Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Banks, Holt, Moore Debate SB206 Effects

Jim Holt's SB206 would deny all "public benefits" that are "not federally mandated" to illegal aliens. The bill would also hold government employees who "knowingly" provide such benefits to illegal aliens accountable and add other protections against welfare and voter fraud.

The bill was locked up in committee in the Senate, but Senator Holt has said it is one of five measures he is considering running as a ballot initiative if the legislature does not pass similar legislation in 07.

Mr. Banks, a trial lawyer, has been quoted in several papers, including the April 10th edition of the NWA Times as saying about the bill, "I don't believe to deny emergency room services or other humanitarian aid to people within our state is consistent with principles of compassionate help, and it doesn't seem to be consistent with long-term fiscal responsibility to deny some components of health care to needy people, especially women and children."

Senator Holt and I adamantly objected to the claim that SB206 would deny anyone emergency medical services (click "Tuesday" below for a blow by blow account of the debate and test to see who makes a better case from the law)


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

First I, as Sentor Holt's Campaign Director, sent this rebuttle to the one press guy I talked to who actually seemed interested in correcting a mistatement that appeared in his column...

Anyway, here is a link to one of many articles that document that federal law mandates that hospitals must give Emergency Room treatment to anyone regardless of citizenship or ability to pay.

You can find a lot more just by googling EMTALA. That is the name for the act. Now I want to give you a link to SB206


Look at section Five at the bottom of page four and it clearly states that the act only applies to benefits that are "not federally mandated".

Not to bring up a sore point because some people were fueding with Jim
when the issue first came forward in early 2005, but a simple google
search with the terms "sb206 holt emergency medical" will show a number of articles where it was already established that no emergency medical services would be denied because of SB206. In other words the papers are reporting this misinformation anew in 2006 even though in 2005 the same papers already printed that IT WOULD NOT deny emergency medical services.

Don't worry, the people of Arkansas will still be picking up the tab for births of however many illegal aliens find their way to our hospital rooms to deliver. Or the hospitals themselves will have to bear it until they can no longer do so. Eleven emergency rooms in S. California have had to close down- denying emergency medical services to legal citizens and criminal lawbreakers alike. The reason is widely acknowledged to be that they can no longer stay in business providing free medical care to a flood of aliens.

Even some types of pre-natal care have been covered under EMTALA. If it is a medical emergency it is coverd. If it is just highly paid government employees handing out over-priced vitamins it would NOT be covered by EMTALA, and thus denied by SB206.

10:29 AM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

To which Mr. Bank's responded....

"Mr. Moore's response says to me that federal law will preempt the intent of SB206. That does not mean that SB206 does not say it.

The bigger point is the language of SB206 as a whole. I have not changed my position regarding the bill. Senator Holt's introduction of this bill and Mr. Moore's rhetoric about the bill is political opportunism because I don't believe that Mr. Holt thinks that the bill will pass nor will it have the support of the majority of his colleagues."

That was it! Two sentences in response to rock-solid documented evidence that the bill would not deny anyone emergency medical services. From there he goes on trying to change the subject and accussing Senator Holt and myself of a number of things.

I want you to notice how poorly reasoned his attempt to change the subject is. I dealt with it in detail in my reply to the reporter, coming up next.

10:36 AM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

My response to Mr. Bank's answer..

I will give Mr. Banks this much, he always sticks by his positions, regardless of the evidence or what the polls say people think about his ideas. Still, I gave detailed point-by-point referenced proofs that SB206 would not deny ANYBODY emergency medical care. It simply amazes me that all he would say in reply was...

"Mr. Moore’s response says to me that federal law will preempt the intent of SB206. That does not mean that SB206 does not say it."

First of all the intent of SB206 deals with PUBLIC BENEFITS that are NOT FEDERALLY MANDATED. That is in the bill and I have shown you the bill and you know that this is the language. Because that is the intent of SB206, Mr. Banks is flat wrong when he says federal law will "prempt the intent" of sb206. It can't do so because the intent of sb206 is to address public benefit programs that are not federally mandated.

