Obamacare now open to illegals.

[jackstar7]

Your perceptions are faulty.

No you!

 

[thraashman]

Why should I when he disrespects the Constitution?

So you insist someone else do something which you yourself refuse to do. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy. Just like how you always whine when someone resorts to insults but it's usually the first thing you do yourself.

And I think I'll rely on someone other than you to determine whether or not someone is disrespecting the Constitution. Your understanding of it seems to be quite lacking.

 

[spacejamz]

If someone is signing up through an exchange then their citizenship/immigration status has been verified.

Not sure if it is more sad or funny that liberals here cry and scream at the top of their lungs that checking ID for voting is discrimination against the poor and minorities but checking ID as a defense against Obamacare fraud is okay. Aren't these the same groups who cannot afford ID's to prove who they are when they vote? But can now magically prove their citizenship to get medical benefits?

I would love to hear the logic in why it is discriminatory in one case but not the other.

 

[Incorruptible]

So you insist someone else do something which you yourself refuse to do. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy. Just like how you always whine when someone resorts to insults but it's usually the first thing you do yourself.

And I think I'll rely on someone other than you to determine whether or not someone is disrespecting the Constitution. Your understanding of it seems to be quite lacking.

You're a socialist so you have no understanding of the Constitution. Also your ignorance about the 2nd Amendment clearly shows you have no respect for the Constitution.

 

[jackstar7]

Not sure if it is more sad or funny that liberals here cry and scream at the top of their lungs that checking ID for voting is discrimination against the poor and minorities but checking ID as a defense against Obamacare fraud is okay. Aren't these the same groups who cannot afford ID's to prove who they are when they vote? But can now magically prove their citizenship to get medical benefits?

I would love to hear the logic in why it is discriminatory in one case but not the other.

You're confused.

 

[spacejamz]

You're confused.

Please clarify the difference then...As stated earlier, I would love to hear what the difference is.

I eagerly await your reply...

 

[First]

I love how within a dozen posts this thread is shredded to smithereens and the usual wingnut turds barely bother to comment or defend the inanity of the OP's source. Well, save for one or two of the usual suspects.

Please clarify the difference then...As stated earlier, I would love to hear what the difference is.

I eagerly await your reply...

Signing up for health insurance is mandatory, and is necessary to check eligibility. Meanwhile, going to vote isn't required. Voter ID laws are meant to discourage something that is inherently voluntary, and for many people an economic waste of time while health insurance is an economic and moral necessity. There's really no comparison there.

Derp.

 

[werepossum]

This is the correct answer. The Breitbart article is, at best, wrong and at worst, purposely misleading.

Imagine that.

 

[werepossum]

We can reduce by some percentage the illegal alien population by making the penalty for providing work to them really stiff and enforce it big time. IOW, make enforcement pay for itself plus a profit.

Illegal Alien Parents of citizen kids is another issue but one I've no good solution for.

Illegal aliens who neither work nor produce citizens are not a pressing concern at the moment so I think a focus ought to be in order toward the working illegal alien.

I can't see denying medical to anyone in need though.

Allowing illegal aliens the right to a driver license so they can drive legally while being here illegally seems counter intuitive and ummmm nutty.

Makes sense. I agree. The only area where I might differ is that IF illegals show proof of auto insurance paid up for the year, let them get a driver's license that clearly indicates their illegal status. It's a Rube Goldberg mechanism, but we're obviously not going to enforce our immigration laws and uninsured illegals are a big problem. Other than that, making the penalty for hiring illegals much worse than the financial benefit in hiring illegals is a common sense approach.

 

[spacejamz]

Signing up for health insurance is mandatory, and is necessary to check eligibility. Meanwhile, going to vote isn't required. Voter ID laws are meant to discourage something that is inherently voluntary, and for many people an economic waste of time while health insurance is an economic and moral necessity. There's really no comparison there.

Derp.

So you just confirmed that having an ID is mandatory (to get Obamacare)...so why would they not have an ID to vote then? Even if you don't get coverage through the exchange, you still need an ID every time you get treatment so pretty much everyone has to have an ID now, right??

Isn't the main argument against Voter ID laws is that getting an ID is a hardship to minorities and the lower class? Now that they have to have an ID, what is the issue?

The only people who would not need one would be the lawbreakers who choose to not get insurance and pay the fine...I mean have the fine deducted from their tax return...Are there any other groups who would legitimately do NOT need a government ID now?

What are the chances they vote Democrat again after realizing that Obama has decreased their paychecks by forcing them to get insurance or paying the fine (might not realize now while the fines are relatively low but they will once these fines increase to their higher levels in a few years)...

 

[Zorkorist]

Xenophobia?

Xenocide.

-John

 

[fskimospy]

So you just confirmed that having an ID is mandatory (to get Obamacare)...so why would they not have an ID to vote then? Even if you don't get coverage through the exchange, you still need an ID every time you get treatment so pretty much everyone has to have an ID now, right??

Isn't the main argument against Voter ID laws is that getting an ID is a hardship to minorities and the lower class? Now that they have to have an ID, what is the issue?

The only people who would not need one would be the lawbreakers who choose to not get insurance and pay the fine...I mean have the fine deducted from their tax return...Are there any other groups who would legitimately do NOT need a government ID now?

What are the chances they vote Democrat again after realizing that Obama has decreased their paychecks by forcing them to get insurance or paying the fine (might not realize now while the fines are relatively low but they will once these fines increase to their higher levels in a few years)...

Why are you trying to argue that the standard for receiving government benefits should be the same as exercising your right to vote? That makes no sense.

 

[Bowfinger]

So you just confirmed that having an ID is mandatory (to get Obamacare)...so why would they not have an ID to vote then? Even if you don't get coverage through the exchange, you still need an ID every time you get treatment so pretty much everyone has to have an ID now, right??

Isn't the main argument against Voter ID laws is that getting an ID is a hardship to minorities and the lower class? Now that they have to have an ID, what is the issue?

The only people who would not need one would be the lawbreakers who choose to not get insurance and pay the fine...I mean have the fine deducted from their tax return...Are there any other groups who would legitimately do NOT need a government ID now?

What are the chances they vote Democrat again after realizing that Obama has decreased their paychecks by forcing them to get insurance or paying the fine (might not realize now while the fines are relatively low but they will once these fines increase to their higher levels in a few years)...

Christ, you guys either need to get over your hard-on for voter suppression, or at least learn what you're talking about. There are multiple holes in your "argument":

1. Voting is a Constitutional right.

2. You've failed to show that the ACA ID requirements are just as narrowly restricted as the right's typical voter suppression laws. One of the more odious aspects of those laws is the transparent attempt to rig the ID requirements. While the details vary by state, they normally require a current, state-issued photo ID and will not accept common alternatives like student IDs, expired licenses (because, you know, once a license has expired the person may no longer be eligible to vote, or they had dramatic plastic surgery ... or something), etc.

3. Contrary to your nonsense about "lawbreakers", the great majority of Americans do not need the ACA and therefore do not need an ID, including the very same demographics most targeted by the RNC voter suppression laws. For example:

• The elderly -- already on Medicare
• The very poor -- on Medicaid
• Students -- covered on their parents' plans

And of course most Americans are covered by employer plans and do not need ACA coverage at all.

Questions? Can we move on to the next duhversion?

 

[werepossum]

Christ, you guys either need to get over your hard-on for voter suppression, or at least learn what you're talking about. There are multiple holes in your "argument":

1. Voting is a Constitutional right.

2. You've failed to show that the ACA ID requirements are just as narrowly restricted as the right's typical voter suppression laws. One of the more odious aspects of those laws is the transparent attempt to rig the ID requirements. While the details vary by state, they normally require a current, state-issued photo ID and will not accept common alternatives like student IDs, expired licenses (because, you know, once a license has expired the person may no longer be eligible to vote, or they had dramatic plastic surgery ... or something), etc.

3. Contrary to your nonsense about "lawbreakers", the great majority of Americans do not need the ACA and therefore do not need an ID, including the very same demographics most targeted by the RNC voter suppression laws. For example:

• The elderly -- already on Medicare
• The very poor -- on Medicaid
• Students -- covered on their parents' plans

And of course most Americans are covered by employer plans and do not need ACA coverage at all.

Questions? Can we move on to the next duhversion?

And of course, we all know you don't need ID to get on Medicare or Medicaid. Nope, you just tell them who you are at the moment.

Oddly enough, one still needs ID to buy a firearm - another Constitutional right.

 

[Bowfinger]

And of course, we all know you don't need ID to get on Medicare or Medicaid. Nope, you just tell them who you are at the moment.

Yawn. Fine, since righties' attention spans are apparently miniscule and Anand's bandwidth apparently unlimited, let's thrash that red herring yet again. First, kindly prove that enrolling in Medicare/Medicaid requires the same current, state-issued photo IDs required by your beloved voter suppression laws. Next, prove that those requirements have always been in place and require periodic renewal. This is necessary to your argument because otherwise, the millions of seniors who are already covered can (and often do) lack current state photo IDs, even if they were required upon initial enrollment. Note that this will be tricky for you to prove because I know for a fact my mother didn't have to provide such an ID when she enrolled in Medicare twenty-some years ago (though ironically she still had a current DL back in those days). I don't know what current documentation requirements are. Do you?

The point you guys simply refuse to acknowledge is that millions of Americans get along fine in life without your current, state-issued photo IDs. The elderly in particular have no need if they no longer drive, aren't applying for jobs, already have homes and bank accounts, etc. Nonetheless, they are still eligible voters, and your voter suppression laws disenfranchise many of them.

Oddly enough, one still needs ID to buy a firearm - another Constitutional right.

You'll have to take that up with your legislators; I'm not defending that practice. Mind you, I think any honest person can see the tremendous practical differences between voting and engaging in commerce to buy a firearm, but I think the Constitutional question is legitimate. All I can offer is SCOTUS has declared poll taxes unconstitutional, but has accepted some restrictions on firearm purchasing and ownership. Perhaps you should sue your state and see if you can run it all the way to SCOTUS.

 

[First]

So you just confirmed that having an ID is mandatory (to get Obamacare)...so why would they not have an ID to vote then? Even if you don't get coverage through the exchange, you still need an ID every time you get treatment so pretty much everyone has to have an ID now, right??

I already explained it to you but I'll say it more slowly; there's no economic incentive to vote, while there is tons of economic incentive to defraud people for services like healthcare (especially healthcare). There's no incentive, to say nothing of the logistical impossibility, of defrauding the election system by pretending to be someone you're not in a U.S. election since the likelihood of actually altering the election outcome is about as close to statistically zero as you can get.

And plenty of people don't bring or use ID on the daily basis; in particular the old, infirm, young and many minorities. It's not uncommon.

Isn't the main argument against Voter ID laws is that getting an ID is a hardship to minorities and the lower class? Now that they have to have an ID, what is the issue?

The only people who would not need one would be the lawbreakers who choose to not get insurance and pay the fine...I mean have the fine deducted from their tax return...Are there any other groups who would legitimately do NOT need a government ID now?

You just made an argument for why voter ID laws aren't necessary. If people now have them anyway (as you posit because of the ACA), there isn't likely to be fraud in the first place because, as you say, they now have it! So why pass pointless voter ID regs again? For fun? Because state legislatures are bored and don't have enough regs on the books?

(Btw, ACA is an individual market phenomenon that will eventually cover tens of millions, but 150M+ vote, so ACA still wouldn't "force" a majority of Americans to get ID).

What are the chances they vote Democrat again after realizing that Obama has decreased their paychecks by forcing them to get insurance or paying the fine (might not realize now while the fines are relatively low but they will once these fines increase to their higher levels in a few years)...

That's a whole lot of herp a derp.

 

[werepossum]

Yawn. Fine, since righties' attention spans are apparently miniscule and Anand's bandwidth apparently unlimited, let's thrash that red herring yet again. First, kindly prove that enrolling in Medicare/Medicaid requires the same current, state-issued photo IDs required by your beloved voter suppression laws. Next, prove that those requirements have always been in place and require periodic renewal. This is necessary to your argument because otherwise, the millions of seniors who are already covered can (and often do) lack current state photo IDs, even if they were required upon initial enrollment. Note that this will be tricky for you to prove because I know for a fact my mother didn't have to provide such an ID when she enrolled in Medicare twenty-some years ago (though ironically she still had a current DL back in those days). I don't know what current documentation requirements are. Do you?

The point you guys simply refuse to acknowledge is that millions of Americans get along fine in life without your current, state-issued photo IDs. The elderly in particular have no need if they no longer drive, aren't applying for jobs, already have homes and bank accounts, etc. Nonetheless, they are still eligible voters, and your voter suppression laws disenfranchise many of them.

You'll have to take that up with your legislators; I'm not defending that practice. Mind you, I think any honest person can see the tremendous practical differences between voting and engaging in commerce to buy a firearm, but I think the Constitutional question is legitimate. All I can offer is SCOTUS has declared poll taxes unconstitutional, but has accepted some restrictions on firearm purchasing and ownership. Perhaps you should sue your state and see if you can run it all the way to SCOTUS.

Point is, ID requirements should be uniform. They are not, with voting being the most lenient.

I already explained it to you but I'll say it more slowly; there's no economic incentive to vote, while there is tons of economic incentive to defraud people for services like healthcare (especially healthcare). There's no incentive, to say nothing of the logistical impossibility, of defrauding the election system by pretending to be someone you're not in a U.S. election since the likelihood of actually altering the election outcome is about as close to statistically zero as you can get.

And plenty of people don't bring or use ID on the daily basis; in particular the old, infirm, young and many minorities. It's not uncommon.

You just made an argument for why voter ID laws aren't necessary. If people now have them anyway (as you posit because of the ACA), there isn't likely to be fraud in the first place because, as you say, they now have it! So why pass pointless voter ID regs again? For fun? Because state legislatures are bored and don't have enough regs on the books?

(Btw, ACA is an individual market phenomenon that will eventually cover tens of millions, but 150M+ vote, so ACA still wouldn't "force" a majority of Americans to get ID).

That's a whole lot of herp a derp.

LOL Your argument is that these people already have ID so they shouldn't be required to show it? Seriously? Sure you don't want to phone a friend or use a lifeline or something?

One party tirelessly works for government to take wealth from others and redistribute it. How is that not an economic incentive? Surely free money legally trumps free money illegally?

 

[Bowfinger]

Point is, ID requirements should be uniform. They are not, with voting being the most lenient.

Why? Says who? Should the licensing requirement for a moped be the same as for a car? For a tractor trailer? For a 787? Minimum ID requirements should be tailored to the situation.

LOL Your argument is that these people already have ID so they shouldn't be required to show it? Seriously? Sure you don't want to phone a friend or use a lifeline or something?

That's not what he said at all, but you already know that. Perhaps you might phone a friend or use a lifeline rather than always falling back on stuffing a straw man.

One party tirelessly works for government to take wealth from others and redistribute it. How is that not an economic incentive? Surely free money legally trumps free money illegally?

Sorry, both parties love wealth distribution. The left likes to take from the middle class and occasionally the rich to give to the poor. The right likes to take from the middle class and the poor to give to the rich. (Notice who gets the shaft in both cases?) The big difference is the rich can afford it while the poor cannot. I suppose one could more accurately say that much of this wealth transfer (in either case) is from future generations, but it's still the middle class that bears the brunt of it.

 

[First]

LOL Your argument is that these people already have ID so they shouldn't be required to show it? Seriously? Sure you don't want to phone a friend or use a lifeline or something?

The ultimate test of whether something deserves to be enshrined into law requires that you identify a few things; 1) is there a problem that needs solving, 2) will passing a law solve it and 3) will the law do more good than harm on balance. Voter ID laws pass none of these tests. Voter ID supporters say, well, #1 that there is a voter ID fraud problem (some even say epidemic, lulz), which there is no substantial evidence for. #2 supporters claim voter ID laws will solve these frauds (they may, if lots of money is spent enforcing laws at tens of thousands of polling places). And #3 supporters say the fraud it's solving on balance does more good (reduced voter fraud) than bad (disenfranchising many thousands of young, old, infirm, handicapped & and minority voters). Laughable, of course.

So, if everyone now will have ID due to ACA, as spacejamz claims (I don't buy it, but I entertained it), then there's no point in legislating it, as there's nothing to solve. All this muss and fuss about drafting untold amounts of regs regarding voting ID's is, frankly, entirely transparent and no one who has thought deeply about sees it as anything but transparent partisanship.

One party tirelessly works for government to take wealth from others and redistribute it. How is that not an economic incentive? Surely free money legally trumps free money illegally?

Your single vote has no bearing on the outcome of 99.999% of all U.S. elections in history, that's why (your sad attempt at broadly painting Dems notwithstanding).

 

[sportage]

The site this OP linked to is obviously a trolled, Fauxed news-ish, FULL OF BULL-SHET, right winged troll based site of ka-ka-poo.

But, lets go ahead anyway and for the sake of all the Obama haters here lets play devils advocate...

First off, FYI kiddies, there ARE illegals living in America AS WE SPEAK (ie type).
Second off, illegals will encounter emergencies, just exactly like the legal folks do.

Do you really believe that an illegal hit by a car or seriously shot in a mugging would be not taken to the same hospital ER just as would everyone else?
Do you have some twisted right wing Fauxed based illusion that the paramedics would simply leave any non-citizen illegal just lying there bleeding on the pavement?
NO! FYI No! They will not.

That legal would be rushed into emergency JUST THE VERY SAME as any other living bleeding human creature in this America.
Medics do not pick and chose whom and when to transport to the ER going by their legal status.
Sorry to burst your bubble over that TP.

Soooo, does not and would not it benefit everyone cost-wise for that illegal to have some sorts of insurance coverage?
I mean, if illegals are already here in the first place, why should we give illegals a free ride to that ER? Make them pay. Just like the rest of us have to.
Or I should say, those not too cheap assed to buy their own health insurance.
Why provide a free pass to see that doctor illegal or legal?

Obamacare is not free. This isn't Canada.
One enjoys insurance only after they pay for it.
Be that Obamacare, or personal wealth to pay up front, or whatever.
But everything outside of that would be a freebie with cost dumped onto those that are patriotic and insured.
Owning health insurance is patriotic.
Taking responsibility and not whining over paying ones fair share.
Obamacare allows everyone to be a true patriot. Any problems with that?
Why the heck do you think insurance for profit costs were costing Americans mountains in the first place?
Or that reform had been so badly needed in the first place?

If illegals are going to be here in this country, getting sick and having babies and all that stuff, just like real legal American citizens, then why not make them pay their own costs?
Even if that means buying their own plan thru the exchange.
I for one damn well do not want to have that cost burden added to my insurance premium, as was the case before ACA reform.
Let them buy insurance on the open market, the exchange, until they are either deported back to Mexico or earn citizenship thru some amnesty program.
Because no paramedic is going to just leave someone lying on the street.

So now, lets all come back down to earth and face fact...
Obama has deported more illegals than any other administration of past.
Fact #1.
And secondly, I do not want to get stuck with the medical bills for illegals getting sick, having babies, and bleeding onto the pavements of America.
Or especially, when getting hurt on the job at Mitt Romney's house cleaning out Mitt's pool.

If the illegals are going to work for Mitt Romney, damn straight Mitt better damn well pay them enough to damn it purchase their own damn health insurance thru the affordable exchange.

Until republicans in congress GET OFF THEIR COLLECTIVE ASS and address immigration reform, except we know they won't because too many of them employ illegals in their own homes, but until republicans in congress get off their wallets and take action on immigration reform, I say let illegals buy into Obamacare.
And Mitt... pay your illegals a little bit more so your illegal employees can do exactly that. Own health insurance while in America illegally.

