When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Interesting thoughts on the equal protection clause.
That’s the 800 lb gorilla in the room that everyone is dancing around.
The Courts have already established that excluding illegals from coverage is not constitutional. The case law already has roots.
Essentially Congress can word the bill however they want but when it ends up a the door of the courthouse all bets are off.
Our “Lecturer-in-Chief” knows that.
Aqua
14 years ago
The whole debate over Obama’s remarks on healthcare reform and illegals and Joe Wilson’s remarks is moot. Obama said:
Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Catch that? The reforms he’s proposing. He doesn’t have a bill. He doesn’t have a bill nor a written proposal. Therefore, his whole statement is a lie. Or at the very least, a complete misrepresentation of the truth. It’s almost as if the man believes there is no bill out there, only his magic proposals.
Aqua
14 years ago
@ Larry
That was very nicely written Larry, and I mean that in all sincerity. My wife is Mexican. She’s here legally and always has been. She is now a naturalized citizen, a process that took her 10 year. She wanted to do it on her own, without using the fact that she was married to an American. I adore my Mexican in laws and have a lot of Mexican friends, of which I’m sure some are here illegally. It’s not something I ask before shaking hands, so I don’t really know for sure. I share Mata’s feelings on immigration and the work program almost to a T. I think a lot of my friends on the right are so caught up in the “illegal” part of the immigration process, that they lose site of the real problem. But, that’s a different post.
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?
and another
Christmas and Easter, the great holidays of Christendom, once united Americans in joy. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned, let alone celebrated, in our public schools.
and last snip
“E pluribus unum” – out of many, one – was the national motto the men of ’76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?
You may have never called Bush a liar, but many on the left did. Now they call us racist if we don’t kiss the very ground Obama walks on. I have a very real fear that the country I grew up in will not be the same country in the next 4 years. People on both sides have reached a breaking point. And the “great uniter” has turned out to be a great big wedge.
Madalyn
14 years ago
I for one have a problem with illegal immigrants. In the early ’70s, my husband walked out and left me with 3 kids to support. I was working full-time making $80.00/week (before taxes). I applied for a job picking strawberries on week-ends to help make ends meet. I was told I would ask for too much money, so they couldn’t hire me. I explained I would work for minimum wage, and was laughed at and told “we can get the job done a lot cheaper than that”. I was willing to work and pay taxes, but I found out a lot of the workers in the fields were being paid under the table. So, in my eyes, illegal immigrants took a job away from me, an American citizen. I did not want to go on welfare, but was fortunate enough to get a different part-time job. The point I am trying to make is that when I hear “illegals are doing the jobs Americans won’t” it is a BIG, FAT LIE!! Illegal immigrants are also a problem with gangs who are overrunning our ERs, and causing most trauma units to close due to loss of revenue. How long are we going to allow people from other countries to come here illegally, take our jobs (without paying taxes), using our medical, welfare, schools, etc. facilities, and not contribute. We can only keep paying so long before our pockets are empty. Where do we go when we have nothing left? I am all for immigration as long as it is legal.
Madalyn
The Congressional Research Service has indicated that, as it stands, there is nothing to prevent coverage for illegal immigrants under currently considered legislation.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim said: “Obama’s strategy at the beginning was a very good and wise one. He’s continuing to follow this strategy. “
Too funny Larry… And I hope he continues to follow his arrogant, hectoring, tone deaf strategy because obviously IT’S NOT WORKING! Surely, you have read the same polls I have.
And Obama has yet to come up with a plan! He just keeps making speeches and talking about a plan but NEVER produces one. Can you point me to the link of legislative language for Obama’s plan so we could study it?
Hope and Change has finally ran smack into REALITY and the American people don’t buy it!
In addition to Texas, another large state instituted the precise malpractice reform being touted as a near panacea. California. Thirty years ago (shortly after I moved to the state). This capped pain and suffering awards at $250K (the same as Texas).
Here’s a very nice, concise summary of the effects:
My conclusion: definitely worth doing, but won’t do anything substantive to reduce health care costs. Benefit of doing this way overstated. Doesn’t reduce unnecessary tests. Savings not passed on to health care payers and consumers.
One of our moments of agreement on malpractice, Larry. Yes it’s impact is overstated as to it’s contribution to health care costs. But then again, Obama constantly overstates the contribution of the uninsured and ER costs just as quickly… which are even less a fiscal impact than malpractice. Again, it’s a political agenda game of words on both sides, all meant to deceive the uneducated public.
You might also notice that California’s cap was also limited, and there were indeed still larger than quarter mil judgments in particular arenas. So it was only partial reform at best, and the only ones getting rich are the attorneys.
But as I said, it all becomes cumulative. If you reduce the costs of doing business for the provider, you have more competition as they flock to the lesser expensive areas (i.e. Texas). Overall, competition always results in lower costs.
I believe the savings are not passed on to the consumers via insurance providers because it is such a small percentage of what they pay. They are, afterall, still over paying for services rendered, and the litigation still goes on despite the caps on judgments granted. Add the rising costs of the attorneys and defense. While it helps providers, it doesn’t… on it’s own… translate to the consumer.
But reducing the providers business costs is no less iimportant as a means to an end. I believe that premium costs would eventually come down if genuine malpractice reform were a part of the many arenas that could be done – all without added costs to the taxpayer and our debt, or the government creating a bureacracy of 50+ more departments of paperpushers, and getting into the health care business. All avenues of cost cutting prior to creating that public option should be in place and allowed to show results before something this industry altering is allowed to proliferate.
Larry #49. Your gracious apology is accepted with no judgement. Thank you.
And I might also add that I know very well you are a busy man, and I appreciate each and every moment you take to share your insights here… even when I vehemently disagree. There are points in time when you just may have to state your case, and let it go. Otherwise it’s endless and there are times we just must agree to disagree.
And that “agree to disagree” moment is going to have to come here between you and I on Obama’s pandering/lying – or as you believe, “…He is in the middle of trying to do something of historic importance, against a barrage of withering criticism…”
I might remind you that to say that smacks of Rahm’bo’s comment which I posted in a response to you on another thread about the thinly disguised quest via “steps” for single payer by both Obama and Congress:
The objective is what’s important, not the means.
You say Obama was focusing on “historic importance”. I say he was definitely lying and pandering. Here’s the simple facts.
Obama touts himself as a Constitutional scholar. And in that vein, he must be painfully aware of federal Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer’ 32 page ruling declaring Prop 187 unConstitutional. That Prop, as I’m sure you remember as a Californian, was to restrict illegal immigrants access to benefits. Gray Davis refused to appeal to the SCOTUS, letting it die. It’s on the books as unConstitutional at that level…. unchallenged.
Then there is Plyler v. Doe in 1981, which was heard in SCOTUS and attempted to deny public education to undocumented aliens. The lower courts said no way Jose, so it was appealed to the High Court… which affirmed the ruling, saying:
If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed.
Proponents of Prop 187 were more than annoyed that Davis allowed Prop 187 to die since denial of benefits may have been found to fit the “substantial state interest” test. But that’s a “what if”, so we live with the precedents we have… and that is federal laws and court precedents that prohibit denial of services to anyone in the country based on nationality or citizenship status.
Simple facts.
Obama knows this. There is no reason to put something in the bill that will cause the law to be dragged thru the courts and eventually deemed unConstitutional. He is also aware that any illegal alien will be allowed to obtain coverage for that reason, if they so apply. The burning question is, if undocumented, will they get their annual penalty bill for *not* being insured like the rest of the nation’s citizenry?
Therefore, for Obama to stand before a joint session of Congress, and face the nation to say this will not cover illegal aliens is a lie of political convenience… all proved to be blatantly false as laid out in court opinions past. This simple fact is inarguable, despite your best attempts to whitewash it as a noble endeavor.
~~~
BTW… some advice on those alert emails… because the double incoming is very annoying, I agree. I think I’ve mastered it, albeit I do forget on occasion. Here’s the trick:
1: When you first post, there are two option boxes
a: Notify with comments via email
b: Notify with “new comments” are added
If you want the reply text in readable format, check the former, and NOT the latter
2: On ensuing posts, you’ll now see only ONE box left… the box you did not check. Hint: *Don’t check it* or you get both notifications of a new comment, plus the comment.
Like I said, I keep forgetting and find myself piling up with double entries as well. When this happens, sort your inbox and delete all the ones marked “A New Comment” in one fell swoop. This should cure any lapse of memory with the dang boxes…
@Ditto:
Interesting thoughts on the equal protection clause.