That brings me to a second reason Mr. Banks is flat wrong about it. The courts have ruled with Arizona's Prop. 200 (sb206 was based on prop. 200) that emergency medical care that hospitals are mandated to provide but for which taxpayer dollars are not used is not a "public benefit". Rather, it is an unfunded mandate government has put on the hospitals. Both EMTALA and a similar law we have on the books in Arkansas called the Emergency Medical Care Act fall under this category. (Look uo Arkansas Code 20-9-309 and you will see that this is an accurate description of the law)

10:40 AM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

That is just ONE (actually two)proof sb206 would not deny anyone emergency medical services under either state or federal law. To add even more weight to the case, here is a snippet from this (http://www.yesonprop200.com/articles/articles.html) website on what a "public benefit" is and is not..,the orginal article is by Dan Stein and Mike Hethmon and appeared in the Nov 22nd 2004 edition of the "Legal Times"...

"Opponents of Proposition 200 conjured some truly nasty scenarios in their television ads, including one memorable spot where an Anglo-appearing accident victim whose arm is pinned under a boulder is told by the paramedic that he cannot be rescued until he produces his citizenship papers.

But the only reasonable interpretation of the benefits provision is that it covers all the public benefits listed under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, at 8 U.S.C. §1621—that is, any grant, contract, loan, or professional or commercial license, as well as any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public housing, post-secondary education, food assistance, unemployment, or other similar benefit that is funded by a state or local government. Excluded are emergency medical care, short-term in-kind disaster relief, public health assistance for immunization and treatment of communicable diseases, community soup kitchens and shelter services, and services “necessary for the protection of life or safety.”

In passing the Welfare Reform Act, Congress created a uniform legislative scheme regulating noncitizen benefits. State variations from that scheme are inherently suspect. That was the problem with Proposition 187, where the use of the generic term “illegal alien” was found in LULAC v. Wilson I to conflict with the federal scheme. The drafters of Proposition 200 took care not to follow in Proposition 187’s footsteps."

Note that SB206 was fashioned after Arizona's Prop. 200 so the same legal reasoning applies.

10:44 AM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I further wrote the reporter...

The bottom line is that sb206 would not deny anyone emergency medical services under either state or federal law, all it would do was prevent the taxpayers of Arkansas from having to pay for such services when rendered to people who are here illegally.

That shows that Senator Holt is correct on SB206 and Mr. Bank's charges are simply and overwhelmingly wrong. He is a lawyer, but this is public policy law. That is a very different kind of law from from personal injury law. This is why we maintain that Senator holt is the one who has the most relevant experience for Lt. Governror.

Mr. Banks expends about two sentences making false allegations that Senator Holt is trying to deny people emergency medical care, essentially trying to kill people, and then complains that Senator Holt should answer the charges himself instead of staff. That is totally unrealistic. It takes him about four seconds to make a false allegation, but it takes hours to put together the research that proves it false. He can't expect Senator Holt to personally take the time needed to refute every false allegation, especially those that are not credible.

And what is the logic behind his accusations that "the bill is political opportunism because I don't believe that Mr. Holt thinks the bill will pass"? Number one, how does he know Jim Holt's motives that are inside Senator Holt's heart and mind when he does not even know the law concerning SB 206 which is right there in black and white? Secondly, Senator Holt has already said that if the legislature won't pass it he will consider taking it to the people as a ballot initiative (as was done in Arizona).

If Senator Holt is willing to go around the legislature, then how can it be "opportunism" because he is advocating something he "knows the legislature won't pass"? In reality, the tide is turning on this issue, and it would not be that surprising if the legislature does pass something like sb206 next time.

10:46 AM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Finally, Senator Holt takes time away from his schedule, and his wife who I understand is going into labor this morning, to answer the "opportunism" charges....

From Senator Holt...

