Liar Liar Whose Pants are on Fire?
President Obama gave a call for cooperation between Democrats and Republicans in getting the Health Reform Bill passed. To instill a sense of cooperation he then commenced to call questioners of some aspects of the Bill liars. Obama must have been studying in the Pelosi school of bi–partisan governing technique. I am not sure how calling Republicans liars is a clarion call for cooperation
Joe Wilson a Representative from South Carolina returned the favor by yelling “you lie” after Obama said that the Health Bill had no provision to provide coverage for illegal immigrants. Joe Wilson yelling at the President certainly was less than courteous behavior. His yell sent me to search the Bill to see who was lying. The President did not lie when he said that illegal immigrants would not be covered. I could find no language in the Bill that says that illegal immigrants will receive coverage. It however, does provide coverage for “Undocumented Visitors”. What exactly is an “Undocumented Visitor”?
The President also correctly stated that the proposed legislation did not say that Federal money would be spent on abortions. The more than 1000 pages of the proposed legislation is a long read but I could find no provision to provide coverage for abortions. There is a provision that seems to provide coverage for something called Pregnancy Reversal. I’m not sure exactly what Pregnancy Reversal is, if not abortion. I have no medical training so maybe somebody can clarify the difference between abortion and pregnancy reversal for me.
Heath Care reform is needed. I am not confident that the politicians mimicking the school yard cry of Liar, Liar Pants on Fire is the way to proceed.
The elderly will pay for the legislation by cuts in Medicare. I heard the President repeat his pledge to cut unnecessary coverage provisions in Medicare. The cuts will be directed by a new commission to be created by government to oversee these cuts. The Bill certainly does not call for a Death Panel as some have suggested. I remain more than a bit nervous about the wording and the cuts in Medicare that this panel will dictate.
Undocumented visitors and pregnancy reversal language indicates that this proposed legislation needs further careful study to find what other language structure is curious. I am not sure if there are lies going on here. Maybe they are simply a few “untruths”
Joe Wilson certainly can use a lesson in manners for behavior in a Joint session of Congress, but he has me thinking about whose pants are really on fire.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
here’s where to start
When the dots are connected, it is a reasonable and certain conclusion that H.R. 3200, if passed into law, will provide for taxpayer-funded abortions for women—and girls—without any limitations.
For more information, go to these websites: National Right to Life’s Stop the Abortion Agenda website; Family Research Council’s document called “Seven Reasons Abortion is in the Health Care Overhaul”; or Stop the Abortion Mandate’s facts we
Needed to be read very carefully.
“Under H.R. 3200, all legal permanent residents (LPRs),23 nonimmigrants, and unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test (defined above) would be required to obtain health insurance.24 Noncitizens meeting the definition of nonresident aliens (e.g., temporary visitors, temporary workers in the United States for less than 183 days in the year) would not be required
to obtain health insurance. Notably, the IRC does not contain special rules for individuals who are in the United States without authorization (i.e., illegal or unauthorized aliens). Instead, the IRC treats these individuals in the same manner as other foreign nationals—an unauthorized individual who has been in the United States long enough to qualify under the substantial presence test is classified as a resident alien; otherwise, the individual is classified as a
nonresident alien.25 Thus, it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.”
It is clearly indicated here that illegal aliens will get FREE Government Health Care. I’ll keep digging in the 1017 pages of H.R 3200 to refind the visitors reference.
House Bill 3200. Page 143. Lines 3-7:
“SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
It’s right there, in black and white. I’ll try to be more gracious to Rep. Wilson than Wilson was to the President:
Rep. Wilson is totally “mistaken”.
Now, as for abortion? The Hyde Amendment (long ago) stated that federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. It’s still the law. Nothing in the gealthcare reform proposals would change that.
Diogenes,
Perhaps you are troubled with dyslexia or English is a second language that you are still working on–
Try this again slowly with a dictionary at your side
Notably, the IRC does not contain special rules for individuals who are in the United States without authorization (i.e., illegal or unauthorized aliens). Instead, the IRC treats these individuals in the same manner as other foreign nationals—an unauthorized individual who has been in the United States long enough to qualify under the substantial presence test is classified as a resident alien; otherwise, the individual is classified as a
nonresident alien.25 Thus, it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.”
It is clearly indicated here that illegal aliens will get FREE Government Health Care.
And where does any of that appear in HR 3200? You’re obviously cutting and pasting from someone else’s commentary on what they believe the bill says, but neither it nor you cites the bill itself. And, as GreenWhamO already noted, you’re “quoting” stuff from the bill that doesn’t seem to actually appear anywhere in the bill. In other words, it seems quite possible that you’re making stuff up (or, more acdurately, your “source” is, because you don’t seem to have the intellectual capacity to make that stuff up on your own).
Diogenes.
You have made a good point . The terminology I referred to in the Bill seems to have disappeared(if it was there) or I in a moment of the contest changed the correct terminology which is “unauthorized individual”, to undocumented visitor.
The effect remains the same but you absolutely have brought me to task on the issue of descriptive terminology.
The lack of special rules and the substantial presence test provides the option that caused Wilson to make his unseemly interruption.
In the UK Parliment this type of interruption would be considered as a very mild objection to the assertions being made. The lowtoned boos in response were appropriate.
I think it would be useful if you learned the lowtoned boo technique rather than obnoxious closing statements when you disagree. It makes you seem to be a member of the Wilson family. You can do better.
Diogenes,
If you are not familiar with IRC That is the Internal Revenue Code and it does effect HR 3200 with the Substantial Presence Determination HR 3200 does not wipe out the IRC and it’s regs.
1. We’re not in the U.K. In case your local news didn’t cover it, we declared our independence from the U.K. awhile back. So what they do in their Parliament doesn’t control what we do in our Congress. There has been no recent parallel for what Rep. Wilson did on Wednesday night. But, in fairness, it wasn’t as extreme as fellow South Carolina congressman Preston Brooks’ 1856 attack on Senator Charles Sumner. But it was very much in keeping with Southern ultra-conservative (i.e., “redneck”) mentality.
2. I am familiar with the IRC, thanks. I am also familiar (are you?) with the general rules of statutory construction, namely that the more specific rule controls over the less-specific rule. If legislation enacted by Congress regarding healthcare reform could, arguably, be interpreted to conflict with prior existing regulations of an administrative agency speaking to a different topic, the more specific legislation will control.
Meaning: what the Congress says about coverage for illegal aliens (i.e., that there won’t be any) will countermand anything the Internal Revenue Service says in its own regulations (the IRC). Where you got the hugely mistaken notion that IRC administrative regulation controls over statutory law enacted by Congress is baffling.
If the COngress enacts something and somebody believes the IRC is in conflict with that Congressional action, the pertinent IRC provisions are, indeed, “wiped out”.
Buck,
Have the phrases “Undocumented Visitors” and “Pregnancy Reversal” been scrubbed from the health care reform bill?
I’ve been trying to find them in the HR 3200 bill, but have been unable to. What page are they on?
Are there different versions of this bill?
Help me find them please. Please post a link.