I just saw bleeds blue crawl out the door, liberal tail between his legs…

right2bright on August 28, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Can we now dispel the myth that Obama knows what’s in HR 3200?

hawksruleva on August 28, 2009 at 6:00 PM

Hey, if I can get my money back for democrat wars … WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, Bosnia … you can have your money back for Iraq.

Deal?

darwin on August 28, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Didn’t we ALREADY pay for Iraq? Reagan gave us the peace dividend. We just took out a loan against that for a free, peace-loving Middle East.

hawksruleva on August 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM

izoneguy on August 28, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Noone has even talked about the fact that the Dems would most likely try to use Preemption to bypass all of the 30+ state tort reform laws currently in place and basically federalize (i.e. eliminate)medical liability law.

txmomof6 on August 28, 2009 at 6:10 PM

The Dems and the War:

2002:

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against.

2009:

Sadly, there are just 32 Real Democrats out of 258 in the House of Representatives.

These 32 Real Democrats stood up to immense pressure from President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer and voted against the $106 billion war supplemental because they want to bring our troops home.

While the House Dems did not in a majority support the War at its outset they did not end it when they had a chance.
The Majority of Dem Senators as noted above did support . Had they not the resolution would have failed.

So Mr. Blue …. blame your Dems

CWforFreedom on August 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM

DUH!!

EMTALA already REQUIRES Emergency Rooms to see, triage, perform a medical screening exam by a physician, and stabilize ANYONE, FROM ANY COUNTRY, IN THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY, under threat of fine, sanctions or imprisonment under Federal Law.

The claim that Health Care Reform won’t apply to illegal aliens is pure, unaduterated bull$hit.

bannedbyhuffpo on August 28, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Who cares? This poor sick Marxist country is going down the sewer at warp speed and won’t be around long enough to even worry about it.

rplat on August 28, 2009 at 7:39 PM

I believe I sank your battleship.
daesleeper on August 28, 2009 at 4:38 PM

If you had a point, I think you forgot what it was. The Annenberg Foundation is not on the list you provided. The site you linked is quite amusing, though.

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 7:46 PM

So does that mean we should believe Obama and his handlers that illegals will not be getting taxpayer funded health benefits? Thats all you got? No facts, no numbers, just ”oh he was friend of Reagan”?
macncheez on August 28, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Page 143 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.”

Specific enough?

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Page 143 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.”

Specific enough?

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 7:52 PM

And how will they find out the immigration / illegal status of a person ? How will they verify ID / DL to be genuine? What form of ID’s will be used, one with pictures or a copy of a utility bill at some address in any town? Or an anchor baby’s SS # ? Will the illegals be fingerprinted to match aginst a database? Will the illegal alien parents of anchor babies be classified as “dependents of citizens”
or ” diversity ambassadors of US citizens” or something
to get health insurance/care/coverage at tax-payers expense? What if they are illegal aliens but members of ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO etc.? This subtitle mentions only federal payments, what about state, county and city level payments? Afterall we have them issuing ID to illegals, right? Will ACORN, SEIU , LaRaza or LULAC start their own “co-ops” ( wink wink) and then get taxpayer money to run them, just as they get taxpayer money when they give financial contributions to dems/prez?

It all depends on what the meaning of “lawfully” is !

macncheez on August 28, 2009 at 8:31 PM

I am sure every hardworking American wants to give a chunk of the money he or she earns to pay for the abortions of illegals.

Right?

Elizabetty on August 28, 2009 at 8:46 PM

I don’t like the way my last comment looks on the page.

I just mean the combination of paying for illegals and paying for abortions might just be too much for some tax payers to handle.

Elizabetty on August 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM

I am sure every hardworking American wants to give a chunk of the money he or she earns to pay for the abortions of illegals.

Right?

Elizabetty on August 28, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Or we can send that money to Mexico through our Churches (!!)so they don’t have to bother coming here and stinking-up our emergency rooms and welfare offices with anchor-babies .

macncheez on August 28, 2009 at 8:52 PM

I just mean the combination of paying for illegals and paying for abortions might just be too much for some tax payers to handle.

Elizabetty on August 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Agreed. Lets pay for a network of planned parenthood in Mexico

macncheez on August 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Page 143 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.”

Specific enough?

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 7:52 PM

No.

When the “Health Choices Commissioner” writes the regulations implementing this provision, it will look something like this:
“All applications for affordability credits shall contain the following interrogatory: ‘Are you a U.S. citizen or legal resident of the U.S.?’ An applicant’s affirmative answer to this interrogatory shall be deemed conclusive proof that the applicant is residing lawfully in the U.S., and no further proof of eligibility shall be required.”

Specific enough for you to understand now how this game is played?

