Robert Gibbs was asked in the briefing twice today, with follow-up, about whether the health care proposals would cover illegal immigrants:
Later in the briefing, Gibbs asserted that despite what was in other legislation, last night "the president outlined a plan that doesn't cover illegal immigrants." This reference to a "plan" is a reference to the President Obama's outline of what he wants to sign, which was posted on the White House website last night.
JONATHAN WEISMAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL: In his plan, would he say that an illegal immigrant could not take money out of his pocket, go on the federal exchange, and buy an insurance policy with his money?
GIBBS: The policy would not cover -- the plan would not cover illegal immigrants.
TAPPER: I think the question is that the House bill, for instance, 3200, explicitly says that none of the subsidies can go people who in this country illegally.
GIBBS: Right.
TAPPER: Right, but some of the criticism -- and what the Congressional Research Service analysis says of it is that people who are illegal, as Jon points out, are able to buy insurance, as they already do...
GIBBS: I can't speak for somebody that's here illegally, but I would think it would be somewhat of a bad course of events if you're here illegally to alert people that you are here illegally and sign up for a government program.
TAPPER: Just to -- just to put the dot on it, I mean there are illegal immigrants who are -- who are covered by emergency Medicaid all the time -- millions.
GIBBS: As a result of I think a 1986 law that was signed by President Reagan...
TAPPER: Right. So -- but the House bill...
GIBBS: …that might be the last time Congress took up immigration reform, in 1986.
TAPPER: …the House bill would expand Medicaid, and that could lead to an expansion of emergency Medicaid that would cover, possibly...
GIBBS: Again...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: …so when you say that illegal immigrants will not be covered, does that mean they can't be covered by any expansion in emergency Medicaid, they can't -- they can't buy into the health exchange...
GIBBS: Well, again, again, again, let me check with the health care guys on how this would affect the 1986 law. But they would not be covered under the health care exchange in the proposal...
TAPPER: And they can't -- and they can't -- they would be prohibited from buying...
GIBBS: As I understand it…
TAPPER: ... insurance through the exchange?
GIBBS: …yes
While I don't think Wilson's move was appropriate during the speech last night- and he reiterated his apology on Sean Hannity's radio show today-it is interesting how the substance of concerns about illegal immigrant "lies" and end-of-life counseling "death panels" only get attention once liberals make a huge stink about the style of conservative objections.
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a report in August to little media fanfare that said:
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens-whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently-participating in the Exchange."
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.
But only now that Joe Wilson yelled "you lie," and a bunch of liberals got really disproportionately mad, is the issue is at the forefront. Because his concerns are not the lies Obama says they are, they will get more attention than they ever got before, and the light will shine where it should-on the lack of enforcement provisions in the health care proposals. And, contrary to Obama's assertions, it's not voters' ignorance on this issue that's the problem for Democrats, but that they're actually well-informed enough to know Dems are fudging.
Liberals would do well in the future to make sure the "distractions" and "vile" "smears" they complain about very loudly, thus giving them a bunch of media attention, aren't actually valid concerns. So far, these tantrums over individual Republicans' decorum seem to be making the bill more conservative.