I'm truly sorry that Mr. Banks has been misinformed, but we have made every opportunity to inform him that SB206 does not take away ANYONE's privilege to emergency medical care. The federal law EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) insures emergency medical treatment is available to everyone. So Mr. Banks does not have to worry, he, the people of this state, and I will continue to pay for every illegal's emergency room visit. New Mexico and southern California have had to close many emergency rooms. Even Hospitals have been closed because the demand was greater than the people could pay.

As far as being an opportunist, I find that quite comical when we have been out front on this issue for quite some time and introduced the bill over 15 months ago. It didn't feel opportunistic when we received five negative editorials in six days, claiming I was a racist for trying to explain that with citizenship comes benefits, but also a great responsibility. We could be called upon to give our lives for our freedoms and our country - an illegal WILL NEVER have that responsibility. Being a Veteran, I understand this and realize if we have extra money it should go to our citizens and veterans first - charity begins at home. Compassion to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

10:51 AM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW--have fast can you back-pedal, twist, change your words and outright lie? What is comical is how fast you change your "beliefs" when some damage is being done. Holt and you may "adamantly object to the claim that it would deny anyone emergency medical services", but that is exactly what Holt has said over and over and over. No emergency room visits, no pre-natal care, no band-aids. And don't bother denying it. It's on tape.
Banks (and Matayo) win this one hands down.

11:42 AM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When will Holt ever speak for himself? I think he wants to have the option of saying "I never said that, it was my campaign mgr."

11:44 AM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Senator Jim Holt the only U.S. military veteran in the Lt. Gov. race? Did Chuck Banks dodge serving his country during the Vietnam conflict? Has Doug Matayo even been in R.O.T.C.?

11:54 AM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, Jim said yesterday that he told you to stay off the blogs. Take his advice and find something better to do.

12:03 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:42 you are some piece of work. Overwhelming documentation is provided that it would NOT deny emergency room services or delivery services, including pre-natal care that falls into those groups, and you STILL, with NO EVIDENCE claim it will.

You say you have it on tape. Hey, make an MP3 file and send it out to the blogs if you have it, other wise, stop your mad-dog attacks and distortions. You have no evidence, except of your own mental illness.

I remember Holt saying the same thing 15 months ago when this bill came up as he is saying now. Google it and you can probably still find an article on this. They tried to pin this "will deny emegency medical care" lie on him then and it was disproven, now you are crazy, and I mean CRAZY, enough to come on here and deny the documented.

12:04 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Look two posts above yours. It is a quote from Holt.

12:05 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moore, I'm glad you pointed out that Banks is a lawyer. Hope you never need one - because if you did, most of them would run away from a chance to represent you.

12:06 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck Banks was in the Army Reserve. I don't know about Doug's service in any military outfit.

12:09 PM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I don't have any problem with him being a lawyer. I object to him giving out misinformation to the press about what the law says and then sticking by his misinformation even when presented with clear evidence that he is wrong.

He makes out like Jim Holt is not compassionate and wants to throw people out of emergency rooms to die. Don't make out like I am the bad guy here. Mr. Banks is insinuating that Jim Holt is not compassionate. That is a personal attack. I showed what the law really said. That is issues-oriented.

This whole thing was unnecessary. I tried to warn them privately that they were incorrect and they blew me off.

12:15 PM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Hey, my wife and I were married by a full-time lawyer, part time preacher. He is a man who knows the heart of God, better than me I think.

I realize not all lawyers are bad. It is just the 95% of them that give the rest a bad name.


12:20 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...and you STILL, with NO EVIDENCE claim it will."
I'M not claiming it. Jim Holt has spent the last 1 1/2 years claiming it. But now, four weeks away from election, he realizes his stance on no pre-natal care for immigrants is back-firing and he's trying to change his tune. He's doing more flip-flopping than John Kerry. And don't worry, the tapes will be used, but not on these blogs. You'll just have to wait and see...

12:39 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Holt made a WHOLE quote and Mark Moore made the rest. I didn't know Holt could speak. I'm not impressed.

12:41 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Holt does not have time to personally answer in detail every inaccurate charge made against him. There is a wall of mud coming at him constantly. The big-government "conservatives" are running scared. His staff has to do the grunt work on some of this stuff.

