Thursday, September 10, 2009
Crazy Crap / Hargrove Joe 'You Lie' Wilson: A Historical Perspective
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Rep. Joe Wilson, now infamous for interrupting the President by calling him a liar, doesn't really make a habit of being right.
Politifact checked on it for us. As it stands, Medicaid generally excludes illegal immigrants. There's nothing in the language of the bill that changes that. Big surprise.
But in the video above, dug up by the Daily Kos, we get a glimpse into Wilson's history of engaging in generalized inaccuracy and jingoistic douchebaggery, attacking the integrity of his opponents rather than talking to them. Wait a minute, doesn't that sound like the devolving discourse advocated by the GOP and practiced by the vocal minority in town halls as of late?
Here, Wilson is seen on C-SPAN in 2002 accusing Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) of America-hating for simply correcting an inaccurate statement. Yes, Wilson, we did, in fact, give weapons to Iraq. I'm sure you're completely disillusioned now.
Wilson's Democratic opponent, Iraq veteran Rob Miller, has raised some $400,000 less than 24 hours after the outburst last night. Thank you, GOP, for being your own worst enemy.
Comments (41)
Showing 1-41 of 41
I wonder if Wilson knows Ronald Reagan sold weapons to Iran.
Damn, I shouldn't have mentioned that. Why do I hate America?
like
dislike
"As it stands, Medicaid generally excludes illegal immigrants. There's nothing in the language of the bill that changes that. Big surprise."
I love these Clintonesque weasal phrases designed to obscure the truth - like "generally excludes".
Here's the reality you won't hear from any of the Scene hacks:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzU5MjU2NDNlZmNkOTUyNDdmM2ZkYTI2YmE5ZjAxMzY=
All we have now is "alternative reality". The media, except for blogs, is signed, sealed and delivered.
What's odd is that Republicans don't really want the reform bill to exclude illegal immigrants. If they were truly convinced it did, then they wouldn't be able to scream and stamp their feet about it anymore. Given the choice of the reform bill absolutely excluding illegals or being able to foam at the mouth and call Obama a liar, they'd happily choose the latter. And then congregate in church on Sunday.
"What's odd is that Republicans don't really want the reform bill to exclude illegal immigrants."
Yeah right Marvin.
That's why they sponsored amendments to the bill that would require more stringent verificition of legal status - because they "really" don't want exclude illegals.
If Democrats really want to claim that the bill doesn't provide support to illegals, why don't they just adopt the proposals that the GOP tried to attach in committee? Then there wouldn't be all of this speculation.
http://tomoveanation.com
So last week my Dad had a pulmonary embolism and his blood pressure shot through the roof. We had to take him to the hospital and get him on blood thinners. The thing is, we couldn't, at the time, find his ID. Any of it.
You see, he's 80 years old. He's been retired for nearly 15 years, and doesn't drive anymore (so no driver's license or work photo ID). His personal belongings, long since in storage after retirement, probably contain his birth certificate -- but we didn't have time to drive to North Carolina for that. I know his social security number, but had no way to produce the actual card -- I'm glad I was there to remember it because it's one of those things that someone with dementia can't. If he had been on his own, there's no way he could have proven his citizenship using what he brought with him that day.
Gilbert, your "stringent" requirements, should they include AND REQUIRE valid state-issued photo ID, original birth certificate, or social security card, probably would have ended up killing my Dad this past week. The hospital likely would have admitted him but for how long could they -- WOULD they -- continue care if they couldn't meet verification requirements? One would hope that it'd be longer than a day because blood thinners take 1 week to take effect and must then be taken/administered for an entire year.
Do you see the issue here? It's not that verification is bad, it's just that it's not really a practical way to deliver care to at least a portion of the population -- like assuming since *I* can produce ID and remember a 9 digit number that *everyone* can.
It's odd; conservatives want everyone to provide proof of citizenship but chafe when asked to provide registratio of weaponry. I'd think EITHER would raise Libertarian hackles.
"If Democrats really want to claim that the bill doesn't provide support to illegals, why don't they just adopt the proposals that the GOP tried to attach in committee?"
Because they want illegal aliens to get benefits while at the same time claiming they aren't allowing it to happen - that's why.
That is exactly what the detail of the article I linked to illustrates.
"It's odd; conservatives want everyone to provide proof of citizenship but chafe when asked to provide registratio of weaponry. I'd think EITHER would raise Libertarian hackles."
