WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2025
...a fuzzy dispute broke out: As we recently admitted, we're so old that we can remember when major news orgs tried to untangle basic factual disputes about fundamental policy matters.
It's one of the horses we rode in on! Way back in 1995 and 1996, our major orgs were trying to referee this never-ending dispute:
In his GOP Medicare proposal, was Speaker Gingrich trying to cut the Medicare program? Or was he simply trying to slow the rate at which the program would grow?
Al Franken, still a comedian, solved that riddle in his book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (and Other Observations). We explained it in a trio of posts, one of which Paul Krugman later linked to as the source for his own analysis of the question.
Cowed by threats from the newly ascendant Gingrich, mainstream journos never did manage to figure it out. But at least, back in those days and years, they tried and they tried and they tried.
Fast forward to today! With the zone being flooded anew every day, major orgs have largely stopped trying to fact-check, or to explain, fundamental policy matters. That leads to an intriguing report by Mediaite's Zachary Leenan.
What exactly do Democrats want in order to end the government shutdown? Yesterday, mid-afternoon, Senator Coons (D-Del.) appeared on the Fox News Channel with guest host Trace Gallagher.
What exactly do Democrats want? In this chunk of Leeman's report, we join the discussion in progress:
‘They Have Been Giving Health Care to Illegal Immigrants!’ Fox Anchor Brawls With Democrat Over Shutdown
[...]
Coons claimed he’s heard from doctors in his state who are “bracing for impact” over incoming “skyrocketing health insurance costs.” Democrats are currently in a standstill with Republicans over a continuing resolution to fund the government over Democrats’ demand that extensions of Affordable Care Act subsidies be included.
“You say, Senator, that you’ve heard from your doctors and they’re telling you about rising costs. We just heard from a doctor who also happens to be in the Senate, Bill Cassidy, who says your plan is going to drive costs up because you want to give health benefits to illegal immigrants, which by the way is true in a lot of cases,” Gallagher said.
Uh-oh! One the one hand, it's true! Democrats are insisting that "extensions of Affordable Care Act subsidies [must] be included" in an agreement to end the shutdown.
But at that point, up jumped Gallagher with a claim which viewers constantly hear on Fox News Channel programs. According to Gallagher, Democrats also "want to give health benefits to illegal immigrants!"
That's a common assertion at Fox. According to Leeman's report (videotape included), here's what happened next:
“That is not at all true,” Coons shot back, adding, “It is not legal to be enrolled in the Affordable Care Act or Medicare or Medicaid unless you’re in the United States legally.”
The two then sparred on the point of illegal immigrants receiving healthcare...
Friend, we're going to leave you right here! For ourselves, we still don't understand the issues which are involved in what happened next. And we've tried to fact-check those questions on more than a few occasions.
Explanations by various medical groups seem to contradict each other. Reading a welter of such reports reminds us of the old joke known as Goldberg's Law (source: Paul Reiser, mid-1980s):
The man with one watch always knows the time. The man with two watches is never quite sure.
Spoiler alert:
The California state program, Medi-Cal, instantly entered yesterday's dispute, as you can see at Mediaite. Our question would be this:
Who was actually right on what followed, Gallagher or Coons? It almost sounds like Coons backed down! But who was actually right about this particular point?
Alas! The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we are a failing dual nation in which very few fundamental facts are understood and generally known.
Once they get you to believe in something as ridiculous as "God", they can make you believe anything.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but why is there something rather than nothing?
DeleteIf God wanted us to live in a merit-based society, he'd have given us a 100% Estate Tax rate.
DeleteWhy is there a God rather than no God?
DeleteWhy is there no good God?
DeleteBob's mental decline is very evident in this post. The facts in this matter are not hard to ascertain. This along with the performance of Biden at the end, and the felon the last ten years, demonstrates why we need age limits for the President. Old people like me and Bob and the last two Presidents (and Ronnie) will lose their cognitive shit and die. We just don't want to admit it.
ReplyDeleteI’m already demented.
DeleteI agree @3:24. I agree with me on every issue, but I would not want me to be President. While we're fantasizing, how about age limits for Representatives and Senators.
DeleteI agree with me, too.
DeleteHow about tests for old people, instead of assuming that everyone ages at the same rate and has the same capacities in old age. There are people in their 80s and 90s who are smarter than those in their 20s because how well people function is a distribution, a continuum, not a fixed rate of aging much less the starting IQ. People decline from whatever their peak performance was in youth, and that is far from the same for all people. The rate of decline also varies.
