Jul 24, 2026
Independant For Life
Editor Picks
Recent Columns
Recent Podcasts
Jan 31, 2024
The Scandal of Reading 37 | Tiffany Kriner on Louise Erdrich’s LaRose
Jan 24, 2024
The Scandal of Reading 36 | Winn Collier on Wendell Berry’s Jayber Crow
Jan 10, 2024
The Scandal of Reading 35 | Lit Pulpit – The Moviegoer by Walker Percy
Dec 13, 2023
The Scandal of Reading 34 | Daniel Nayeri on Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson
Dec 6, 2023
12 Comments
The irony, of course, is that it was Joe Wilson who lied—seeing that the bill actually says the following:
Seriously. Can we just start over with no government? It can’t be any worse than being governed by imbeciles and liars.
.-= The Dane´s last blog ..20090417.teaParty =-.
But Dane, you failed to read the following section:
8 SEC. 247 PSYCH
9 It was opposite day when we wrote lines 3-7
Cong. Wilson should apologize. As one conservative commentator noted, this isn’t the House of Commons. Republicans and President Obama consistently calling each other liars further proves we don’t have the attention span for real arguments, just 30 second sound bites.
Though I would note that the President’s claim that the plan would not fund abortions is a little slimy. Would it send a check to a particular person with the note “To be used only for aborting not-quite-human Fetus”? No. But Candidate and President Obama has repeatedly said that he would want his health care plan to include coverage of abortions. If your government-funded/sponsored plan includes coverage for abortions, then saying the plan doesn’t fund them is nothing more than playing word games.
And one question to Dane: Do you think the joke’s on us, since we put congressment like Wilson and President Obama into office?
.-= Adam Carrington´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net =-.
@Alan – Oh, snap!
@Adam – I think the joke is, only the vast majority of us aren’t in on the joke and don’t even realize that one has been told.
As far as abortion goes, it makes sense that government healthcare could fund abortions. After all, most private insurers (from what I understand) do the same. I know mine does. Apparently most of the majors do. If that is the case, it seems a minor issue.
Certainly Obama is a fiend for prevaricating over it, but I’m not certain why it’s an issue.
Just the fact that Dems won’t allow or pass amendments SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDING illegals or abortions means that they WILL get covered. The bill gives broad powers for the HHS Secretary to determine what will be covered. Can anyone imagine Sibelius NOT covering abortions?
Why would Democrats pass amendments (?) specifically forbidding abortions? They don’t support the forbidding of abortion (like many Republicans don’t) and if public healthcare is any kind of a mirror to private, private companies don’t usually forbid it either.
As far as those in-country illegally, you’re wrong in that the bill in question does specifically disallow use of Federal healthcare by such individuals.
While there is a provision in the proposed bill for no payment for undocumented aliens, there are two problems: 1. You can’t legally check someone’s legal status when providing care. What POTUS said is technically true but it is a word game. 2. It would take about 30 secs after the bill became law for someone to sue and some judge to have this removed.
@Denny –
RE 1): I don’t know why this couldn’t be the case. Regardless, hospitals currently cannot deny emergency care to illegally present foreigners. So either hospitals are eating that or We the People are, so I don’t see how this is a salient point. In any case, that ancillary protections might not be in place to prevent abuse, it isn’t a wordgame to say that 3200 doesn’t support or allow undocumented aliens to make use of Federal care.
RE 2): Nice supposition. But since this is, I presume, a discussion, I expect you’ve got some evidence to back your claim. After all, the burden of that statement is on you and just saying it is so is little more than waving a faery wand and saying, “It is so.”
The Dane,
1. The point is that anyone can apply for public insurance without any check, so while the law does not support it explicitly, that is exactly what is going to happen.
2. If you look at past history, such as Prop 187 in CA, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187_%281994%29) there is trend for this judges to step in.
@Denny –
RE 1): So there’s no check for social security numbers or any like identification? With all the forms I have to fill out at the emergency room, I’m skeptical. But I’m willing to be persuaded. Do you have any support for that?
RE 2): Yeah, being a good Californian, I remember Prop 187. It was overturned on the grounds that the state was usurping (or attempting to) federal power. It, like the Civil War, was a states’ rights issue. The decision, so far as i can tell, was proper. As far as HR3200, such objections would not be raised as it would be a federal declaration rather than one of state. I.e., Prop 187 is irrelevant.
1. Unless you can show that the law WILL check for eligibility, you cannot stop abuse.
2. As for 187, it took 1 judge to say it infringe federal grounds while our AG said it did not. I suppose if it was appealed to the Supreme Court then we could know more. But my whole point is that it would not be hard for 1 judge to expand a law to cover just about anyone.
RE 1): It seems to me that the mandate that no Federal care be granted to those in-country illegally implies that a check be required. It doesn’t stipulate how, but it does make it sound like both the provision and reception of public care to such individual would be illegal. Care providers, then, would be motivated to have a system check in place.
RE 2): I realize that your point is that it wouldn’t be hard for a single judge to reinterpret or overturn the law to cover undocumented aliens. I just think that you need to be able to demonstrate some way in which that could happen or provide reference to a similar situation. The 187 example doesn’t stand because the situation was not analogous.
If we look at what a judge would need to do, we see two options: a) expansion via reinterpretation or b) overturn via declaration of unconstitutionality.
Option a) seems unlikely as while any law can suffer or benefit from elastic reinterpretation, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States” seems rather immune to the degree of reinterpretation that would allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of illegally present individuals.
So then, option b) seems the more likely route to obtaining what Joe Wilson fears. The problem for Wilson or yourself, then, is that for that threat to seem realistic, a plausible reason for declaring that portion of the bill unconstitutional should be forwarded. As powerful as they are, judges do not have superpowers so we can’t expect that they can just declare something unconstitutional without reason. If this is something to be feared, then somebody must be able to offer plausible reason why.
If not, then we fear without reason and fear without reason is merely the fear of our own fear.
Comments are now closed for this article.