FACT CHECK: Health coverage for illegal immigrants?

[Heracles 417]

By the way, i'm from near Detroit, and I wouldn't compare it to baghdad but its pretty bad. I am not for manufacturing to move overseas. I'm also not for unions, and I'm not for huge taxes on corporations either. So sometimes I can't blame them for leaving. Heck even the japanese company i work for is outsourcing everything we make. We get stuff from China, Mexico, Philippines, etc.. More and more is being moved out of Japan and the US. We still manufacture a little bit in Mt. Pleasant Michigan, and Bardstown Kentucky.

You know why that is? because some c--ks-ck-r profit seeking board member would rather earn 75 cents per dollar producing the product overseas than 20 cents but provide Americans with a job and a future. Selling out your country for a profit should be punishable by death. That is as bad as being a traitor. And I hate traitors.

Or do I need to put it in terms of the effect on the Steelers for anyone here to get it.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Booyah!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

By the way, i'm from near Detroit, and I wouldn't compare it to baghdad but its pretty bad. I am not for manufacturing to move overseas. I'm also not for unions, and I'm not for huge taxes on corporations either. So sometimes I can't blame them for leaving. Heck even the japanese company i work for is outsourcing everything we make. We get stuff from China, Mexico, Philippines, etc.. More and more is being moved out of Japan and the US. We still manufacture a little bit in Mt. Pleasant Michigan, and Bardstown Kentucky.

You know why that is? because some c--ks-ck-r profit seeking board member would rather earn 75 cents per dollar producing the product overseas than 20 cents but provide Americans with a job and a future. Selling out your country for a profit should be punishable by death. That is as bad as being a traitor. And I hate traitors.

Or do I need to put it in terms of the effect on the Steelers for anyone here to get it.

Serously? The main purpose of a business is to earn profits, not provide jobs for people. The thing that needs to happen is to make manufacturing in the US profitable. Think cap-and-trade will help that or make it worse? You'll see even more going overseas. Both candidates in 2008 were for it. It was a lose-lose.

So you're answer is for the government to step in? Thats not conservative my friend. Thats liberal. I know you claim to be conservative.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Joseph & Ana

[Heracles 417]

Serously? The main purpose of a business is to earn profits, not provide jobs for people. The thing that needs to happen is to make manufacturing in the US profitable. Think cap-and-trade will help that or make it worse? You'll see even more going overseas. Both candidates in 2008 were for it. It was a lose-lose.

So you're answer is for the government to step in? Thats not conservative my friend. Thats liberal. I know you claim to be conservative.

Man you seriously don't get it. Are you a billionaire? Do you own hundreds of millions of dollars in shares of these companies? Only a fool would back these companies. America was not established to make companies rich. What are the first three words of the Constitution? We the shareholder? We the executives? ah We the board? right. I have never even seen a group of people bent over by the rich but only to have you defend them. Like they are earning their money legitimately.

Newsflash: Corporations all over the world, including certain companies in America, are generating healthy profits yet also treating their employees fairly and not exporting their jobs. Dam straight the government should set the rules. Otherwise who else should? boards and their executives. You guys need to stop treating politics like a sporting team and start thinking about each issue individually. This sort of attitude is why Detroit collapsed and why US airlines are bankrupt. A one fits all approach and attitude always leads to disaster.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Booyah!

[zqt3344 21]

Mr President, YOU LIE!

FACT CHECK: Health coverage for illegal immigrants

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 10, 6:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Rep. Joe Wilson is wrong.

In his speech to Congress Wednesday, President Barack Obama said the changes to health care that he's proposing "would not apply to those who are here illegally." That prompted Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, to shout "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber. Wilson later apologized for the outburst, but he didn't back down from his claim.

THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage.

However, Wilson is far from alone in thinking that the prohibition in the House bill doesn't go far enough. For him and other Republicans, the problem is not what's in the bill, it's what the bill leaves out. There's no provision for how the prohibition would be enforced, or any requirement for people to prove they are citizens or legal residents before getting health care benefits. In fact, Democrats on the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees defeated Republican-offered amendments that would have required people to verify their legal status before getting care, with some Democrats saying such requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome for people legally entitled to coverage. Wilson cited the defeat of those two amendments Thursday when he discussed his outburst with reporters.

"I will tell you this, that it was spontaneous. It was when he stated, as he did, about not covering illegal aliens, when I knew we'd had those two amendments," Wilson said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_...ants_fact_check

Edited September 11, 2009 by zqt3344

[SMR 368]

Serously? The main purpose of a business is to earn profits, not provide jobs for people. The thing that needs to happen is to make manufacturing in the US profitable. Think cap-and-trade will help that or make it worse? You'll see even more going overseas. Both candidates in 2008 were for it. It was a lose-lose.

So you're answer is for the government to step in? Thats not conservative my friend. Thats liberal. I know you claim to be conservative.

Man you seriously don't get it. Are you a billionaire? Do you own hundreds of millions of dollars in shares of these companies? Only a fool would back these companies. America was not established to make companies rich. What are the first three words of the Constitution? We the shareholder? We the executives? ah We the board? right. I have never even seen a group of people bent over by the rich but only to have you defend them. Like they are earning their money legitimately.

Newsflash: Corporations all over the world, including certain companies in America, are generating healthy profits yet also treating their employees fairly and not exporting their jobs. Dam straight the government should set the rules. Otherwise who else should? boards and their executives. You guys need to stop treating politics like a sporting team and start thinking about each issue individually. This sort of attitude is why Detroit collapsed and why US airlines are bankrupt. A one fits all approach and attitude always leads to disaster.

The reason manufacturing is more profitable in other countries is because the American government makes it more expensive to employ people in America. The government tries to control companies and benefits. The natural result is for jobs to move overseas.

The free market always does what is most efficient. You can't get away from that. The government can try to tilt the playing field, but people still do what is most efficient on the tilted playing field. By raising payroll, SS, medicare, healthcare and other taxes, the American government tilts the playing field against American workers. The government has made it more efficient to ship jobs overseas, even when you factor in the added costs of shipping, travel, and communication. It's the American government that has crippled American workers, not corporations.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So we are supposed to wait for it to happen, then try to deal with it? Come on, give me a break.

No, we should lock you up right now rather than wait until you actually commit any offense for which you could be jailed. Report to the nearest jail at once. Thanks.

[Marzy 1]

Americans has trouble to say "no."

[Heracles 417]

The reason manufacturing is more profitable in other countries is because the American government makes it more expensive to employ people in America. The government tries to control companies and benefits. The natural result is for jobs to move overseas.

The free market always does what is most efficient. You can't get away from that. The government can try to tilt the playing field, but people still do what is most efficient on the tilted playing field. By raising payroll, SS, medicare, healthcare and other taxes, the American government tilts the playing field against American workers. The government has made it more efficient to ship jobs overseas, even when you factor in the added costs of shipping, travel, and communication. It's the American government that has crippled American workers, not corporations.

Okay, so maybe the government should get rid of all of these, scrap minimum wage and allow the free-market or better yet a board to choose if they deem someone is worthy of pay. As well as, open up the borders, as some advocate, which will ensure supply always outpaces demand. There goes the middle class. While you guys are championing on about the free-market, your centralized government communist competitor is growing and growing and will one day surpass you. You know what's funny, well sad actually, I bet you that even when China does surpass the US, you guys will still be beating on about how the government is restricting the free market and that's why the US has fallen. Yes, all while this communist, as in complete opposite to free-market, country beat you.

Anyway, the average US worker has already been beaten by those that are in countries which are classified as social-democracies. Where it's not about paying CEO's and executives hundreds of million, it's about ensuring the workers too get a fair wage. I mean the free-market and private sector lost hundreds of billions and were bailed out by the tax payer, yet still walked away with billions in bonuses alone last year. Yeah, way to go free-market. The only reason many here say these countries are not successful is because they don't allow billionaires like the critics to pillage their people. So naturally, in their opinion those approaches to the free-market are a failure. A fair days work deserves a fair days pay. The hardest I have heard my company's executives work, is when deciding which golf course to fly to this weekend.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Booyah!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The reason manufacturing is more profitable in other countries is because the American government makes it more expensive to employ people in America. The government tries to control companies and benefits. The natural result is for jobs to move overseas.

The free market always does what is most efficient. You can't get away from that. The government can try to tilt the playing field, but people still do what is most efficient on the tilted playing field. By raising payroll, SS, medicare, healthcare and other taxes, the American government tilts the playing field against American workers. The government has made it more efficient to ship jobs overseas, even when you factor in the added costs of shipping, travel, and communication. It's the American government that has crippled American workers, not corporations.

Okay, so maybe the government should get rid of all of these, scrap minimum wage and allow the free-market or better yet a board to choose if they deem someone is worthy of pay. As well as, open up the borders, as some advocate, which will ensure supply always outpaces demand. There goes the middle class. While you guys are championing on about the free-market, your centralized government communist competitor is growing and growing and will one day surpass you. You know what's funny, well sad actually, I bet you that even when China does surpass the US, you guys will still be beating on about how the government is restricting the free market and that's why the US has fallen. Yes, all while this communist, as in complete opposite to free-market, country beat you.

Anyway, the average US worker has already been beaten by those that are in countries which are classified as social-democracies. Where it's not about paying CEO's and executives hundreds of million, it's about ensuring the workers too get a fair wage. I mean the free-market and private sector lost hundreds of billions and were bailed out by the tax payer, yet still walked away with billions in bonuses alone last year. Yeah, way to go free-market. The only reason many here say these countries are not successful is because they don't allow billionaires like the critics to pillage their people. So naturally, in their opinion those approaches to the free-market are a failure. A fair days work deserves a fair days pay. The hardest I have heard my company's executives work, is when deciding which golf course to fly to this weekend.

And yet you stand on your principles and still work for them.