DeleteI know this from personal experience because I play duplicate bridge with people in their 40s thru 90s in a variety of geographic locations, worldwide. Those who can still play are as sharp as any youngster and better at the game because of their experience. Not everyone plays bridge in old age -- but the ones who do show that it is wrong to assume everyone deteriorates to the point of incapacity by a fixed age.
In the 70s, only about 25% of old people are unhealthy and not all of the unhealthy ones will have problems affecting thinking. In the mid-80s many previously sharp people start to show decline, but there are still some who do not. That's why you need to test people to see what they can do. Having a procedure for retiring those who have stopped functioning is more important than kicking people out of their jobs at some arbitrary age.
The abilities that decline with age (speed of thinking, reaction time, physical strength) are not necessarily the ones affecting job performance, especially in jobs requiring judgment, leadership, wisdom. These abilities to analyze complex problems, come up with innovative solutions, mediate conflicts, lead organizations, weigh priorities, tend to increase (improve) with age, not decline.
Age discrimination is a matter of law. The courts decided that age discrimination must rest on an individual person's functioning with respect to a specific job, not some arbitrary age established without consideration of what real people are capable of doing.
The younger someone is, the more biased they are against old people. The negative attitudes persist despite the FACT that 70 is the new 50 because improved health care and better lifestyles mean greater productive longevity for many people in our society.
I’d like to see the current numbers for testicular cancer among liberal women.
DeleteStill, there are no chess masters in the top 500 over 50 y.o. Except for that hairy beast Cecelia.
DeleteYou know it, baby.
DeleteI am just glad that David in Cal is finally admitting that Orange rump is a dementia addled idiot. About time David, welcome to the club you fascist asshole.
DeleteTo evaluate the accuracy of the GOP claim that Democrats want to give "illegals" free healthcare, it's important to first fully understand the basis of that claim,
ReplyDeleteHere's an official White House statement that attempts to document the claim:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/10/fact-democrats-shut-down-government-over-free-healthcare-for-illegals/
And here's the summary statement:
FACT: Democrats’ proposal would result in nearly $200 billion spent on healthcare for illegal immigrants and other non-citizens over the next decade — enough to fund the entire Children’s Health Insurance Program.
(Emphasis added.)
The first thing to note is that the claim conflates "illegal" with "non-citizens." This is relevant, regardless of your position on funding policy.
The White House statement follows up with a list six provisions of the Working Families Tax Cut Act (aka the One Big Beautiful Bill) that would be repealed by the Democrats' proposed continuing resolution. The White House asserts that, together, these changes would cost $192 billion over 10 years.
However, these six provisions have little to nothing to do with benefits for people in the country illegally. Instead, they relate to the availability of healthcare for some non-citizens who are legally present in the country.
Any argument about the White House/House GOP claims that elides these basic facts is bald propaganda.
"is that the claim conflates "illegal" with "non-citizens." "
DeleteIt doesn't "conflate", Soros-monkey. It lists "illegal immigrants" and "other non-citizens" separately.
Are you denying that Democrats’ proposal would result in Medicaid paying, in certain situations, for medical services to illegal immigrants?
This is a yes or no question.
"The White House asserts that, together, these changes would cost $192 billion over 10 years."
DeleteFor context, that's $19B/yr. So as taxpayers we have a stark choice this year: Invest $20B in Argentinian pesos, which are plumetting in value, or $19B in the health of American residents.
First, you have to stop lying about who is an "illegal."
DeleteThe White House statement says this:
FACT: Democrats’ proposal would once again allow those improperly granted asylum and parole under Biden’s open borders scheme to receive Medicaid.
As we seem to agree, the White House's statement calls out "illegal immigrants" and "other non-citizens" separately.
Which category do "those improperly granted asylum and parole" fall into? Republicans routinely lump them in with "illegals" even though they hold documentation of legal presence in the US.
A person who in the country with authorization isn't "illegal." So no, this provision does not result in Medicaid paying for medical care for illegal immigrants.
Also:
Delete"It doesn't 'conflate', Soros-monkey. It lists 'illegal immigrants' and 'other non-citizens' separately."
But like you, the White House statement and Congressional Republicans like to roll up the total bill and attribute it all to so-called "illegals," quietly sweeping "other non-citizens" (who are not in the country illegally) under the proverbial rug.
This is why it's so hard to argue with liars.
