Obama accepts Lawmaker's apology

[DigitalShadow]

If Obama is trying to convince his audience that, as an objective fact, no illegal downloading will happen under his plan, then it is blatantly misleading to say that "People are not allowed to download music that they do not have the rights to".

But Obama is not trying to convince the audience that absolutely no illegal immigrants will be insured by mistake, he is saying that the plan "does not apply" to illegal immigrants which is a true statement. I think he was simply trying to convey that the plan is not designed insure illegal immigrants as well, which I've heard some people claim.

Edited September 19, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Just_A_Guy]

With all due respect, DigitalShadow, that claim comes apart when you look at how he prefaced the remark:

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false.

The impression he is clearly trying to convey is that no, his version of health care reform will not insure illegal immigrants.

Leaving propriety aside for a moment: Semantically, "you lie" may have been too strong. Obama is a wordsmith by profession; he's going to leave himself an excuse that at least his supporters will buy--as he did here, and which excuse has been duly accepted by those already predisposed to believe him.

But a simple cry of "bull****" would have been well on-the-mark.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[DigitalShadow]

With all due respect, DigitalShadow, that claim comes apart when you look at how he prefaced the remark:

The impression he is clearly trying to convey is that no, his version of health care reform will not insure illegal immigrants.

Leaving propriety aside for a moment: Semantically, "you lie" may have been too strong. Obama is a wordsmith by profession; he's going to leave himself an excuse that at least his supporters will buy--as he did here, and which excuse has been duly accepted by those already predisposed to believe him.

But a simple cry of "bull****" would have been well on-the-mark.

The plan itself explicitly states that it will not insure illegal immigrants, but obviously some illegal immigrants will abuse the plan to obtain insurance illegally. With all due respect, JAG, no matter what plan or law is made, there will always be people who break or abuse it, are you proposing that politicians should never make the claim that a plan or law would do anything since it is ineffective against those who willingly go against it?

I believe that Obama most likely was only trying to state that the plan says it will not insure illegal immigrants (possibly worded to imply more effectiveness than was due). I also believe that the man who made the outburst misunderstood what Obama meant (possibly colored by an obvious intense dislike for Obama).

In any case, the outburst was inappropriate and he was right to apologize and Obama was right to take the apology. I do think this incident is getting more press coverage than it deserves though.

[Gatorman]

Then, how about a portion of the law that states that any illegal immigrant caught is deported. And, anyone who has come illegally and picked up benefits have those benefits removed. This would and should include 'anchor' babies. IE: We have ways to come here legally. Use those and welcome. Don't use those and we will give you a one way ticket back home. Then, it doesn't matter if it is about health care, social security, taxes, or whatever. If you are breaking the law, you are a criminal.

The plan itself explicitly states that it will not insure illegal immigrants, but obviously some illegal immigrants will abuse the plan to obtain insurance illegally. With all due respect, JAG, no matter what plan or law is made, there will always be people who break or abuse it, are you proposing that politicians should never make the claim that a plan or law would do anything since it is ineffective against those who willingly go against it?

I believe that Obama most likely was only trying to state that the plan says it will not insure illegal immigrants (possibly worded to imply more effectiveness than was due). I also believe that the man who made the outburst misunderstood what Obama meant (possibly colored by an obvious intense dislike for Obama).

In any case, the outburst was inappropriate and he was right to apologize and Obama was right to take the apology. I do think this incident is getting more press coverage than it deserves though.

[Just_A_Guy]

The plan itself explicitly states that it will not insure illegal immigrants, but obviously some illegal immigrants will abuse the plan to obtain insurance illegally. With all due respect, JAG, no matter what plan or law is made, there will always be people who break or abuse it, are you proposing that politicians should never make the claim that a plan or law would do anything since it is ineffective against those who willingly go against it?

If politicians are warned that their plans will result in a particular course of action, I don't think politicians should try to allay those warnings by just saying "won't happen; won't happen." I'd prefer an honest discussion along the lines of "yeah, probably will happen somewhat; but we will do a), b), and c) to try to control that."

I believe that Obama most likely was only trying to state that the plan says it will not insure illegal immigrants (possibly worded to imply more effectiveness than was due). I also believe that the man who made the outburst misunderstood what Obama meant (possibly colored by an obvious intense dislike for Obama).

I'll agree to disagree with you here, on both counts. I think the President's intent was pretty clear-cut.

In any case, the outburst was inappropriate and he was right to apologize and Obama was right to take the apology. I do think this incident is getting more press coverage than it deserves though.

And I'll agree to agree with you here, on all counts. :)

[Maxel]

I'm going to cut in here to compliment you on your avatar, JAG. The image makes me laugh out loud.

[DigitalShadow]

If politicians are warned that their plans will result in a particular course of action, I don't think politicians should try to allay those warnings by just saying "won't happen; won't happen." I'd prefer an honest discussion along the lines of "yeah, probably will happen somewhat; but we will do a), b), and c) to try to control that."

I would prefer that as well, but unfortunately that politician would always lose to the one who spins their plan as nothing but positive, because people don't really want to hear an honest discussion weighing the good and bad parts (yes, every plan has both good and bad), people just want a "solution."

I'll agree to disagree with you here, on both counts. I think the President's intent was pretty clear-cut.

Deal. I'll agree to disagree as well.

And I'll agree to agree with you here, on all counts. :)

At least we can agree on some parts :)

[talisyn]

Last night I was thinking about potatoes and how I have the power to determine which ones become french fries and which ones do not, which naturally brought me to 'death panels'.

Bear with me. It was a long shift

We have heard a lot of people say Pres. Obama is lying about not killing people who are past their prime, but I ask this: Are we not all on our own little death panel when we decide who should and who should not receive health care? When we say you must pay and if you can't afford it then you must go without we are saying you don't deserve to live. Seriously, who can afford treatment for breast cancer if they don't have insurance? If Glenn Beck's oldest daughter was born when he didn't have insurance he would have had to declare bankruptcy. In fact, most of the people who declare bankruptcy for medical reasons had insurance (I'll find the stats after I wake up).

I am not prepared to tell people they don't deserve to live because of their circumstances. Like it says in one of my favorite songs,

'You know where it ends

Yo, it usually depends on where you start.'

-Everlast

Edited September 19, 2009 by talisyn
spelling

[Maxel]

The problem I have with the 'death panels':

If insurance companies does that, fine. Well, not "fine" as in it's okay, but "fine" as in someone can go to another company.

What do we do when the government, the supreme law of the land, starts doing it? Can we sue them for redress?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm going to cut in here to compliment you on your avatar, JAG. The image makes me laugh out loud.

Thanks, Maxel. I find it simultaneously amusing and revolting. It'll probably come down in the next day or two, before Time's copyright lawyers have a chance to catch a whiff of it!

If Glenn Beck's oldest daughter was born when he didn't have insurance he would have had to declare bankruptcy. In fact, most of the people who declare bankruptcy for medical reasons had insurance (I'll find the stats after I wake up).

Not trying to be a troll here; just trying to extend the discussion:

What, exactly, is wrong with a family having to declare bankruptcy?

[Maxel]

Thanks, Maxel. I find it simultaneously amusing and revolting. It'll probably come down in the next day or two, before Time's copyright lawyers have a chance to catch a whiff of it!

Hhmmmmm....

How much will you give me not to tell them?