And stop all this trolling republican BS.
No one is buying into this crap beyond the tea beggared Obama haters.

 

[michal1980]

The site this OP linked to is obviously a trolled, Fauxed news-ish, FULL OF BULL-SHET, right winged troll based site of ka-ka-poo.

But, lets go ahead anyway and for the sake of all the Obama haters here lets play devils advocate...

First off, FYI kiddies, there ARE illegals living in America AS WE SPEAK (ie type).
Second off, illegals will encounter emergencies, just exactly like the legal folks do.

Do you really believe that an illegal hit by a car or seriously shot in a mugging would be not taken to the same hospital ER just as would everyone else?
Do you have some twisted right wing Fauxed based illusion that the paramedics would simply leave any non-citizen illegal just lying there bleeding on the pavement?
NO! FYI No! They will not.

That legal would be rushed into emergency JUST THE VERY SAME as any other living bleeding human creature in this America.
Medics do not pick and chose whom and when to transport to the ER going by their legal status.
Sorry to burst your bubble over that TP.

Soooo, does not and would not it benefit everyone cost-wise for that illegal to have some sorts of insurance coverage?
I mean, if illegals are already here in the first place, why should we give illegals a free ride to that ER? Make them pay. Just like the rest of us have to.
Or I should say, those not too cheap assed to buy their own health insurance.
Why provide a free pass to see that doctor illegal or legal?

Obamacare is not free. This isn't Canada.
One enjoys insurance only after they pay for it.
Be that Obamacare, or personal wealth to pay up front, or whatever.
But everything outside of that would be a freebie with cost dumped onto those that are patriotic and insured.
Owning health insurance is patriotic.
Taking responsibility and not whining over paying ones fair share.
Obamacare allows everyone to be a true patriot. Any problems with that?
Why the heck do you think insurance for profit costs were costing Americans mountains in the first place?
Or that reform had been so badly needed in the first place?

If illegals are going to be here in this country, getting sick and having babies and all that stuff, just like real legal American citizens, then why not make them pay their own costs?
Even if that means buying their own plan thru the exchange.
I for one damn well do not want to have that cost burden added to my insurance premium, as was the case before ACA reform.
Let them buy insurance on the open market, the exchange, until they are either deported back to Mexico or earn citizenship thru some amnesty program.
Because no paramedic is going to just leave someone lying on the street.

So now, lets all come back down to earth and face fact...
Obama has deported more illegals than any other administration of past.
Fact #1.
And secondly, I do not want to get stuck with the medical bills for illegals getting sick, having babies, and bleeding onto the pavements of America.
Or especially, when getting hurt on the job at Mitt Romney's house cleaning out Mitt's pool.

If the illegals are going to work for Mitt Romney, damn straight Mitt better damn well pay them enough to damn it purchase their own damn health insurance thru the affordable exchange.

Until republicans in congress GET OFF THEIR COLLECTIVE ASS and address immigration reform, except we know they won't because too many of them employ illegals in their own homes, but until republicans in congress get off their wallets and take action on immigration reform, I say let illegals buy into Obamacare.
And Mitt... pay your illegals a little bit more so your illegal employees can do exactly that. Own health insurance while in America illegally.

And stop all this trolling republican BS.
No one is buying into this crap beyond the tea beggared Obama haters.

another brilliant rant.

and nothing more. This is typical of the left. All they do is shout the loudest, like drunkest. Because he who is the loudest is right.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

another brilliant rant.

and nothing more. This is typical of the left. All they do is shout the loudest, like drunkest. Because he who is the loudest is right.

Said the guy who started a thread citing an article from a source that yells louder than all that also happened to be complete bullshit.

And not one of you has bothered to acknowledge that Breitbart was again lying to you and you lapped it right up and ran here to post this thread.

 

[Matt1970]

The right likes to take from the middle class and the poor to give to the rich.

Exactly how do they do that?

 

[theeedude]

Republicans are more interested in illegals not having health insurance than they are in Americans having it.

 

[zinfamous]

Umm, obviously you aren't aware of this but they can't vote.....

but but but voter fraud is rampant and unchecked! D: