If you read the bill you would see that those “optional plans” are mandated
by the Government in the Government run Health Insurance Exchange. These
Government Mandates are to the insurance companies. They way the bill is
structured if insurance companies want to stay in business they will have to
join the Government run Health Insurance Exchange.

Hope this helps.

Well page 143 of the act section 246 permits discrimination against undocumented aliens. You must have missed that very short subsection as you were reading.

“SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

This says that nothing in subtitle C that is all about individual affordability credits, which is all about what the government will help individuals pay for depending on their income levels, expenses, etc, in order to make health insurance more affordable for low income individuals.

Section 152 applies to the entire act, so if section 246 were not present in this subtitle then you would be correct and there would be no provision in this law excluding federal money financing illegal immigrants health insurance if they can't afford their own plans. But section 246 exists which explicitly excludes illegal immigrants from being eligible for affordability credits. If they want to pay for their own insurance I don't care, as long as my tax money isn't paying for them. I don't know, though, maybe you're of the opinion that people in any country illegally do not deserve any health care at all, though. The main reason for me, though, why I think that individuals not in the country legally shouldn't receive federal money for health care is because in most cases illegal immigrants are not paying taxes.

Section 242 establishes the eligibility criteria for affordable credits. It explicitly says it applies only to individuals who are lawfully present. It doesn't prohibit anyone from receiving healthcare, that would be inhumane (“you're in our country illegally with a completely treatable but if untreated completely fatal disease? Since you're illegal I don't care if you can pay for your treatment yourself you deserve to die!”, no that wouldn't be ok in my book, and health care includes care people can pay for themselves.). It does prohibit illegal aliens from receiving health care at our expense, and since it says that it won't give affordability credits to undocumented immigrants that effectively prescribes its method (“do you have a birth certificate or proof of citizenship? no? do you have a green card of a resident alien card or any other form of evidence that indicates that you are present in the country legally? no? come back when you do”). Section 1702 modifies existing laws that already exclude illegal immigrants. The exclusion doesn't have to be written into this act since it already exists in the laws that portion of this act applies to. Section 1714 is the same situation as section 1702. The exclusions of illegal immigrants don't need to be expressly written in this entire subtitle because it's already present in the laws that these sections will modify or add to.

Also I should point out that it would seem that the only reason you don't think the language in the bill is clearly stated is because the language in the bill, if read the way it is clearly written, doesn't say what you have interpreted it to say.

Well page 143 of the act section 246 permits discrimination against undocumented aliens. You must have missed that very short subsection as you were reading.

“SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

This says that nothing in subtitle C that is all about individual affordability credits, which is all about what the government will help individuals pay for depending on their income levels, expenses, etc, in order to make health insurance more affordable for low income individuals.

Section 152 applies to the entire act, so if section 246 were not present in this subtitle then you would be correct and there would be no provision in this law excluding federal money financing illegal immigrants health insurance if they can't afford their own plans. But section 246 exists which explicitly excludes illegal immigrants from being eligible for affordability credits. If they want to pay for their own insurance I don't care, as long as my tax money isn't paying for them. I don't know, though, maybe you're of the opinion that people in any country illegally do not deserve any health care at all, though. The main reason for me, though, why I think that individuals not in the country legally shouldn't receive federal money for health care is because in most cases illegal immigrants are not paying taxes.

Section 242 establishes the eligibility criteria for affordable credits. It explicitly says it applies only to individuals who are lawfully present. It doesn't prohibit anyone from receiving healthcare, that would be inhumane (“you're in our country illegally with a completely treatable but if untreated completely fatal disease? Since you're illegal I don't care if you can pay for your treatment yourself you deserve to die!”, no that wouldn't be ok in my book, and health care includes care people can pay for themselves.). It does prohibit illegal aliens from receiving health care at our expense, and since it says that it won't give affordability credits to undocumented immigrants that effectively prescribes its method (“do you have a birth certificate or proof of citizenship? no? do you have a green card of a resident alien card or any other form of evidence that indicates that you are present in the country legally? no? come back when you do”). Section 1702 modifies existing laws that already exclude illegal immigrants. The exclusion doesn't have to be written into this act since it already exists in the laws that portion of this act applies to. Section 1714 is the same situation as section 1702. The exclusions of illegal immigrants don't need to be expressly written in this entire subtitle because it's already present in the laws that these sections will modify or add to.

Also I should point out that it would seem that the only reason you don't think the language in the bill is clearly stated is because the language in the bill, if read the way it is clearly written, doesn't say what you have interpreted it to say.

You should actually educate yourself instead of mimicking the blubbering idiocy of Sharon Begley on Newsweek.

Here let me help you:

1st in regards to your ill thought out comments about choice –

“Hey Fact Check, you forgot to inform your readers that while the bill doesn’t prevent insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums and that insurance companies can offer enhanced, premium, and premium plus plans, they must do so according to the the directives and mandates of the Health Choices Commissioner.

In other words, all those plans mentioned by FactCheck are Government Standardized Mandated Plans or “Qualified Benefit Health Plans” (QBHPs) as they like to call them.

In other words, if a person wants to participate in the Government run Health Insurance Exchange or the Government run Public Option within that Exchange, the person must “choose” one of the Government mandated “Qualified Benefit Health Plans”. By the way, if a person does not conform to what the Government wants them to do then they’re penalized with a 2.5 % tax on adjusted gross income.

In other words, a person has no choice. It’s only what the Government tells them what they can have.”

Now on to Begley's lack of reporting on Newsweek concerning illegals:

FLECKMAN – PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Now let me explain:

“SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.”

In particular, the phrase “without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” For me, I interpret this to mean that regardless of the individual’s race, gender, age, religion or national origin health care will be provided. Equally important is the phrase “Except as otherwise explicitly PERMITTED by this Act”.

Additionally there is a specific reference to national origin on page 763 where it deals with non discrimination of Disproportionate Share Hospitals and Essential Access Hospitals and I quote:

‘‘(A) provides services to beneficiaries under this title without discrimination on the ground of race, color, national origin, creed, source of payment, status as a beneficiary under this title, or any other ground unrelated to such beneficiary’s need for the services or the availability of the needed services in the hospital;”

I interpret – “without discrimination on the ground of national origin” as a basis and an opening for non-U.S. citizens to be provided health care in the U.S.

Now we have but to look at California to see how illegals are not allowed health care right? Yeah, right.

Additionally, you need to ask yourself why would Democrats in Congress vote down the Nathan Deal Amendment, that would prevent health care benefits to illegal aliens. Here’s the list who voted that down:

Capps (D-CA), Eshoo (D-CA), Harman (D-CA), Matsui (D-CA), McNerney (D-CA), Waxman (D-CA), DeGette (D-CO), Murphy (D-CT), Castor (D-FL), Rush (D-IL), Schakowsky (D-IL), Braley (D-IA), Sarbanes (D-MD), Markey (D-MA), Dingell (D-MI), Stupak (D-MI), Pallone (D-NJ), Weiner (D-NY), Butterfield (D-NC), Space (D-OH), Sutton (D-OH), Doyle (D-PA), Gordon (D-TN), Gonzalez (D-TX), Green (D-TX), Welch (D-VT), Christensen (D-VI), Inslee (D-WA), Baldwin (D-WI)

But let’s look even further at the bill and you’ll see why I say to all that to debate this health care monstrosity, you have to read the entire bill, page by page, line by line:

Section 242 of the bill prohibits “undocumented aliens” from receiving health care, but does not prescribe a method for preventing illegal aliens from receiving health care.

Section 1702 of the bill requires that “the State shall accept without further determination the enrollment under [the Medicaid program] of an individual determined by the Commissioner to be a non-traditional Medicaid eligible individual.” However, the bill does not require the government to apply the existing citizenship and identity verification requirements that exist in the current Medicare statute.

Section 1714 states, “in determining eligibility for services under this subsection, the State may consider only the income of the applicant or recipient.” This means that for certain non-essential services, the State can disregard an individual's immigration status and look only at the individual's income.

You should actually read the bill before you try and talk about it. Remember the information I posted about statutory interpretation as well.

You have the choice to participate in the Exchange or not, and it is between you and the insurance company what benefits you can choose if you don't participate in the Exchange (good luck with that.)

We have insurance regulation now, all the regulations outside the Exchange do is change the situation from no minimum standard on what insurance companies may offer in the market to requiring the offer some minimum set of coverage. Contrary to your word gaming, it's up to you to negotiate with the insurance companies to see if you can get more out of them. Again, get back to us how that works out for you.

Your arguments about illustrative language and claiming that opens up the door to government (which is all of us by the way in a democracy) equates to the government having the ability to restrict what you can choose to a limited set of benefits is another example of semantic game playing. As is the 2.5% tax on AGI which is designed to recover costs that on statistical average you will cause the rest of us to bear if you don't have health insurance, NOT if you don't have a specific set of benefits, because as already noted your argument about that is just semantic game playing.

Little of what you argued here is valid reasoning. It is largely a mix of redefining words in whatever way is convenient at different points in your statement, and of inviting people to draw false implicatures from juxtapositions of items you have actually related through valid argumentation.

Newsweek has just done a story pointing out this blog has simply been a mouthpiece for false information”

The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate
http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254