AZCoyote on August 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM

They’re already “covered”. They go to the emergency room if they need help like the rest of the uninsured.

Actually, I’m even beginning to question why one needs health insurance. I suppose to avoid the nagging phone calls from collection agencies, but even with insurance I’ve gotten those for the out of pocket expenses, and for stuff I had paid, thought I’d paid, or didn’t know they expected me to pay!

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM

I asked my blue dog to offer an amendment to prohibit coverage of illegal aliens and he has been unable to respond .

borntoraisehogs on August 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

So, lemme’ see if I got this straight…

Mr. Sotero is LYING, when he says, “Illegal immigrants would not be covered.” ?

Shock

franksalterego on August 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

I believe I sank your battleship.
daesleeper on August 28, 2009 at 4:38 PM

If you had a point, I think you forgot what it was. The Annenberg Foundation is not on the list you provided. The site you linked is quite amusing, though.

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Ok ignoramus.

Annenberg Foundation
Finances

for tax year ending 6/30/2003

Total Assets $2,676,000,851.00
Grants Awarded $0.00

Top Grants Made:

Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame
——————————————————–
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $1,450,000.00 2005 – 2006
Natural Resources Defense Council $805,000.00 2002 – 2005
World Wildlife Fund $78,333.00 1993 – 2000
Sierra Club $77,500.00 1999 – 2001
Environmental Defense $66,666.00 1993 – 1994
American Oceans Campaign $5,050.00 1999 – 2000

Nope, not a leftist organization.

daesleeper on August 28, 2009 at 4:28 PM

See that? That is you being owned you f*&@ng f@&@got

daesleeper on August 29, 2009 at 12:19 AM

LMMFAO!

daesleeper on August 29, 2009 at 12:25 AM

In honor of the great work Ted Kennedy did for healthcare in the U.S., ObamaCare should be renamed Kopechne Care and left to die without any assistance.

Cybergeezer on August 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM

Page 143 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.”

Specific enough?

Constantine on August 28, 2009 at 7:52 PM

No federal payments for health coverage- the states will be saddled with the bills because it is an unfunded mandate.

Later (sec 152) in the bill there is an anti discrimination clause for health care. They are mixing the terms “care” & “coverage” throughout the bill.

Illegals will be covered by an unfunded mandate.

batterup on August 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM

WHAT MEDICAL CARE CRISIS?
47 million uninsured?
GIVE ME A BREAK!
Does anyone in the U.S. really think that if they have a medical problem they will not get any care?
Politicians like to throw out numbers. Numbers like 47 million. In reality the numer is closer to 8 million or about 2.5% of american citizens. How can it be that the federal government wants to change 95% of a health care system that works.

TomLawler on August 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Of course they will

The illegals already have MORE rights
under the liberals than our military soldiers
do under the us constitution..

For the democrats would accuse our soldiers
of mass murder, even if it never happened
they accuse our soldiers anyway
then put them on trial
and then when they fail to get a conviction
they villify our fine soldiers in the media

But if its an illegal mexican
raping our women, shooting our border patrol agents
While carrying in 50 tons of drugs a day
Well obama and the democrats invite the drug smuggler
over for tea and hash brownines..

http://www.veteranoutrage.com
Enough is Enough..
I have Had it..

veteranoutrage on August 31, 2009 at 1:11 AM

Ok ignoramus.
Annenberg Foundation
Finances
for tax year ending 6/30/2003
Total Assets $2,676,000,851.00
Grants Awarded $0.00
Top Grants Made:
Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame
——————————————————–
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $1,450,000.00 2005 – 2006
Natural Resources Defense Council $805,000.00 2002 – 2005
World Wildlife Fund $78,333.00 1993 – 2000
Sierra Club $77,500.00 1999 – 2001
Environmental Defense $66,666.00 1993 – 1994
American Oceans Campaign $5,050.00 1999 – 2000
Nope, not a leftist organization.
daesleeper on August 28, 2009 at 4:28 PM
See that? That is you being owned you f*&@ng f@&@got
daesleeper on August 29, 2009 at 12:19 AM

Such language! Keepin’ it classy, daesleeper.
Your point is that environmental responsibility is a liberal/socialist plot? That conservation is not a conservative value?
You’ve proven the point… that you’re not very smart.

Constantine on September 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM

I have not seen elsewhere that Joe Wilson has apologized. Until he does, he is my hero.

WannabeAnglican on September 9, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Opps, wrong thread.

WannabeAnglican on September 9, 2009 at 10:36 PM

What a stupid claim. Undocumented aliens can get private coverage now. Private. Not public.

Nothing in any of the bills provides for public coverage for undocumented aliens.

Really, this is pathetic, even for you guys.

skylark on September 10, 2009 at 2:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4