As you might have heard, there was a little interruption during the president’s address last night. But was Rep. Joe Wilson’s unscheduled objection—in which he accused Obama of lying by claimed that undocumented immigrants would not benefit from health care reform—itself a falsehood?
Brendan Nyhan, who’s spent a lot of time sifting political fact from fiction, has a thorough examination of the question here, in an exchange with Matt Yglesias. His conclusion: while the president’s clear intent was to rebut allegations that are false,
Obama’s denial that “our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants” is therefore imprecise — he means the proposed legislation would not subsidize the insurance costs of illegal immigrants. Yglesias and I know what Obama meant; others may not. Moreover, views differ over the extent to which the public option would end up being publicly subsidized in practice — many people, including me, believe it would end up receiving significant direct or indirect subsidies… From this perspective, you can argue that illegal immigrants would receive some benefit.
Much more (along with some fun historical and multicultural perspective on heckling, and worse) at the link.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf
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.
#1 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 10 Sep 2009 at 04:41 PM
So if we assume that there will be a public option, and assume that the public option includes a subsidy, assume that illegal aliens will be permitted to buy insurance through the public option, and assume that one or more does so, the accusation that the President was a liar is not completely false? Or maybe we're talking about insurance exchanges, even where the illegal alien pays the full premium (because other people participating in the exchanges are getting subsidies) - by which definition everything is subsidized for everybody? (Seriously - people shop with their EBT Card/'food stamps' at my local grocery store, so if an illegal immigrant shops there... government subsidy!)
I guess Nyhan knew not everybody would be convinced by that, as he's also arguing in the alternative that if it's even theoretically possible for somebody to fraudulently obtain a subsidy (and that's always a possibility), that means that the program will subsidize illegal aliens - so Nyhan would be right no matter what the legislation said, or how many safeguards were implemented.
Isn't this a Republican variant of, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is"? A pretty typical effort to reinvent a stupid, boorish comment into something less offensive?
Chances are? I love that song. "Chances are, Wilson wears a silly grin, the moment he comes into view...."
Wilson's most direct defense of his ad hominem is that he wasn't able to understand the proposal, or that he chose not to actually learn the details of Obama's proposal or the proposed legislation, and thus he thought he was telling the truth. Lying, after all, requires bad intent. Why doesn't he, or Nyhan, run with that defense?
#2 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 09:05 AM