Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YOU LlE!

mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2009 5:35:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What do you think about Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's address to Congress?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2009 8:18:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You could go the Jimmy Carter way, and call it racism.
(you would look like a fool but if it is attention that you seek... so be it)
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2009 10:10:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/22/2009 5:35:50 PM, mongoose wrote:
What do you think about Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's address to Congress?

Immature and disrespectful.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 3:57:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/22/2009 10:10:12 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 9/22/2009 5:35:50 PM, mongoose wrote:
What do you think about Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's address to Congress?

Immature and disrespectful.

Here! Here!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 8:06:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 3:57:56 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 9/22/2009 10:10:12 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 9/22/2009 5:35:50 PM, mongoose wrote:
What do you think about Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's address to Congress?

Immature and disrespectful.

Here! Here!

Where, where?

Anyhow, I think it's perfectly OK to scream "You lie" when people do that. However, in this case Obama said something that obviously was not a lie. It was therefore not disrespectful or demeaning, but just stupid.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 9:01:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Is it really not a lie? It's all but certainly not true, at the least-- the prohibition on extending the benefits to illegal immigrants has no means of enforcement outlined in the bill. It's like prohibiting eating cookies and leaving a cookie jar open on the street with no cops around. For all intents and purposes, the bill's position amounts to a wink and a nod.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 9:32:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 9:01:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is it really not a lie? It's all but certainly not true, at the least-- the prohibition on extending the benefits to illegal immigrants has no means of enforcement outlined in the bill. It's like prohibiting eating cookies and leaving a cookie jar open on the street with no cops around. For all intents and purposes, the bill's position amounts to a wink and a nod.

I'm not entirely clear on why it should have a means of enforcement in the bill? Is this not a case of not paying for those who shouldn't have free health care?
So prove me wrong, then.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 5:33:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It was of course very disrespectful and childish to interrupt the speaker like that.Jon Stewart called it "Obama-related tourettes."

Obama should have said "Joe Wilson, 2 seconds: I'm over this podium, at your seat, taking you down."
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 8:30:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 8:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
I nominate "You lie!" as quote of the year.

I nominate, "I'll let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all-time" as quote of the year.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 8:37:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 9:32:20 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/23/2009 9:01:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is it really not a lie? It's all but certainly not true, at the least-- the prohibition on extending the benefits to illegal immigrants has no means of enforcement outlined in the bill. It's like prohibiting eating cookies and leaving a cookie jar open on the street with no cops around. For all intents and purposes, the bill's position amounts to a wink and a nod.

I'm not entirely clear on why it should have a means of enforcement in the bill? Is this not a case of not paying for those who shouldn't have free health care?

Whether you think they should or shouldn't is kind of a secondary issue here (I don't think it's any worse to have welfare state money go to illegal immigrants than to anyone else, though that's pretty bad). But on a purely factual matter-- by "means of enforcement," I mean, the bill does not require people to prove they are citizens in order to receive care, therefore, people will pretend they are (Much like votes are cast by convicted felons and dead people, and counted), and receive care. Without a means of proof, Obama's statement does in fact become a lie-- funds will go into the hands of illegal immigrants. It doesn't matter that the bureaucrat who is handing out the funds isn't supposed to give them to illegal immigrants if he can't check whether someone is such a person.

Granted that Wilson's statement accomplished essentially nothing to get any of that across (though that is the only relevant grounds in judging as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to be polite to your oppressors).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 8:07:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 8:37:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/23/2009 9:32:20 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/23/2009 9:01:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is it really not a lie? It's all but certainly not true, at the least-- the prohibition on extending the benefits to illegal immigrants has no means of enforcement outlined in the bill. It's like prohibiting eating cookies and leaving a cookie jar open on the street with no cops around. For all intents and purposes, the bill's position amounts to a wink and a nod.

I'm not entirely clear on why it should have a means of enforcement in the bill? Is this not a case of not paying for those who shouldn't have free health care?

Whether you think they should or shouldn't is kind of a secondary issue here (I don't think it's any worse to have welfare state money go to illegal immigrants than to anyone else, though that's pretty bad). But on a purely factual matter-- by "means of enforcement," I mean, the bill does not require people to prove they are citizens in order to receive care, therefore, people will pretend they are (Much like votes are cast by convicted felons and dead people, and counted), and receive care. Without a means of proof, Obama's statement does in fact become a lie-- funds will go into the hands of illegal immigrants. It doesn't matter that the bureaucrat who is handing out the funds isn't supposed to give them to illegal immigrants if he can't check whether someone is such a person.