That is false equivalency. The right to keep and bear arms is a negative right. The government is not buying guns for people in order to enable them to exercise the right.
If I'm carrying a gun that I bought myself that doesn't cost the taxpayers one cent.
People on entitlement programs are getting handouts of the taxpayers money. If those programs are going to exist (and the libertarian position would be that they shouldn't exist at all to begin with - government has no business stealing wealth from people who legitimately own it to provide handouts to other people), then it is quite proper for measures to be set up to ensure that only those who are legally supposed to get benefits are in fact the only ones who do.
"The hospital likely would have admitted him but for how long could they -- WOULD they -- continue care if they couldn't meet verification requirements? "
So put up your own money to pay for it until you can get it straightened out. You've got a credit card, don't you?
Gilbert, where to start? First, the NRO is partisan. It's like me using The Nation to prove my point. Second, to their premise- so what? I read the article, and their argument is seriously flawed. I know for a fact that there are illegals using TennCare. That will always happen, with or without controls that the Republicans want so bad. And if these "controls" get in the bill? It won't make a difference. Even if illegals couldn't get insurance, they still will go to emergency rooms and get treatment. That is why the Democrats aren't giving Republicans the time of day on this. Because it's a total waste of time and isn't getting at the root of the problem.
And here is a rather succinct portrait of today's Republican party from a reader of Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-college-republicans.html#more
"Second, to their premise- so what? I read the article, and their argument is seriously flawed."
There is nothing you've said that proves it to be.
The Dem officials in those states were deliberatly engaging in strategies to allow illegals to get subsidies they were not legally entitled to get. That is an empirical fact - period.
" And if these "controls" get in the bill? It won't make a difference."
Something else you aren't the least bit capable of proving.
"There is nothing you've said that proves it to be."
Maybe not, but there is nothing said in the opinion piece from the NRO that proves it to be either, or makes sense in the real world.
But it won't make a difference because they are still going to get treatment, costing someone!!!! So I don't need to prove it to you Gilbert, because, with or without insurance, with or without Tenncare like programs, illegals are already getting treatment, having babies in hospitals, etc. So Republicans are wasting everyone's time with their obsession with ILLEGAL ALIENS, oh my!
"The Dem officials in those states were deliberatly engaging in strategies to allow illegals to get subsidies they were not legally entitled to get. That is an empirical fact - period."
Something else you aren't the least bit capable of proving. ;)
for what it's worth...
Illegal immigrants can only be enrolled in TennCare for 30 days and only due to a critical concern. They do not receive any Behavioral Health benefits, nor do they get to enroll anyone in their family. After 30 days, they are disenrolled.
"But it won't make a difference because they are still going to get treatment, costing someone!!!!"
Says you.
Illegals get some care in emergency rooms (and whose fault is that by the way? The government for mandating it - that's who).
But per the data in the article they were getting MORE treatment than they would have been able to get otherwise absent the shenanigans of the officials invovled.
Pre-natal and post-natal care is not "emergency" treatment.
Nothing YOU say proves anything! YOU aren't the least bit capable of proving anything - period. So YOU say!
All Democrats are commies.
"Something else you aren't the least bit capable of proving. ;)"
I didn't need to - the guy who wrote the article already did it - by citing the government's own reports.
"I didn't need to - the guy who wrote the article already did it - by citing the government's own reports."
No he didn't. He cited statistics but didn't post anything that remotely explained how inserting "controls" into the bill would change anything. Republicans haven't explained that either.
Gilbert will probably have an embolism after reading this, but why not provide an affordable public option to illegal immigrants as well? They're going to be using our emergency rooms, which are ridiculously expensive. At least let them contribute if they want.
Gilbert--take a pill to calm those delusions. Seriously. You completely invalidate every point you have made with b.s. like "all democrats are commies." I'm sure you are also an astronaut...am I right?
This shouldnt even be news. Charlie Sheen has sent a public letter to Obama that is very interesting to say the least. He's been attacked hard by Hannity and O'reily. I checked into the content of the letter and WOW....
Me:
"I didn't need to - the guy who wrote the article already did it - by citing the government's own reports."
Chris:
"No he didn't. He cited statistics but didn't post anything that remotely explained how inserting "controls" into the bill would change anything. Republicans haven't explained that either."
Go back and scroll up to your own post that I was responding to chris - the "it" in question that you said I couldn't prove and that I said the article did prove was the fact that state officials were deliberatly engaging in strategies to give illegal aliens benefits they weren't supposed to get. And the article did exactly that.
