You are sorely misinformed like Rep. Wilson. This rabid, emotional approach to this issue is not constructive. The bill clearly states that you won't be a part of this plan if you are not in the country legally.
From the NYT today:
The legislation approved by three House committees clearly states that only lawful residents will qualify for new health insurance subsidies. “Nothing in this subtitle,” it says, “shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

I disagree, if this kind of stuff happens in congress, then it will be like taiwan's (I think it was them) parliamentary fight. There has to be some civility in this, or nothing will ever get accomplished (like it would anyways...). If someone shouted out in congress every time someone else lied, CSPAN would have to be on mute. There is a time and a place for dissent, but this was a poorly chosen one. This won't help the republicans at all, and will more than likely help the democrats.

It was a valid point, just improper timing- in a business meeting at work if your boss says something that is wrong do you stand up in the middle of the conference call and yell "Bullshit you lying piece of..." ? I imagine not. But there is a time and place for disagreement.

Obama: 'If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out'

Joe Wilson (R-SC) returns the favor ... calls out Obama
Democrats get their collective "tit in a ringer"

Bernard:

While the bill states that only lawful residents can use Obamacare, it also has no penalty for illegals using it, and no means of enforcing the "lawful residents only" provisions. Indeed, I believe it prohibits checking.

So, if I am an illegal, and there is no penalty for breaking the law and no way for me to get caught, obviously I am going to respect that law. right? Dream on.

@Bernard

Current law prohibits medical providers from asking whether a patient is a legal resident.

Yeah, they threw in that language knowing that it was completely unenforceable.

That makes it a lie.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. Are they going to repeal that, and leave the critically ill in the streets to die if they don't have their papers in hand? Didn't think so.

Many illegals are covered by their employer's health plans. How do we address that? Heh.

Clinics and health centers serving low-income paitents never ask for proof of citizenship. We going to make such ID mandatory? Dump the ill and suffering back into the streets? I think not.

Yes, we'll continue to cover illegals in one form or another.

>>"The legislation approved by three House committees clearly states that only lawful residents will qualify for new health insurance subsidies. “Nothing in this subtitle,” it says, “shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”"

You must be joking. It's not whatever nonsense is written in the subtitle, it's what measures are in place in the bill itself to prevent illegals from using our health care system. And there are no such neasures! The House Republicans attempted to put some in, and the Democrats stripped them out.

Obama was lying, and so are you.

>>"From the NYT today"

Well there's your problem! Stop reading Democratic party propaganda and thinking it describes reality.

Tully I agree with you, however, Obama said his health care proposals would not cover illegal aliens but it will.

Yes, we'll continue to cover illegals in one form or another. Posted by Tully at September 10, 2009 09:52 AM

For the time being, yes. At some point--when the country decides to look at more of the real reasons health care costs are rising, then reducing the number of illegal aliens and their drain on our resources will become a priority.

Simply requiring proof of citizenship/legal residency for work, school, and government-subsidized medical care will resolve a lot of the problem. Doesn't mean they will be denied emergency care--just that they will go from the emergency room to the INS detention center.

As for private charity, such as the free Catholic hospitals: nothing is stopping them from providing health care to whomever they wish. At least as long as the charity services exist; with the destruction of charitable deductions and the assault on Catholic hospitals (requiring them to provide abortion services) this option may disappear.

Obama is lying and should be called out in public about it. First, there is not a crisis in medical care. That should be reason enough to slow this process and inform the public as to their options. The only problem that I know of with medical care is the insurance agencies that can do whatever they desire. Some regulation here is necessary but not the government taking over. The other aspect of medical care is cost, that is directly related to the government and the fact they will not pay for medicare and medicaid. In fact if the the government got out of medicine then everything would be perfect.

Joe Wilson stood up to “get in their face” and “punch back twice as hard.”

Oh, wait. That's what Obama instructed his supporters to do.

We don't currently "exclude coverage" from illegals. Anybody is welcome to purchase whatever insurance they like. That doesn't seem to be headed for a change, and unless you want insurers to require some kind of proof of citizenship, say, a national ID card, it can't change. What the President was talking about was that the plan will not use federal funds to pay for any illegal's insurance, which doesn't sound bad to me. Wilson was inaccurate as well as out of line.

Yes, we already pay for their emergency room care, and I don't really see any good ways around that which wouldn't impact citizens negatively as well. It's kind of hard to answer citizenship questions if you have just been hit by a truck or have been robbed of your ID and shot. Unless there's somebody here advocating a national DNA or fingerprint database to keep track of who is a citizen, that sort of filtering is going to be unrealistic. I don't even like the "national ID card" idea, much less something more extreme.

Perhaps reducing the scope of emergency rooms to, well, emergencies would stop their being used as ridiculously expensive primary care by the uninsured. Of course, then you need to figure out how to provide that primary care more effectively. Gee, this health care stuff gets complicated.

I guess the fact that Obama's plan specifically excludes illegals isn't good enough to make his statement that his reforms do not cover illegal immigrants true in the eyes of the Far Right; it must specifically state "wetbacks must be left to die in the streets, and hospital employees will be imprisoned for treating the undocumented seriously ill" in order for a simple statement of fact to become "true" in the eyes of birthers, DeathPanelistas and other assorted wingnuts.

Wetbacks, huh?

Alex, You're racism's showing.

Be better.

Wetbacks, huh?

Alex, Your racism's showing.

Be better on your character.

And I'll be better on my syntax.

Well, I'll be better on my syntax either way, but I don't know if you're going to be able to shake being a racist.

Alex, You're[sic] racism's [sic] showing.

My use of the term was intended to mock the xenophobic and racist use of illegal immigrants as a dishonest prop with which to bash health care reform while simultaneously being used to dishonestly call Obama a liar by Joey and now Bobby here.

What's your excuse for being unable to use standard English?

Alex, although 'you're' was incorrect, 'racism's' is perfectly fine. Expand it out as "You're[sic] racism is showing." I think you're the one that can't parse English properly.

David said "The only problem that I know of with medical care is the insurance agencies that can do whatever they desire"

David, you are being taken in by Obama when he demonizes insurance companies as he has done with many other industries. Insurance companies and their agents are regulated and supervised by very stringent State laws. They cannot do whatever they desire. There is always a valid reason when you hear the spin about cancelling while sick or cancelling the coverage after issuance. Regarding pre-existing condition exclusions, insurance companies cannot offer insurance to someone after they have a sickness as you must purchase the insurance before you are sick. The insurance industry is supporting Obama's plan of insuring all with no pre-existing condition exclusions as long as everyone is compelled to purchase insurance.

Obama is calling health reform insurance reform knowing insurance companies are unpopular. This he hopes will help him in the polls. Don't buy it!

Alex, although 'you're' was incorrect, 'racism's' is perfectly fine.

Maybe at or whatever school you went to it is "perfectly fine," but his use of an apostrophe that way in written prose is both sloppy and ambiguous.

I think you're the one that can't parse English properly.

What you think's not very significant's it then?

Many illegals are covered by their employer's health plans. How do we address that? Heh.

That's an employment issue, not a health issue. It's already illegal to hire a noncitizen without a valid work visa, and the way to address it (which happens on a daily basis) is to enforce the existing laws, not fret about health insurance.

But that aside, it's hard to see what you're really concerned about by making that statement. If a person is covered by their employer's health insurance, then by definition they're paying their share. Hence there's no issue with funding. So what's the problem? Are you just unhappy that someone -- probably with brown skin -- might get access to health care they need (and paid for)? Nice little racial undertone going on there.

@NewEnglandDevil:
Current law prohibits medical providers from asking whether a patient is a legal resident.

Yeah, they threw in that language knowing that it was completely unenforceable.

What are you worried about? Providing health care, or paying for it? Unless I'm mistaken, the debate is over paying for it -- the usual refrain being that if our taxes are being used for a public option, then we need to ensure that only those paying in get coverage, i.e. citizens and resident aliens (valid visa-holders). Right?

Seems like that's completely enforceable. Just require proof of legal residency when signing someone up for the public option. Medical providers may not ask about residency status, but they definitely inquire pretty strongly about proof of insurance.

>>"Wilson was inaccurate as well as out of line."

Wilson was both accurate and in line. The Congressional Research Service agrees that the Dems bill will cover illegals. It's hard to believe that anybody would try to argue otherwise.

>>"We don't currently "exclude coverage" from illegals."

We currently exclude a range of government services from illegals. What you mean to say is that private insurance companies are free to cover them or not as they wish. Ths is true, but besides the point.

>>"What the President was talking about was that the plan will not use federal funds to pay for any illegal's insurance"

And what we are talking about is that his plan will use federal funds to provide health care for illegals. You can't deny that so you engage in silly parsing and hair-splitting.

>>"I guess the fact that Obama's plan specifically excludes illegals isn't good enough"

"Obama's plan", which is actually the Democrats in Congress' plan, does not exclude illegals. Why do you people keep lying like tis?

Wetbacks? Ha...that is the common name for illegals down here. Even the illegals call themselves wetbacks.

Except it ain't been too wet the last couple of years and you can just walk across the river getting nothing wet but your boots.

BTW, here is something worthy of a post I believe.

Exposing Acorn In Child Prostitution Sting

And yes, Obama is a lier, you can tell by his record.

Papa Ray
West Texas

"Obama's plan", which is actually the Democrats in Congress' plan, does not exclude illegals. Why do you people keep lying like tis?

Why are you people unable to understand simple words like, "“No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits.” or Titles such as “NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS" or “Nothing in this subtitle,” it says, “shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

Or do you simply ignore all words which conflict with the Teachings of Chairman Rush or those of Secretary General Hannity?

"Argue With Neighbors, Get In Their Face"

Half a million dollars raised for Rob Miller the Democrat running against Joe Wilson next year.

I've never called a Mexican a wetback. I think that's a racist term used by racists like Alex.

Racist.

Just require proof of legal residency when signing someone up for the public option

Sounds like a great idea. Why is it that the TWO amendments to require just that were defeated in committee by Democrats.

In the end, as noted, there is no penalty for an illegal to use the public option, and NO WAY to determine they are illegal when they sign up for it.

Oh go watch Maggie Thatcher and her unruly Parliament in action to get a feel for "public discourse" and the proper protocol for hammering out the national dialogue.

Obama's only power is in controlling the dialogue at every turn.

Pomp and circumstance is for graduates from institutes of higher learning and lower understanding. And monarchies.

WE, the people. Not, OBAMA, the one.

600 thousand dollars and counting raised to defeat Lyin' Joe Wilson. "Old Yeller" is wishing he had kept his mouth shut.

apparently, it comes to light, there was a "loophole" in the law old lyin' Joe knew about the Dems have had to fix because of his truthful statement. More people should call Obama out for what he does daily and continuously. His health care plan will destroy the greatest life saving machine ever created. I hope all you clowns who supported him get what you so richly deserve when your number is called to see the robot assigned to your "care".

Ahem.

Bernard has already been schooled, but let's hammer the point in further. Bernard, when you pass a piece of legislation, or promulgate a law, you must ensure the *means of enforcement* are included in it. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke up someone's ass.

For example, suppose you intend on banning sales of alcohol to persons under the age of 15. Therefore, you pass a law stating that stores must not sell alcohol to persons under the age of 15.

Included in that law *must* be the provision that the store can (a) post the relevant warning notices, (b) that the store can check the ID for verification purposes (c) that the store clerk/owner can call the police or initiate citizen's arrest if felt necessary and (d) the appropriate law enforcement bodies are empowered to investigate and prosecute. If these are not included or otherwise implied, then the law is USELESS. Therefore meaningless as well. Hence, President BHOmbastic was blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

Think about it.

"You aren't allowed to sell alcohol to persons under the age of 15."
"Okay, can I put up a sign to that effect?"
"No."
"Er, right. How about checking their ID if I think they're well below 15?"
"Can't do that either."
"Okay, how about simply refusing the sale?"
"Nope, you must sell alcohol to everyone else."
"How about if you let me have a cop who can then check the ID?"
"Not enough cops."
"Right, so what penalty do the under-15s get if someone catches them in the act?"
"Nothing."

Still wanna call that a law?

Alex, however, requires more schooling. Especially in grammatical rules.

Your phrase

"What you think's not very significant's it then?"

is incorrectly contracted. The correctly constructed sentence should read

"What you think is not very significant, is it then?"

and correctly contracted

"What you think isn't very significant, is it then?"

The reason being that you have misplaced a comma, and that comma prevents the 'is' from being contracted.

Good points made by many here. I'd like to point out that the language does not prohibit benefits for those here Illegally.
“Nothing in this subtitle,” it says, “shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
Only means that nothing in THAT subtitle will allow for AFFORDABILITY CREDITS for those here Illegally. Nothing in there about any of the other subtitles in the bill (there are more than 50). Nothing about any other benefit in the bill.

How sure can we be that even this restriction will survive reconciliation? ACLU lawsuit? The 9th circuit?

In other words not very reassuring.

Of course the phrase was improperly contracted, Gregory. On purpose, to mock the inept grammarian to whom the reply was addressed.

Y'all's gotta be the dullest bunch o' knives I's ever encountered.

And if someone had stood up during one of Pres. Bush's speeches to congress as he lied us into a war of choice, let's say Hillary, and yelled, "That's bullshit George!", you would have supported her?

The Congressional Research Service has indicated that, as it stands, there is nothing to prevent coverage for illegal immigrants under currently considered legislation.

The major health care reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R. 3200, contains a Section 246, which is called, “NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.”

Yes, I would have supported her, if there had been any credible evidence (from the Congressional Research Service, say) that Bush had lied us into anything.

Perhaps reducing the scope of emergency rooms to, well, emergencies would stop their being used as ridiculously expensive primary care by the uninsured.

Unfortunately, according to the CDC, the group most likely to use emergency rooms for primary care is those on Medicaid, followed by Medicare and THEN the uninsured.

The reason why is pretty obvious. Medicare and Medicaid have no emergency copayments, meaning it costs more to go to the doctor, which does require a copayment, versus going to the emergency room.

One would think that the Obama Party would have realized this already -- that is, if you assume that the Obama Party has any interest in controlling health care costs, rather than simply trying to nationalize the entire health care industry and get their greedy hands on trillions more dollars for them to waste.