While Obama was giving his speech on health care reform, he made the claim that under his plan illegal immigrants would not receive health care benefits through it. At this Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled, “You lie!” So, here’s the question: Is Obama lying about illegal immigrants not receiving health care in this new government run health care system?
There are some very serious problems answering this question because depending on how one answers this question will determine whether one thinks Obama lied or not.
The fact is that the Health Care Bill which came out of the House of Representatives does have a section which explicitly states that illegal immigrants will not receive health care benefits. The Section is 246 and it states:
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.
(Just as an aside, this is the only section which addresses illegal aliens. The Republicans wanted to vamp up the requirements saying that if someone wants medical care (excluding emergency care), then they must provide proof of citizenship, or some form of documentation. This proposal was defeated in Committee by the Democrats.)
Returning to point, prima facie, Obama did not lie. He did tell the truth. So, does this mean that Representative Wilson is wrong? As a matter of fact it does not and reason why is the Senate Health Care Bill which has just been released mentions nothing about illegal aliens and makes no references to the House Bill concerning the issue. This means that whether or not illegal aliens will receive health care coverage under this new system is an open question. A contradiction has been created: “Illegal aliens will not get health care according to the House and illegal aliens will get health care according to the Senate.” So, again, did Obama lie?
Kevin Williamson from National Review Online says, “Yes.” I do not want to discuss his arguments but here is the link to his article:
Joe Wilson is Rude but Right
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzU5MjU2NDNlZmNkOTUyNDdmM2ZkYTI2YmE5ZjAxMzY=
I think Williamson’s arguments are good but I am going to take a more mild-mannered approach to this.
According to the dictionary a lie is a false statement which is intended to deceive. Therefore, when Obama said that his plan would not give coverage to illegal aliens, was he intentionally deceiving the American people? Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question with an absolute “Yes” or “No,” I can only speculate. If he plans to give illegal aliens coverage, in some form or fashion, then Obama did lie. If Obama spoke out of ignorance because he does not know that the Senate Bill, as it stands right now, does not bar illegal aliens from receiving health care, then he did not lie but just made an argument from ignorance. If he is truly ignorant of the plans that out there then it would have been best if he said something along the lines of, “We need a health care system which does not allow illegal aliens to receive health care.” This claim would be accurate then making the claim that his plan does not cover illegal aliens.
I heard the argument that what will happen is that the health care bills will not allow illegal aliens to receive health care (again exempting emergency care), but what will happen next is that the Congress will push for amnesty for all illegal aliens in the country (regrettably just as President Bush tried). In which all of those illegal aliens will receive health care after all. Technically speaking if those illegal aliens are given amnesty they are no longer illegal aliens, but the point remains valid. However, consider this; if all of those illegal aliens are granted amnesty and thus are American citizen eligible to receive government health care that means that an additional 12 million individuals will be added to the government’s tab, or I should say, the tax payer’s tab. With a price tag of $900 billion, much higher do we think this is going to go if those 12 million former illegal aliens are added to the system? Furthermore, what is that going to do to the overall system the government wants to set-up?
Another complication is that we are faced with a conundrum, however, with all this talk about health care plans. When Obama says, “His plan…” what plan is he referring to? Is he referring to the House plan which bars illegal aliens or the Senate plan which does not? If Obama wants to be truthful then he will need to say his plan is the House Bill. When Obama says, “His plan…” he cannot be referring to anything he has written because via the separation of powers in the Constitution, the executive branch, i.e., the Presidency, does not write law or bills because that is the job of the Congress (which is why Congress is called the legislative branch). So again, what plan is he referring to? The only answer I can logically conceive of is that Obama is referring to his own preconceived plan that he wants in which case such a plan does not exist in either the House or Senate. In which is it absolutely unfounded to refer to a plan of "His...".
So, did Obama lie? The answer could be “Yes” if he plans to give illegal aliens health care by some other means than this new government system or by granting amnesty. The answer could be “No” if he is making an argument from ignorance because in that case Obama intention was not to deceive, but he just made an uninformed statement.
Let’s be clear on this. Illegal immigrants are already covered when they go into an emergency room. They have to be – it’s a basic fact: emergency rooms cannot turn away anyone. This has already been decided by the courts. So your argument is more than a little ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteFace it: the healthcare reform bill doesn’t guarantee care to illegal aliens. But it’s not going to deny anyone emergency care. That’s the way it is now, that’s the way it’s going to be in the future, whether we have healthcare reform or not.
Be real. Sophistry on your part does not lead to a lie on Obama's.
Let me set out the premises of your argument:
ReplyDelete1. “Illegal aliens are already covered when they go into the emergency room.”
Premise (1) is true if we are talking about emergency care. But this premise is false if we are talking about illegal aliens receiving non-emergency health care via a government bill which this whole debate centers on. Emergency care is law but the debate is about non-emergency care; therefore, Premise (1) in this argument is trivially true and has nothing to do with the current debate.
2. “…the healthcare reform bill doesn’t guarantee care to illegal aliens.
Premise (2) is problematic because while the Senate bill does not guarantee care to illegal aliens, it does not prevent it either.
3. “But it’s not going to deny anyone emergency care.”
I never argued this and no one is arguing this. Furthermore, the debate is not about emergency care but non-emergency care. Therefore, Premise (3) is false.
4. Therefore, “Sophistry on your part does not lead to a lie on Obama’s.”
Unfortunately, since the above premises are false, the conclusion is false, because cannot have an argument with false premises and a true conclusion. The argument is not deductively valid.
Mild-mannered is good, too -- just what you want in a philosophy guy.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Kevin D. Williamson
The incident that occurred in Congress by Rep. Joe Wilson R-NC, illustrates the consequences of a blurring line between illegal immigration and health care. Our politicians have been alerted to the angry voices of the American people. For once they have disregarded the business campaign contributors and all the cloaked gifts given for services rendered by special interest lobbyists. Millions of US citizens are enraged with the status quo buying favors from our representatives that has led to our wilting economy. Today speaking on behalf of Washington committees on health care, the lawmaking emphasized that illegal aliens cannot access the new health reform package, that any person applying will be checked through government databases.
ReplyDeleteE-Verify might be implemented for this very issue, that it has shown in the majority of cases remarkable successes in remove illegal alien workers from the working environment. E-Verify can solve this problem and bring sanity back to immigration enforcement. E-VERIFICATION OF EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN WORKER MUST BE MADE PERMANENT? NOT JUST VOLUNTARY POLICY, BUT AS A FULL FORCE OF OPERATION CARRYING STRICT PENALTIES. This operation will work under federal policies? But what about state laws? California as an example is a Sanctuary state for millions of illegal immigrants and their families? Other border states are also occupied by large proportions of unlawful populations of foreign nationals?
This last year has culminated in huge financial losses in California caused by millions of low income illegal aliens, which has created a third world community within the United States. There must be federal measures to bring under control, massive spending benefits for people who have no right from benefiting from those who come here legally or were born here. How can any public health care option work at a state level, when states like California ignore federal law, regarding financial refuge to indigent people? Our own people remain homeless and in many cases without hope, when legislators have prioritized, health care, education an overloaded jail system and easy welfare money for illegal immigrants?
The once golden state has been using taxpayer money, to support illegal aliens, when the same expenditures should have been adopted for a collapsing infrastructure. Highways, schools, tunnels, bridges and dams in a dangerous state of disrepair? Our legislators in many cases have been seduced by lobbyists and should be banned from any contact with our politicians. This will never happen, but something must be done? Millions have been spent on derailing the health care reform currently and in the past, as has immigration enforcement. Rescinding 287(g) federal training for local police enforcement of immigration laws, the NO MATCH LETTER and the cutting back on ICE raids on obnoxious businesses using foreign workers.
The order to crush E-verify was given to Sen.Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, but narrowly survived in the Senate chambers. Both political parties are equally to blame for not enforcing the 1986 Immigration Control & Reform Act that was inundated with fraud and a desire to weaken the laws. Now they want to rescind that law, offering yet another reform package that will never function? Let’s not kid ourselves! Huge veiled forces are at work to import as much cheap labor as possible with no restraints, lowering wages and an unconscionable burden on taxpayers.
DON'T LET THE POWERS IN WASHINGTON WHITEWASH THE FACTS! DEMAND THE ORIGINAL DESIGNED FENCE AND THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF E-VERIFY, 287 (g), THE SAVE ACT AND AS WRITTEN, THE 1986 SIMPSON/MAZZOLI BILL AND AMEND THEM IF NEED BE? NO MORE IMMIGRATION REFORM? DO THE JOB THEY WERE VOTED FOR? CALL YOUR POLITICIANS AT 202-224-3121 AND DEMAND THESE LAWS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE? MORE ANSWERS FOUND AT NUMBERSUSA & JUDICIAL WATCH.
But this premise is false if we are talking about illegal aliens receiving non-emergency health care via a government bill
ReplyDeleteReally? Where are illegal aliens guaranteed anything other than the legally-mandated emergency care they already receive? You seem to cheerfully accept as "fact" the lies being spewed by partisan tools. Why is that? But let's back up a bit.
the Senate Health Care Bill which has just been released mentions nothing about illegal aliens and makes no references to the House Bill concerning the issue... A contradiction has been created: “Illegal aliens will not get health care according to the House and illegal aliens will get health care according to the Senate.”
It is not denied, therefore it is required? Shame they didn't cover "logical fallacies" in those philosophy classes.
2. “…the healthcare reform bill doesn’t guarantee care to illegal aliens.
Premise (2) is problematic because while the Senate bill does not guarantee care to illegal aliens, it does not prevent it either.
Interesting thought. Of course, while it does not guarantee that people are going to never get sick again, it does not prevent it, either. (Since you're making the same argument here as earlier, I'll assume I don't need to repeat the rest of my response to it?)
But I note that word there. "Problematic." Hmmm... let's scan down the page a bit. Ah! There it is.
Unfortunately, since the above premises are false, the conclusion is false
Shouldn't the conclusion then be "problematic?" (assuming I accepted your premise, which I obviously do not.)
since the above premises are false, the conclusion is false, because cannot have an argument with false premises and a true conclusion.
Excuse me? Rather absolutist of you. I thought you dealt in philosophy. A well-rounded mind should certainly not be strictly linear, should it?
Let's try a simplistic one. "All mice are brown. All rats are white. Therefore, mice are not rats." The conclusion is accurate. The reasoning leading to it is false.
Oh, wait. I'm sorry. According to your reasoning, all mice are rats. I'm sorry, I have to go to the pet store and help them change their prices.
But this premise is false if we are talking about illegal aliens receiving non-emergency health care via a government bill
ReplyDeleteReally? Where are illegal aliens guaranteed anything other than the legally-mandated emergency care they already receive? You seem to cheerfully accept as "fact" the lies being spewed by partisan tools. Why is that? But let's back up a bit.
Response: This overlooks the fact that the Senate would allow illegal aliens to receive government non-emergency health care paid for by the government. “Where are illegal aliens guaranteed anything other than the legally-mandated emergency care they already receive?” I never said that they do receive anything else in addition to emergency care.
Again, the main premise of this whole illegal alien/health care debate is completely overlooked. The government does not pay of emergency care because the hospitals do, i.e., the government does not pay for it. Under the new health care bill, the government will run and pay for health care if the Senate bill passes which means that the government will pay illegal alien health care, all of it. If the bill is passed then they will receive more than just emergency care and this is the debate.
the Senate Health Care Bill which has just been released mentions nothing about illegal aliens and makes no references to the House Bill concerning the issue... A contradiction has been created: “Illegal aliens will not get health care according to the House and illegal aliens will get health care according to the Senate.”
It is not denied, therefore it is required? Shame they didn't cover "logical fallacies" in those philosophy classes.
Response: The inference that you draw is completely unfounded. Nowhere in my argument can you even make this sort of inference and furthermore I made no such claim. The only logical fallacy that exists is that you accuse me of making an invalid inference.
since the above premises are false, the conclusion is false, because cannot have an argument with false premises and a true conclusion.
Excuse me? Rather absolutist of you. I thought you dealt in philosophy. A well-rounded mind should certainly not be strictly linear, should it?
Response: Logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Let's try a simplistic one. "All mice are brown. All rats are white. Therefore, mice are not rats." The conclusion is accurate. The reasoning leading to it is false.
Response: For an individual who touts having a grasp on logical, it is obvious that you have no idea what a deductively valid argument is. A deductive argument is one which goes from true premises to true conclusions. Since you argument involves false premises, your argument is not deductively valid. Is this absolutist? Absolutely.
Furthermore, your argument “All mice are brown; all rats are white; therefore, mice are not rats” is completely invalid nor is it sound. The argument under no circumstance follows from any deductively valid rule of inference. Do I need to run a logical proof to show this? “All mice are brown” = (x) (Mx → Bx); “All rats are white.” = (x) (Rx → Wx); “All mince are not rats” = ~(x)~(Mx → Rx).
1. (x) (Mx → Bx)
2. (x) (Rx → Wx)
3. /:. ~(x)~(Mx → Rx)
Under no circumstances could one conclusion (3) from (1) and (2). Therefore, this only proves an insufficient grasp on subject-predicate and sentential logic.
Oh, wait. I'm sorry. According to your reasoning, all mice are rats. I'm sorry, I have to go to the pet store and help them change their prices.
Response: Again, an ad hominem which is a logical fallacy.