In fact here's a followup today from the same guy who wrote the other article I linked to that references a Washington state audit that also proves that point.
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmExNTJjMDUzMTNmOWE3YjM2ODAxOTg2MWYzMjA5ZTU=
"Gilbert--take a pill to calm those delusions. Seriously. You completely invalidate every point you have made with b.s. like "all democrats are commies." I'm sure you are also an astronaut...am I right?"
That wasn't me, James - it was a spoofer.
He does it all the same.
A one-note Johnny without an insufficient inventory of brain cells sloshing around in his head to actually come up with a salient point about anything.
"Gilbert will probably have an embolism after reading this, but why not provide an affordable public option to illegal immigrants as well? They're going to be using our emergency rooms, which are ridiculously expensive. At least let them contribute if they want"
That is an entirely different topic and it part and parcel of a discussion of whether government should be (or has any legitimate authority to be ) mandating treatment be provided to anyone who can't pay to begin with.
The salient point here is that YOU posted a claim about Medicaid not paying for illegals to bolster the claim that Wilson was inaccurately calling Obama a liar.
In point of fact YOUR claim about Medicaid is incorrect, Wilson was correct and Obama is a liar about it.
"I said the article did prove was the fact that state officials were deliberatly engaging in strategies to give illegal aliens benefits they weren't supposed to get. And the article did exactly that."
The article does no such thing. It makes some claims about illegals getting services, which I know happens, but in no way proves that states, or more specifically Democrats as you allege, purposefully do this. Regardless, it's a moot point which I have stated all along. As long as they are here, legally or not, they can't be refused services. The Republican "plan" won't do anything to change that. By the way, the law that mandates this was signed into law by Conservative Saint Ronald Reagan.
With all the evidence out there to the contrary, you sincerely believe that?
"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's straight from Sec. 246 of the bill.
"The article does no such thing. It makes some claims about illegals getting services, which I know happens, but in no way proves that states, or more specifically Democrats as you allege, purposefully do this."
It absolutely does prove it you twit. And so does the second one I posted as well.
"Regardless, it's a moot point which I have stated all along. As long as they are here, legally or not, they can't be refused services"
I already refuted that claim back up the line. They can only get certain services at the emergency room. The state officials were manipulating the system to give them MORE SERVICES THAN THAT. They absolutely could be refused those extra services if the officials weren't subverting the law.
"With all the evidence out there to the contrary, you sincerely believe that?"
"Evidence to the contrary"?
Bullshit.
The actual evidence is that illegals ARE getting services under Medicaid and there are state officials who are willfully subverting the law to do it.
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
And unless there are sufficiently stringent verification procedures to make sure illegals don't get them that is meaningless.
The Republicans offered amendments to the bill to do just that but the Dems blocked it.
Now why do you suppose that is?
The current procedures for Medicaid are obviously far short of being sufficient and the dems don't have the slightest interest in doing anything about it.
This is all part and parcel of the whole web of lies, distortions and sneaky Clintonesque phrasing that Obama and the Dems have been spouting about the whole thing from the start.
Just like Obama claiming that nothing in the plan will REQUIRE any individual or employer to change their plan if they like what they've got. Notice he didn't say that the plan would not RESULT in anyone who likes their plan being not being able to keep it - because if the Dems plan gets enacted it is going to result in a significant number of people being dumped out of their employer plan or having the plans altered in ways that are not beneficial to them. The CBO's own analysis of it predicts that will happen.
I could go on in a lot more detail about Obama's lies and distortions but since someboddy else has provided a good recap of it, I'll just link to it:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTkyYTdlYzk1Y2IyNjkwYzQ0MjRmYTcwNGU1ZmY0ZTk=
H.R. 3200 is the bill I'm referring to, Joe.
Is the National Review the only ridiculous partisan organ you can point to, Gilbert? Not that anyone was taking you seriously before, but now...
Here's my question: Why didn't the MSM call bullshit on Wilson's claim as soon as they began analyzing the speech?
"Is the National Review the only ridiculous partisan organ you can point to, Gilbert? Not that anyone was taking you seriously before, but now..."
In other words you are completely incapable of refuting any of the actual facts presented about the illegals getting Medicaid funds and the officials actively violating the law to provide it to them.
You are merely sucking wind - as usual.
