A Quick DEBUNKING of the GOP's "Obama Started It" Meme re: Joe Wilson
In grasping for some rationalization for standing by their man who shouted "You Lie!", the Republicans have ONCE AGAIN chosen bald-faced lies.* "Obama started it" just doesn't fly, and here's (one of several reasons) why:
Rep. Steve King's (R-IA) remark about Obama throwing "the first punch" is the clearest GOP comment using this meme. He connects Obama's "prominent politicians" remark with his (spurious) we-said-it's-gonna-fund-illegals claim. However, Obama's "prominent politicians" phrase was connected to the "death panel" refutation - NOT the "illegal immigrant" refutation. (See, Palin and Grassley re: "death panels", but no similar prominent pols were beating the "illegals" drum that I can think of.)
As for the portion of King's rationalization that "a lot of us said, well, this health care bill is gonna fund illegals", that part is false, too.** SOOOOOOO, King makes a FALSE connection AND the basis for that false connection is FALSE, too.
That's a double fail, Congressman!
Here's the relevant transcript portion from Obama's speech:
*** Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. (Applause.) There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie! (Boos.) THE PRESIDENT: It's not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (Applause.)***
* http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/new-gop-meme-on-joe-wilson-obama-started-it.php?ref=fpblg
** http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/ Page 143 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." And as we've said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.
***Transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/
The Republicans told the lies first and then object that it is unfair that they are called on them.
September 16, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pre-zactly, AJM. Pretty ballsy, but also SOP from the GOP.
September 17, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wilson was completely inappropriate to make that comment in that setting.
But it's not a lie if that section you cite (page 143) is not enforced. And the section you cite says that illegals won't be allowed to get federal money. But what about illegals ability to participate in a government run exchange?
Wilson has a valid concern, especially when amendments to improve enforcement were defeated.
Here's what the Congressional Research Service had to say:
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."
September 16, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, MCB. Assuming that a provision is not going to get enforced does not a lie make. There are wayyyyy too many instances where anti-reformniks are assuming that we're definitely going to slide down all these slippery slopes, and then presenting the heap at the bottom as being "truth". It just is not an honest way of opposing something.
As for the possibility that noncitizens could "participat(e) in the Exchange": that is just NOT the same as claiming that Obamacare is going to give free care to all illegals.
September 17, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were Wilson I wouldn't have used the term "lie" and I wouldn't have said anything at all in that setting.
My point is that he has a legitimate concern over the enforcement issue, especially when amendments to improve the enforcement were voted down.
It's not "anti-reform" to propose amendments such as these. Being opposed to something because of lack of enforcement provisions is a very honest way of opposing something.
I think both sides are parsing words. You say it's "NOT the same as claiming that Obamacare is going to give free care to all illegals". I don't think that's what Wilson is objecting to and that's not what Obama said in his rhetoric. Obama said that it is not true that "our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants".
Well, if the CRS is saying that illegal immigrants can participate in the new "exchanges" which include the public option, then I think I also disagree with Obama's rhetoric.
September 17, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
So are you objecting to illegals buying private goods if the exchange is government run or regulated?
So what is your opinion on illegals buying stocks through the NYSE?
Isn't the problem that they are here illegally, not what they may buy while here?
If illegals are already buying private health insurance I would much rather that they do that than that American taxpayers pay for their care at emergency rooms.
September 17, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that buying stocks is a very good analogy.
I do object if they are getting the benefits of something funded with taxpayer money, unless they are paying taxes.
If people are worried about increased waiting times to see doctors, get tests, etc. - one way to improve wait times is to limit the number of people in the system.
September 17, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? What makes buying the private good of stocks through a government regulated exchange different from buying health insurance through a government regulated exchange?
I'm not that concerned about waiting in lines for regular health care -- the cure is more doctors -- but I am concerned about backed up emergency rooms which is where you will find illegals if they do not otherwise have access to health care.
September 17, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter how many other people are looking to buy IBM, it takes me less than 1 second to execute and costs $5. Technology has allowed E-Trade to reduce costs for me. Healthcare has had no such trackrecord. Healthcare services is different because it's still human interaction with a doctor. Very different from me using a computer to buy stocks. On the margin more people means higher costs and worse service. Especially when the universe of doctors is shrinking too.
September 17, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are confusing the sale of health insurance via an echange with the provision of health care by the individual selection of a doctor. The latter remains the same under any of the proposed bills as far as I know. There doesn't seem to be any reason that insurance policies could not be sold exactly the same way a stock like IBM is sold. E-Insurance Trade so to speak could provide reams of information about the relative merits of the policies and the choice would be made by a push of a button.
September 17, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we are talking past each other.
I was trying to answer your initial question - "So are you objecting to illegals buying private goods if the exchange is government run or regulated?"
I'm not focused on the sale transaction through the exchange. I am focused on the fact that illegal aliens will be able to get health insurance. If they are participating in the public option, presumably the government is picking up part of that tab. Just the same way if I chose to participate in the public option, I would pay $x but the true cost is $y. I write a check for $x and the government pays for the difference between y and x.
If illegal aliens can participate in the public option, they are benefitting from taxpayer dollars, even if they aren't directly receiving "affordability credits".
September 17, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your points, MCB. I did use the term "anti-reform" - it may have been just a small bit too broad because most Republicans are claiming to be pro-reform, too, even though they are stridently anti-anything-being-proposed-in-concrete-form.
I'm not sure "both sides are parsing words", MCB. I think words do matter, and I think that the way that they are grouped together are important and often give clues to how the speaker's (writer's) brain is working. When done properly, that would be "parsing."
And, I think that that is different than taking words out of context. In that way, taking words out of context is more like anti-parsing - trying to single out groups of words to alter the meaning of what the speaker (writer) was saying or trying to say, and ignoring clues to the contrary.
Therefore, I don't think that Wilson, et al, were "parsing" Obama's sentence. Nor, I guess, were they "taking it out of context". I think they are they are just reaching their own opinions about the possible outcomes and stating those possibilities as "truths."
Nor was I "parsing" their words. The quote from King is that "a lot of us said, well, this health care bill is gonna fund illegals". Not that they can participate (at their own expense) (CRS). Not that it will "insure illegal immigrants" (Obama). Not that the enforcement mechanisms need to be strengthened (opinion). But, that THE BILL WILL PAY FOR THEM (plain meaning of his quote).
(Y'know, I've never really thought about - or tried to express - the definitions or connotations of "parsing", and the possible distinctions with "taking out of context". It is interesting, and probably worthy of more discussion. After typing the above reply, I looked up the definitions of "parsing". (Yeah, I shoulda done it BEFORE.) The definitions are neutral/technical and do not provide connotations. So, for now, I stand by my shooting from the hip thoughts on the connotations; I welcome your (MCB) and others' thoughts on the subject.)
September 17, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink