Quote:
Originally Posted by the mongoose
Confidentiality  |
What do you mean by this? You have the smoking gun to prove your points but can't share it thanks to a confidentiality agreement or something? I would think that if your point was valid, you'd be able to find at least
some publicly available, reliable information out there to support it.
And holy crap - I just went for the first time to your link that quoted Obama. The portion of his statement that you shared here said:
OBAMA: We don't want a situation in which some child, even if they're an illegal immigrant, shows up in an emergency room with tuberculosis and nobody is giving them treatment, and then they're going back to the playground and playing next to our kids."
You provided this as evidence of the U.S. providing health care to illegal immigrants. What was interesting to me was when I went on to actually read the very next thing Obama says:
"So I think there is a basic standard of decency where if somebody is in a death situation or a severe illness, that we're going to provide them emergency care. But nobody has talked about providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. I want to make that absolutely clear."
And then in
the article you linked about KidCare through the phrase "connecting the dots...", I had a hard time knowing which side of the debate you were trying to prove. The article outlines how on both sides of the aisle, the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of covering the children of illegal immigrants, but then there's this comment:
Immigrant advocates were caught off guard by the number of House members who stood up to fight for coverage of children here illegally, but said it likely wouldn't have a practical impact because of the need for documentation.
Rep. Bill Galvano, the sponsor of the bill agreed that there likely wouldn't be many - or maybe any - illegal immigrants who try to get into the program.
So anyway, your point is basically that the definitive information to counter all of this is not publicly available?