That’s the 800 lb gorilla in the room that everyone is dancing around.
The Courts have already established that excluding illegals from coverage is not constitutional. The case law already has roots.
Essentially Congress can word the bill however they want but when it ends up a the door of the courthouse all bets are off.
Our “Lecturer-in-Chief” knows that.
The whole debate over Obama’s remarks on healthcare reform and illegals and Joe Wilson’s remarks is moot. Obama said:
Catch that? The reforms he’s proposing. He doesn’t have a bill. He doesn’t have a bill nor a written proposal. Therefore, his whole statement is a lie. Or at the very least, a complete misrepresentation of the truth. It’s almost as if the man believes there is no bill out there, only his magic proposals.
@ Larry
That was very nicely written Larry, and I mean that in all sincerity. My wife is Mexican. She’s here legally and always has been. She is now a naturalized citizen, a process that took her 10 year. She wanted to do it on her own, without using the fact that she was married to an American. I adore my Mexican in laws and have a lot of Mexican friends, of which I’m sure some are here illegally. It’s not something I ask before shaking hands, so I don’t really know for sure. I share Mata’s feelings on immigration and the work program almost to a T. I think a lot of my friends on the right are so caught up in the “illegal” part of the immigration process, that they lose site of the real problem. But, that’s a different post.
Pat Buchanan wrote something today I think everyone in America should read. It’s not a right wing rant, just a look at what’s going on. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109478
~snip~
and another
and last snip
You may have never called Bush a liar, but many on the left did. Now they call us racist if we don’t kiss the very ground Obama walks on. I have a very real fear that the country I grew up in will not be the same country in the next 4 years. People on both sides have reached a breaking point. And the “great uniter” has turned out to be a great big wedge.
I for one have a problem with illegal immigrants. In the early ’70s, my husband walked out and left me with 3 kids to support. I was working full-time making $80.00/week (before taxes). I applied for a job picking strawberries on week-ends to help make ends meet. I was told I would ask for too much money, so they couldn’t hire me. I explained I would work for minimum wage, and was laughed at and told “we can get the job done a lot cheaper than that”. I was willing to work and pay taxes, but I found out a lot of the workers in the fields were being paid under the table. So, in my eyes, illegal immigrants took a job away from me, an American citizen. I did not want to go on welfare, but was fortunate enough to get a different part-time job. The point I am trying to make is that when I hear “illegals are doing the jobs Americans won’t” it is a BIG, FAT LIE!! Illegal immigrants are also a problem with gangs who are overrunning our ERs, and causing most trauma units to close due to loss of revenue. How long are we going to allow people from other countries to come here illegally, take our jobs (without paying taxes), using our medical, welfare, schools, etc. facilities, and not contribute. We can only keep paying so long before our pockets are empty. Where do we go when we have nothing left? I am all for immigration as long as it is legal.
Madalyn
The Congressional Research Service has indicated that, as it stands, there is nothing to prevent coverage for illegal immigrants under currently considered legislation.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim said: “Obama’s strategy at the beginning was a very good and wise one. He’s continuing to follow this strategy. “
Too funny Larry… And I hope he continues to follow his arrogant, hectoring, tone deaf strategy because obviously IT’S NOT WORKING! Surely, you have read the same polls I have.
And Obama has yet to come up with a plan! He just keeps making speeches and talking about a plan but NEVER produces one. Can you point me to the link of legislative language for Obama’s plan so we could study it?
Hope and Change has finally ran smack into REALITY and the American people don’t buy it!
@mata: Brief post-script –>
In addition to Texas, another large state instituted the precise malpractice reform being touted as a near panacea. California. Thirty years ago (shortly after I moved to the state). This capped pain and suffering awards at $250K (the same as Texas).
Here’s a very nice, concise summary of the effects:
http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/09/10/malpractice-reform/
My conclusion: definitely worth doing, but won’t do anything substantive to reduce health care costs. Benefit of doing this way overstated. Doesn’t reduce unnecessary tests. Savings not passed on to health care payers and consumers.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
One of our moments of agreement on malpractice, Larry. Yes it’s impact is overstated as to it’s contribution to health care costs. But then again, Obama constantly overstates the contribution of the uninsured and ER costs just as quickly… which are even less a fiscal impact than malpractice. Again, it’s a political agenda game of words on both sides, all meant to deceive the uneducated public.
You might also notice that California’s cap was also limited, and there were indeed still larger than quarter mil judgments in particular arenas. So it was only partial reform at best, and the only ones getting rich are the attorneys.
But as I said, it all becomes cumulative. If you reduce the costs of doing business for the provider, you have more competition as they flock to the lesser expensive areas (i.e. Texas). Overall, competition always results in lower costs.
I believe the savings are not passed on to the consumers via insurance providers because it is such a small percentage of what they pay. They are, afterall, still over paying for services rendered, and the litigation still goes on despite the caps on judgments granted. Add the rising costs of the attorneys and defense. While it helps providers, it doesn’t… on it’s own… translate to the consumer.
But reducing the providers business costs is no less iimportant as a means to an end. I believe that premium costs would eventually come down if genuine malpractice reform were a part of the many arenas that could be done – all without added costs to the taxpayer and our debt, or the government creating a bureacracy of 50+ more departments of paperpushers, and getting into the health care business. All avenues of cost cutting prior to creating that public option should be in place and allowed to show results before something this industry altering is allowed to proliferate.
Larry #49. Your gracious apology is accepted with no judgement. Thank you.
And I might also add that I know very well you are a busy man, and I appreciate each and every moment you take to share your insights here… even when I vehemently disagree. There are points in time when you just may have to state your case, and let it go. Otherwise it’s endless and there are times we just must agree to disagree.
And that “agree to disagree” moment is going to have to come here between you and I on Obama’s pandering/lying – or as you believe, “…He is in the middle of trying to do something of historic importance, against a barrage of withering criticism…”
I might remind you that to say that smacks of Rahm’bo’s comment which I posted in a response to you on another thread about the thinly disguised quest via “steps” for single payer by both Obama and Congress:
You say Obama was focusing on “historic importance”. I say he was definitely lying and pandering. Here’s the simple facts.
Obama touts himself as a Constitutional scholar. And in that vein, he must be painfully aware of federal Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer’ 32 page ruling declaring Prop 187 unConstitutional. That Prop, as I’m sure you remember as a Californian, was to restrict illegal immigrants access to benefits. Gray Davis refused to appeal to the SCOTUS, letting it die. It’s on the books as unConstitutional at that level…. unchallenged.
Then there is Plyler v. Doe in 1981, which was heard in SCOTUS and attempted to deny public education to undocumented aliens. The lower courts said no way Jose, so it was appealed to the High Court… which affirmed the ruling, saying:
Proponents of Prop 187 were more than annoyed that Davis allowed Prop 187 to die since denial of benefits may have been found to fit the “substantial state interest” test. But that’s a “what if”, so we live with the precedents we have… and that is federal laws and court precedents that prohibit denial of services to anyone in the country based on nationality or citizenship status.
Simple facts.
Obama knows this. There is no reason to put something in the bill that will cause the law to be dragged thru the courts and eventually deemed unConstitutional. He is also aware that any illegal alien will be allowed to obtain coverage for that reason, if they so apply. The burning question is, if undocumented, will they get their annual penalty bill for *not* being insured like the rest of the nation’s citizenry?
Therefore, for Obama to stand before a joint session of Congress, and face the nation to say this will not cover illegal aliens is a lie of political convenience… all proved to be blatantly false as laid out in court opinions past. This simple fact is inarguable, despite your best attempts to whitewash it as a noble endeavor.
BTW… some advice on those alert emails… because the double incoming is very annoying, I agree. I think I’ve mastered it, albeit I do forget on occasion. Here’s the trick:
1: When you first post, there are two option boxes
a: Notify with comments via email
b: Notify with “new comments” are added
If you want the reply text in readable format, check the former, and NOT the latter
2: On ensuing posts, you’ll now see only ONE box left… the box you did not check. Hint: *Don’t check it* or you get both notifications of a new comment, plus the comment.
Like I said, I keep forgetting and find myself piling up with double entries as well. When this happens, sort your inbox and delete all the ones marked “A New Comment” in one fell swoop. This should cure any lapse of memory with the dang boxes…
@MataHarley:
Thanks for the additional info in post 59.
You took what I knew and expanded it thoroughly and effectively, as always.
I reminded Larry of the Prop. 187 litigation in #35 and then referenced the Phyler v. Doe case in #43
His response was to tell me that I didn’t understand how the legal system works.
Perhaps his response to you will be different.