An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Joe Wilson and Our Character (Guest Voice)

WASHINGTON — If you saw a woman struck by a car, would you call an ambulance right away? Or would you first ask for her papers to make sure she was not an illegal immigrant?

If someone living down the street from you were suffering from the H1N1 flu, wouldn’t you want him to get immediate medical help? Would you rather see him in pain and perhaps spread the disease to others in your neighborhood?

Rep. Joe Wilson deserves all the condemnation he’s received for his boorish behavior during President Obama’s address on health care. No Democrat ever shouted “You lie!” during a George W. Bush speech to Congress.

But at least as consequential for our politics was the issue that moved Wilson to his outburst. Wilson accused Obama of prevarication when the president declared: “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Obama sandwiched this denial between his knockdowns of two other claims about his health reform plan: the ludicrous charge that it would create those death panels, and the accusation, also false, that it would promote abortions. In fact, the administration is negotiating very hard with pro-lifers to make the bill “neutral” on abortion.

The president included the line about illegal immigrants because he thought, probably correctly, that for many voters, it would be a deal-breaker if they learned that his health proposals would help those who broke the law to come to this country.

Yet it should bother us a lot more than it does that alleged plans to kill off seniors and promote abortion are spoken of in almost the same breath as the matter of delivering health care to fellow human beings, however they arrived on our shores.

For the record, Wilson’s premise is itself untrue: The framers of the health care bill did all they could to make sure it wouldn’t help illegal immigrants. Yes, a few might slip through the cracks and — horrors! — get assistance. But the health reformers wrote language as tough as it could be to make sure this wouldn’t happen, short of creating provisions so draconian that some who are here legally would also be denied coverage.

At least as bad were those on the far right who defended what Wilson did. Rush Limbaugh’s only criticism of Wilson was over the South Carolina congressman’s grudging apology.

“This administration is not your average presidential administration,” Limbaugh declared. “This is not a garden party. This is not a lecture at Harvard or any other university. We are in the process, we are in the midst of an administration that is trying to totally tear down the institutions and traditions that have made this country great.”

And what evidence is there that Obama is tearing down our “institutions and traditions”? There is none, unless you see it as an affront to our traditions that we have our first president whose father was born in Kenya, or that the American people decided to elect someone other than a conservative as our commander in chief. The far right has decided that extremism in assailing Obama is no vice.

As for immigrants who are here illegally, those who go to an emergency room receive medical attention, and they should. No doctor I know, whatever his or her politics, would deny treatment to a sick person on the basis of immigration status.

Forget compassion and consider self-interest. Aren’t you better off if the person working next to you who has a communicable disease has early access to care?

I am not one of those who dismiss Americans concerned about illegal immigration as racists or reactionaries. There are legitimate disagreements as to what we should do about it and problems with extending government programs to those who violate the law to get here.

But I am not at all at peace with the fact that the one issue about which a member of Congress chose to rise up and accuse our president of being a liar related to the charge that our chief executive wasn’t doing enough to build walls between illegal immigrants and health coverage.

How mean-spirited will we allow ourselves to become? How coarsened has our political culture made us? We like to see ourselves as a generous, caring and welcoming nation. Are we losing that part of our character?

This column is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV in full. (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group.

  • DLS
    "How mean-spirited will we allow ourselves to become?"

    It depends on if the public option is lost when the health care legislation is finally written and approved.

    It depends on how low the Left is willing to go, again.
  • DaGoat
    If someone living down the street from you were suffering from the H1N1 flu, wouldn’t you want him to get immediate medical help? Would you rather see him in pain and perhaps spread the disease to others in your neighborhood?

    Bad analogy. In the majority of cases much less disease would be spread if he just stayed home. You should only seek treatment if you have severe symptoms or at high risk for complications. Most people should not seek immediate medical help as Dionne suggests.
  • CStanley
    The framers of the health care bill did all they could to make sure it wouldn’t help illegal immigrants. Yes, a few might slip through the cracks and — horrors! — get assistance. But the health reformers wrote language as tough as it could be to make sure this wouldn’t happen, short of creating provisions so draconian that some who are here legally would also be denied coverage.

    LMAO

    The Democrats twice voted down an amendment that would specify SAVE as the method of verification of legal status (SAVE is the same database checking that is used for other federal benefits, so it's certainly not 'Draconian'.) After Wilson's comment brought more attention on the issue of whether or not the language in the bill was "as tough as it could be to ensure this didn't happen", the Dems quietly snuck the language that the GOP had suggested into the bill.

    Aside from that, it's disingenuous to tie this to denial of emergency treatment. Most people who support the use of SAVE verification for anyone attempting to take part in the public option program (or particularly, the funding for those who need financial assistance to take part and get insured through this program) are generally not asking to change the existing laws which mandate emergency medical treatment without verification.
  • JSpencer
    What E.J. may not understand is that when it comes to granting human rights to people, and by this I am talking about willingness to consider another person 100% fully human, there is reluctance on the part of some to do so without attaching conditions, such as color, country of origin, ideology, social background, skill level, etc. This goes directly to the first two questions, and is a matter of basic human decency.

    Now, beyond that basic level of being able to give a crap about another human being, there is the matter of Rush Limbaugh. I happen to believe that RL has single-handedly done more to create division among the citizens of this country, and by extension more to reverse progress here than any other American of the last 20 years. His legacy is a dark one and will be a blot on our country for a long time to come. The quote E.J. referenced, is a prime example of this. What Rush is best at (other than demonizing people and twisting the meaning of facts) is essentially yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre full of people who are mentally and emotionally "fragile" to begin with.

    And so the answer to E.J.'s final question, would be, "yes" ... although I'm sure he knew this before he asked it.



  • CStanley
    JSpencer- is it your opinion that the US should ensure the availability of comprehensive health insurance- not just emergency care- to all human beings on the planet if they find their way to our shores?
  • JSpencer
    Of course not. I'm referring to a mindset that too many in this country suffer from, one that informs their attitudes in general and on healthcare specifically, an attitude that makes them easy fodder for misinformation, and by extension a wrench in the works of any worthwhile healthcare reform.
  • Rambie
    I think a women should have the right to have an abortion if she chooses, but I do not want to pay for it. I think a neutral position on it is good.

    Also President Obama being against a censure on Rep Wilson is quite refreshing. I highly doubt we'd have seen it from the last Administration.
  • DLS
    "I think a women should have the right to have an abortion if she chooses, but I do not want to pay for it."

    Certainly there is no moral or logical obligation for it to have to be a new federal entitlement, and there is no "right" to it for anyone in this light, in any way whatsoever, but making it an entitlement has always been part of federal health care for the non-elderly, and it will develop as the health care effort "progresses." Hence the Capps amendment to HR 3200 as the opening act:


    http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090...
  • Brittanicus
    Of all the Immigration enforcements laws that really works E-Verify has settled in to removing illegal immigrants from the workplace. But there is a "Sunset Provision" that could determine its future, since it’s specially working for the millions of jobless Americans? Supposedly E-Verification expires on September 30, only days after a Federal judge turned down a desperate delay from the despicable Special interest lobbyists led by the US Chamber of Commerce. On September 8 E-Verify, a contingency of the SAVE ACT was fully implemented mandating that all federal contractors and sub-contractors--MUST--use this computerized identification system.
    The American people must understand their is tremendous pressure on anemic members of both political parties to dismantle, store or hinder the E-Verify process as they are the puppets of rich business enterprises. Then Rep. JOE WILSON R-NC) opened the proverbial humongous can of worms in the full house chamber.

    We must endeavor to continue on raising our voices against the powerful forces that think nothing more than to destroy this valuable commodity called E-Verify. Overtime it will rid from every workplaces of millions of illegal workers, who think they are safe from government intervention. It will save billions of dollars being exported to other lands and sever the tolerant welfare programs, health care, education accessed by illegal low wage earners. E-Verify could introduced in all medical facilities, to check a persons national identity. The expedited message will spread and these lawbreakers will realize that it's fruitless to keep on applying for jobs. Eventually families will start to pack-up and depart for every corner of the earth. But it's up to the American voter to keep relentlessly calling the Washington switchboard 202-224-3121contacting their politicians.


    Evaluate each lawmaker at NUMBERSUSA or JUDICIAL WATCH and command them to enforce E-Verify permanently. Not Voluntary for every business, but a mandatory addition for each employer. Fulfill their obligation to build the fence according to Rep. Duncan Hunter R-CA. Keep training the regular police according to the Federal 287 G directive,. Not to Rescind the No Match letter or desist ICE raids or weaken any other enforcement law, such as the 1986 Immigration Control & Reform Act. Fed's should restrict SANCTUARY CITY & STATE policies. NOW IT'S UP TO YOU? STARTLING WEBSITE! GOOGLE---IMMIGRATIONCOUNTERS.
  • Leonidas
    Until we stop pampering illegal aliens and those that employ them they will keep coming.

    Luckily some states are now enforcing some strict laws that have curtailed hiring by taking away business licenses from violators. Now if we remove free healthcare services we might make some more progress.

    I'm not saying turn them out of the emergency room, but I have no problem with arresting them at the same time they are treated, they are criminals after all. After they recover from their injuries they should be put to work as part of a penal system rehabilitation project to work off the debt they incur for the medical services recieved. When they pay it off, deport them. A system like that would cut our loses, and likely reduce the number of illegals getting treatment, and the number coming accross our borders.

    They broke the law by being in the country in the first place, if they don't like it don't break it.
  • Father_Time
    The only way to reduce healthcare costs enough to effectively provide healthcare to Americans without them losing their homes to pay the darn bill, is Socialized Medicine. Should you travel to Europe and drop with a heart attack and get a double bypass, you will have to pay because you are not part of any European nations healthcare system. However the bill will be a fraction of a double bypass performed in the United States, even with insurance.

    I actually know a fellow that this happened to in 1993. His total bill was $180 USD. How’s that for savings!?
  • DLS
    "They broke the law by being in the country in the first place, if they don't like it don't break it."

    If you thought that sappy Sixties "family reunification" replacement of qualifications or a points system for individuals was bad enough, or you thought the little anti-Reagan worms of the "sanctuary" movement were bad in the 1980s, or the game-players in the Bush years (even government officials vowing to break the law and protect illegal immigrants, to obstruct justice), and you thought that some silly kids would view us as needing abuse-ridden "asylum" laws as in other nations, or even worse "reforms," you're right on all counts -- and you know what to expect when immigration "reform" is pursued by the Dems after health care has been completed.
  • Leonidas
    Should you travel to Europe and drop with a heart attack and get a double bypass, you will have to pay because you are not part of any European nations healthcare system. However the bill will be a fraction of a double bypass performed in the United States, even with insurance.

    I actually know a fellow that this happened to in 1993. His total bill was $180 USD. How’s that for savings!?


    Exactly, a perfect example that insurance reform is not the major problem but rather costs. In your example the bill was $180 without socialized insurance coverage. Those countries don't have to deal with all the malpractice litigation suits for millions of dollars either so they didn't have to cover their butts by running as many expensive tests.

    Thank you for making that point.. When costs come down so will the price of insurance.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC