as a conservative, i cringed when joe wilson shouted "you lie" - recognizing it as an egregious breach of senate decorum every bit as banal (the banality of evil) as democrats booing bush during HIS state of the union speech . ..

wilson was "approximately right" on the facts (the bill was changed later that week to specifically preclude taxpayer sponsored medical care for illegal aliens - matching the standard set by britain and other european countries. however pelosi, kowtowing to her huge illegal alien population, is working to reintroduce free health care for illegals)

wilson was "completely wrong" to use the president's speech as an opportunity for a rude shout out.

what is slate's agenda in resurrecting this sorry incident months later? to make sure we continue to associate the entire GOP with the dishonor of Joe Wilson's impulsive moment, lest it fade from our memory?

good work - but i doubt if this will build support for the (now) $1.2 trillion health bill, or stop obama's skid in the polls

if you believe that it will . . . then "you lie" (to yourself)

The bill in place at the moment of Wilson's outburst already had an exclusion for Illegal aliens. The only real issue was that the bill did not have a specific requirement for ID to prove citizenship. That would mean that it would be up to the agency implementing the bill to specify the acceptable identification, not that illegals would slip through.

Problem you have, BA, is a lot of your "allies" LOVE what Joe Wilson did and want to keep that incident alive. More than the "liberal media" does.

Be careful what you ask for, BA. You want it both ways... but when you get it both ways, will you still want it?

with your assessment that some conservatives are too laudatory of wilson

just as some of obama's supporters are unapologetic socialists who are doing everything in their power to dismantle americas corporations and free markets

i don't subscribe to extremism from either side

you exclude illegal aliens if there is no requirement for identification?

does congress think we're that stupid? do you?

how can anyone be so wrong on the facts so consistently.

obama's poll numbers are at 53% today according to gallup.

he had 52% of the electorate vote for him last year so he has actually gained.

now i will grant you he was up to 56 last week but he has maintained a 52-55% for the past 2 months.

this idea that his approval ratings are skidding i hear every day on the biased conservative media, than i go check it an find out they are lying.

do you ever research facts or just accept whatever you are told.

second, the orginal house bill wilson lied about specifically said no illegals would be covered by healthcare.

here is a link disproving wilsons lie

<link>

oh now you come with the identification canard.

so then you support a national ID right.

from now on we must all present identification for any government service is that what you want.

never-the-less, it is simply smoke and mirrors because the federal law is that anyone who shows at an emergency room must be seen.

do you want to repeal that law too?

finally, you make no sense, so there is a car accident and the paramedics have to ask for ID before they can treat anyone?

you make no logical sense.

**** you make no logical sense. *** BA is not about making logical sense. BA is about posting some pointless drivel on each and every article Slate publishes. BA needs to get a life.

religiouslib:

you make no logical sense.

Actually it makes perfect logical sense. You may not agree with it, but that doesn’t make it illogical. 

To answer your question however, yes, people who request some form of government service should have some form of government ID. I’m not sure how this is a difficult concept to grasp. 

The basic theory of government run healthcare is “everybody pays, everybody benefits.” So, logically, those that don’t pay shouldn’t benefit. Illegal aliens don’t pay, so they shouldn’t benefit. And how can you tell they are illegal? With a government ID.

Simple, logical.

than i can put you down for supporting a national ID card right.

should we have to present an ID when we use a national park?

again are you calling for a repeal of the law that says any human being should be seen at a hospital.

lets say we don't treat illegals at all, do you think that could have an impact on the overall health of the country. could an epidemic start with the untreated illegal population and spread to the rest of us.

like BA, when we get into details you make no rational, thoughful, logical sense.

Badbone:

religiouslib:

you make no logical sense.

Actually it makes perfect logical sense. You may not agree with it, but that doesn’t make it illogical.

To answer your question however, yes, people who request some form of government service should have some form of government ID. I’m not sure how this is a difficult concept to grasp.

The basic theory of government run healthcare is “everybody pays, everybody benefits.” So, logically, those that don’t pay shouldn’t benefit. Illegal aliens don’t pay, so they shouldn’t benefit. And how can you tell they are illegal? With a government ID.

Simple, logical.

Not so much. You've got a few holes there. If an illegal buys the government insurance plan with his own money, he should be able to get medical care under that plan. What he shouldn't be able to do, is get subsidies from the government to help him pay his premiums. And why make private healthcare personnel responsible for enforcing the law? Isn't there a branch of the government tasked with enforcing our laws?

Badbone:

The basic theory of government run healthcare is “everybody pays, everybody benefits.” So, logically, those that don’t pay shouldn’t benefit. Illegal aliens don’t pay, so they shouldn’t benefit. And how can you tell they are illegal? With a government ID.

Simple, logical.

Illegals do pay taxes. They don't file so they don'y get refunds but many have their withholding taken out and never get it back so you could say they pay extra taxes.

and we already have the basis of it - the social security number

presumably, one cannot be employed in america without a valid social security number.

by extension, why wouldn't the same standards apply for access to government benefits?

However, it was Wilson who was (to be generous) incorrect. There was NO provision in any version of the bill which would have provided health care for illegals.

You seem to be suggesting that Slate is less 'liberal' than some of your ilk generally claim...?