DeleteOkay. For the alternatively gifted:
Most American citizens aren't eligible for Medicaid.
When an American citizen ineligible for Medicaid gets medical services (either emergency or otherwise) Medicaid will not pay for it. The citizen himself is expected to pay, either via his private insurance or out of his pocket.
Illegal immigrants -- criminal border crossers and individuals who overstayed their visas -- are also ineligible for Medicaid. Should they, however, have the privilege to have their medical services paid for by Medicaid?
It's a yes-no question.
Those ineligible for Medicaid still receive emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Other non-emergency treatment becomes medical debt.
DeleteA squatter illegally breaks into your house and starts living there. Should you be responsible for his/her emergency medical care?
DeleteThe big money in the White House's claim comes under the heading of "Ending Obamacare Funding for Most Non-Citizens." This line accounts for nearly half of the claimed cost ($91B if $192B).
DeleteBefore the "Big Beautiful Bill," the relevant law read as follows:
For purposes of this section, an individual shall be treated as lawfully present only if the individual is, and is reasonably expected to be for the entire period of enrollment for which the credit under this section is being claimed, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States (emphasis added).
The OBBB changed this to narrow the definition of "eligible aliens" to this:
“(i) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.),
“(ii) an alien who has been granted the status of Cuban and Haitian entrant, as defined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96–422); or
“(iii) an individual who lawfully resides in the United States in accordance with a Compact of Free Association referred to in section 402(b)(2)(G) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(G)).”
So with the narrower definition in the OBBB, who gets left out? People here on work visas, asylees, refugees who aren't Cuban or Haitian, and most importantly, people who have been paroled into the US for more than a year.
None of these people are here illegally. All of them have legal status. So under this line, the amount of money going to pay for "free healthcare for illegals" can be accurately calculated.
That amount is exactly $0.00.
David: Refer to above. No one is talking about anyone in the country illegally.
DeleteResponsible homeowners have homeowners (or renters) insurance to cover such situations. But here is what AI says:
Delete"When you may be held liable
Negligence: If the injury was caused by an unsafe or hazardous condition on your property that you were aware of and failed to remedy or warn about, you could be held liable.
Intentional acts: You cannot set dangerous traps for intruders. If you intentionally create a dangerous condition that causes injury, you are responsible.
Awareness of frequent trespassing: If you know that trespassers frequently use your property, you have a duty to warn them of hidden dangers.
When you are likely not liable:
No negligence: If the injury is a result of the trespasser's own actions and not due to a dangerous condition on the property, you are generally not responsible.
Assumption of risk: Trespassers are generally considered to assume the risks of entering private property without permission. "
Note that people who own parking lots and similar public places of business post signs declaring themselves not liable for injury or theft, etc. Despite the signs, the liability is defined by local laws, not by what Republicans are willing to pay for.
@ Nonny Moose 5:15:
DeleteSome Americans with no insurance and no money turn up in emergency rooms. They still get treatment, by federal law.
Under the Social Security Act, the federal government reimburses states for part of the cost of providing this care. Under the formula, poor states get a higher share of reimbursement that wealthy ones.
Now here's the fun part: The OBBB does not prohibit emergency care for undocumented immigrants. It only limits the percentage of reimbursement for care given to ineligible patients including migrants.
How much does the country save due to this limitation? According to Republicans, about $3B a year. (I'm still working on trying to figure out where they get that number--no luck yet.)
At any rate, it's hardly worth the government shutdown which costs more every day than this provision saves over 10 years.
A child who sneaks into a neighbor's yard to use their swimming pool without permission, then has an accident and must be rushed to the hospital, will be considered the responsibility of the pool owner unless sufficient care was taken to keep kids out. Why assume that the moral character of the person attracted to a person's yard makes any difference when it comes to the homeowner's responsibilities. Would bad children be allowed to drown and only good children be rescued from one's pool? It sounds like David would consider them all bad for disregarding property lines (even though pools are considered an attractive nuisance), and thus deserving of whatever death ensues if they open that gate without permission.
DeleteThis is a very odd way of thinking about people's lives. We only give the death penalty for very extreme crimes (murder with special circumstances, for example). Right wingers seem to want to kill without consideration of circumstances by refusing emergency health care whenever they deem the injured person to be unworthy in some way. I remember when Christians considered that to be God's territory, not the judgment of man (or women). If an immigrant is driving and is hit by a swerving semi-truck, they should be left on the highway to die as roadkill, because they didn't have the paperwork to prove their right to drive in America.
David, can't you see how unreasonably harsh this is?
DiC is always dropping Charlie Kirk type of questions. Just spew some fucking bullshit then be jaggoffs when people prove them wrong. Rinse, repeat.
DeleteReturning to the question asked by Nonny Moose 4:19:
Delete"Are you denying that Democrats’ proposal would result in Medicaid paying, in certain situations, for medical services to illegal immigrants?
"This is a yes or no question."
No. I am not denying it. The Democrats' proposal would pay for medical care for people without legal status.
Related question: Would the Republican proposal provide the same care under the same circumstances?
It would. It would push more of the cost of that care onto the states or the hospitals providing the care.
Sorry, Quaker, I changed the subject a bit with my parable. I was thinking of both ER care and Medicaid for illegal immigrants. Both are arguably wrong, because the US doesn't have enough health care dollars to treat everyone who's here legally. And, rewarding illegal immigrations really does encourage more of it -- a great deal more.
DeleteSomerby doesn’t seem to understand that the major news orgs are Republican now.
ReplyDeleteAnd he refuses to learn.
DeleteIs this true? Who knows? Is it just a single foulup? Who knows? FWIW here's the news
ReplyDeleteUnited States Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O’Neill on Wednesday posted the case of 38-year-old illegal alien Jose Trinidad Arreola-Ortega of Mexico, who was convicted of raping a young child in Kentucky.
Despite the conviction, Arreola-Ortega was able to secure nearly $7,300 in taxpayer-funded Medicaid benefits.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/10/22/hhs-illegal-alien-child-rapist-received-thousands-in-taxpayer-funded-medicaid-benefits/
Even convicted murderers in prison receive medical treatment when they need it. You are trying to connect disconnected things. I'll bet he gets meals too, in prison. That's because our courts do not allow cruel and unusual punishment of convicts.
DeleteThe outrage David is trying to evoke arises because of the implicit assumption in our society that health care is a privilege, a perk, not a necessity for all human beings. Gucci purses are a perk. And no one is giving them away to convicted child rapists no matter what their country of birth or current residence.
Republicans wouldn't feed their dogs and cats, if the animal welfare people weren't watching them.
DeleteFor example, withholding treatment for a heart condition of a convicted child rapist, assuming he is in greater danger of dying without treatment, would constitute imposing a death sentence on him that the judge and jury did not see fit to give him at trial. Our laws do not allow that because it replaces the judge and jury with arbitrary treatment by prison officials.
DeleteWhy is it that the right wing cannot think very well about issues of fairness and justice? Are they missing an important gene?
Of course I made the mistake of opening the DiC link to a brietbart garbage piece that includes the accusation that an illegal alien, convicted of raping a child last summer received $7800 dollars of Medicaid money, with exactly zero supporting documentation. This raises a few questions.
DeleteWhy has a convicted rapist non citizen of this country not been deported, instead wasting taxpayer money while incarcerated by this administration?
How does an incarcerated criminal engage in Medicaid fraud?
Who has control of the money doled out by Medicaid since January 20th, and if the answer is the Trump administration, why not ask them to account for their actions?
Instead of reading garbage pieces filled with accusations and lacking facts on a right wing site and spewing them here like Trump dumping shit from an AI airplane, DiC could easily Google for facts about Medicaid and undocumented immigrants. This, however would disturb the cocoon of right wing propaganda he flourishes in.
As a healthcare provider, now retired and providing pro bono care to the working uninsured, I have some first hand experience in this. Rather than demonizing a government program for ostensible payouts to undocumented immigrants that are illegal, and never seen by me in 30+ years of practice, perhaps DiC and his ilk would like to address a much larger and costly use of Medicaid dollars: the funneling of employees of large businesses into government subsidized insurance. New employees of Wal-Mart are routinely given information packets that include instructions in how to file for Medicaid, and their hours are commonly curated to avoid any company responsibility for providing employer based insurance. This is common practice , and I assume not confined to that employer. But god forbid we should train our gaze on the activities of billionaires sucking on the teat of our so called welfare state, as long as there is one incarcerated illegal that DiC can point to as an example of waste without any supporting documentation of the circumstances of how the putative $7800 was spent. This prisoner is a shiny object to DiC and the MAGA cultists.
"Is this true? Who knows?"
DeleteThough I love a good Google search challenge, I concede defeat on this one. The story David links is one at Breitbart. It describes a post on X by HHS deputy secretary Jim O'Neill that makes the claim that the man named is an illegal alien, that he was convicted of rape of a child, and that he received Medicaid funded medical treatment. Breitbart does not provide a link to the post.
I found O'Neill's post on X. It makes all of the claims described in the Breitbart story. It provides no further links to any data or record to substantiate the claims.
I did find information about a man with a similar name who was convicted of sexual abuse of a child, but acquitted of a charge of rape against a child. Nothing in the trial record mentions his immigration status. He appealed in five-year sentence and the appeal was denied in March 2024.
So it could be true. On the other hand, we're given no evidence that O'Neill verified that the man was indeed the one convicted, that he is or was in the country illegally, or that he received Medicaid funds.
O'Neill does use the case to lay blame for the current government shutdown on Democrats.
Breitbart, fuck me in a pimp costume, what a useless POS wanker. Being the right kind of immoral lying asshole can land you many millions from the Christian Nationalists. What jagoffs to milk this sour tit for their whole lives.
DeleteRepublicans just absolutely hate it that Obamacare has provided for the well being of millions of Americans, and they especially hate its popularity. The need for affordability crosses party lines and when my niece, a Trump supporter, lost her job during Covid it was her only reasonable option, and she was thankful. This didn't stop her from voting for Trump a second time, because she is a racist dumbass. The republicans gave up trying to repeal Obamacare head on, knowing it would be an extremely unpopular effort, so they have attacked it as part of a larger bill, thinking that the people affected, many millions of them, wouldn't notice that they were responsible for their premiums doubling. They have about as much respect for the electorate as they do for the fools that voted Trump in to office. So they make claims about the subsidies that are flat out lies, and have a big time Medicare fraudster, Rick Scott telling them to the public. How richly ironic.
DeleteLook how Somerby frames the shutdown:
ReplyDelete"What exactly do Democrats want in order to end the government shutdown?"
Republicans own this shutdown, not Democrats. When Somerby accepts the Republican framing, he is advancing the right wing party line. We don't need lefties, blues, Democrats, anyone on our side, to be doing that to help the Republicans.
Somerby says the major news orgs cannot answer this kind of question. They shouldn't have to, in my opinion.
Neither side 'owns' the shutdown. The shutdown is a political dispute. It is reasonable to ask what either side wants. Grow up.
DeleteThe Republicans could end the shutdown. They have the majority in the Senate. They can abolish the filibuster and pass the continuing resolution.
DeleteSo, yes, the Republicans own this shutdown.
The Democrats could end the shutdown too, by dropping their demands about healthcare.
DeleteThere, I just proved that the Democrats 'own' the shutdown. This game is fun.
Break the filibuster and it is a done deal. They just want Democratic votes so they can deflect the stench onto them.
DeleteDemocrats don't take shits on the working class like billionaire suck up Rethuglicans.
DeleteThe shutdown is a political dispute framed by 2 opposing narratives. One narrative is that the Obama subsidies pay for abortions and the healthcare of undocumented immigrants. The other narrative is that removing the subsidies without providing for an affordable substitute will put healthcare insurance out of reach for upwards of 20 million people.
DeleteOne of these narratives is a lie.
Pornhub Johnson has had the house shut down forever to avoid an Epstein vote. Shut-down is on the little bitch.
DeleteReal Problems. Real Solutions.
ReplyDeleteWhite House Brushes Off Criticism Of New East Wing Grand Ballroom, Calling It 'NECESSARY'
“It’s necessary,…so shut up.” Perfect.
DeleteTrump never promised to make groceries affordable.
DeleteHe promised to make it harder for black people to get political representation.
We don't want people waltzing in the street!
DeleteA while ago I made a comment arguing that policy decisions involve tradeoffs, so the decision must not be made solely on a moral argument -- AS IF the decision had no downsides or costs or unintended negative consequences.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally I just came across an article making the same point. https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/why-woke-women-make-terrible-leaders
Berenson uses the example of Angela Merkel. IMO her leadership is a little paradoxical. She was intelligent, knowledgeable, honest, and had the best of intentions. In most ways she was an exemplary leader. No doubt she did hundreds of things very well. But, she made three bad decisions that wrecked German culture and its economy so badly that they will likely never recover. This illustrates the principle that the most important thing we want from a leader to get the biggest things right That's why I find all the attention given to the shit video so disheartening.
David is a Shithead Fascist Asshole.
DeleteThomas Sowell made a similar point:
ReplyDelete"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."