Where was Bruce when shoes were thrown at Bush last year? Where was Bruce's comments when Pelosi, Reid, and others let out little sounds of disgust during Bush's statements? Bruce didn't deal with the main issue; did he or did he not lie? Sure he did; here are some examples from the Creative Minority Report:
These are a few of the lies...I mean oversimplifications told by Obama, according to the AP:
OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.
House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years...
OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."
THE FACTS: ...The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.
In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change...
OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."
THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.
Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.
So while I don't want congressmen yelling out at Presidents in the middle of speeches, at least Joe Wilson told the truth when he called Obama a liar. Obama lied about Palin being a liar. And then he lied about the costs of his plan. He lied about who it would cover. He lied about Medicare.
Indeed Charles, the liberal dems are all over the place with their conflicting claims and statements about medicare.
They have claimed Medicare is a "success" because seniors like it (as if asking someone who is getting free stuff paid for by other people if they like that arrangement proves that it is a "success").
They have also claimed it is far more "efficient" than private healthcare and is a model for the way to go in insuring everybody.
But then one of the rationalizations Obama uses for his plan is that Medicare spending increases are unsustainable and will blow out the budget. That is a tacit acknowledement that Medicare is most certainly not a "success".
Also, no coherent explanation is provided as to how the problem of a runaway entitlement program can be cured by creating ANOTHER entitlement program.
And then Obama claims he can pay for most of the cost of the new program by cutting $500 billion out of Medicare (another tacit acknowledgement that Medicare is neither "efficient" or a "success") and that this can be done with no benefit cuts to those on Medicare. More contradictory nonsense.
Hey Barry O, as I one of your boilerplate promises was to cut out "waste" in government. If there is really $500 billion of extra fat in Medicare spending, why haven't you started cutting it already, hmmm?
We don't need any new healthcare program for anyone else in order for you to do that. Let's see you actually prove you can do what you claim you can do FIRST before you start messing with anything else.
"In other words you are completely incapable of refuting any of the actual facts presented about the illegals getting Medicaid funds and the officials actively violating the law to provide it to them."
I guess I've got nothing better to do than have mindless debates with Gilbert, but if you think that "article" which spanned like six paragraphs, presented any facts that not only bureaucrats, but Democratic leaning bureaucrats, knowingly broke the law, you will believe anything that fits into your worldview. The "article" states,
'One illustrative example, and there are many, is a 1994 report from the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general, documenting the fact that some states — California and Illinois among them — were improperly using Medicaid funds to provide routine medical care to illegal immigrants.'
What's interesting is that the author cherry-picks data from a mere two states, presents facts that back up his viewpoint, which is highly partison btw, but neglects to even present one shred of evidence that any group of Democrats, or even one bureaucrat, broke any law. In fact, the chasm between his statistics and proving what Gilbert is claiming, is wider than the Grand Canyon. This is why no one is taking you, or the Republicans, seriously on this.
And this is my last comment, so Gilbert you can have the last word. I for one, could care less if illegals are getting care. I agree with Hargrove that they should be included and have to pay like everyone else. I also understand that that isn't part of the debate.
And Charles, seriously, what you say can be said about any administration. The partisans will ignore the sins, hypocrisies, and even lies of their own guy. Republicans fell over themselves defending Bush. Where were the teabaggers when Bush was running up huge deficits and shredding the Constitution?
"This is why no one is taking you, or the Republicans, seriously on this."
There was a huge crowd of people that showed up in Washington DC yesterday that is doing exactly that.
"but neglects to even present one shred of evidence that any group of Democrats, or even one bureaucrat, broke any law"
LOL
The excerpt that YOU yourself quoted in your post proves that they broke the law.
"were improperly using Medicaid funds to provide routine medical care to illegal immigrants.'
Improperly using Medicaid funds = breaking the law.
Didn't realize people still thought National Review was reputable. I was a subscriber before they lost their minds.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot:
Bush being heckled at 2004 State of the Union address when he mentioned reforming Social Security. Bush being Booed at 2005 State of the Union address when he talked of cutting spending. Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) called Bush a liar during Congressional hearings in 2007. In 2006 Harry Reid, while speaking to a group of high school students, said this: “The man’s father is a wonderful human being,” Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president’s policies. “I think this guy is a loser.”
Was Joe Wilson correct; did Obama lie? I'd say so, as doctors and hospitals never expect full payment from Medicare and Social Security is one large Ponzi scheme. Do we expect differently with health care in the future? The Commerce Clause does not allow government intrusion into healthcare, as the Federalist Papers state its purpose is to prevent fees and tolls on imports/exports of medical supplies.
