FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

RightinNYC · Aug 24, 2009

BWG said:
Since when did the term foreigners come to mean illegal?

Because that was what we were talking about. You're arguing in this very post that illegal immigrants and non-citizens should be considered "Americans" because "that's what people do."

It's not a lie when people commonly use the term Americans interchangeably with the term People that the census bureau uses in their reports. That's why I gave some examples of the way people use the term Americanswhen talking about people that include foreigners in other census reports.

No, it's absolutely a lie. Again, the fact that many people are sloppy or stupid with their terms does not change the fact that illegal immigrants (and non-citizens) are not "Americans." This is not debatable.

Clearly people are using the census report as the source for uninsured people in the United States, the fact that the term Americans is used interchangably with the census use of the term People is seized upon by some people to discount the number of uninsured people in this country to support their political agenda.

Yes, I'm the one twisting numbers to support my political agenda.

Do you think, when people are referring to the population of the United States say - We have a population of 280 million plus 20 million non-citizens.

I don't think so, but I have heard the population referred to many times as '300 million Americans'

Again, the fact that many people are imprecise with their language doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

The only reason I even acknowledged the illegal estimations was to show that they don't fit the census report. You cite 20 million. The census bureau's breakdown of the population of the United States include 21 million non-citizens.

So by your reasoning - that is that the census report includes the illegals - that would only leave 1 million legal immigrants from around world, from Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America or North America living in the United States.

What? No, my reasoning is that the census report likely underestimates the number of illegal immigrants in this country, as I clearly stated.

I don't doubt that you do stand by your assertions, that doesn't take away from lazy, sloppy articles written by someone (and referred to over and over) that just took figures from the census report and made a sweeping declaration, with out any type of investigation into why they are uninsured...

You're advocating for a "well, people call them americans so they must be Americans" approach at the same time that you're criticizing someone else for being lazy and sloppy?

How many non-citizens are counted in both the non-citizen breakout and the above $50,000 breakout? Are some being brushed aside multiple times?

Certainly. I still don't see how that appreciably changes things.

Really, it comes down to this: When Obama says "there are 47 million uninsured Americans," you're claiming that what he's actually saying and what people are actually hearing is "there are 47 million uninsured people in this country, and that number includes non-citizens such as illegal immigrants, but they're all considered Americans by all of us anyways."

I think that's a wholly unsupportable position.

jfuh · Aug 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
It doesn't mean much in the sense that anyone who is genuinely concerned about the plight of the uninsured will probably not have their minds changed by this, but it does mean quite a lot in terms of how the debate is framed. It's very important to come at these issues from an accurate perspective, for lots of reasons. If the total bill is going to cost $1T, it kind of matters a lil bit if the public assumes that's going to cover 47m Americans or 37m Americans.

If Bush were playing down the threat from global warming by saying it was only going to rise 2 degrees over 100 years when he knew that it was actually going to rise 3, or if he had said that he was sending 100k troops to Iraq when he knew that he was actually sending 150k, I'm sure that people would (rightly) argue that he should stop misinforming the public.

I'm still not sure why I have to defend my position that the president should not use blatantly false numbers to gin up support for one of his policy proposals. I think that if the roles were reversed, you certainly wouldn't be calling this a "philosophical" thing.

Because the bill isn't covering only 37 or 47 million Americans, it's covereing 300million americans. Everyone is going to be impacted by this bill and everyone stands to benefit from it.
The 1 trillion will go towards the benefits and securities of all Americans not just the uninsured 47million or 37million.
To characterize as you seem to be suggesting that the 1 trillion would only benefit the uninsured is misleading.

RightinNYC · Aug 24, 2009

jfuh said:
Because the bill isn't covering only 37 or 47 million Americans, it's covereing 300million americans. Everyone is going to be impacted by this bill and everyone stands to benefit from it.
The 1 trillion will go towards the benefits and securities of all Americans not just the uninsured 47million or 37million.
To characterize as you seem to be suggesting that the 1 trillion would only benefit the uninsured is misleading.

You know what they say about opinions...

The fact remains that the number of uninsured is not a meaningless statistic. The fact that Obama and people like you are so prone to throwing it around is proof positive of its importance. I think it's embarrassing how willing you and others are to ignore a blatant lie from the president so long as it's your president.

jfuh · Aug 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
You know what they say about opinions...

The fact remains that the number of uninsured is not a meaningless statistic. The fact that Obama and people like you are so prone to throwing it around is proof positive of its importance. I think it's embarrassing how willing you and others are to ignore a blatant lie from the president so long as it's your president.

He's not your president?
Funny thing about throwing around blatant lies, did I not say very specifically

jfuh said:
I can agree with the philisophical principal of being as accurate and factual as one knows. However 10 million in the case in which you bring up is a distraction to the bigger and far more pressing problem that a hella lot more people are ****ed - particularily the underinsured.

How does it seem to imply by anything I've posted here that I'm ignoring a lie? Does the 10million figure detract from the fact that there are nearly 4 times the number of uninsured Americans?
If the figure is that all the uninsured are actually illegal then you might have something. The fact that there are still virtually 40million uninsured and a hella lot more underinsured and even those of us who are insured always play the game of whether or not my premium will increase whether or not my insurer will continue to insure me each time I visit the physician and each time there's an item that goes into my medical record.
You try to bring up bush and AGW (which he first completely denied even happening) and then Bush with Iraq (there were no WMD's or AQ connections).
So let me be as clear as possible, 10 million difference of uninsured American's makes absolutely no difference to the argument at all.

RightinNYC · Aug 24, 2009

jfuh said:
He's not your president?

Of course he is, it's literary flourish.

How does it seem to imply by anything I've posted here that I'm ignoring a lie?

...

So let me be as clear as possible, 10 million difference of uninsured American's makes absolutely no difference to the argument at all.

How is that not ignoring/excusing/justifying a lie simply because you don't think it matters to the overall argument ?

Ethereal · Aug 24, 2009

jfuh said:
Should they be more politically correct and use 37million to get the factual basis across?

If being factually accurate is PC, then yes, they should be PC.

Is it any different be it 47 or 37million?

What with all the accounting errors in the Obama administration I suppose a ten million person discrepancy isn't SO bad.

jfuh · Aug 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
How is that not ignoring/excusing/justifying a lie simply because you don't think it matters to the overall argument ?

Well before we go into excusing or ignoring, let me ask you again for the sake of argument. Does it matter to the overall argument?
Can you prove that it is an intentional lie?
For me I had not previously fact checked the figures. After going through the thread I see there is controversy regarding the validity of the figure but it doesn't matter to me either way given that the underlying premise still remains valid.
On that argumentative basis of a valid premise that doesn't change my position one iota, hence the figure is immaterial.
Just as the question of AGW. Are global temperatures going to increase globally by 2 or 3 degrees in the next century? It really doesn't matter because even if it's but 2 degrees or even 1 degree centigrade the effects of are exponential.
That it is anthropogenic in origin is problematic and something that we need to seriously address.
Indifferent to the matter that ~40million are uninsured and many more are underinsured it doesn't matter to me if it be ~40 or 50million that there's even a statistically significant value in itself is cause for concern.
I mean let's turn it around to this - more than half of all deaths from cancern can be attributed to smoking. Does the significance decrease should the value be decreased to a third? Would it be anymore alarming if it were increased to three quarters?
The significance of such data to me represents that we are actively doing something that causes harm, so why do it?
For insured, it's not as if we change the valid figure by 10 million that all of a sudden the figure is any less alarming or problematic considering that such individuals would still be using our emergency services that all of us pay for.
Hell this alone should be alarming for everyone
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9JmEHsCv4c"]YouTube - 60 Minutes - Remote Area Medical[/ame]

jfuh · Aug 25, 2009

I'm also going to add on this
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht_W5_Ogh0U"]YouTube - Real Time With Bill Maher - Dana Gould reports on health care protests and Remote Area Medical[/ame]
Specifically to all the people that assume those without insurance are lazy welfare leeches that bum off the system.

Ethereal · Aug 25, 2009

jfuh said:
Can you prove that it is an intentional lie?

Ah, so I take it you have no issue with Bush and the WMD intel? Your logic, not mine.

jfuh · Aug 25, 2009

Ethereal said:
Ah, so I take it you have no issue with Bush and the WMD intel? Your logic, not mine.

Are you seriously comparing the two? Because I've little trouble proving of intentional lie by the Bush admin on Iraq and WMD intel.
Not to mention the fact that it's not like we found 1 or 2 nukes in Iraq, we found absolutely zilch.
As for 47million figure, I don't think that the Obama admin was the first to use that figure nor for that matter the variation between 47 and 37 is immaterial.

Ethereal · Aug 25, 2009

jfuh said:
Are you seriously comparing the two?

Both scenarios represent a supposed misrepresentation of the facts in order to push an agenda, so, yes, I'm SERIOUSLY comparing the two. You're hypocrisy is showing.

Because I've little trouble proving of intentional lie by the Bush admin on Iraq and WMD intel.

You can prove that Bush et. al. knew the intel was false? You should send your proof to the Obama Justice Department, that way they can begin criminal prosecution immediately...:rofl

Not to mention the fact that it's not like we found 1 or 2 nukes in Iraq, we found absolutely zilch.

Non-sequitur.

As for 47million figure, I don't think that the Obama admin was the first to use that figure nor for that matter the variation between 47 and 37 is immaterial

It's only immaterial to hypocritical, partisan hacks.

BWG · Aug 26, 2009

RightinNYC said:
What? No, my reasoning is that the census report likely underestimates the number of illegal immigrants in this country, as I clearly stated.

Exactly what I've been saying, illegal immigrants are not represented in significant numbers in the census report. The census report's purpose was not to determine how many illegal aliens there are in the U.S. There are no sub categorys of 'illegals' in any breakout of any subject in any census report.

Others did do just that and now you're trying to fit their results into the census report. A square peg in a round hole. It don't fit.

If you're a part of an illegal, underground society and trying to avoid authorities as much as possible, you're not exactly going to be banging on a government door asking for forms so that you can supply detailed information about yourself to those same authorities.

RightinNYC said:
Really, it comes down to this: When Obama says "there are 47 million uninsured Americans," you're claiming that what he's actually saying and what people are actually hearing is "there are 47 million uninsured people in this country, and that number includes non-citizens such as illegal immigrants, but they're all considered Americans by all of us anyways."

Not anymore than when they hear someone refer to our population as 300 million Americans.

RightinNYC · Aug 26, 2009

BWG said:
Exactly what I've been saying, illegal immigrants are not represented in significant numbers in the census report. The census report's purpose was not to determine how many illegal aliens there are in the U.S. There are no sub categorys of 'illegals' in any breakout of any subject in any census report.

Others did do just that and now you're trying to fit their results into the census report. A square peg in a round hole. It don't fit.

If you're a part of an illegal, underground society and trying to avoid authorities as much as possible, you're not exactly going to be banging on a government door asking for forms so that you can supply detailed information about yourself to those same authorities.

I still don't understand what you think you're proving. You acknowledge that there are at least 7m illegal immigrants without health insurance, correct?

Not anymore than when they hear someone refer to our population as 300 million Americans.

So you think it's okay if politicians lie, so long as they do so using colloquial terms that the average person is stupid enough to misunderstand.

BWG · Aug 26, 2009

RightinNYC said:
I still don't understand what you think you're proving. You acknowledge that there are at least 7m illegal immigrants without health insurance, correct?

Never said that they weren't, just that they aren't in the census reports that people get the 45-47 million uninsured number from.

I also note that while trying to incorporate one study into another, the number of 'non-citizen' uninsured increases while the total uninsured remains the same...

buck said:
If it specifically denies illegal aliens, how will 20 some million of the 47 million people without insurance that Obama keeps saying "will be covered by this bill" get insurance?

apdst said:
That's another fact that the Libbos seem to leave off. Of the 47 million without insurance, 21 million are uninsured voluntarily and 15 million are illegal aliens.

apdst said:
If they're not going to cover illegals, then why are illegals counted as a part of the 47 million uninsured persons in the country? I smell amnisty.

buck said:
Obama claims that it is a "moral imperative" that we offer medical coverage to the 47 million uninsured in this country.

Since that number includes anywhere from 10 - 20 million illegal immigrants,how does he plan on doing that without offering coverage to a very sizable portion of the uninsured, illegal immigrants?

This one specifically.

buck said:
Do you have any proof that the 47 million uninsured don't actually count between 10 - 20 million illegal immingants?

RightinNYC said:
Of the 47 million people in the US without insurance, 10-12 million are illegals...

buck said:
This guy offers a fairly similar breakdown. His illegal count is lower, but really it's just an estimate. I do happen to think his his estimate is lower than it should be. Most of the other estimates I've seen are anywhere from 10 - 20 mil.

Note that a couple of articles - articles that a lot of people trying to minimize the 47 million uninsured number refer back to - don't even try to infer that the census report include illegals.

From the CNS article:

But this number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million foreigners

From the Julia A. Seymour article:

A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.

RightinNYC · Aug 26, 2009

BWG said:
Never said that they weren't, just that they aren't in the census reports that people get the 45-47 million uninsured number from.

I also note that while trying to incorporate one study into another, the number of 'non-citizen' uninsured increases while the total uninsured remains the same...

So let's say it's 7-10 million out of 47-50 million that are illegals. Does that materially change my point?

Note that a couple of articles - articles that a lot of people trying to minimize the 47 million uninsured number refer back to - don't even try to infer that the census report include illegals.

From the CNS article:

From the Julia A. Seymour article

So it's still only 37 million Americans. Which is what I said 40 posts ago.

FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

RightinNYC

Girthless

jfuh

RightinNYC

Girthless

jfuh

RightinNYC

Girthless

Ethereal

jfuh

jfuh

Ethereal

jfuh

Ethereal

BWG

RightinNYC

Girthless

BWG

RightinNYC

Girthless