The Glade 4.0

Obama stated that illegal immigrants will not receive coverage under the bill however there is no language excluding them and two attempts to insert such language were shot down by democrats in committee.

Thus the statement was a lie.

Joe Wilson defended truth.

What is more important then
1. Keeping the thin veneer of civility when being told known lies.
2. Upholding the truth even if it means being uncivil?

Is protocol more important than honesty? Is this really what we want. The system where it is ok to accept lies and not call them out when they are being spoken (by a person who began by calling the people pointing out the lies liars themselves) or is it more beneficial to loudly call out the lies when presented to bring them to the light of day and the forefront and call attention to the character of the person stating the lies?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo, you are misinformed. Here -

Section 246, titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS" 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."

Joe Wilson lied, not the President.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I don't believe the accuracy of not of the claim is the point of Elmo's post Monte.

Right but where in the document is the required mechanism to verify? It's not. There isn't any mechanic that forces people to check this.


But that isn't the core question I am asking anyway.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It was wrong for him to call Obama a liar, for many reasons.

First, it was not a lie. The bills are still in committee and still under development, and they are still ironing out the details of exactly how things work. That being said, there is still that very clear declaration (in HR 3200) that payouts and affordability credits will not be made for illegals. The intent of the bill is to prevent illegals from using this system. The fact that enforcement has not been ironed out and included is not a factor at this time. If the bill makes it to the floor votes and still does not have provisions for enforcement, then I would have an issue. However, from Obama's perspective, the intent is exactly how he said it in his speech.

Second, it was disrespectful. Regardless of party, it is just not acceptable to say that during a joint session. He knows better, and the rest of the house & senate knew better. The skeptic in me wants to say it was intentional, both to disrupt the flow and message of the speech, and to provide another rally cry for the base. His campaign fund isn't suffering because of it, that is for sure.

In so many words, I think it's a false dilemma. Truth is more important than protocol/decorum, but there's no reason we can't have both. Probably, the substantce of Wilson's objection would have been taken more seriously and drawn less...drama if the manner of its delivery had been different.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Well, the night he made the comment, his opponent he barely beat in the previous election took in $700k in contributions, while his coffers only expanded by $200k.

If that was in fact his intent and it was not a "passion of the moment" reaction, it couldn't have backfired more.

I agree.

That night, it might have appeared that it backfired. Long-term, Wilson now has $1,724,371 in funds. (http://www.joewilsonforcongress.com/). He has the fame, he has the money. He has completely capitalized on the outburst, making his apology worthless.

By contrast, Rob Miller's campaign fund seems to have stalled around $1million: http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/19079

Good info AFM. I hadn't really followed it since the first night, since it isn't my district, and I have no real interest in either candidate.

I think Wilson is a damn sissy.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So it wasn't a lie because the current version of the bill (the only state that we can comment on since we do not know the future state of the bill) contains no mechanism for determining legal or illegal residents but the future version might?

That seems an awfully low standard of truth. If you could point to the mechanism by which providers are required to verify citizenship or legal residence in the current bill it would help your claim that this is reality.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It also doesn't preclude illegals from being treated under EMTALA, and thus deals not at all with one of the major issues currently facing ER departments.

In that context, the bill does still provide for illegals, it just doesn't subsidize them. As such, I consider saying it "doesn't provide care for them" to be a deliberate twisting of the truth, or a "lie."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

To be fair, there is a significant disconnect between what Obama was saying (protecting himself), what has been released, and how it was interpreted.

I just reread his speech and Obama is very careful when "refuting" the misinformation to say "his plan" or "his proposal", of which most of us should be aware, doesn't actually exist except in some vague cloud of "change and hope".

What we do have are at least 5 different bills from various committees that in various degrees appear to follow Obama's plan, but not any one of them matches what he is describing.

Was Obama lying? Not really, since he was addressing his goals for reform, not what has actually been proposed, since there is no singular bill for him to reference in the speech, just his vision.

Was Joe Wilson wrong in disputing the illegal alien statement? Not really, since the current plans are vague, or leave gaping holes in the policy that in effect are not that different than "don't ask, don't tell" for insurance.

Yes. The President's statement is only a lie if he signs the final bill after it passes the house/senate vote and there is no mechanism to verify citizenship to back up the existing statement that illegals will not be eligible for this program. Any claims to the contrary prior to then are partisan rhetoric.


EMTALA and the Medicare Modernization act are not in scope for this debate, and I have seen no plans in any of the proposed bills to overturn either of those programs, currently being used by illegals. Obama was speaking about the new healthcare reform bill, not the loopholes in the old ones.

