Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (10031)	10/1/2009 6:29:51 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

Hot Air on Healthcare IDs October 1st, 2009 at 11:35 am by David Frum The big talk radio topic yesterday was Sen. Grassley’s proposal to require immigrants to show photo ID before buying into new health exchanges. See the headline on Michelle Malkin’s blog for a representative conservative reaction: Yes, Senate Dems do want illegal alien Obamacare coverage Now let me stipulate: I speak here as someone who favored national photo ID before national photo ID was cool. I argued for just such a thing in the book I coauthored with Richard Perle way back in 2003. If conservatives and Republicans have come around to accept this view, that would be a happy day. But I fear as I listen that the debate only confirms that conservatives these days just don’t think before they talk. Follow the reasoning here: 1) It’s impossible to write a law that says that immigrants and only immigrants must show ID. How would that work? “Excuse me ma’am, are you an immigrant? If so, may I see your ID?” “No, no señor! I’m a member of the DAR!” Obviously if we are going to enforce a legals-only rule for health insurance, everybody will have to show ID. 2) But what ID? Unfortunately, driver’s licenses do not prove legal residency. Even if the REAL ID Act goes into effect as currently scheduled in 2017 – not an outcome to bet money on - driver’s licenses will remain an uncertain proof of legal residency status. Conversely, there are many legal residents who lack licenses. They are too old, or they drove drunk, or they are legally blind, or they just never got around to acquiring one. What are they supposed to do? If we’re going to require people to prove their residency status before enrolling in a health exchange, we’re going to need a reliable system of national identification that enrolls everybody, drivers and non-drivers. 3) Again: I’m all for this! But can you imagine what the right blogosophere and talk radio would say if the Obama administration proposed a national identity card? That would be the final proof of the president’s Hitlerite intentions! The Grassley debate is a good debate to have. And I do share Malkin’s suspicions that this administration would like to extend subsidized health coverage to illegals – although probably via an amnesty that ended their illegality. But if this debate is to yield any useful result, conservatives need to be ready to answer the obvious questions: What kind of card? How would it work? What’s our plan? We need to think before we emote. newmajority.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (10031)	10/1/2009 8:05:41 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

How in the world would they ever implement that?" The notion that they would even try is preposterous. You can say that you don't believe what is written can happen. That makes it your opinion. Calling someone who holds a different opinion than you a liar opens you to the same charge. I would like to think that the confidence of opponents of ObamaCare's confidence that it won't happen this year is well placed. Given this Administration's history of lies and deception I remain worried that they will attempt to force this through. I can't imagine the audacity of requiring end of life counseling. Representative Grayson's statements come to mind and the FACT that he was lying about which party just wants grandma dead is obvious.