Granted that Wilson's statement accomplished essentially nothing to get any of that across (though that is the only relevant grounds in judging as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to be polite to your oppressors).

Not only does the House bill state, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States," but no illegal immigrants qualify to use federal health programs under current law. It was obviously not a lie.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 8:19:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 8:07:13 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 9/23/2009 8:37:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/23/2009 9:32:20 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/23/2009 9:01:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is it really not a lie? It's all but certainly not true, at the least-- the prohibition on extending the benefits to illegal immigrants has no means of enforcement outlined in the bill. It's like prohibiting eating cookies and leaving a cookie jar open on the street with no cops around. For all intents and purposes, the bill's position amounts to a wink and a nod.

I'm not entirely clear on why it should have a means of enforcement in the bill? Is this not a case of not paying for those who shouldn't have free health care?

Whether you think they should or shouldn't is kind of a secondary issue here (I don't think it's any worse to have welfare state money go to illegal immigrants than to anyone else, though that's pretty bad). But on a purely factual matter-- by "means of enforcement," I mean, the bill does not require people to prove they are citizens in order to receive care, therefore, people will pretend they are (Much like votes are cast by convicted felons and dead people, and counted), and receive care. Without a means of proof, Obama's statement does in fact become a lie-- funds will go into the hands of illegal immigrants. It doesn't matter that the bureaucrat who is handing out the funds isn't supposed to give them to illegal immigrants if he can't check whether someone is such a person.

Granted that Wilson's statement accomplished essentially nothing to get any of that across (though that is the only relevant grounds in judging as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to be polite to your oppressors).

Not only does the House bill state, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States," but no illegal immigrants qualify to use federal health programs under current law. It was obviously not a lie.

You're wrong. It is a lie. Like R_R said, there is no enforcement. The Republicans wanted to put in a system that would check for citizenship when applying for the public option, but the Democrats didn't allow it. YOU LIE!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 8:23:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 8:07:13 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 9/23/2009 8:37:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/23/2009 9:32:20 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/23/2009 9:01:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is it really not a lie? It's all but certainly not true, at the least-- the prohibition on extending the benefits to illegal immigrants has no means of enforcement outlined in the bill. It's like prohibiting eating cookies and leaving a cookie jar open on the street with no cops around. For all intents and purposes, the bill's position amounts to a wink and a nod.

I'm not entirely clear on why it should have a means of enforcement in the bill? Is this not a case of not paying for those who shouldn't have free health care?

Whether you think they should or shouldn't is kind of a secondary issue here (I don't think it's any worse to have welfare state money go to illegal immigrants than to anyone else, though that's pretty bad). But on a purely factual matter-- by "means of enforcement," I mean, the bill does not require people to prove they are citizens in order to receive care, therefore, people will pretend they are (Much like votes are cast by convicted felons and dead people, and counted), and receive care. Without a means of proof, Obama's statement does in fact become a lie-- funds will go into the hands of illegal immigrants. It doesn't matter that the bureaucrat who is handing out the funds isn't supposed to give them to illegal immigrants if he can't check whether someone is such a person.

Granted that Wilson's statement accomplished essentially nothing to get any of that across (though that is the only relevant grounds in judging as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to be polite to your oppressors).

Not only does the House bill state, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States," but no illegal immigrants qualify to use federal health programs under current law. It was obviously not a lie.
Felons aren't eligible to vote, and yet ballots get cast by them despite there BEING enforcement clauses about that (albeit obviously fallible ones). If you'd READ the post you were addressing, you'd notice I was speaking of what the law actually resulted in, not what it purported to entail. The law is not a magic wand. If you don't check to find out if someone is here legally, it doesn't matter if the text of the bill says they can't have benefits-- a law with no enforcement clause is not an honest law.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 8:27:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Put it this way.

If I was writing a murder bill, and it read

"No portion of this statute shall allow murder"

And stated no penalties for murderers

Would you take that as an adequate bill about murder?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 8:35:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh, and it also didn't empower anyone to check whether murder was done.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 8:36:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 8:23:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Felons aren't eligible to vote, and yet ballots get cast by them despite there BEING enforcement clauses about that (albeit obviously fallible ones). If you'd READ the post you were addressing, you'd notice I was speaking of what the law actually resulted in, not what it purported to entail. The law is not a magic wand. If you don't check to find out if someone is here legally, it doesn't matter if the text of the bill says they can't have benefits-- a law with no enforcement clause is not an honest law.

Pretending for a moment that you actually like the idea of a government run health care program, how would you enforce such a law? You can't simply ask people during the ambulance ride for their birth certificate, passport and whatever other identification that can be verified to be true.

Is it acceptable to ask people after-the-fact for verified documentation, and if they do not show any, they have to pay for their services, or must they show it right away in order to get any services rendered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 8:53:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 8:36:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/25/2009 8:23:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Felons aren't eligible to vote, and yet ballots get cast by them despite there BEING enforcement clauses about that (albeit obviously fallible ones). If you'd READ the post you were addressing, you'd notice I was speaking of what the law actually resulted in, not what it purported to entail. The law is not a magic wand. If you don't check to find out if someone is here legally, it doesn't matter if the text of the bill says they can't have benefits-- a law with no enforcement clause is not an honest law.

Pretending for a moment that you actually like the idea of a government run health care program, how would you enforce such a law? You can't simply ask people during the ambulance ride for their birth certificate, passport and whatever other identification that can be verified to be true.
That's duty to care laws (which already cover illegal immigrants and everyone else), keep on the present topic, which is the insurance reforms being shoved through Congress, whether that involves the "public option" or the"insurance exchange" or "subsidized cooperatives" or what have you. OBVIOUSLY insurance of any variety has lots of forms to sign and by definition has lots of bureaucracy to take care of it-- this is true even of private sector insurance, and all the truer of gunmint insurance. Adding in the ones that prove citizenship can't make it any worse.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 8:55:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 8:53:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's duty to care laws (which already cover illegal immigrants and everyone else), keep on the present topic, which is the insurance reforms being shoved through Congress, whether that involves the "public option" or the"insurance exchange" or "subsidized cooperatives" or what have you. OBVIOUSLY insurance of any variety has lots of forms to sign and by definition has lots of bureaucracy to take care of it-- this is true even of private sector insurance, and all the truer of gunmint insurance. Adding in the ones that prove citizenship can't make it any worse.

That kind of answers my question, I guess.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 10:34:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 8:37:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Whether you think they should or shouldn't is kind of a secondary issue here (I don't think it's any worse to have welfare state money go to illegal immigrants than to anyone else, though that's pretty bad). But on a purely factual matter-- by "means of enforcement," I mean, the bill does not require people to prove they are citizens in order to receive care, therefore, people will pretend they are (Much like votes are cast by convicted felons and dead people, and counted), and receive care. Without a means of proof, Obama's statement does in fact become a lie-- funds will go into the hands of illegal immigrants. It doesn't matter that the bureaucrat who is handing out the funds isn't supposed to give them to illegal immigrants if he can't check whether someone is such a person.

OK, I don't live in the US, so maybe you are right, but it does strike me as somewhat hard to believe that it's not possible to check if somebody has a residency permit or not.

Admittedly, I would think its' fantastic if it really is impossible, I just find it hard to believe. :-)
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 10:39:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 10:34:28 PM, regebro wrote:
At 9/23/2009 8:37:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Whether you think they should or shouldn't is kind of a secondary issue here (I don't think it's any worse to have welfare state money go to illegal immigrants than to anyone else, though that's pretty bad). But on a purely factual matter-- by "means of enforcement," I mean, the bill does not require people to prove they are citizens in order to receive care, therefore, people will pretend they are (Much like votes are cast by convicted felons and dead people, and counted), and receive care. Without a means of proof, Obama's statement does in fact become a lie-- funds will go into the hands of illegal immigrants. It doesn't matter that the bureaucrat who is handing out the funds isn't supposed to give them to illegal immigrants if he can't check whether someone is such a person.

OK, I don't live in the US, so maybe you are right, but it does strike me as somewhat hard to believe that it's not possible to check if somebody has a residency permit or not.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said the bill didn't require anyone to check and didn't punish anyone for not checking, and bureaucrats don't tend to do things they don't have to do, since the whole point of a bureaucracy is to do what you're told to do and nothing else.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 10:42:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 8:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Put it this way.

If I was writing a murder bill, and it read

"No portion of this statute shall allow murder"

And stated no penalties for murderers

Would you take that as an adequate bill about murder?

"Under no circumstances should murdered be bought cars"
"You lie!"

Again, I wonder whay this would need some sort of enforcement. What punishment are you gonna give the state if it pays money to people without residency permits? Are are you going to punish the person who gets the money?

This is not a case of preventing teh citizens of doing something that is immoral, it's just a case of the state not giving money to those who aren't eligible. I fail to see why you need any sort of enforcement for that. You just don't give the money. End of story.
So prove me wrong, then.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 11:08:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Anyhow, I think it's perfectly OK to scream "You lie" when people do that. However, in this case Obama said something that obviously was not a lie. It was therefore not disrespectful or demeaning, but just stupid.

So every time a congressman sees another congressman he disagrees with speaking, he should yell "You're wrong!"?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 11:12:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 10:42:41 PM, regebro wrote:
At 9/25/2009 8:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Put it this way.

If I was writing a murder bill, and it read

"No portion of this statute shall allow murder"

And stated no penalties for murderers

Would you take that as an adequate bill about murder?

"Under no circumstances should murdered be bought cars"
"You lie!"

Again, I wonder whay this would need some sort of enforcement. What punishment are you gonna give the state if it pays money to people without residency permits?
The idea is that the state punishes it's agents for doing so without permission. If it was about punishing the state, the discussion wouldn't be about illegal immigrants but state health care in general lol.


This is not a case of preventing teh citizens of doing something that is immoral, it's just a case of the state not giving money to those who aren't eligible. I fail to see why you need any sort of enforcement for that. You just don't give the money.
E.g., you need to give the bureaucrats a means to KNOW who it is they aren't supposed to give money to. That's not being done.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2009 9:34:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 10:39:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said the bill didn't require anyone to check

The bill explicitly says that illegal immigrants should not be payed, so that statement is obviously false.

and didn't punish anyone for not checking, and bureaucrats don't tend to do things they don't have to do, since the whole point of a bureaucracy is to do what you're told to do and nothing else.

If you think the bureaucrats that decide who are payed take their orders directly from laws you are gravely mistaken, There are several levels of bureaucracy in between.

The law says that illegal immigrants should not get payed.
It is possible to check if someone should get payed or not.
Hence, the claim that the law extends health care ti illegal immigrants is a lie.

If it happens that the bureaucrats in practice do not check, then that's because their bosses have decided that it should not be checked. It has nothing to do with the law.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2009 9:36:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/25/2009 11:08:03 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's perfectly OK to scream "You lie" when people do that. However, in this case Obama said something that obviously was not a lie. It was therefore not disrespectful or demeaning, but just stupid.

So every time a congressman sees another congressman he disagrees with speaking, he should yell "You're wrong!"?

Yes. Or "You have black shoes!"

No, you moron, why would he do that? Obviously any sane person would restrict outbursts to when it's important.
So prove me wrong, then.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2009 9:42:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/26/2009 9:34:03 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/25/2009 10:39:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said the bill didn't require anyone to check

The bill explicitly says that illegal immigrants should not be payed, so that statement is obviously false.

and didn't punish anyone for not checking, and bureaucrats don't tend to do things they don't have to do, since the whole point of a bureaucracy is to do what you're told to do and nothing else.

If you think the bureaucrats that decide who are payed take their orders directly from laws you are gravely mistaken, There are several levels of bureaucracy in between.


The law says that illegal immigrants should not get payed.
It is possible to check if someone should get payed or not.
Hence, the claim that the law extends health care ti illegal immigrants is a lie.

If it happens that the bureaucrats in practice do not check, then that's because their bosses have decided that it should not be checked. It has nothing to do with the law.

There is no system to check for citizenship, thouht the Republicans wanted to add a system, but the Democrats said no. Because there is no system to check for citizenship, anyone can get free health care. Thus, a lie.

Me and R_R explained this on page 2.......
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2009 9:49:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/26/2009 9:34:03 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/25/2009 10:39:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said the bill didn't require anyone to check

The bill explicitly says that illegal immigrants should not be payed, so that statement is obviously false.
NO, IT ISN'T. For that matter, IT DOESN'T. It says "No part of this shall be construed to allow." That doesn't mean it disallows, it just doesn't provide independent justification, and it especially doesn't mean it requires anyone to check-- requiring people to check means you write down an acceptable means of proof, and make it a crime to give the funds to anyone who doesn't have that proof.
There are probably laws that "do not allow" tyrants abroad to do bad things, but this doesn't mean that those laws mean anything other than that legislators are dishonest.

and didn't punish anyone for not checking, and bureaucrats don't tend to do things they don't have to do, since the whole point of a bureaucracy is to do what you're told to do and nothing else.

If you think the bureaucrats that decide who are payed take their orders directly from laws you are gravely mistaken, There are several levels of bureaucracy in between.


The law says that illegal immigrants should not get payed.
It is possible to check if someone should get payed or not.
Hence, the claim that the law extends health care ti illegal immigrants is a lie.

If it happens that the bureaucrats in practice do not check, then that's because their bosses have decided that it should not be checked. It has nothing to do with the law.
If someone just "Decides" to check something that the law hasn't allowed them to check, they (or the boss) can be prosecuted for misuse of taxpayer funded activity. If someone just "Decides" not to check something the law mandates they check, all the more so.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.