So his statement will become a lie after the fact? That really doesn't seem to make much sense. Excusing an inaccurate statement on the basis of being "partisan rhetoric" doesn't mean much; it can still be a lie.



Why is it not in the scope of this discussion? If there's a way for illegals to get medical treatment through federal funding under some other program, and this bill fails to address it, the fact that this bill doesn't specifically allow it is meaningless. We still end up paying for it. It may be technically true that this plan doesn't add any new way for them to get treated, but allowing the old loopholes to remain is definitely making an end run around people's concerns.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I never said he was wrong, just out of order. It was a speech not a debate.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Again, it is not an inaccurate statement. The framework for excluding illegals is there, but the checking mechanism is not there yet. When the legislation is finalized and it is still not there, then and only then, can you say that the bill does not exclude illegals or doesn't check citizenship. If Wilson and those who support him believe that Obama is lying about excluding illegals, the burden of proof is on them. Show me where there is no intention of putting a system for checking illegals in the final bill.


It would have been nice to have this much second-guessing of the legislation back when it was passed in 1986 and 2003. I may be wrong, but repealing old laws that provide these loopholes is a different procedure and can't be done at the same time as the new legislation.

Sorry I don't buy that load of manure you're peddling.

His statement is unknowable if he is talking about his "perfect plan" in which case talking about it in a speech is immaterial at best and willfully deceptive at best.

If his statement is referring to the plans in the House at the moment - it is an outright lie.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I dn't need to show you there is no intention. You need to show that there is an intention to put one in - the burden of proof lies on the positive. If the President is talking about a mechanism in his perfect plan that's not in the plans being considered, he's essentially lying becuase he's talking about some fictitious plan. In any case, we don't need to wait until it is finalized at all; a statement is judged on the facts at the time it is made.



Why would it be a different procedure? Why exactly is the amount of concen in 1986 or 2003 relevant? How do you know if any of us were or weren't concerned at that time? Why should we have been, when the issue received far less publicity? Or how about the fact that a lot of us were children in 1986? We can't cricticize this now because we didn't when we were 11?

None of that really addresses the issue I pointed out anyhow. If the legislation doesn't allow care for illegals but also does nothing to close existing ways for them to get it elsewhere, it's really immaterial that it doesn't provide it itself.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Great! Give him a chance to prove it. Make a judgment on the final legislation, and not the 5 or so in-flight plans in committee. If the final plan doesn't meet the criteria he laid out in the speech, I will call him a liar, too. Doing it before then makes no sense to me. YMMV.



I don't believe that repealing or amending EMTALA or MMA can be done in new legislation. I think, procedurally, it has to be done differently in Congress. Again, I could be wrong.



I wasn't really talking about you specifically, DE, nor anyone else on the board, and it shouldn't be taken personally. I was commenting that if the public had as much concern about denying healthcare to illegals back in 1986 when the EMTALA was passed, perhaps it wouldn't be an issue today. Same with the Medicare Modernization act in 2003. It was more of a swipe at the current political climate, where the media seems to be at the helm instead of the people.

Why? The issue right now is whether he was a liar when Joe Wilson called him one. Whether he's a liar about something else down the road is another issue. It certainly makes perfect sense to me to address this now; this sort of political doublespeak that glosses over the details to the average person is a major problem.



I don't think this is the case, but even if it is, there should be accompanying legislation to close these loopholes. Failing to do so is, as I pointed out, an end run.



I don't disagree on the media being at the helm, but in 1986 illegal immigraton wasn't at the forefront of politics as it is today, or so I recollect. I wasn't taking it personally either. I was pointing out that 1986 was 23 years ago and 23 years is a lot of time for opinions to change. 2003 is much more recent, but even then, just because this was passed 6 years ago doesn't mean we shouldn't remedy a problem now.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Who was technically right or wrong isn't the issue. As has been stated, it was an issue of respect and decorum.

Wilson behaved like a child without manners or the ability to control himself instead of a statesman.

I am not questioning that Aizle.

I am questioning the putting of the false dressing of civility on the known-liars of politicians being put above truth-telling.

Honestly the pomp and circumstance and dressing up liars doesn't and should not preclude the calling out, and boldly so, of the lies of those who say they have our best interests at heart and are trying to convince us to lend support for what they wish to happen.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm going to say it was wrong of Wilson to call Obama a liar WHEN he did it. If he had maintained his composure for just a bit more, or even better, just walked out, he would have had his pick of cameras to calmly speak his point. By being a member of Congress he has agreed to abide by many things, one of which is the rules of conduct for that chamber. While Obama is twisting the truth, two wrongs do not make a right.

So my call- Wilson, and others, should have gotten up and quietly excused themselves from the chamber, then told the press why they felt the President is being intentionally misleading.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill