# So Ryan what do you think of the Liar being called a liar!!!



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I think it was Joe Wilson SC!!!!!! k: He nailed him and nailed him good!!!!!!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I see McCain has already made a statement that he should apologize.

Personally, he was doing it for the cheap publicity and fame. Historically it will be reflected as a move in poor taste, not befitting the prestige and history of the venue.

But it seems to be just another chapter in a emerging pattern...

I'm sure you can figure out what that pattern is...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Things like this happened to liars back in the beginning of this nation. Often it was settled at ten paces.  Today liars don't face the same consequences so the consequences of that is more liars.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ohhh and for the record...

Your title assumes that Obama was a liar about the point he was making at the moment he said it...

Well... turns out that Joe Wilson was completely wrong (as were the many who grumbled when Obama called him wrong)...

Despite the provision in Article 246 of H.R. 3200, the proposed Healthcare bill from the House which says specifically, that those living in the US illegally *ARE NOT COVERED and WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE affordability credits in the plan.
*

But hey...let's not let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to SCREAM out right? :withstupid:

Yep. He nailed him good alright! Reallllll good.

:lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Things like this happened to liars back in the beginning of this nation. Often it was settled at ten paces.  Today liars don't face the same consequences so the consequences of that is more liars.


Yep.

So I wonder what consequences Mr. Wilson will face, now that he has been proven wrong?

Hmmm


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think we know the truth yet. It may or may not cover illegals. The problem is most in Washington lie to us far to much and credability is gone. That's Obama's biggest problem. He has little credability left.



> So I wonder what consequences Mr. Wilson will face


First he will have to be proven wrong. Many of us will not automatically fall in line like you do Ryan. Personally Wilson and Obama at ten paces sounds good to me.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

The* REAL* Liar 8)












> 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 prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.


as President Obama clearly stated tonite....


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

R y a n said:


> Ohhh and for the record...
> 
> Your title assumes that Obama was a liar about the point he was making at the moment he said it...
> 
> ...


Wilson is not all the way wrong. There is another plan that has been rumored to be on the table, amnesty. If amnesty is passed illegals are in. I have no problem with an illegal getting ER help or whatever, as long as they or their employer :roll: pay for it.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52527


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> The* REAL* Liar 8)


I fixed it for you.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

What was Joe wrong about, if they continue to claim that 45-47 million are uninsured and they are going to cover them, that Ryan includes the illegals.

What is Palin wrong about? The term Death Panel is harsh, but it is accurate since a person over a certain age is required under the current House Proposal to look at end of life options.

Now lets fast forward Ryan to the blather he put forth tonight! It is almost verbatim what is proposed by the House with a small change in that he would listen to some form of tort reform.

So to do what he says one has to assume that there is in the pride of the socialist movement large expanses of waste in Medicare. One also has to have their head buried in the sand to believe the Gov can be more effect than the private sector in administration costs.

Heck even with the junk that is going on with BC-BS of ND they are only running around 7% of expenses for Administration. Show me one and I will wait patiently for it a single Fed Gov program which has that low of Adm costs!!!!!!!!!

Now back to the topic at hand. In the coming days watch and listen, the first time you hear the number 45-47 million used by the Pres or any of his surrogates, you will have to admit that good old Joe was calling the liar a liar correctly!!!!!!!!


----------



## deacon (Sep 12, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > The* REAL* Liar 8)
> ...


Ugh uke: , I cannot look at that!!! I have banned myself from this topic.


----------



## Gildog (Jan 30, 2007)

nice inspirational speech and all, pointing all around the room...who doesn't want to help people, after all.

But when I heard about it being deificit neutral and paid for by savings found in the current system, I thought to myself WHY THE HELL HASN'T THAT BEEN FIXED ALREADY?? Geez, if we take a look at some programs, we might find some waste...wow, we maybe need an Accounting Office or something.

I know I'm getting tired of fee for service...let's run a whole bunch of tests (at $x each) to rule out this, that, and the other...don't want this guy to sue us because we missed that he had an ingrown toenail (might get infected!) while we were treating him for a sinus cold...and make sure he schedules a follow-up visit so we can make sure he still doesn't have an in-grown toenail...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> What was Joe wrong about, if they continue to claim that 45-47 million are uninsured and they are going to cover them, that Ryan includes the illegals.


Wholly and factually incorrect. They are explicitly not covered in the House plan. Refer to my post above outlining the exact section.



Ron Gilmore said:


> What is Palin wrong about? The term Death Panel is harsh, but it is accurate since a person over a certain age is required under the current House Proposal to look at end of life options.


Palin is a loon of the highest degree. Death Panel is a scare mongering term that has worked out well to scare the conservative base. That very same language for end of life options, is routine, and implemented long ago in other programs. It was just another tactic to confuse the masses.



Ron Gilmore said:


> Now lets fast forward Ryan to the blather he put forth tonight! It is almost verbatim what is proposed by the House with a small change in that he would listen to some form of tort reform.


You mean the great speech he gave? Gotcha. Yep... and that outburst may have the effect of rallying the Dem base into supporting ramrodding something thru without R support. Great move.



Ron Gilmore said:


> So to do what he says one has to assume that there is in the pride of the socialist movement large expanses of waste in Medicare. One also has to have their head buried in the sand to believe the Gov can be more effect than the private sector in administration costs.


If you insist. You know more than they do.



Ron Gilmore said:


> Now back to the topic at hand. In the coming days watch and listen, the first time you hear the number 45-47 million used by the Pres or any of his surrogates, you will have to admit that good old Joe was calling the liar a liar correctly!!!!!!!!


Joey has since issued a full apology. Too late for him though. He's done the damage. Never has decorum been broken like it was last night by his foolishness...


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Te apology was for his lack of decorum, not the fact that he called the liar a liar Ryan!

Once again, lets look at the promise of no illegals getting HC benefits! He did not say they where not going to be covered, he said that credits for them would not be included. Big frigging difference on the truth factor Ryan!!!!!!

Now Palin again!!!! What did she say that was incorrect? Nothing!!!!!!! Reduction in coverage by cost cutting of covered services means rationed care. We heard it again from Nobama last night! Death panels while harsh is exactly what they will be under the current House bill. Once again fact, but you focus on the words used not on whether they meet the critera of the point being made.

So now lets get into the details, on Tuesday Nobama used the numbers to his party loyalists of 47 million non covered, then used 39 million last night and today Axelrod again refereed to the 47 million in representing Nobama!!

Come on Ryan, put down the kool aid and look at the facts.

His speech was filled with half truths and distortions. He called for it to be budget neutral, well that is fine, so where with the Carbon Tax bill the additional money for bailouts needed, the talk of a second stimulus bill will the $1 trillion come from? Even if you took all the money made above 35% on people who make $500,000.00 it will not meet the $9 trillion in proposed debt he is pitching. So is it his intent to use a shake and bake option of showing cuts in spending for HC but increasing debt spending in other programs?
Why not come out and say last night that to do this we are going to have to raise taxes, instead of making it sound as if he wants the Congress to find the money in the existing spending bills and make cuts to them!

Then there is the issue of costs to the public regarding their own insurance coverage. He just guaranteed that my rates, and every single buyer of private health care is going to see a increase in premiums with the mandates he is seeking!! How in the hell does that reduce my premium costs Ryan?

So lets get the BS out in the open Ryan, Nobama has not come up with a new plan, just a different method of shoving 10lbs of crap into a 5 lb bag!!!!!


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

R y a n said:


> Ohhh and for the record...
> 
> Your title assumes that Obama was a liar about the point he was making at the moment he said it...
> 
> ...


Now Ryan before you get back on your soapbox you should at least have the facts you say are so important correct.

*SEC 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.*

*Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. *

Please note that it says nothing about *ARE NOT COVERED and WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE affordability credits in the plan.
*, but only says that Federal payments for affordability credits will not be allowed for them.

It's on page 143 of the bill


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dang Redlabel, don't you know that to Ryan things like that do not matter!

The Messiah has spoken, how can it not be true, how can one not believe!!!!!

Oh how he would have been a good soldier for Jim Jones!!!!!!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Redlabel

I'll reply to this thread one last time... as it seems I'm not making any progress trying to show alternative perspectives to common discrepancies and understandings....

Here is the wording, just as you've stated:

HR 3200 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS: _*Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.*_"

You are correct it did not contain those other words. But with that language and the downstream effects of the application of the law, it effectively achieves that purpose.

In actual practice, a doctor would be submitting a claim request for a patient to the medicare/possible future public option office. Like every medicare claim processed to date, I need to provide the SSN of the patient in order to process a claim. Illegal aliens don't have those. So, for those claims, for illegal aliens... there isn't going to be any payment. *Unless the doctor or patient is willing to commit an act of fraud.* And there are already a raft of very explicit laws relating to fraud

So, if it becomes mandatory for all citizens to be covered by healthcare, you will have your insurance card, (and if getting that card requires a citizen check) then its simple to just double check people without insurance for illegal status. Right now, anyone can get lifesaving treatment in any ER regardless of ability to pay or legal status. This is codified into law, hospitals cannot turn them away.

Wilson is claiming that making it illegal for illegals to sign up for health care cannot be enforced. Well it can't be enforced because congress made it that way. They haven't made it easy for people to deal will illegals. They haven't banned spanish, they haven't given the rights people need to enforce the law.

Republicans are essentially criticizing Obama for a problem _they_ created via not giving a damn for 8 years. They could have pushed very hard to get something pushed thru with their President's blessing. But they were worried about Hispanic outrage at the ballot box come the next election.

Obama already said he wants immigration reform by the end of the year. This means when Obama pushes congress to make a bill, these obstructionist republicans will have to make a good bill or they will prove themselves to be huge liars. And shockingly, when a bill is made to tackle immigration it can be set to go into effect before the health care bill. In 4 years if congress makes a real bill, there shouldn't be any illegals left in this country. Right?

Enforcement of immigration, though, should be done by police and at the border, not in hospitals. We shouldn't get rid of the laws that require sick people to get treatment and not be left to die.

Or so it seems to me...

good day.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Republicans are essentially criticizing Obama for a problem they created via not giving a damn for 8 years. They could have pushed very hard to get something pushed thru with their President's blessing. But they were worried about Hispanic outrage at the ballot box come the next election.


Partially right. Lets not be partisan, both sides are to chicken poo to do anything about illegal aliens. You can rest assured that Obama and company will want amnesty for the what 12 million illegals here now. That will make them eligible for the health care and social security.

Bush was an idiot when it came to illegal aliens. Obama will be even worse.

There are many laws on the books now, but they do no good, we still pay the way for many illegal aliens. The health care thing will be the same. Laws, no laws, somehow it will be circumvented. Time to send them home or to prison.



> Obama already said he wants immigration reform by the end of the year. This means when Obama pushes congress to make a bill, these obstructionist republicans will have to make a good bill or they will prove themselves to be huge liars.


So why is it you think the republicans will have to make a good bill? Who is in charge of the house and senate again? Which side has been so partisan the other side has no input?



> In 4 years if congress makes a real bill, there shouldn't be any illegals left in this country. Right?


That's because they will make the illegal aliens legal. You know that right? Everyone should know that. The question is are we going to put up with it or are the town halls going to get even more angry?



> Enforcement of immigration, though, should be done by police and at the border, not in hospitals.


That's right, treat them, then let them earn their keep in prison for five years before sending them home. If we don't enforce immigration laws what other laws are they willing to ignore? We are a nation of laws, or we are not. Ignoring one law and enforcing another is not fair to the law abiding citizens.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I did not get a chance to read all of this thread yet. But the number of uninsured and uninsureable is totally wrong.



> What was Joe wrong about, if they continue to claim that 45-47 million are uninsured and they are going to cover them, that Ryan includes the illegals.


Today in a continuing education class certified by the state of minnesota for insurance I found out that no body in the state of minnesota is uninsurable or can be denied health insurance. They can be denied insurance by a private carrier but the state has a program that will insure anyone. There are 31 out of the 50 states that have plans like this. Also these people would pay less than they would with private companies. So the number that Obama has been throwing out of 40 million and he also last night in his speech said 35 million a couple of times. So he did not stay with the same number.

But back on being called a "liar" I felt that it was wrong. But I also feel it is wrong that people kept interupting his speech with applause. I mean for the first 10 mins Pelosi was standing more than she was sitting. even the President himself kept speaking during the applause because he was getting sick of it.

Now with what he said. He had a very good speech but did not answer questions......He still did not say 100% how it was going to be paid for. He never said where or how the money was going to be saved in the current system.

Here again is my take on it.....if you can save enough money in the current system to fund about 80% of the "public" option that is being purposed......why not just save that 80% and won't that drop the cost of insurance?


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

R y a n said:


> Redlabel
> 
> In actual practice, a doctor would be submitting a claim request for a patient to the medicare/possible future public option office. Like every medicare claim processed to date, *I *need to provide the SSN of the patient in order to process a claim. Illegal aliens don't have those.
> 
> ...


When did you become a doctor??? Nice cut and paste


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As to my thoughts on Wilson calling Obama a liar, they are mixed. Yes it was a little disruptive, but as Chuck pointed out no more than the applause. Also, I think we have become to tolerant of liars. This tolerance opens the gates wide and politicians have little fear of lying to us. Public humiliation is a great tool to keep politicians in line.

So was the decorum of the setting disturbed more by the liar, or the person pointing out the lie? Many things are so backwards today.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

R y a n said:


> Ohhh and for the record...
> 
> Your title assumes that Obama was a liar about the point he was making at the moment he said it...
> 
> ...


Ryan, you are correct, HR 3200 does say that illegals won't be covered.

In your last post you spoke about alternative prespectives. Well Here's one for you.

Verification of legal status is required by law for many federal benefit programs, including Medicaid and Social Security, and is facilitated by the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. SAVE is "an intergovernmental information-sharing initiative designed to aid eligibility workers in determining a non-citizen applicant's immigration status, and thereby ensure that only entitled non-citizen applicants receive Federal, state, or local public benefits and licenses."

About a month ago the Dems shot down a Republican backed amendment that would have required that the SAVE system be used to determine the eligibillity of people applying for these benefits. Why? Can you explain that? Why would the Dems not want the immigration status of those applying for benefits verified?

Most of us who are not blinded by the radiance of O realize that this is a large loophole. And therein is the lie.

The chosen one and his lackeys are not telling an outright lie about this issue, but they are lying by ommission just the same.

Since you had some of the same classes that I did, taught by Dr. Watts at JC, you will remember that a lie of ommission is virtually the same as an outright lie.

While we are at it here is another perspective for you to ponder.

Can you tell me why on earth this piece of legislation is as large as it is? Many of us wonder if this thing was written in this manner so that people would NOT read it, including those who vote on it. That these people would just accept the O's proclamation that it is all wonderful and good and so vote yes.

If you don't know the size, it is 1,017 pages in length.

Compare that with our Constitution at 12 pages, (7000 words) WOW.

If you use this comparison the document contains 592,911 words.

Why would it take such a large document? What is in there that they hope no one will take the time to read?

huntin1


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

R y a n said:


> I see McCain has already made a statement that he should apologize.
> 
> Personally, he was doing it for the cheap publicity and fame. Historically it will be reflected as a move in poor taste, not befitting the prestige and history of the venue.
> 
> ...


yes, the pattern is exposing the lies Obama keeps telling..


----------



## goodkarmarising (Feb 8, 2008)

x


----------



## tsj (Jul 22, 2006)

While we are at it here is another perspective for you to ponder.

Can you tell me why on earth this piece of legislation is as large as it is? Many of us wonder if this thing was written in this manner so that people would NOT read it, including those who vote on it. That these people would just accept the O's proclamation that it is all wonderful and good and so vote yes.

If you don't know the size, it is 1,017 pages in length.

Compare that with our Constitution at 12 pages, (7000 words) WOW.

If you use this comparison the document contains 592,911 words.

Why would it take such a large document? What is in there that they hope no one will take the time to read?

huntin1[/quote]

the problem is simple you have to talk or write more words when trying to decive[/quote]


----------



## API (Jul 14, 2009)

Uhhhhh, looks as if the addressee of this thread has taken a foot bale and headed for other places. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This morning I was looking for a quote I wanted to use in a speech. The quote is: "Tolerance of the lowest ethical standards, for the sake of unity, demeans us all". I was wondering who said that so I googled it. I came up with one of my posts on nodak. 
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums//vi ... highlight=
I bring it up because what Obama is now suffering from is lack of credability. I often hear people complain that others try destroy credability. So here is where my ranting fits in. While looking at that thread with the quote I also run across this, and thought my comments on credability then may fit in now.


> Quote: by goosguy10
> Scare and blame based on totally biased information. How would you find accurate information? The fact is as consumers (and as a society) we don't accept such shotty practices in those sectors, then why do we put up with it in politics?


Plainsman wrote:


> That would be nice, but most politicians really don't tell us what they really want. That's when their opponent starts telling us what the other person really wants. Then it becomes a battle of credibility. When that happens they each start undermining the others credibility. You may hear on this form people complaining about their credibility being damaged. No one held a gun to their head and made them post bs, they did it of their own free will. The way to retain credibility is to never hate an opponent so much you exaggerate. Never present something as entirely fact unless you personally know it is. Never take someone else word as gospel, unless your talking to Jesus himself.


Many people thought Obama gave a good speech. I thought he gave a good delivery but a very poor speech. How many of you noticed how he thinks about government. Did you notice his comment about "the perils of to little government"? How about his comment about "the leavening hand of wise [government] policy", or "carefully crafted...[government] efforts to help people in need"? I noticed them, and I received an email asking me if I had noticed them. I was happy to see in that email that others seen these comments for what they are. They are a clear indicator of Obama's socialist agenda. He wants control of your lives, and health care is his best tool to achieve it.


----------



## pintailtim (Apr 6, 2007)

taken from Ann Coulter's weekly column

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies - which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.

Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan - where they think they have no reason to be sneaky - in support of national health care?)

On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman - a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one - originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did - as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Ryan says


> Right now, anyone can get lifesaving treatment in any ER regardless of ability to pay or legal status. This is codified into law, hospitals cannot turn them away.


This is not true. A hospital must do a medical screening and life saving treatment of all patients that enter an ER... IF... that hospital accepts medicare dollars. It is another way for the government to control a private business.
There are many private hospitals that do not accept uninsured and patients with medicare or medicaid.

When will any Demoncrat listen and put tort reform at the top of the list to control medical costs.

I've said it before and I'll say it again Healthcare reform must start with lawyer reform and insurance reform.

Now to the "death squads" Why did the president say his ailing grandmother should not have received a hip replacement for a fractured hip and he would have paid for it out of pocket? This is the presidents true to life example of wasting HC dollars. Using his own grandmother to make a point supporting HC rationing. That is pretty hard to argue.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

swift said:


> Now to the "death squads" Why did the president say his ailing grandmother should not have received a hip replacement for a fractured hip and he would have paid for it out of pocket? This is the presidents true to life example of wasting HC dollars. Using his own grandmother to make a point supporting HC rationing. That is pretty hard to argue.


It sounds a lot like one way to save, is to decline care to the elderly depending on their case, unless they can pay for it themselves.

Another method is with the Death with Dignity crowd. Oregon has had a program for 10 years and Washington enacted one this year. There someone with a terminal illness and I think 6 months or less to live can be prescribed a life ending drug. It is not doctor administered but is doctor prescribed.

Now if you can get enough of the elderly to take this route no one has to worry about unplugging Grandma. The goal is to not plug Grandma in at all.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So Ryan, why then if it is clear in the House bill do the Sen Committee now feel the need to make it clear in their bill, and admit that attempts to do so earlier by Rep on the House bill where defeated!!!!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_ ... 5lZ290aQ--

Just another reality check for you to digest with your kool aid!!!


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

swift said:


> Ryan says
> 
> 
> > Right now, anyone can get lifesaving treatment in any ER regardless of ability to pay or legal status. This is codified into law, hospitals cannot turn them away.
> ...


*One more area to reform is competition. Congress controls commerce by the constitution and can open the insurance market across the country with no restrictions from any state. Kind of like" No Insurance Company Left Behind". Geico might even get in the HC insurance biz!!*


----------



## wildwidgeon (Aug 18, 2009)

Friday Evening document dump:

The White House tonight is providing the below clarification on what the president's health-care proposals would mean when it comes to the issue of illegal immigrants.

The question, as we all know, arises from the Wilson "You lie" outburst, and the core claim that notwithstanding specific bill language barring illegal immigrants from participating in the "exchange," as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language.

Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.

Here, the administration also concedes that hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.

The bullet points sent tonight by the White House:

Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate. 
Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps. 
Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don't participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible. 
There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The provisos which are almost identical to those offered by Rep to the current house bill but where voted down by the Dem majority party. So decorum or not, calling out a liar in public does have the benefit of exposing crap to sunlight. It stops the growth of mushrooms!!!!!!!


----------

