The aforementioned outburst by Representative Joe Wilson was in response to President Obama’s assertion that the health care reform plan was not going to extend coverage to illegal immigrants. Whether one is in favor of the plan or not, one would like to think that one could inquire as to whether Obama’s assertion was true or whether Wilson’s was. After all, it is an empirical question, yes?
My understanding of the situation prior to last night was that there was nothing about the current proposals that would provide health insurance to illegal immigrants. Rather, I figured that a) the current situation wherein emergency rooms would treat any critical patients regardless of their status would continue, and b) since there is nothing that prevent illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance now, that that would still be the case under the proposed reforms.
The St. Peterburg Times’ PoliFact Truth-O-Meter concurs with this assessment, and gives Wilson (not Obama) a “pants on fire” rating on his assertion last night:
We read all 1,000-plus pages of the health care bill and were struck by the fact that it is largely silent on health care for illegal immigrants. Keep in mind that experts estimated there were 6.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States in 2024, out of a total of 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Right now, there are laws on the books that require hospitals to treat severely ill people who arrive at the hospital, regardless of immigration status, and we didn’t see anything that would change those laws, either.
[…]
One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for "affordability credits." These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.
[…]
When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants.
As such, there is nothing in the bill that specifically benefits illegal immigrants. It certainly does not provide them with insurance. Moreover, they are specifically banned from one of the benefits within the proposal. As such, Wilson and his supporters are simply wrong.
Since we are dealing here with assertions of falsehood, surely the actual truth is what we all want, right?1
- And no, I am not so naive to think that, in fact, the truth is what everyone wants. [↩]
September 10th, 2024 at 8:41 pm
representative Wilson called Obama a liar on two issues. The first was over illegal aliens, and while the proposal does prohibit illegal aliens from signing up for the government option, Democrats have killed any attempts to enforce that ban. That is an important detail. It seems pretty likely that illegal aliens will have no trouble signing up for the public option if nobody’s going to bother determining citizenship. Additionally, according to the Congressional Research Service “H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the [Health Insurance Exchange]—whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently” ( http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/noncitizens.pdf ).
The second was over whether federal funds would be used for abortion. And while the current proposal does not require such, a recent amendment does allow the public option to cover abortion. where would the “public option” get those funds?
Whether these are good policy decisions is different from which side is telling the truth. And it’s not as clear cut as President Obama would like it to sound.
But I guess I’m just bickering and playing games. And we all heard that good, patriotic Americans know that “the time for bickering is over” and all that.
September 10th, 2024 at 8:50 pm
And it’s not as clear cut as President Obama would like it to sound.
This may well be the case. Indeed, I wrote the following paragraph that I decided not to include:
Beyond that, it simply isn’t true that what the Dems are proposing is the extension of insurance coverage to illegal immigrants. The notion that they might buy their own insurance (something one presumes that they can do now) isn’t giving them coverage–even if they bought via the public option (something, btw, that may not even make out of the Congress).
September 10th, 2024 at 9:48 pm
You wrote: “it simply isn’t true that what the Dems are proposing is the extension of insurance coverage to illegal immigrants.”
I’ve got to take issue with that. In shooting down the Heller Amendment (and other similar proposals), the Dems are doing just that. I would argue that a true statement would be that while the Dems are not EXPLICITLY proposing the extension of insurance coverage, they are tacitly proposing just that by refusing to allow verification.
One problem with this debate is that because there are so many different drafts of different bills, with bits and pieces floating about committees and whatnot, that it’s almost impossible to be caught in a bald-faced lie, since almost any statement one makes is probably true for one proposal or another.
September 10th, 2024 at 10:21 pm
In shooting down the Heller Amendment (and other similar proposals), the Dems are doing just that. I would argue that a true statement would be that while the Dems are not EXPLICITLY proposing the extension of insurance coverage, they are tacitly proposing just that by refusing to allow verification.
But that is a matter of interpretation. Further, there are arguments that verification provisions have the effect of denying access to poor citizens. One can dispute whether one believes this to be true or not, but just like those who oppose voter ID laws, the motivations are often not about allowing illegitimate access to services, but rather honest believe that such filters also stop legitimate access.
BTW–the notion that an amendment proposed by a member of minority was shot down is hardly an unusual process in the Congress.
One problem with this debate is that because there are so many different drafts of different bills, with bits and pieces floating about committees and whatnot, that it’s almost impossible to be caught in a bald-faced lie, since almost any statement one makes is probably true for one proposal or another.
Which is part of the point of the above cited-paragraph in my response to Max.
Still, I will stand by my position (and I will note, as I have before, I am not a proponent of the bill): there is no attempt to provide health insurance for illegal immigrants.
In truth, I consider the attempt by some to make it about illegal immigrants to simply be a means by which to inflame further opposition to the process given the substantial amount of anti-immigrant sentiment in some sectors of the populace.
Honestly, most of the claims being made are just as applicable to Medicaid, an already existing program. If one is poor and an illegal immigrant and we lack adequate verificiation processes, then illegals are already getting health care (as they already do in ERs). As such, my point stands: the proposal really does nothing to the status quo and is not an attempt to provide insurance for illegal aliens.
One of the ironies of the conversation is, however, that if illegal aliens had health insurance, it would likely save the overall health care system money, because it would keep those with said insurance from using the ER for primary care.
September 10th, 2024 at 10:36 pm
Back to the Heller Amendment–it represents standard opposition tactics in our legislative process (whether the Rs or Ds are in the minority). It works like this:
Minority member proposes amendment which it claims will do X (or prevent X or somesuch).
Majority votes it down, because they are already happy with their majority-crafted, majority-approved bill.
Minority and its supporters (e.g., talk show hosts) then claim that the rejection of the amendment is proof that the Majority is opposed to X.
However, there are any number of reasons for the rejection of the amendment, not the least of which being that it was a minority amendment to a majority bill. Why should the majority accept the amendment? Also, it is usually never so simple as X or Not X.
Still, the whole purpose for the minority in proposing the amendment in the first place was to create the X/Not X debate, as it knew from the beginning that it wasn’t going to get the majority to accept the amendment. It is textbook (seriously, this kind of behavior can be found in any text on the legislative process in the US).
September 11th, 2024 at 8:34 am
[...] discussion—i.e., a rallying cry that opponents of the process will insist is in the bill(s) (even if it is isn’t). It is also like the “death panel” line of attack because it will inspire the GOP base, [...]
September 11th, 2024 at 4:00 pm
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s likely a duck. the Wordmaster Obama with his complicit ideeeots in the media and congress have departed reality a long time ago. Joe Wilson said what a large percentage of the US population is thinking.. Obama is a socialist with authoritarian with fascist designs in the mold of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez that uses the Sal Alinsky playbook..
Joe Wilson is a hero. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are traitors.
September 11th, 2024 at 5:47 pm
Interestingly the Senate is planning to add a proof of citizenship provision now ( http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Wilson_wins.html ): “Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.”
The best part of that sentence to me is “a move likely to inflame the left.” Will it inflame them because they want the law to be unenforceable? Will it inflame them because it gives Wilson’s claim credence? Will it inflame them because they still believe that millions of Americans are (1) so poor they cannot afford to get their hands on proof of citizenship (eg., free copy of their Social Security card plus a $10 ID card) but (2) make too much to qualify for Medicare?
September 11th, 2024 at 11:56 pm
“The first was over illegal aliens, and while the proposal does prohibit illegal aliens from signing up for the government option, Democrats have killed any attempts to enforce that ban.”
Page 143 already includes a clause that states that federal funds cannot be used for illegal immigrants. Additionally, page 58 sets up the use of identification cards for using the program. Even if it didn’t, federal law already prohibits illegal immigrants from using government programs. So adding yet another amendment would have been overdoing it a bit. So while that specific amendment didn’t make it, another one did.
All this being said, I’ve stated elsewhere that I find it interesting that none of those complaining seems willing to just propose a separate immigration bill to remedy the issue of having illegal immigrants here in the first place. It seems to be avoiding the issue entirely to ask to tack something of this nature onto a bill you already plan to vote against and then *nudge nudge* *wink wink* “we tried to do something about illegal immigration.”
As to abortion… The amendment does include “reproductive services” that are to be covered by the private plans offered under the Health Exchange Initiative (miniature FEHBP). HOWEVER, the exact same amendment also states the federal funds cannot be used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s life is in danger. In other words, the money for elective abortions must be covered with money from premiums. So there’s your clarification.
As for an amendment to require proof of citizenship… Again, signing up would require a social security number and use of the program would require an identification card, and “proof of citizenship” can be just as forged as any other documentation. If such an amendment were added, it would be redundant. Regardless, I can hardly see how such an amendment to the bill would inflame the left unless that’s not the only thing in there.
September 12th, 2024 at 9:07 pm
[...] needed? Again, it’s a talking point. Dr. Steven Taylor summed it up quite nicely here. Minority member proposes amendment which it claims will do X (or prevent X or [...]
September 13th, 2024 at 2:26 am
For the record, I’m not the person who said enforcing the provisions with regards to illegal immigrants would inflame the left. Time’s reporter said that. Time’s reporter also appears sympathetic to the left as the next sentence in the report is that Obama has successfully hit the reset button seeing as he’s experiencing a short term bounce.
September 13th, 2024 at 12:32 pm
Regardless as to who said it, I still fail to see how enforcing illegal immigration laws would inflame the left (or at the very least, the center-left). I’m sure there are always a few hippies out there who think it should be a free for all, but most actually support some form of enforcement. Now, the Heller Amendment is a different story because from what I have read, it might make it more difficult for LEGAL immigrants to receive care, but that’s just one suggestion out of many.
Additionally, illegal immigrants do not qualify for government programs– not just health care. I would say that immigration enforcement is something that really should be passed separately in its own piece of legislation (not merely tacked onto a bill you’re trying to defeat) so that it can apply to ALL government programs.
September 13th, 2024 at 7:30 pm
I think the reason the article said it will “inflame the left” is more than likely because the administration and/or congress is “caving” again to ridiculous right-wing DRAMA. If adding such language was unnecessary, then don’t add it. To “pacify” someone making these claims gives the appearance to their supporters that their claims have credibility, which they don’t! And like the other poster said — they are not going to vote for the bill no matter what concessions are made, so if Obama and Democrats keep “caving” to their demands, they will continue to create these ignorant, obnoxious claims. They need to treat the opposition the way they deserve to be treated. If the Republicans were actually willing to negotiate with Obama in any way, then I could see making some concessions, but not to the most outlandish claims. But the truth is that Republicans are trying to shape the next election and the last thing they want is for Obama to get credit for any major history-changing legislation and they will stop at nothing. I think they saw during the election just how crazy and uninformed the public really is — and what outlandish things they will believe. And we also have a large percentage of people who just were not ready for a black president and the Republicans are using that fact to their advantage very effectively.
September 14th, 2024 at 12:51 pm
[...] knew wasn’t needed? Again, it’s a talking point. Dr. Steven Taylor summed it up quite nicely here. Minority member proposes amendment which it claims will do X (or prevent X or [...]
September 14th, 2024 at 9:00 pm
The Republican proposal for verifying residency status for the health insurance credits (“Heller amendment”) contains the sentence “The benefit determination and approval under this subsection shall be the responsibility of the Exchange-participating health benefits plan offering the public health insurance option.” Wouldn’t that mean that private insurance companies would be the ones determining eligibility?
September 15th, 2024 at 9:47 am
That’s an interesting clause you’ve found there, Jeff. It certainly might provide a rather interesting loophole. Good digging!