12:48 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can he possibly not have the time?? All the other Lt. Gov. candidates have full-time jobs as well as all the time they're spending campaigning. Chuck Banks had the time to respond to everything, I can assure you that he's a lot busier than Holt. Same goes for Matayo.

12:50 PM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

You are out of your mind. It is right there in the article. Pre-natal "services" that are not part of labor or are not a medical emergency are not covered. AN example would be vitamins. Those things that are related to medical emergencies are.

12:51 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about ultra-sounds at, say, 20 weeks along? Inform me on what Holt's position is on that.

12:55 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ultrasounds? You mean so they can determine if there is some excuse to perform an abortion? The taxpayers should not have to fund that. Lot's of Americans can't afford that so why should they be forced to pay for an illegal immigrants?

12:58 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What service beside Pre-Natal Care would be taken away by SB206

1:38 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are from another planet if you think ultrasounds are for deciding an abortion! You are obviously a man who has never had a child before. Ultrasounds are for deciding if a baby is healthy or in some sort of distress so that you can help that baby thrive. There are a host of problems that can be corrected by the use of an ultrasound. Doctors can even perform surgery in the womb nowadays. And I am not advocating that taxpayers should have to pay for that, but I am advocating that every baby deserves the best chance at a healthy life. That is the polar opposite of Holt's views.

1:41 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:58 You are a disgrace to the human race. Ultrasounds are commonly used to diagnose problems that can be fixed during the pregnancy. That SAVES a life, it doesn't destroy it. Most people don't use ultrasounds as a tool to decide whether or not to have an abortion. That is called an AMNIO, which I disagree with. My spouse and I have suffered 4 miscarriages and ultrasounds were used everytime to make sure the life inside was over. Some people could mistakingly have a D&C before fully knowing that the life is over, without ultrasounds. Luckily I only had to have one D&C because I would not be here otherwise, but I had to make very sure before I was willing to have one, which was a 2 week process.

1:48 PM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"And I am not advocating that taxpayers should have to pay for that, but I am advocating that every baby deserves the best chance at a healthy life. That is the polar opposite of Holt's views"

Actually your views and Holt's views are the same on this issue.

1:51 PM, April 25, 2006  
Blogger kw's blog said...

Taken from the article at:

4. “helping the poor”
Luke 14:13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
Matthew 23:5-7 5"Everything they(Pharisees) do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

John 12:3-8 3Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." Peter 4 : 14If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

Luke 14:13 is one of the many verses that say to help the poor. However, there are other verses in the Bible that deal with many of the “bleeding heart types” that twist the act of helping the poor into their own agenda. Many people “help the poor” to make an effort to draw attention to themselves. Many in the illegal immigration agenda claim to help the poor so that they can advance the ideas of multiculturalism, “Aztlan” (the racist Hispanic succession of the Southwest from the United States), socialist equality, and similar agendas. To criticize their agenda is portrayed as being “mean” to those in poverty. There are also those who think that it’s OK to break the law if you are “helping the poor”, the Bible states otherwise.

2:30 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:51--I believe in pre-natal care for every human life...Holt believes that pre-natal care is nothing but "expensive vitamins."
One view can save a life--one view dismisses it as not that important. Holt and I are polar opposites.

8:35 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

Negative, the vitamins were just an example of the type of prenatal care that we feel hospitals and taxpayers should not be forced to provide to persons who are here illegally. No one is saying they can't have them, just that we don't want the bill. They can buy their own.

We don't say pre-natal care is "just expensive vitamins", we just distinguish between the types of prenatal care that the law mandates a hospital must provide regardless of citizenship or ability to pay and the kind that the taxpayers will pay for if one is a legal citizen.

You also said that the taxpayers should not have to pay for pre-natal care, if you are 1:51. So the issue is not denying prenatal care, but rather denying automatic access to taxpayer's pockets to pay for it.

That is pretty much Holt's position. There should be good pre-natal care, but it is not our responsiblitiy to pay for the world's prenatal care.

Did we even have ultrasound a generation ago? Then how can we be "cruel" to - not deny them the benefit mind you, but simply ask that they pay for their own ultrasound if that is what they want.

9:03 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ultrasounds ARE routinely used to search for birth defects so that people can decide if they want to abort (or maybe they were just hoping for a baby of the other sex).

Just google these four terms..

ultrasound abortion screening defects

or go to wickpedia here....


And it will be clear that ultrasounds ARE used to search for reasons to abort. The Amnio is done later.

9:11 PM, April 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't find out the sex of a baby until week 20. Amnios are done at week 15. You would be having a late term abortion if you are using ultrasound to determine anything.

Like I said earlier, I would have lost my life if it wasn't for the ultrasound during my 3rd miscarriage.

"Did we even have ultrasound a generation ago?" Do we really want to go back to the way things used to be? There was a time when a woman who had more than 5 children usually died. Advanced technology is a usually a wonderful thing.

I don't think we need to rely on "google" for all of our information. Remember, you can google Jim Holt and see all sorts of things about white supremecy. You shouldn't always believe everything you read on the internet.

6:15 AM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are building a straw-man argument when you imply that one side is for using technology and the other is not. No one is advocating turning away from technology. I think the point is who pays for its use, the beneficiary or some third party like the taxpayers?

Clearly, we cannot afford to provide the most expensive high-tech health care to everyone. Perhaps people who are in this country illegally should pay for their own non-emergency medical care rather than have the bill sent to you and I.

Perhaps the fundamental problem is that some people see government-provided health care as a "right" rather than a priviledge. I don't see how it can be a "right" when someone else has to be made to pay for it.

No one has a "right" to anyone else's income or property.

6:50 AM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a lot of things I don't think we should have to pay for as taxpayers. I don't like free handouts, period. The problem is Jim Holt keeps voting to raise our taxes. You can't say that you don't think that anyone has a right to someone else's income or property, but then support a candidate that raises taxes. That doesn't make any sense.

7:21 AM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bleh. We've been over that lame attack a thousand times.

7:54 AM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not an attack, it's truth. And raising taxes is not "lame", it's wrong, especially when you call yourself a Republican.

1:48 PM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Moore "Did we not have ultrasound a generation ago?" What difference does that make? We didn't have Viagra a generation ago either, but if you needed it I am sure you would use it! If you or your friends were poor and needed a very expensive life-saving surgery, you would take whatever you had to take to get it. Don't expect anyone to believe otherwise. What if it was your own child, and you had no money?

2:32 PM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You bile spitters are SO STUPID! I cannot believe Mark puts up with you. You cannot even read a simple, logically connected argument. All you do is attack, attack, attack in a blind rage.

6:00 PM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:00 Your entire comment was just done in a blind rage. You are the one that just resorted to name calling. That shows how true stupidity. If Mark can't "put up with it" he shouldn't have created this blog site. You can't expect everyone on here to agree with you and then blow up everytime someone makes you mad. I guess you'll learn that with maturity.

7:13 PM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know you are but what am I?

Pure genius.

8:22 PM, April 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I looked through 20 pages on google and found none of this racist stuff you claim is there

7:30 PM, April 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:30--Look under "Jim Holt Protect Arkansas Now" (the organization Holt started) and you'll fine a lot of it.

8:23 PM, April 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, what you'll find is alot of people throwing around the term "racist." The same people who are accusing those who oppose amnesty of being racists.

8:48 PM, April 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only people that are racist are illegal aleins. I had to pull my son out of school because they were threatining his life & the school wouldn't do anything about it. I do not like the idea of my tax dollors going to help people that threaten to kill my son.

6:09 AM, April 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! 366 gmc mileage Nissan skyline for sale in uk corgi rcmp land rover mortgage lender san antonio supplements Thyroid disease hair loss Free sex cams web cams Peninsula eagle laser barcode scanner Minnesota gmc dealers texas hold em blind schedule Isuzu running board gary linker football

3:41 AM, March 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent, love it! » » »

4:37 PM, April 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home