CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan

[blackascoal]

perhaps in excluding them from only that subsection?..cough**sarcasm**cough...why not exclude them from the entire act?.....

Then you can read the section and you already know it contains NOTHING that suggests illegal aliens would be covered.

In fact, NOTHING in the section or the act changes the status, condition, or treatment of illegal aliens in any way, shape, or form.

What is the issue .. the real issue?

 

[Canceled2]

perhaps in excluding them from only that subsection?..cough**sarcasm**cough...why not exclude them from the entire act?.....

Section 246 is in Subtitle 2.....it reads "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 does not mean that something in another subtitle does not allow it....for instance, Subtitle 4 provides that if someone is found to be insured they will be added to the government plan and the cost of it will be added to their income taxes.....does the fact that an illegal alien pays no taxes preclude the government from adding them to the government plan under Subtitle 4?.....there is no equivalent to Section 246 in Subtitle 4.....why not?....

Added to the FACT that democrats voted down 2 amendements that specifically addressed other programs that would enroll illegals

 

[zappasguitar]

What is the issue .. the real issue?

Stopping any reform from taking place?

 

[leaningright]

A few thoughts on health care and why some are opposed.

1. One word - socialism. Sorry BAC, but to many of us that is a bad word and we want no part of it. It drums up images of 70's and 80's Russia. Many think that tinkering with healthcare the ways that have been proposed would lead to complete government run healthcare......ie. a socialist healthcare system.

2. Covering illegals. If someone is in this country illegally than many want them out, not treated for their ailments. Heartless, yes but that is the way some feel.

3. Me having to pay for my neighbor's healthcare.....when he can afford to pay it himself. Case in point: My neighbor is a truck driver. He makes way more money than I make but chooses not to have health insurance. Instead he has a swimming pool and drives really cool vehicles.......a new one sometimes more than twice a year. He broke his leg and it was disclosed that he didn't have insurance. We had a pie supper and paid for his medical bills but the question came up, "why didn't this man forego the pool (or vehicles or whatever) and buy some insurance?" It's obvious he could have afforded it. Many do not want to pay for the insurance of someone like that.

Those are just a few points. I do not necessarily agree with them....well, #3 bothers me quite a bit but anyway.....but I can see where there is so much opposition to this healthcare stuff. I am for some sort of system where those who can't afford healthcare have access to it......and I am not afraid to pay a little more in taxes to get it done. But I can also see where the other side is coming from. This is why it is so tough to get something like this accomplished.

 

[blackascoal]

Stopping any reform from taking place?

THAT is the real issue brother.

These guys are dreaming up shit about "aliens" that isn't even there .. and they know it isn't there.

death panels anyone?

 

[blackascoal]

A few thoughts on health care and why some are opposed.

1. One word - socialism. Sorry BAC, but to many of us that is a bad word and we want no part of it. It drums up images of 70's and 80's Russia. Many think that tinkering with healthcare the ways that have been proposed would lead to complete government run healthcare......ie. a socialist healthcare system.

No apology needed my brother .. I like you.

However, surely you are aware that socialism is no stranger in America .. never has been. The buzzword "socialism" is used as a scare tactic .. and given that Americans are real scary people .. it works.

The image this debate should conjure up is that the rest of the industrialized world has accomplished what America cannot. The image it should conjure up is increasing rolls of unemployed Americans with no health insurance .. along with images of people who die from that sad circumstance.

2. Covering illegals. If someone is in this country illegally than many want them out, not treated for their ailments. Heartless, yes but that is the way some feel.

Heartless absolutely .. and I'd imagine that the vast majority of these heartless souls call themselves "christians" .. but the argument is pure ignoranance. Illegals won't get any more coverage than they are presently getting. The bottom line is that we're dealing with morons who are easily led by the nose towork against their own best interests.

3. Me having to pay for my neighbor's healthcare.....when he can afford to pay it himself. Case in point: My neighbor is a truck driver. He makes way more money than I make but chooses not to have health insurance. Instead he has a swimming pool and drives really cool vehicles.......a new one sometimes more than twice a year. He broke his leg and it was disclosed that he didn't have insurance. We had a pie supper and paid for his medical bills but the question came up, "why didn't this man forego the pool (or vehicles or whatever) and buy some insurance?" It's obvious he could have afforded it. Many do not want to pay for the insurance of someone like that.

We can always pull out the anomalies .. but your neighbor is not the norm. There are MILLIONS of Americans who do not have health and do not have swimming pools. I've always found it humorous that it is the conservatives who always claim to be "patriots" .. but don't seem to care for their fellow Americans .. I'm not talking about you, but you know what I mean.

Those are just a few points. I do not necessarily agree with them....well, #3 bothers me quite a bit but anyway.....but I can see where there is so much opposition to this healthcare stuff. I am for some sort of system where those who can't afford healthcare have access to it......and I am not afraid to pay a little more in taxes to get it done. But I can also see where the other side is coming from. This is why it is so tough to get something like this accomplished.

If you can't convince a population where healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy and most of those going bankrupt HAVE health insurance AND where America's business can no longer compete with businesses in nations who provide health insurance to their population as a right .. if you can't convince these people that healthcare reform IS A MUST .. then you're simply dealing with ignorant people.

That's the bottom line.

It doesn't matter what party they belong to .. lot's of really ignorant bluedogs running around.

 

[Damocles]

Then it's a wash because I haven't met a conservative who could actually read that section.

Where does it suggest that illegal aliens would be covered?

It doesn't have to "suggest" it, it simply doesn't check at all.

In another thread I gave an example...

If I wrote a law that stated strongly that there would be no CO2 emission increases from companies at all, then simply made sure that there was no way to test for CO2 emissions at all by rejecting any suggestion for actual testing for that gas in emissions then said, "There will be no increases in CO2 emissions, it's right there in the bill." it would still be a prevarication since I know that there is no testing and no enforcement.

In this bill (HR 3200) they rejected twice adding any verification at all. It doesn't matter how strongly it is worded if there is no verification it has no meaning.

 

[DamnYankee]

Obama wants to kill Me-Maw.

 

[bob]

It was an excellent speech .. perhaps his best.

Now .. JUST GET IT DONE.

thats the scary part

 

[blackascoal]

It doesn't have to "suggest" it, it simply doesn't check at all.

In another thread I gave an example...

If I wrote a law that stated strongly that there would be no CO2 emission increases from companies at all, then simply made sure that there was no way to test for CO2 emissions at all by rejecting any suggestion for actual testing for that gas in emissions then said, "There will be no increases in CO2 emissions, it's right there in the bill." it would still be a prevarication since I know that there is no testing and no enforcement.

In this bill (HR 3200) they rejected twice adding any verification at all. It doesn't matter how strongly it is worded if there is no verification it has no meaning.

Wow. That's stupid.

It specifically states that you must be a legal resident to be covered.

Like death panels and birth certificates, no amount of truth or reality will keep knuckleheads from their programming.

that shit is amazing.

 

[blackascoal]

thats the scary part

and the part he's not very good at.

 

[Cancel4]

Only 18% were Republicans.

That sounds high. Only around 15% of morons admit being Republican.

 

[blackascoal]

That sounds high. Only around 15% of morons admit being Republican.

Actually they make up about 21% of Americans.

So they were short 3%. :0)

miniscule

 

[Damocles]

Wow. That's stupid.

It specifically states that you must be a legal resident to be covered.

Like death panels and birth certificates, no amount of truth or reality will keep knuckleheads from their programming.

that shit is amazing.

And again, "my" bill (in my example) specifically stated no CO2 increases would happen, but that doesn't make it real unless there is verification and enforcement. In this bill there is none, it is no more real because they say that it won't happen then simply reject any attempt at verification or enforcement of that strongly worded line, even the SAVE program we use to verify the same thing in 71 other federal entitlement programs.

What is "stupid" is slobbering all over that line in the bill while ignoring the actions.

The "sh*t" that is amazing is how much of an apologist you are when speaking of a bill you supposedly don't support and how quick you are to defend even the most directly obvious partisan prevarication yet say you don't support that party. Your actions tell me something other than your words.

 

[blackascoal]

And again, "my" bill (in my example) specifically stated no CO2 increases would happen, but that doesn't make it real unless there is verification and enforcement. In this bill there is none, it is no more real to say that it won't happen then simply reject any attempt at verification, even the SAVE program we use to verify the same thing in 71 other federal entitlement programs.

What is "stupid" is slobbering all over that line in the bill while ignoring the actions.

The "sh*t" that is amazing is how much of an apologist you are when speaking of a bill you supposedly don't support and how quick you are to defend even the most directly obvious partisan prevarication yet say you don't support that party. Your actions tell me something other than your words.

I can't account for your inability to write a bill. I've written legislation myself and I know it need not be THAT specific about every detail. In fact, both bills of mine were passed by REPUBLICANS in the Georgia Congress.

What's even more funny .. you knuckleheads are the same people suggesting legislation should be wriiten in a few short paragraphs.

I don't have to support the bill to point out all the bullshit that's thrown at it. Nor do I have to support Obama or McCain or anyone else to defend them against bullshit attacks. That's called honesty .. get some.

I attack democrats more than anyone on this board who isn't a republican .. you're just having a hard time with honesty brother .. but then again .. you're a republican .. fresh out of the closet.

 

[Cypress]

I can't account for your inability to write a bill. I've written legislation myself and I know it need not be THAT specific about every detail. In fact, both bills of mine were passed by REPUBLICANS in the Georgia Congress.

What's even more funny .. these are the same people suggesting legislation should be wriiten in a few short paragraphs.

I don't have to support the bill to point out all the bullshit that's thrown at it. Nor do I have to support Obama or McCain or anyone else to defend them against bullshit attacks. That's called honesty .. get some.

I attack democrats more than anyone on this board who isn't a republican .. you're just having a hard time with honesty brother .. but then again .. you're a republican.

Concur.

Laws aren't generally intended to provide specific mechanisms or implementation actions. That's what rules and regulations do. Implementation is often either left to the states, or fine tuned through a public rule making process.

 

[Damocles]

I can't account for your inability to write a bill. I've written legislation myself and I know it need not be THAT specific about every detail. In fact, both bills of mine were passed by REPUBLICANS in the Georgia Congress.

What's even more funny .. you knuckleheads are the same people suggesting legislation should be wriiten in a few short paragraphs.

I don't have to support the bill to point out all the bullshit that's thrown at it. Nor do I have to support Obama or McCain or anyone else to defend them against bullshit attacks. That's called honesty .. get some.

I attack democrats more than anyone on this board who isn't a republican .. you're just having a hard time with honesty brother .. but then again .. you're a republican .. fresh out of the closet.

It isn't about "inability" to write a bill, it is about directly stating what is very real. If I want to say that the bill would "not allow any new CO2 emissions" I can now simply just add a nicely worded line and Ds and you will suddenly believe that I have magically removed CO2 emissions even though I don't check or enforce it....

I wish I knew that before.

While strongly wording a line about not allowing undocumented people access, it simply neglects to add anything to verify or enforce that line, in fact the Ds directly voted against adding the verification systems used by other means-tested federal programs. It doesn't matter how strongly it is worded it has no teeth and it is "creative" (at the least) to state that it will actually stop something it doesn't verify or enforce.

And I am not suddenly out of the closet, I've never once have hidden my party affiliation, that's just more direct dishonesty from you. You can't even be honest about what you know about another poster.

However being a republican doesn't mean I can't see direct apologistic actions from the person who pretends that he has no reason to be an apologist, you are simply a closet D from your actions, you support this legislation according to your actions. Come on out of the closet, there is no reason to hide there if you can't even be honest about the lack of verification and enforcement in this bill.

 

[blackascoal]

Concur.

Laws aren't generally intended to provide specific mechanisms or implementation actions. That's what rules and regulations do. Implementation is often either left to the states, or fine tuned through a public rule making process.

Bravo absolutely correct.

This noise is coming from people who insist that legislation be written shorter. How is that to be accomplished if they want EVERY detail spelled out in simpleton language?

 

[Cypress]

It doesn't have to "suggest" it, it simply doesn't check at all.

In another thread I gave an example...

If I wrote a law that stated strongly that there would be no CO2 emission increases from companies at all, then simply made sure that there was no way to test for CO2 emissions at all by rejecting any suggestion for actual testing for that gas in emissions then said, "There will be no increases in CO2 emissions, it's right there in the bill." it would still be a prevarication since I know that there is no testing and no enforcement.

In this bill (HR 3200) they rejected twice adding any verification at all. It doesn't matter how strongly it is worded if there is no verification it has no meaning.

Laws outline legislative intent Damo. It doesn't often get into details of implementation.

The US government does not willingly put itself in a position to be sued, for ignoring its own laws.

If the legislature says illegals cannot receive something -- that constitutes crystal clear legislative intent....there's not a chance in hell that the agency that implements it is going to blow that off. That legislative intent would be implemented either through rules, regulations, or administrative policy within the agency. I can guarantee you that the government doesn't willingly or intentionally set themselves up to get blown away in court in a law suit.


We all know that this is all about republicans, yet again, using the cherished myth of the undeserving brown person getting a free handout from hardworking conservative taxpayers.

 

[Damocles]

Concur.

Laws aren't generally intended to provide specific mechanisms or implementation actions. That's what rules and regulations do. Implementation is often either left to the states, or fine tuned through a public rule making process.

Except in every other of the entitlement programs use of verification programs such as SAVE are included, it is pretensive to say that this bill will stop something without the means to even know it is happening, the only reason people try to say it here is because they support a party over the actual reality. 82% of the nation wants to make sure illegal immigrants do not get largesse from our government's coffers and the Ds reject amendments that would even give them the information to be able to do that.