Holy fucked up healthcare reform Batman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Yeah, go Barney go!

"...like trying to argue with a dining room table!"

Oh we've had a few of those moments round here.

Some people can be hypocrites too though.

& I'm not referring to you, so don't go getting YOUR panties all tied up in a knot. At least, not while your still wearing them . . .

[Sean]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

"Seems" so doesn't it, but I think the following should be considered as well.

Is a parent's immigration status part of eligibility?
No. The Florida KidCare application does not ask about parents' status.

Does Florida tell the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) I am applying to Florida KidCare?
No. The state of Florida cannot provide any information to the USCIS about people applying for Florida KidCare or medical benefits. (However, people who apply for cash assistance or food stamps can be reported if they reveal they're under a final order of deportation or not lawfully present.) Remember, the child's immigration status — not the parent's — is considered for Florida KidCare eligibility.

Will enrolling a child in Florida KidCare harm me in adjusting my status through USCIS?
No. Regulations state that health care cannot be used to deny individuals admission to the U.S., to bar legal permanent residence, or to deport. (May 25, 1999, Administration Policy Announcement directed to all federal agencies.)

Does Children's Medicaid give my social security and income data to the USCIS or the U.S. Department of State?
No. A 1997 federal decision requires this information to be confidential.

If I enroll my child in the Florida KidCare program, can I later be asked to pay back the money?
No. Neither the state of Florida nor the USCIS can require you to repay a lawfully received benefit. They will not accept it even if you want to pay it back.

As I continued reading these questions and answers, it became increasingly clear to me that they were likely copied and pasted from somewhere, so I did a quick search and found the (or at least one of the) site you got it from. Interestingly, it specifies right off the bat that:

"In general, children eligible for Florida KidCare must be U.S. citizens. However, the federal government classifies some non-citizen children as "qualified aliens". These children are eligible. Also remember that some persons born outside the United States may be citizens.

Examples of Non-Citizen Children Who May Be Eligible
Children with Lawful Permanent Residence (for at least five years)
Refugees
Asylees
Cuban and Haitian entrants
Amerasians
Canadian Indians
Dependent children of Active Duty United States Military Personnel or veterans
Children paroled into the United States for a year or more
Chidren who have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a U.S. citizen with approved Violence Against Women Act case
Children victims of Human Trafficking certified by the Office of Refugee Resettlement
Iraqi and Afghani Special Immigrant Visa holders"

From there, it launches directly into your list of questions and answers. Context really is everything. So I ask again, where's your evidence that we're opening up health care to "the entire country of Mexico"? Because this site tells us that the immigration status of the children themselves are considered in determining eligibility, and the non-citizen exemptions appear to be geared directly towards humanitarian considerations rather than across-the-board acceptance of legal and illegal immigrants alike as you're apparently trying to imply.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by Sean

Anyway, this is just my long way of agreeing with you, Chuck. And thanks for reminding me that I want to see the rest of the Betsy McCaughey interview that they couldn't fit into the half hour show last night. She was a nut and a half, wasn't she? Trying to actually convince us that "death panels" were real even though all information she provided said otherwise? Crazy.

And Betsy resigns.

Odd that - day after getting her ass handed to her on a plate by Stewart, she resigns so as to "avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest during the national debate over healthcare reform."

Yeah right - I think it's to give her more time to find the page 432. or was it 423??

Stewart: "Maybe you could have used some post-it notes...."

priceless.

Sean - we get the Daily Show fresh on TV here, but can't watch the full episodes online - I'll have to get that proxy server working.

We also get Fox, CNN International, BBC and Sky News and al-Jazeera, so if you work hard you can get a decent cross-section of opinion. Our local news is just a regurgitate of CBS/NBC/ITV stories - plus local stuff.

[the mongoose]

Originally Posted by chuck

And Betsy resigns.

Odd that you chuckleheads are calling Betsy a nut for quoting the actual fucked legislation to support her arguments. It's completely obvious that most people only saw the first ten minutes which ended quite abruptly on air, but the whole interview must be seen in it's entirety in order to understand all of the facts involved. She totally makes Jon Stewart look like a rich, socialist moron (although I personally think he's very funny and it was cool of him to at least let her talk, unlike the typical media"out of time" Nazis at NBC for example)


The first 10 minutes of the interview (where she walks out with an actual copy of the health care bill) was aired on tv, but the whole thing must be seen in order to realize that everything Betsy McCaughn said was actually very empirical; and she did a great job of proving every argument with facts and stopping him from railroading her with his contant bombardment of wiseass "AUDIENCE (paid to)LAUGH!!!......AUDIENCE (paid to) APPLAUSE!!!" infantile tangents:

Only way to see the beginning ("part 1") is watching the full televised version of the show. It includes a portion of part "2" that cuts off abruptly after the ten minute interview is over. The producers did not edit the interview at all so that the rest would have to be found "UNCENSORED" online........>>>Click for full episode with part "1" of the interview<<<



Uncensored (part "2" - reuses the second portion of part 1)
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. "2"

Uncensored (part "3")
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. "3"


Once you've seen the man in the bear suit, it's hard to appreciate an "entertaining political" show for bears, by "bears".

[chuck]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

Odd that you chuckleheads are calling Betsy a nut for quoting the actual fucked legislation to support her arguments.

WTF are you smoking. Seriously - I'm fucking done with putting up with your idle rants. I don't even live in your country - I really don't give a rats ass about how far down the toilet you flush your society.

But please - where in that interview - which I watched in the entirety - before you get all fucking sanctimonious - did Betsy find anything to actually backup the claims of "death panels"/socialism/imperialism and everything else that's apparently bad and evil in the policy. I mean she struggles to even find the fricking page that apparently contains the keys to hell. She was reading clear and unequivocal statements - and then her secret decoder ring was turning it into unqualified crap from the rear end of looney-ville that didn't even make sense whilst she was saying it. And Stewart had the balls to call her on it.

It's completely obvious that most people only saw the first ten minutes which ended quite abruptly on air, but the whole interview must be seen in it's entirety in order to understand all of the facts involved. She totally makes Jon Stewart look like a rich, socialist moron (although I personally think he's very funny and it was cool of him to at least let her talk, unlike the typical media"out of time" Nazis at NBC for example)

Did you even listen to Stewart - at all? Did you hear him talk about how he was happy to have his taxes go to help others....

Oh wait - there's Nazis working at NBC now????

christ all fucking mighty - at least have the decency to reserve your slanderous bullshit for individuals that might actually deserve it. You're throwing the term 'Nazi' around like it's the same as calling someone a dickhead.

The first 10 minutes of the interview (where she walks out with an actual copy of the health care bill) was aired on tv, but the whole thing must be seen in order to realize that everything Betsy McCaughn said was actually very empirical; and she did a great job of proving every argument with facts and stopping him from railroading her with his contant bombardment of wiseass "AUDIENCE (paid to)LAUGH!!!......AUDIENCE (paid to) APPLAUSE!!!" infantile tangents:

WHAT FUCKING FACTS! She was making shit up as she went along. Even when Stewart was agreeing with her facts, she still couldn't make any sense.

Betsy just makes asinine remarks like "Isn't he cute." with that falsetto smile and shrill little giggle that makes me want to punch myself in the eyeball.

Holy shit - I'm so glad you linked to the entire interview. It's far better viewing than anything you've posted here. And everyone else can see it as well.

Again - I'm not even in your country and don't really care - but watching Stewart dismantle the arguments that supposedly are at the core of the what the right is holding to in this debate - I'm sitting here wondering why there's all this smoke and the fury, when in reality it's more like the sound of one hand clapping.

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

...; and she did a great job of proving every argument with facts ...

To paraphrase a certain US Senator: What planet have you been brought up on to come to this totally quirky assessment of her performance? I cannot remember from the recent past any would-be-professional politician behaving as insecure and "proving" as ponderously as Betsy McCaughey did on that show. (I must admit, though, I've only seen the truncated part of the interview and can't be bothered to watch the rest.)

Seriously, it gave me physical pain watching her talking around that hot spot "page 432" for ages. - Why the hell didn't she just read out the important part of the law in the beginning in order to demonstrate her point? I mean, "someone must have ripped out that page"... COME ON?!?! Are you kidding me? Even if somebody DID rip that page out, she should have checked again right before the show. Better, she should know the paragraph in question by heart.

And don't start telling me Jon Stewart was unfair, interrupting her all the time. Of course he was. That's his style. She must have known before, and, despite this very style, should have been able to confidently, and in plain language, insert her point. Otherwise, she's just not fit for TV interviews, esp. with all that grinning in the wrong direction and stupidly laughing at Stewart making fun her. Face it, she made a complete fool of herself and her cause with that performance.

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by chuck

I'm sitting here wondering why there's all this smoke and the fury, when in reality it's more like the sound of one hand clapping.

Brilliant!

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

No shit it is.....so maybe just by informing you that I'm employed as a trainer that teaches people about the intricate details of the SCHIP program and how it's used here in FL will make you understand.....

What is your opinion of the SCHIP program?

Mind you: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/21/o...ers/index.html

[Sean]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

No shit it is.....so maybe just by informing you that I'm employed as a trainer that teaches people about the intricate details of the SCHIP program and how it's used here in FL will make you understand.....

True story - years ago, I knew a girl who was working as a grade school teacher. In a conversation with her and her boyfriend, somehow Hitler was mentioned. Her response to hearing his name: "Hitler....who was he again? I know he did something bad..." So being employed as a teacher didn't inherently mean she was smarter than anyone else - in fact, she was far stupider than most. Obviously. So knowing what you do for a living doesn't make me understand your points any more clearly, but it does terrify the crap out of me. All I can use to reach any conclusions about your positions is what you've posted here, and all you've posted here so far have been theories that you don't seem to be able to back up with anything of substance. To fall back on "well I train people about this stuff" after posting such easily debunked positions and evidence does nothing but explain to me why people seem to be so misinformed as this national debate (if it even deserves such a reasonable moniker) rages on.

As for your claims that "everything Betsy McCaughey said was actually very empirical; and she did a great job of proving every argument with facts" - the tricky thing about using empirical evidence and facts is that they have to actually support your point to be effective. Despite how "obvious" it is to you that I didn't, I did watch the entire interview, and sure, McCaughey read excerpts of the legislation in question, but none of what she read actually said what she claimed it did. Kind of like your arguments here so far. You quoted some out of context questions and answers from the KidCare website as "evidence" of how we're - in your words - "legally opening up all of our medical resources to what essentially amounts to the entire country of Mexico", but as soon as I went to the site myself, I found that the first sentence there (which you conveniently excluded) said "In general, children eligible for Florida KidCare must be U.S. citizens", and then went on to outline the very reasonable exceptions to that rule. So just because you quote something that's real doesn't inherently mean it supports your own (or Betsy's own) subsequent, unrelated, bizarre leaps in logic. That's not proving your points with empirical facts, that's spinning empirical facts into whatever happens to suit your purposes. And it doesn't help that you throw in little details like claiming the audience at the Daily Show is paid when the fact is, tickets to the show are free. But I guess why should facts get in the way of that claim by you any more than they have with anything else?

I'll start taking you and your claims more seriously when you offer at least one, single, reliable source of information that actually backs you up. So far, you have not, and neither has anyone on your side of the argument that I've been listening to for the past few months on this. The biggest common tactics we do hear from your side is to call your opposition "sheep" or "Nazis", to make up scary names like "death panels", and to shout down anyone who disagrees while calling them "liars" and such. Facts simply don't seem to be entering into it. All you've done here in the face of direct questions and points is either not respond at all, link to user-driven sites like wikipedia as well as other sites that upon investigation don't actually substantiate your claims, quote stuff out of context, or fall back on informing us that you're employed as a trainer that teaches people about the intricate details of the SCHIP program. I won't take what you say on pure faith any more than I ever would from anyone else, and that's all you've asked me to do so far. So bring some substance to the table, and maybe this thread can be worthwhile.

[kagenaki koe]

i think this debate boils down to (similar to Betsy vs stewart):

"this will lead to"

and

"but there's nothing there that says that"

not necessarily in that order. and i've been in that discussion with real people in real life. more specifically it's "well they won't say it exactly, but I KNOW it will eventually lead to (insert paranoia here)".