Who is the actual liar, Obama or Joe Wilson?

Joe Wilson may have erred and is the source of condemnation of his party, but virtually nobody is discussing Obama’s bitterly partisan speech or his ideas – no, Joe Wilson is the topic of conversation. Job well done, whether intentional or not. However a divide between the left and right continues to rage and now the nitty-gritty regarding illegal immigrant coverage is on the forefront. So, who is the actual liar?

First of all, we need to figure out just how many illegal immigrants are in this country. This number varies drastically depending on source, here are just some examples:

Center for Immigration Studies: 6 million
New York Times: 11-12 million
Department of Homeland Security: 11.5 million
American Resistance: 15-20 million

Let us also assume that tracking people without any documentation or formal entry is very difficult and estimating these numbers is hardly an exact science. Let us however assume that the number is closer to 12 million because that was the number cited during amnesty discussions last year and is roughly the number that Obama omitted in yesterday’s speech by suddenly citing “30 million uninsured” instead of the usual 46.

According to the now infamous politifact, a source I have long stopped trusting claim the following:

Most illegal immigrants are also now excluded from Medicaid, the
government-run health care for the poor. We didn’t see anything that would change that.

One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for
“affordability credits.” These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.

Ultimately concluding that Joe Wilson is the liar, not their hero Obama. However the center for immigration studies disagrees with this finding offering two very clashing facts.

1. “On July 16, an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) that would have required use of the SAVE program to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving the affordable premium credits was defeated by the House Ways and Means Committee.” If Democrats were truly interested in banning illegals from taxpayer funded health coverage, why would they possible strike down this amendment!?

2. Regarding these very same tax credits. “Section 246 of HR 3200 states, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”2 But as CRS points out, “HR 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — participating in the Exchange.”

Regarding Medicaid/Medicare, Congress (specifically democrats) have purposely voted against stringent restrictions for verification of legality.

In conclusion, the ICS states the following (they are also assuming 6 million illegals) :

“This report estimates the size of the illegal population without health insurance and incomes low enough to qualify for the health insurance affordability credits contained in The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (HR 3200). Although the bill states illegal immigrants are not to benefit from the new affordability credits, this prohibition is without an enforcement mechanism. Congress voted down an amendment in committee that would have required the use of the SAVE program. Almost all other means-tested programs of the kind found in HR 3200 require the use of SAVE. As it now stands, the bill has a ban on illegal immigrants, but Congress has chosen to leave that ban unenforced. As a result, the nearly seven million uninsured illegal immigrants with qualifying incomes could receive affordability credits under the bill, creating billions of dollars in costs to taxpayers. If the final version of health care reform includes a public option plan and if illegal immigrants enroll in that program instead of receiving affordability credits, the costs would be less for taxpayers. Nonetheless, if the government became the direct insurer of illegal immigrants, the cost of covering them would still run into the billions of dollars.”

Obama spent 48 minutes lying to America and apparently he was very successful.

Was Joe Wilson justified in calling Obama a liar?

Perhaps Joe Wilson achieved the unintended when he accused Obama of lying yesterday during the much anticipated health reform speech. Every blog, news source, cooler conversation is buzzing about yesterday’s reaction. Today on talk radio in the morning, callers were passionately arguing the actions of Joe Wilson and condemnation from Wilson’s party has been vociferous.

In this video, you can see for yourself what the hoopla is all about and notice Obama comes out slinging first accusing Republicans of spreading bogus lies and being cynical. While I found the entire experience enjoyable, it was only because of the factual underpinnings – that is Obama was indeed being less than truthful and as discussed in my previous post, the usual number of 45+ million uninsured most DEFINITELY includes illegal immigrants.

However, Joe Wilson broke with tradition and interrupted a presidential speech to a joint meeting of Congress. As with any kind of argument about the spread of government and the slipping slope of bureaucracy we should apply the same kind of fair reasoning here. That is, if we were to allow angry Congressmen or Senators to shout out their opinions, thoughts and convictions regardless of their passion, we would be allowing actions that could potentially dissolve the process. Our highest legislative body should not reduce itself to the likes of a circus and while I can appreciate the passions of Joe Wilson, allowing this kind of behavior can usher in a dangerous precedent. While Wilson spoke for many of us who were frustrated by clear obfuscations and lies, he did so inappropriately and without justification.

We must maintain order and civility and find mechanisms by which we can point out the President’s misinformation outside of his televised speeches.