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

TurdFerguson said:
You didn't give me any information you simply read the amendment that I linked to and think you have come up with some clever argument about how government will just be handing out money willy-nilly without following a law that says that no money can go to people here unlawfully unless the amendment were adopted. It doesn't work that way. The Republicans do this cutesy shit to give their specious arguments an air of plausibility but even they don't really buy into it.

It's cute, but it's bullshit. I'm not terribly surprised you're swayed by it.
Click to expand...
No, I pointed out that the Amendment that would have given any credibility to that claim was rejected on a party line vote. I didn't read any amendment you linked to, I gave the date the Amendment was voted on and rejected and the person who presented it.

This is like having a speed limit on a road that cops aren't allowed onto. It is real, it isn't "cute," and IMO it shows what an apologist will do to protect their ideation.

The reality is, the Ds rejected the idea of any check on this "requirement" even one that 71 other entitlement programs use.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the Dems in the committee rejected an amendment precluding illegals from coverage.....the act requires that employers provide health coverage for their employees......the plan also provides for government subsidies for certain employee plans....what if an illegal alien is an employee?
Click to expand...
Another circular argument PiMP. You didn' answer his question. You made an irrelevent statement. Why would you enter a statement precluding coverage for undocumented visitors when there's no statement including undocumented visitors. You've evaded his question and so has Damo.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why?....for pointing out that the Dem plan doesn't deal with one of the more significant causes of problems in health care......why should people who have no right to BE in a country, be entitled to free health care FROM a country....
Click to expand...
No one has claimed that they do, but that's an irrelevent point and you're still evading his question. Are you going to even try to answer his question?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
more evidence of why liberals ought not be allowed to run a country....their solution to problems is "there is no problem"
Click to expand...
You'll do anything to avoid answering his question won't you? This point in the debate has certainly been won by Turd unless someone can rise to answer his question. You're rhetorical response is laughable. One could also state, based on their recent history of incompetence, that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to run a country cause they have proven they could fuck up a wet dream and that their solution to a problem is to create imaginary problems, that don't exist, to destract people from their fuck ups.
 
Superfreak said:
Clarification if you would...

1) Were you and your friends visiting or living in the country?

2) Were you there legally or illegally?
Click to expand...
That's not a relevent point. The right is trying to make a strawman out of treating illegal immigrants. The reason it is a strawman is that no where in the proposed bill is there any language providing benefits or entitlements to illegal aliens.

Be that as it may, Cypress point is correct. We are a humane and civilized society and if an illegal alien shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm they should recieve treatment.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
either HR 3200 addresses it, or it needs to be scrapped.....I think it "addresses" it in subterfuge...which is why the Dems continue to scrap any attempt to preclude coverage for illegals....which is why, by the way, Wright was correct when he called Obama a liar....
Click to expand...
He addresses it in subterfuge? What the hell does that mean? Does that mean that the language exists in the bill because right wingers imagine it does?

I lived in South Carolina and Wrights a confretational white supremacist redneck who couldn't get elected dog catcher outside of rural South Carolina.
 
TurdFerguson said:
I still don't see how a bill that precludes illegals from obtaining and federal funds for health insurance is a problem for the Republicans when all their amendment would have done was to reiterate that illegal aliens can't get federal funds fro health insurance.

You basically want a bill that says illegals can't get health insurance at all, whether through government funds or not, which is just plain stupid (and not what the House Republicans proposed). Let's instead pass a bill that says illegal aliens are not permitted to purchase and goods or services in the United States. That makes about as much sense as what youre' talking about.

By the by, here is the relevant text of HR 3200:



That covers it. Illegal aliens get no federal funds to obtain insurance. That the Republicans wanted "better verification of eligibility for benefits under the bill" with respect to illegal aliens does not change that fact.

For those interested, here is the proposed Republican amendment that was defeated:

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Heller_Amdt_Text.pdf
Click to expand...
So this means Mr. Wright lied then?
 
Damocles said:
Again, it isn't actually "in the bill" if there is no check. Zero. Nada. Not even one way to enforce that. They rejected the amendment that would have given that any force whatsoever. (I even gave you the information in the post you quoted). It may be with a "nod and a wink" but it is reality. The Amendment that would have given it the teeth that 71 other means-tested programs require was rejected on July 16th.
Click to expand...
Bogus Damo. He's just shown you a speficic citation from the bill that shows that they are not covered.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Bogus Damo. He's just shown you a speficic citation from the bill that shows that they are not covered.
Click to expand...
And I have explained twice now how it is not verified by either of the programs used by other government entitlement programs making it more gummy than my grandma. "He" has failed in his argument.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Another circular argument PiMP. You didn' answer his question. You made an irrelevent statement. Why would you enter a statement precluding coverage for undocumented visitors when there's no statement including undocumented visitors. You've evaded his question and so has Damo.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Mott....it's become clear you have no clue what a "circular argument" is.....I'm going to ignore any attempts by you to avoid debate on that basis from here on out....

you would enter into an agreement precluding coverage for illegal aliens because you wanted to preclude coverage for illegal aliens....it isn't that complicated.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You'll do anything to avoid answering his question won't you? This point in the debate has certainly been won by Turd unless someone can rise to answer his question. You're rhetorical response is laughable. One could also state, based on their recent history of incompetence, that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to run a country cause they have proven they could fuck up a wet dream and that their solution to a problem is to create imaginary problems, that don't exist, to destract people from their fuck ups.
Click to expand...

no one is less competent to do anything, than a liberal...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What the hell does that mean? Does that mean that the language exists in the bill because right wingers imagine it does?
Click to expand...
no, it means that there are provisions in the bill by which liberals intend to provide coverage for illegals, but they will not admit it, knowing it would result in the plan being rejected....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not a relevent point. The right is trying to make a strawman out of treating illegal immigrants. The reason it is a strawman is that no where in the proposed bill is there any language providing benefits or entitlements to illegal aliens.

Be that as it may, Cypress point is correct. We are a humane and civilized society and if an illegal alien shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm they should recieve treatment.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was quite relevant to Cypress's post, which is why I addressed HIS post and not the entire thread. He was making a comparison of someone who is a legal guest of a nation to someone who was in the country illegally with the intention of staying for life. Two different issues.

That said, I agree that if they need emergency care, it should be provided to them. Most civilized nations would do so. But the LONG term care should not be provided. Thus my point to Cypress. He was comparing different events. He acknowledged that in a subsequent post.

As for your point about the bill... I have not read any of the five bills currently being presented in their entirety. So I do not know if it is or is not included. I will withhold judgement until I see the final bill (or see evidence to one way or the other).
 
blackascoal said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top