August 28, 2009

Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service: Yes, ChappaquiddiCare Would Cover Illegal Aliens. In Fact, Illegal Aliens are Required to Buy Health Insurance through the "Exchange"
— Ace

Similar to the abortion coverage non-debate. They claim that silence = non-coverage, when in fact they know, and rely upon, silence = coverage.

David Fredosso:

In its subsection on health insurance subsidies (known as "affordability credits"), HR 3200 does state, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." That would seem to solve the problem, but it's more rhetoric than reality. The bill contains no verification requirement or enforcement process for citizenship or legal residency, as exists for other federal benefit programs. The only verification required for the subsidies pertains to family income. Beyond that, as the CRS report notes, everything is left in the hands of the Health Choices Commissioner.

Link to the actual document at the above link.

But it gets better. (Doesn't it always?)

CRS also notes that “undocumented aliens” who have a “substantial presence” in the US would be required to buy health insurance (page 4) through the exchanges in HR3200. They would also become eligible for “emergency Medicaid,” although not normal Medicaid (page 6) for up to five years.

The media loves wedge issues.. when it comes to Republicans. They love pushing these, as they create problems in the Republican Party, as social cons and libertarians, and populists and free-marketers, go at each other.

It's always better for a party -- not for policy, mind you, nor for any particular bloc, but for the party itself -- to fudge these issues. Someone has to win... but as they say, it's always easier to beg forgiveness than to secure permission. It's always easiest to tell the deceived losing party he's lost after deceiving him to think he would likely win.

But the media won't let the Republican Party get away with that. So we have long, bruising, angry debates. Which is probably a good thing... except it does do damage to party cohesion in the meantime.

On the other hand, the media is more than willing to prop up the Democrats' efforts at fudging issues and lying to the already-known losers in a debate, telling them that maybe they're actually coming out ahead. There is a division in the Democratic Party, between its liberal and moderate wings (and definitely between its liberals and true independents) on whether ChappaquiddiCare should cover illegals.

So, does the media dig and force the Democrats to take a stand on this, one way or the other, giving the public its right of informed consent, but at the expense of alienating one of the two wings prior to the all-important vote?

No. In such cases the media is happy to pretend this is all unknowable and/or unimportant, so that all Democrats and independents can vote for the bill thinking their particular preference is in fact encoded into law. Only afterwards will the moderates and independents find out they've been screwed over, but no problem -- the law is now law, and.... it's easier to beg forgiveness than to secure permission.

Time and time we see the media assisting Democrats in their deliberately deceptive vagueness -- on abortion coverage, on Medicare cuts, on taxes, on rationing. It's in the party's interest to convince its various conflicting blocs that they will all prevail... but of course they all will not; they all cannot. But if that strategic ambiguity can just be preserved long enough, just until the vote...

The media knows this full well and therefore never expresses any curiosity at all about the truth of these debates. It's in their liberal partisan political interests that the truth be deemed "unknowable," and hence it is therefore unknowable.

And it's easy for the media to declare something unknowable -- they merely need to be lazy and publish the DNC's talking points near-verbatim. Which is their habit and proclivity anyhow.

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 686 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I certainly enjoyed reading it, you can be a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and may come back someday. I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great writing, have a nice evening!
we've got many new users here who recently got an Apple iPod touch or an www.apple.com/ipod/start. To use it you must first download and www.ipod.com. The instructions to download it and install it are below.
ipod.com is needed in order to sync your device, and also to download or sync applications or music from the App Store.

Posted by: kasdk at January 03, 2012 04:46 AM (SEioL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
75kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 1.0421 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0109 seconds, 237 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.