Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who “lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about.” The president continued: “They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.”

The Illinois man’s sister recalls the facts quite differently.  She testified before a House Subcommittee on June 16 that, after originally declining coverage, the insurance company reversed its decision.  She continued that,

her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week “window of opportunity” from “one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine,” that the procedure “was extremely successful,” and that “it extended his life nearly three and a half years.”

And, there is more.  The President, in trying to demonstrate that the public option is necessary to keep insurance companies “honest”, used Alabama as an example.  He claimed that one insurer in Alabama controlled 90% of the market, and said that such control,

“makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.”

Within moments, the Birmingham News took issue with that statement as well.  The insurance company is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, and it actually has 75% of the market in Alabama.  Not only is it not “overcharging small business”, and “jacking up rates”,

its “profit” averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.

And, were that not enough,

Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer’s apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition—especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna.

If Obamacare is suppossed to be the best thing to ever come down the pike, why does the administration feel compelled to distort reality to peddle it to the American public?

Remember, this is not some loophole that was discovered on Wednesday night after Wilson’s appropriate outburst. This was a known issue Democrats refused to acknowledge. As a matter of fact, Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) offered two amendments in the House Ways and Means Committee – the second in early August – that would use existing systems to verify citizenship. From NRO’s health care blog…

The House bill, as currently structured, does not offer clear guidelines to ensure that illegal immigrants cannot access taxpayer-funded health care benefits. Rep. Dean Heller (R., Nev.) introduced an amendment that would use two citizenship status verification systems, the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) programs, to establish an individual’s eligibility to obtain the bill’s proposed affordability credits or enroll in the public insurance option. Both programs are currently used to determine citizenship status and eligibility for public assistance programs. Safeguards to guarantee that only citizens can access federal health care benefits are necessary, considering that the US Census Bureau currently estimates that 9.6 million of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens. The first Heller amendment failed on a straight party-line vote.

Democrats insisted illegal aliens would not be able to buy insurance in any federally subsidized plan, but refused to put any type of enforcement mechanism into the legislation. Friday night, I guess they changed their mind.

From Time on Friday.

The controversy over Republican Representative Joe Wilson’s shouting “You lie!” at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn’t benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. “We really thought we’d resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President’s speech last night, we wanted to go back and drill down again,” said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Later that afternoon, [Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus] said the group would add a proof-of-citizenship requirement for participation in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

Rasmussen Reports has a poll showing 83 percent wanted a citizenship requirement included in health care legislation.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of voters nationwide say that people should be required to prove they are a citizen of the United States before receiving government health care subsidies. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 12% disagree and five percent (5%) are not sure.

The desire to limit the benefits to U.S. citizens is found across demographic and partisan lines. It is held by 95% of Republicans, 70% of Democrats and 87% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is favored by nine-out-of-10 conservatives and moderates, along with 56% of those who consider themselves politically liberal. But 32% of liberals hold the opposite view.

Has the Senate’s move to include a citizenship verification inflamed the left? Allah over at Hot Air notes a post over at TMP by Brian Beutler who is ticked off that a non-existent problem is being solved. Why so negative in your post Brian? There is plenty of negativity out there.

A commenter over at Rick Green’s blog – before Friday’s Time story – wrote that my argument was “hateful and absurd” propaganda. Yeah, right. I suppose you think I’m a racist too?

Posts from columnists like Margery Eagan at the Boston Herald who completely twists Wilson’s argument into one that would turn illegal immigrants away from an emergency room and at the same time toss the race card out just serve to drive up the rhetoric. Southerner’s you know, are uncivilized racist bigots. Read her post as she reaches into Wilson’s past and determines he wants all immigrants dead. Let me know what you think in the comments below.

If you’re interested in reading more, Malkin, Gateway Pundit, Power Line and Strata-Sphere are blogging. You can also read a report from the Center for Immigration Studies.

Remember my position on health care. If the people want to have a government option, it must evolve at the state level as the federal government has no Constitutional authority in this area. Does that mean I want Social Security shut down as one of the left’s talking points suggest? (Isn’t that a shocker) No, it means the programs – if offered – must be offered through the states.

When your argument is weak … don’t debate the issue or the veracity of the statements (re: Congressman Joe Wilson) … play the race card and distract.

The best comes at the beginning … followed by Democrat Julian Epstein who calls the Tea Party Patriots a fringe movement … followed at the 4 minute mark by Ann calling out Epstein in Joe Wilson fashion. You lie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9LbgynEpx8

If only it were true … “I’m going to ask you about Joe Wilson just one more time.” Optimist!

Update: Here’s a link to what Ann was talking about. MSNBC.