Immigrants, Health Care and the 14th Amendment

[Krazy P]

"the President knows that the federal law requires that whatever healthcare is made available must be made available to citizen and non-citizen alike and under non-citizen to lawful resident and unlawful resident alike. We know this because in the state of California they recently enacted a proposition. That's a vote in November, that's not a law by the legislature, that's a vote by the people which sought to bar all social services to illegal aliens and two federal courts threw it out and the Supreme Court decided not to hear it; if the government has a federal option to make healthcare available to any American that wants it, without having to pay for it directly, through the taxes of others, they cannot restrict that only to citizens."

When asked about Senator Max Baucus's claim that he would add provisions in to the bill to prevent this, Napolitano answered that just as in California, this, "would be found unconstitutional, not because of statutory law, but on the basis of constitutional law."

Obama was a professor of constitutional law.

Was he lying?

Not technically. He knows that he can put provisions limiting health care to illegals in the legislation - he also knows they will be deemed unconstitutional. In my mind not only is he lying, he is doing so in a very calculating way.

Here is the relevant reference to the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th amendment from Wikipedia:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[themuzicman]

(And people wonder why I want the 14th repealed...)

Joe Wilson, decor or not, was correct.

[reb]

he's a sneaky fella. on the one hand, politicians make me want to toss my cookies. otoh, i have to admire their complete lack of morals, and drive to get control. they are really the perfect social predators. we are witnessing 'tyrannosaurus rex' in action.

[larkin]

Sigh. To paraphrase Bill O'Reilly - you believe it because you want to (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[rahdam]

Sigh. To paraphrase Bill O'Reilly - you believe it because you want to (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.



You lie!



FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange. We don't see anything in the bills that would hinder that.



The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option.


PolitiFact contradicts itself...given a public option, supported by many healthcare reform supporters, illegal immigrants likely WILL be insured by the result of the reform effort, despite the title of the article and the statement by Obama. You can argue that they are paying for it, but then I can argue that inevitiably the public option will be supported...publicly. Not that that matters...technically, regardless of who pays, illegal immigrants would be beneficiaries of healthcare reform.

Did you read the whole article?
PolitiFact is overrated.

[LaoTzu]

inevitiably the public option will be supported...publicly.

This is the foundation of the argument about insuring illegals? not what I would consider a solid one...

If the public option becomes the only option, and if it runs at a deficit and is then supported by public funding; then Obama is a liar...

Ok fine. :)





LaoTzu added to this post, 2 minutes and 5 seconds later...

PS: This is the kind of argument that I really enjoy hearing. It makes sense, is relevant, and isn't chock full of rhetorical bullshit.
Thanks for a good angle Krazy P!

[rahdam]

This is the foundation of the argument about insuring illegals? not what I would consider a solid one...

If the public option becomes the only option, and if it runs at a deficit and is then supported by public funding; then Obama is a liar...

Ok fine. :)


I made no argument against insuring illegals.

I did use PolitiFact and Obama's own words to show that if he gets his way and gets his public option, he will have effectively lied.

[Lucid]

So, as an example, if an illegal immigrant purchases a plane ticket to fly from Kansas to Florida, because the government has subsidized the airline industry, those airline bailouts benefited illegal aliens and anyone who promised that such a bailout would not benefit illegal aliens is a liar??

This strikes me as a strange standard.

[thod]

I don't see your argument. The 14th amendment relates to equal protection under the law. This is fair enough. A visiting alien should receive police protection from assault, rape and robbery in the same manner as a citizen. Otherwise it would be open season on tourists visiting the US.

This is no way means that illegals have to be furnished healthcare just as they do qualify for other welfare payments. Most of Europe has universal healthcare, but if you move countries you only qualify if your country has a reciprocal agreement with your home country. Should a US tourist fall sick in Europe, they do not get free healthcare, they must have insurance. Otherwise we would have health tourism where Americans fly over for free heart operations.

I cannot see illegals using such health care since would reveal them and result in immediate deportation. It is simply another GOP scare tactic designed to raise anger that 'our' tax dollars are being spent on 'them'.

[Luciferi]

A visiting alien should receive police protection from assault, rape and robbery in the same manner as a citizen. Otherwise it would be open season on tourists visiting the US.

There is a difference between visitors and illegal aliens. People who are visiting come here on a visa. They are following the rules. Illegals sneak in and break the rules. Visitors intend to leave. Illegals do not.

Most of Europe has universal healthcare, but if you move countries you only qualify if your country has a reciprocal agreement with your home country. Should a US tourist fall sick in Europe, they do not get free healthcare, they must have insurance.

Not entirely true. I spend half my year in the UK, but I am an American citizen. On one visit, I became ill and needed to see a doctor in order to get a prescription medication. I went to a walk-in NHS clinic. They asked for my NHS number and I said I didn't have one but would be quite willing to pay whatever the going rate was for the service.

The receptionist looked absolutely baffled and informed me it was free for everyone. I said I wasn't a UK resident. She said it was still free and they could not take my money. Well... okay, I guess.

Not only was I not charged for the doctor visit, they also wouldn't let me pay for the medications. I would like to say this clinic was just an exception, but I have also taken my boss for doctor visits and entire clinics and hospitals are filled with non-citizens and non-residents. No wonder their system is going bankrupt. But quite honestly, they don't have the manpower to play the role of immigration officers. You come in, you get seen, questions are minimal.

I cannot see illegals using such health care since would reveal them and result in immediate deportation.

They already use emergency rooms for just such a purpose. It should be obvious to anyone in the ER that the family that speaks only Spanish and cannot provide social security numbers are probably illegal immigrants. It doesn't stop them and they don't get reported or deported. The average ER wait time is about 4-6 hours now because illegals go there for free healthcare (since no one can be turned away) and go there even if they just need a Tylenol for a headache. They have bankrupted many, many hospitals by doing this.

[thod]

There is a difference between visitors and illegal aliens. People who are visiting come here on a visa. They are following the rules. Illegals sneak in and break the rules. Visitors intend to leave. Illegals do not.

Could an illegal be convicted for failing to fill in a tax return? He is not a citizen after all and therefore is not obliged to. This illustrates a subtle difference. The law applies to all men on US soil, citizen or not, legal or not. Others only apply to citizens.

The receptionist looked absolutely baffled and informed me it was free for everyone. I said I wasn't a UK resident. She said it was still free and they could not take my money. Well... okay, I guess.

Yep, the NHS treats almost everyone. There was a big scandal a few years back where bus loads of Russian cancer patients were coming over and checking in to hospitals overloading them looking for free treatment. Try that elsewhere, I am a UK citizen in France. I am not covered for anything beyond minimal treatment via my NHS card. You don't pay into the system, you can't take out.

[rahdam]

So, as an example, if an illegal immigrant purchases a plane ticket to fly from Kansas to Florida, because the government has subsidized the airline industry, those airline bailouts benefited illegal aliens and anyone who promised that such a bailout would not benefit illegal aliens is a liar??

This strikes me as a strange standard.

Read what you wrote.
Factually, it is true that the airline bailout benefited illegal aliens. It also benefited legal aliens and US citizens, to be sure, but if someone claimed that the airline bailout did not benefit illegal aliens, they would not be telling the truth, because it did benefit them, as it did the rest.

[Luciferi]

Could an illegal be convicted for failing to fill in a tax return? He is not a citizen after all and therefore is not obliged to. This illustrates a subtle difference. The law applies to all men on US soil, citizen or not, legal or not. Others only apply to citizens.

No, but he can be convicted for working illegally (and the reason it is illegal for them to work is because they don't pay taxes) and their employer would be convicted for employing them and failing to pay the appropriate taxes.

Also, I think there is a fundamental difference between protecting people from crime and providing health care.


Yep, the NHS treats almost everyone. There was a big scandal a few years back where bus loads of Russian cancer patients were coming over and checking in to hospitals overloading them looking for free treatment. Try that elsewhere, I am a UK citizen in France. I am not covered for anything beyond minimal treatment via my NHS card. You don't pay into the system, you can't take out.


Well, I also considered mentioning that when I was in Poland and needed to see a doctor, I was treated for free, but I don't know how the logistics of that worked. My then-fiance negotiated the arrangement and I didn't know enough Polish to understand what was going on. So I'm not sure if that is the norm there or not, but it also struck me as odd that an American can just waltz in and be treated...

I very strongly suspect that that would end up being the case in the US, as well. We already give aliens free, unquestioned access to everything else.

[Lucid]

Read what you wrote.
Factually, it is true that the airline bailout benefited illegal aliens. It also benefited legal aliens and US citizens, to be sure, but if someone claimed that the airline bailout did not benefit illegal aliens, they would not be telling the truth, because it did benefit them, as it did the rest.

I think this is a little silly. No offense. But I think you're blowing this out of proportion a bit.

[rahdam]

I think this is a little silly. No offense. But I think you're blowing this out of proportion a bit.

To me, it's about as absurd as linking a politifact article that blatantly contradicts itself.
No more, no less.

[Ool]

I think you’re confusing healthcare with health insurance. Of course you mustn’t turn anyone away who needs medical treatment, rich or poor, citizen or foreigner, legal or illegal immigrant. Even if you were very cynical and inhumane, if you introduced rules of that nature and you were delivered to an emergency ward incommunicado as John or Jane Doe, what would they be supposed to do, not knowing whether you’re legal or not, whether you can pay or not…?

But you can deny the opportunity to have healthcare coverage to illegal immigrants, which is, by the way, not exactly the smartest strategy, because they’ll still cost the hospital for their emergency treatment but they won’t get the opportunity to pay anything into the system themselves.

So the strategy of not offering illegals insurance is actually stupid, particularly while looking the other way when they’re hired in droves by private businesses…

[larkin]

PolitiFact contradicts itself...given a public option, supported by many healthcare reform supporters, illegal immigrants likely WILL be insured by the result of the reform effort, despite the title of the article and the statement by Obama. You can argue that they are paying for it, but then I can argue that inevitiably the public option will be supported...publicly. Not that that matters...technically, regardless of who pays, illegal immigrants would be beneficiaries of healthcare reform.

Did you read the whole article?
PolitiFact is overrated.

To me, it's about as absurd as linking a politifact article that blatantly contradicts itself.
No more, no less.

You think your own argument is absurd? Wow. Well, you don't like Politifact, we get it, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) are (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) few (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) more (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)examples (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I'm sure you'll find they all "blatantly contradict themselves" before coming to the conclusion Obama wasn't lying - in part because that's what fact check sites do, they consider different sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion. Are they all overrated? Do you not like those sites either? Part of the media conspiracy? (I did read them before I posted the links, but thanks for your generous concern.)

You basically claim that any expansion in government - from roads to police forces to military - is ultimately one big benefit to illegal aliens. As Lucid pointed out, by your argument, if I were to vote for an increase in funding for a city fire department you could make the claim I was giving benefits to illegal aliens, and to dispute that conclusion is "lying." Even if the specific legislation prohibits direct benefits. Others find this giant leap of logic you pass as a basis for inflammatory ad hominem unpersuasive to say the least, and prefer to focus on the actual text of the actual bill as a measure for who's telling the truth.

The conclusion that Obama's lying (when pointing out what the legislation actually says) means to imply the bill is one giant giveaway to illegal aliens. That's not the intent or the reality of the bill, and to say otherwise is coyly parsing words with the purpose of misrepresenting the bill at best, plain demagoguery at worst. It's certainly not meant to encourage meaningful debate. But why would we expect anything different from the opposition at this point?

[Lucid]

To me, it's about as absurd as linking a politifact article that blatantly contradicts itself.
No more, no less.

So how would an illegal immigrant be able to purchase health insurance from the government legally if they can't purchase health insurance from private industry already?

[nacht]

Politifact was somewhat subtle, but not contradicting itself and certainly not "blatantly" doing so.

To quote Fact Check (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.


The politifact article mentions that illegal immigrants are already excluded from medicaid, it also mentions that the bill specifically forbids credits for people who are here illegally. This doesn't mean that illegal immigrants couldn't benefit from the legislation and it doesn't mean they couldn't buy insurance if they can buy it now. Basically no change in the current situation, except that they would benefit from the same reforms that benefit everyone else (at no particular cost to the government).

That's not a contradiction, and a pretty strong case can be made that the reforms either don't--or only peripherally--affect those who are here illegally. The quoting of the article is, at best, selective.

FactCheck, again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):


CRS also found that the bill technically requires illegal immigrants to obtain health insurance, but that’s hardly a benefit and certainly not a cost to taxpayers. In fact, under this interpretation, they could be fined if they fail to obtain it.


I'm entirely unconvinced that this is a bad thing.

That's not even including the more recent support for requiring proof of citizenship (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in an effort to appease these fearmongers.

CNN's conclusion was similar (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):


False. A new report finds the bill could require illegal immigrants to buy coverage, but it clearly restricts subsidies to U.S. citizens and legal residents.


Okay, so even if the can buy coverage, so what? It's unsubsidized, and insurance companies will still be charging premiums according to risk and average cost, so what's the problem? That's even without the legal residency requirement on the purchase of insurance which may be added, which doesn't even exist today.

Then there is Open Congress's statement (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which includes the text of the bill and says:


However, as we have blogged before (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), the claim is easily debunked by simply reading the bill, which you can do, right here, right now.


But let's not let the facts stand in the way of some good ol' fashioned mud slinging.

[zippikay]

But isn't that what the public wants to hear? with the citizens are in peril the outcry for equal pain--if not more towards the illegals are even louder.

What is illegal alien, how do you determine if one is legal or not? social security card? green card? naturalization certificate? birth certificate? driver's license? blood? race?

Okay, so let's assume that the universal healthcare is there, and illegal alien are not to receive it...

1. you can always steal some other people's identification
2. if the method of differentiating legal and illegal are finally implemented with huge amount of dollar being invested and lets assume that illegals would not receive health care at all (except in emergency), people can easily redefine "emergency"
3. so let's say illegals are to be let die no matter what, what about the humanists opinion?

hmmm.... so many intriguing ideas

[nacht]

What is illegal alien, how do you determine if one is legal or not? social security card? green card? naturalization certificate? birth certificate? driver's license? blood? race?


One who is in the country illegally.

To see what is sufficient to verify one's status as eligible to work in the US, see the I9 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) form. To simply be in the US a passport with an appropriate set of visas is sufficient.


Okay, so let's assume that the universal healthcare is there, and illegal alien are not to receive it...

1. you can always steal some other people's identification


By-and-large an irrelevant point. Or have you never gone through the process of purchasing health insurance?


2. if the method of differentiating legal and illegal are finally implemented with huge amount of dollar being invested and lets assume that illegals would not receive health care at all (except in emergency), people can easily redefine "emergency"


No different than the current situation. You cannot be turned down from an ER, and there are numerous people who use the ER for their only source of medical care. That isn't changing, and it isn't being expanded.

This is also about health insurance and the purchase of health insurance. What happens in an ER is largely irrelevant from the point of view of whether illegal aliens can purchase insurance, or whether that insurance will be subsidized in some way.


3. so let's say illegals are to be let die no matter what, what about the humanists opinion?


What about them? Again, this is about insurance.

[Krazy P]

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the California case in which the voters in California sought to restrict social services provided by the state to residents who were citizens. The Federal appellate court decision stands as the law of the land. The explicit objective of the law which was voted by CA residents was to limit social services to citizens and exclude illegal residents.

I am not saying its good or bad, it is what it is.

If health care becomes a social service provided to residents by the state, illegal residents cannot be excluded under the current interpretation of constitutional law.

Emergency rooms are one example. Lap band surgery? Cancer treatment? Drug rehab?

[nacht]

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the California case in which the voters in California sought to restrict social services provided by the state to residents who were citizens. The Federal appellate court decision stands as the law of the land. The explicit objective of the law which was voted by CA residents was to limit social services to citizens and exclude illegal residents.

1) Which court case?

2) If your summation is accurate, then the determination is that they cannot restrict it based on citizenship; which is not the same as restricting based on residency.

Simply put: When discussing points of law at this level the details matter, as does the precise justification the courts have used.

We should also note that there are already restrictions in medicare and medicaid against illegal immigrants receiving it, and those are substantially closer to a "social service" than even the public option, let alone the reforms without the public option.


If health care becomes a social service provided to residents by the state, illegal residents cannot be excluded under the current interpretation of constitutional law.


The reforms in question don't make it a "social service" under any definition that I am aware of that it isn't already.

[zippikay]

One who is in the country illegally.

To see what is sufficient to verify one's status as eligible to work in the US, see the I9 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) form. To simply be in the US a passport with an appropriate set of visas is sufficient.

Hypothetically, theoretically, but what about in practice? How can we tell in reality? Illegals can have social security numbers and claim to have lost the passport, citizen could lost a passport and forget the soc sec number...



By-and-large an irrelevant point. Or have you never gone through the process of purchasing health insurance?

Only through my employer, currently, but if I would venture alone, they would need the same thing, the almighty SS#, right?


No different than the current situation. You cannot be turned down from an ER, and there are numerous people who use the ER for their only source of medical care. That isn't changing, and it isn't being expanded.

and that is precisely the issue, why bother buying insurance if you can always go to ER?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStori es

On the other hand, subsidized or not, if we have to buy insurance, what happen if we can't afford to buy? If we can't buy car insurance we just don't have to own car, but what if we can't pay the premium? will we go to jail?


This is also about health insurance and the purchase of health insurance. What happens in an ER is largely irrelevant from the point of view of whether illegal aliens can purchase insurance, or whether that insurance will be subsidized in some way.

But isn't this is actually the thing that our politician trying to bring into the spotlight? it is the usual us against them political maneuver to amass support. By all mean let me know if we want to approach the issue using ceteris paribus.


The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the California case in which the voters in California sought to restrict social services provided by the state to residents who were citizens. The Federal appellate court decision stands as the law of the land. The explicit objective of the law which was voted by CA residents was to limit social services to citizens and exclude illegal residents.

I am not saying its good or bad, it is what it is.

If health care becomes a social service provided to residents by the state, illegal residents cannot be excluded under the current interpretation of constitutional law.

Emergency rooms are one example. Lap band surgery? Cancer treatment? Drug rehab?

What about legal residents? they are not citizen... hmm...

[nacht]

Hypothetically, theoretically, but what about in practice? How can we tell in reality? Illegals can have social security numbers and claim to have lost the passport, citizen could lost a passport and forget the soc sec number...


It would behoove you to do minimal research into these things.

If someone has "lost their passport" they are required to immediately contact their embassy/consulate, because otherwise they cannot even go home.

Illegal immigrants cannot have their own social security numbers. They can claim to have them, but this is verifiable and a social security card by itself is not a valid form of ID and requires other forms of ID to substantiate it. Citizens would have to lose every piece of ID they own, and even then there are ways to trace an individual well enough to get their birth certificate.

Sure, there are corner cases, but even after Katrina I knew a guy who had lost every form of ID he owned, every form of proof, and had a name change to boot so that his name wasn't even the same as what was on his birth certificate, and still managed to establish his identity.

So no, you can't necessarily prove their identity on the spot, but you can do so with some investigative work.


Only through my employer, currently, but if I would venture alone, they would need the same thing, the almighty SS#, right?


The SS# is only slightly better than useless (the card even says that it can't be used as a form of ID), and you'll note I didn't mention it.

There are also already processes in place to prove these things, and they are already used by medicare. They aren't perfect by any means, but they are fairly effective.



and that is precisely the issue, why bother buying insurance if you can always go to ER?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStori es


Have you ever actually been to the ER? Not to mention that, going there, it is quite easy to then end up bankrupt due to the costs, which is not a desirable outcome. Again, though, this has nothing whatsoever to do with health insurance, except that universal coverage will help prevent the ER from being used spuriously and help cover costs for when it is.

[curiousgeorge01]

You can really argue it either way, it really depends on which interpretation of the 14th Amendment does the Supreme Court take. So in summation, yes, its quite possible they'd deem immigrants valid users of our healthcare.

[larkin]

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the California case in which the voters in California sought to restrict social services provided by the state to residents who were citizens. The Federal appellate court decision stands as the law of the land. The explicit objective of the law which was voted by CA residents was to limit social services to citizens and exclude illegal residents. [...] If health care becomes a social service provided to residents by the state, illegal residents cannot be excluded under the current interpretation of constitutional law.

1) Which court case?

2) If your summation is accurate, then the determination is that they cannot restrict it based on citizenship; which is not the same as restricting based on residency.

Simply put: When discussing points of law at this level the details matter, as does the precise justification the courts have used.

Nacht, agreed. Krazy P seems to be talking about the 9th Circuit striking down Prop 187 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)(although, he refers to California voters having "recently voted", and the vote on Prop 187 happened in 1994 - 15 years ago. So I might be wrong here.) There the the judge ruled that state legislation regulating immigration - legal or illegal - violated existing federal law and thus, the 14th amendment.

In short, the basis of the decision was that states did not have the right to regulate immigration, because regulating immigration is the specific province of the federal government. For each state to have their own set of regulations would be unadvisable and impractical, to say the least.

But I simply did not follow how KP felt this decision related to passage of *federal* law. Obviously, a federal law would not be unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th amendment. So this concern:


illegal residents cannot be excluded under the current interpretation of constitutional law


is irrelevant, because that interpetation only applies to the state's role. Also:

Emergency rooms are one example. Lap band surgery? Cancer treatment? Drug rehab?

Emergency room care isn't an example; it's explicitly guaranteed under federal law, if not directly subsidized by government, in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act signed by Ronald Reagan. Which a.) should go to show how far to the right the Republican party in the U.S. has moved; and b.) should reassure everyone that we won't be paying for drug rehab treatment for illegals anytime soon, since we both barely pay for it now for our own citizens and, for the last time, direct government subsidies for health care to illegal immigrants are specifically prohibited in all versions of this bill.

[Mader]

California law does not trump federal law. Refusing to take a case does not automatically imply agreement.

Have any of you added up your health insurance costs, plus your out of pocket expenses for one year and really see how much you are paying?

Health insurance is just that, insurance.

Car insurance is purchased to protect you (and the other guy) in case of an accident. Chances are that if you used your car insurance , someone has been hurt, someone is going to the doctor. Why is health insurance so much more expensive than car insurance? Because car insurance is used for emergencies only. It is a major, unexpected event.

Health insurance is outrageously expensive. Health insurance is not the same as health care. If I can buy car insurance that protects the other guy and his car, but doesn't repair/replace my own car, why can't we pick and choose our health insurance coverage, too. For example, I am of the age that pre-natal care is no longer needed, but my health insurance policy covers that for me. My 20-something employees, the ones who still like to go out to the clubs every weekend, are paying for Alzheimers care, but the possibility of them needing this coverage is minimal. A single male pays the same monthly premium as a single female, but the single female can become pregnant and have that pregnancy cared for - why does the man pay the same rates as that female - he isn't going to get pregnant. I don't smoke, drink alcohol or do drugs, but I am in the pool of people with people my age do. I do understand the idea of pooling and such, but car insurance rates are based on those pool/numbers, too.

If we want universal CARE, that is one thing. We just have to define care and figure out the cost. I don't know of anyone who thinks that denying full health care for children is bad, but 'for free'? Define care, coverage, necessary. Strep throat, of course; shots/treatment to make a short child grow? Who decides what skin care is needed when the children hit the teenage years? Braces for your teeth? Breast implants for 14 year old girls with body image problems?

But how much do you pay now? For what? Me, I take a prescription and go into the doctor's when something is not right - about 2-3 times a year. For this, my company health insurance is over $5,000 per year. Of course this covers all the what-ifs, but I also pay a healthy deductible before the insurance kicks in, so when you add all that up, my health insurance is costing me around $9,000/year. Me, not my employer.

Why not, instead, have a true insurance policy for cataustrophic needs, such as cancer, and pay my office visits and office tests out of my own pocket? Check out Sams Club, they offer health insurance policies starting at $50.00/month, mostly for cataustrophic care. Makes sense to me.

(no, I do not work for Sams, Walmart, or have money invested).

[larkin]

California law does not trump federal law.

Yes, exactly why the 9th circuit declared Prop 187 unconstitutional.

Refusing to take a case does not automatically imply agreement.

No one suggested it did, but it does mean the 9th circuit's decision is the standing case law. It's just not relevant to the federal government passing a health care bill.

Not sure how the rest of the post relates to health care for immigrants?

[rahdam]

Now that exams are finished...

You think your own argument is absurd? Wow. Well, you don't like Politifact, we get it, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) are (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) few (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) more (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)examples (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I'm sure you'll find they all "blatantly contradict themselves" before coming to the conclusion Obama wasn't lying - in part because that's what fact check sites do, they consider different sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion. Are they all overrated? Do you not like those sites either? Part of the media conspiracy? (I did read them before I posted the links, but thanks for your generous concern.)
I don't like it when a single link to politifact is dropped in a single line in response to a legitimate concern, as if it immediately ends the argument. You said it yourself, PolitiFact considers both sides of an argument and comes to a conclusion. Inherently, there is a margin of interpretation, and where that margin exists, the conclusion cannot be taken as absolute fact. In fact, I'm going to start my OWN fact-checking site!

You basically claim that any expansion in government - from roads to police forces to military - is ultimately one big benefit to illegal aliens. As Lucid pointed out, by your argument, if I were to vote for an increase in funding for a city fire department you could make the claim I was giving benefits to illegal aliens, and to dispute that conclusion is "lying." Even if the specific legislation prohibits direct benefits. Others find this giant leap of logic you pass as a basis for inflammatory ad hominem unpersuasive to say the least, and prefer to focus on the actual text of the actual bill as a measure for who's telling the truth.

Open your eyes, look at the big picture. The "actual text of the bill" sounds nice, but by itself it is insufficient. We have to consider the context of the bill, as KrazyP does here in the OP. I said that "It also benefited legal aliens and US citizens, to be sure..." in response to Lucid's hypothetical airline proposal. It is not one big benefit for illegal aliens, but it does benefit them, and if you deny this, you are in denial of actual fact.

The conclusion that Obama's lying (when pointing out what the legislation actually says) means to imply the bill is one giant giveaway to illegal aliens. That's not the intent or the reality of the bill, and to say otherwise is coyly parsing words with the purpose of misrepresenting the bill at best, plain demagoguery at worst. It's certainly not meant to encourage meaningful debate. But why would we expect anything different from the opposition at this point?
Again, no. Read what I wrote. Read it again. I am not responsible for ficticious implications that you make from my text.
"The opposition"...sinking into parody? My god, that last sentence could come from the extreme left OR extreme right.


So how would an illegal immigrant be able to purchase health insurance from the government legally if they can't purchase health insurance from private industry already?
This, on the other hand, is legitimate. You are right, they have no access to insurance at all, which means that they pay nothing when they use the ER for medical care because they have no other option. It's no secret this country needs real immigration reform, but no one has the balls to do it. Illegal immigration is attractive because it provides very cheap unskilled labor. However, when the state is mandated to provide social services to illegal immigrants, in any capacity, the labor cost invariably rises and illegal immigrants become less efficient economically. At this point, it is reasonable to legalize/naturalize them so that they can pay taxes on the money they earn; this won't cover the cost of the services they use, in most cases, but it will erode the cost. It also avoids the socially unpalatable forced move of millions of people back over the border (Trail of Tears, anyone?). They are legalized/naturalized, and they can access healthcare in some capacity. This must be followed by actual enforcement of immigation laws in the future. A law that is not enforced makes a mockery of the legal system that is one of the foundations of this country. In this instance, it also has negative economic consequences (see: decreasing efficiency of illegal immigrant labor).

Politifact was somewhat subtle, but not contradicting itself and certainly not "blatantly" doing so.

To quote Fact Check (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):



The politifact article mentions that illegal immigrants are already excluded from medicaid, it also mentions that the bill specifically forbids credits for people who are here illegally. This doesn't mean that illegal immigrants couldn't benefit from the legislation and it doesn't mean they couldn't buy insurance if they can buy it now. Basically no change in the current situation, except that they would benefit from the same reforms that benefit everyone else (at no particular cost to the government).

That's not a contradiction, and a pretty strong case can be made that the reforms either don't--or only peripherally--affect those who are here illegally. The quoting of the article is, at best, selective.
Everything you said is correct, but if it peripherally affects those who are here illegal, then by definition, it does affect them, and to say it does not affect them is false. I also take issue at the "at no particular cost to the government" point, because there are significant doubts that universal healthcare will be revenue neutral. It's safe, given the current medicare/social security situation, that universal healthcare will also invariably be subsidized by taxpayer money, one way or another (See: printing money/inflation, if nothing else).


FactCheck, again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):



I'm entirely unconvinced that this is a bad thing.

That's not even including the more recent support for requiring proof of citizenship (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in an effort to appease these fearmongers.

CNN's conclusion was similar (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):



Okay, so even if the can buy coverage, so what? It's unsubsidized, and insurance companies will still be charging premiums according to risk and average cost, so what's the problem? That's even without the legal residency requirement on the purchase of insurance which may be added, which doesn't even exist today.

Then there is Open Congress's statement (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which includes the text of the bill and says:



But let's not let the facts stand in the way of some good ol' fashioned mud slinging.

Private healthcare insurance companies, sure. Government healthcare public option? There, history is not on your side (See medicare/social security).

And mud slinging? I don't believe I've ignored any facts. Other people have tried to conveniently redefine fact for one purpose or another, but there is an inescapable reality that if illegal immigrants are even given the option to buy government healthcare insurance without subsidy, then the healthcare bill that created that government healthcare insurance DID affect them. At this point, see medicare/social security and decreasing efficiency of illegal immigrant labor.

[larkin]

I don't like it when a single link to politifact is dropped in a single line in response to a legitimate concern, as if it immediately ends the argument. You said it yourself, PolitiFact considers both sides of an argument and comes to a conclusion. Inherently, there is a margin of interpretation, and where that margin exists, the conclusion cannot be taken as absolute fact. In fact, I'm going to start my OWN fact-checking site!

Again - you don't like the single link, fine. I linked to five other fact check sites by other news organizations that all more or less said the same thing. I could probably link to five more if they haven't been taken down by now. No answers to them or any of the questions raised.

I said that "It also benefited legal aliens and US citizens, to be sure..." in response to Lucid's hypothetical airline proposal. It is not one big benefit for illegal aliens, but it does benefit them, and if you deny this, you are in denial of actual fact.

Only in the sense that everything the government in this country pays for (roads, police forces, volcano monitoring systems) will somehow benefit illegal aliens eventually, which I don't find (nor do many others find, see the fact-checking sites) to be the interpretation relevant to this discussion. Even conservative sites roughly in support of the idea that Obama was lying made the argument on the basis that in the bill efforts to verify legal status was insufficient, not on the basis that all government expansion benefits illegal aliens.

Open your eyes, look at the big picture. The "actual text of the bill" sounds nice, but by itself it is insufficient. We have to consider the context of the bill, as KrazyP does here in the OP.

Krazy P's concerns regarding constitutional law established by the ruling against Prop 187 simply don't apply to federal legislation. Again, unless I'm mistaken about which bill he's referring to, feel free to correct about that, but thus far no one who's expressed concerns over benefits for illegal aliens has yet to even respond. It makes one wonder if the value in throwing these think pieces out there is simply to muddy the waters, to introduce these vague "concerns", with no intention to defend it in context.

[Lucid]

Something interesting about this particular debate:

Many of the people arguing in this thread oppose the public option on the basis that it will not benefit the citizens of the country.

Those same people argue that Obama was lying in his speech because the public option will benefit the citizens of this country and the illegal immigrants by proxy.

So.... which is it exactly? Will the public option benefit the populace - including the illegal immigrants, or not?

[rahdam]

Something interesting about this particular debate:

Many of the people arguing in this thread oppose the public option on the basis that it will not benefit the citizens of the country.

Those same people argue that Obama was lying in his speech because the public option will benefit the citizens of this country and the illegal immigrants by proxy.

So.... which is it exactly? Will the public option benefit the populace - including the illegal immigrants, or not?

The "citizens of this country" is not a homogenous group.
It will benefit some citizens and harm some citizens.

[Lucid]

The "citizens of this country" is not a homogenous group.
It will benefit some citizens and harm some citizens.

How will it harm some, and do you think the number harmed by it will be greater than the number benefited by it?

Answer honestly (not that you wouldn't).

[rahdam]

Again - you don't like the single link, fine. I linked to five other fact check sites by other news organizations that all more or less said the same thing. I could probably link to five more if they haven't been taken down by now. No answers to them or any of the questions raised.



Only in the sense that everything the government in this country pays for (roads, police forces, volcano monitoring systems) will somehow benefit illegal aliens eventually, which I don't find (nor do many others find, see the fact-checking sites) to be the interpretation relevant to this discussion. Even conservative sites roughly in support of the idea that Obama was lying made the argument on the basis that in the bill efforts to verify legal status was insufficient, not on the basis that all government expansion benefits illegal aliens.



Krazy P's concerns regarding constitutional law established by the ruling against Prop 187 simply don't apply to federal legislation. Again, unless I'm mistaken about which bill he's referring to, feel free to correct about that, but thus far no one who's expressed concerns over benefits for illegal aliens has yet to even respond. It makes one wonder if the value in throwing these think pieces out there is simply to muddy the waters, to introduce these vague "concerns", with no intention to defend it in context.

This is ooold, but what the heck.
1. It's good to use fact-checking sites, and good to question them. I disagreed with statement of interpretation made in the article when I found contradictory evidence in the same article, but I did not disagree with cold, hard facts in the article. Same goes for the rest.

2. See my response to Lucid about the immigration issue. It is linked to healthcare, but more importantly it is a significant issue in its own right, and to attempt to merge on into the other will not solve either. Verifying legal status might be the Republican battle cry, but I would rather approach the underlying issue of immigration. As such, your appeal to the majority is not applicable to me.

3. The equal-protection clause is very broad. I am not a lawyer, I do not believe you are a lawyer. I've yet to see KrazyP be out and out wrong about anything, and I'm inclined to take his word that legal issues would arise; note that he doesn't explicitly predict an outcome, but he does assert legal issues would arise. As I don't sit on the Supreme Court, or any federal court for that matter, I cannot predict how it would legally play out.

How will it harm some, and do you think the number harmed by it will be greater than the number benefited by it?

Answer honestly (not that you wouldn't).

1. Anyone that has employer health insurance and has to pay higher taxes to subsidize the public option.
2. Anyone that has employer health insurance until the employer decides that it's cheaper to cut the plan and shift employees to the public option, where they now pay more for less in all likelyhood. (Note: company benefit, individual loss)
3. Anyone who has little or no health insurance by choice that would now pay higher taxes/penalties to finance the public option.

In effect, anyone who already has health insurance likely has it through their employer for free/cheap, and would probably be paying more if the public option is created. Those that elect for the public option are not likely going to be those who by themselves can sustain it. Most Americans have health insurance, and most Americans that have health insurance are happy with their health insurance. I'd grab some numbers that I've seen in old WaPost columns, but I'm feeling very stasis right now.

I'm torn on this...sure, I wish we could all have free public health insurance. I honestly believe that rather than seeking to extend coverage and bring everyone into an inefficient system, we should first make an efficient system and then worry about expansion of that efficient system. Where to start? Well, the consumer is grossly disconnected from the cost of health insurance. I think we need to entirely do away with employer provided health insurance, but in a way that increases monetary compensation to allow the population to start purchasing health insurance themselves, as they do car insurance. I think we need to enact substantial tort reform to stop the "jackpot justice" that is prevalent today. We need to shift to our national psyche from interventional medicine to preventional medicine, and we need to shift from legally defensive medicine to evidence based medicine. With respect to insurance companies, I think allowing consumers direct access to the health insurance marketplace will FORCE them to compete, and increase efficiency; right now, competition is minimal, and as competition is minimal, so is efficiency. Think about car insurance; HYPER-competitive, and pretty efficient at the end of the day. Just some ideas.

[larkin]

3. The equal-protection clause is very broad. I am not a lawyer, I do not believe you are a lawyer. I've yet to see KrazyP be out and out wrong about anything, and I'm inclined to take his word that legal issues would arise; note that he doesn't explicitly predict an outcome, but he does assert legal issues would arise. As I don't sit on the Supreme Court, or any federal court for that matter, I cannot predict how it would legally play out.

The rest of it, fine, but to say more or less you choose to take someone else's "word over mine" is pretty silly to bother posting in the first place. I don't claim to be a legal expert at all; I clearly say I'm not elsewhere if not here. The only reason I posted anything is because Nacht asked for the specifics of the ruling, which seemed reasonable, and I used to live in California at the time the Prop 187 debate ruling was ongoing. So I assumed KrazyP was talking about Prop 187, offering a chance for him to clarify, and posted the link to the basis of the decision, which explicitly is about state law.

You want to believe someone else, I assume that happens all the time. But the truth of this isn't about "my word" at all. There's no substitution for just reading about the decision.

[rahdam]

Nacht, agreed. Krazy P seems to be talking about the 9th Circuit striking down Prop 187 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)(although, he refers to California voters having "recently voted", and the vote on Prop 187 happened in 1994 - 15 years ago. So I might be wrong here.) There the the judge ruled that state legislation regulating immigration - legal or illegal - violated existing federal law and thus, the 14th amendment.

In short, the basis of the decision was that states did not have the right to regulate immigration, because regulating immigration is the specific province of the federal government. For each state to have their own set of regulations would be unadvisable and impractical, to say the least.

But I simply did not follow how KP felt this decision related to passage of *federal* law. Obviously, a federal law would not be unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th amendment.

Did not see this initially, as I only searched the 1st page for the reference when reading what you wrote. Anyhoo:
1. Federal laws guarantee certains rights/protections to all people in US.
2. CA passes laws that deny these rights/protections to illegal immigrants.
3. By 14th, "no state shall pass", CA violated 14th in passing bill to abridge rights.
4. Struck down, because state of CA voted to abridge rights.

So, because the "discrimination" (loosely, denial of healthcare to illegal immigrants) would be federally mandated, it would be exempt from the equal protection clause, which only prohibits states from passing such laws.


Take, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids job discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex or religion. Title VII applies both to private and to public employers. (While Congress applied Title VII to private employers using its interstate commerce power, it applied Title VII to public employers under its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Title VII's standards for public and private employers are the same.)


Depending on the specific implementation of the public option, if state involvement occurs anywhere in design or implementation, I suspect equal protection comes into play. Note in the above example, the states did not make any laws, yet the equal protection clause was still brought out. It is not absolutely necessary for state laws to exist for the application of the equal protection clause to occur. I'd have to think/read on this more, but it's getting pretty late; nonetheless, it is not out of the question that the equal protection clause might be applied. Which is what KrazyP said, in effect.

[larkin]

So, because the "discrimination" (loosely, denial of healthcare to illegal immigrants) would be federally mandated, it would be exempt from the equal protection clause, which only prohibits states from passing such laws.

I wouldn't say "exempt," just that the clause wouldn't apply. I'm sure that if two federal laws were in contradiction to each other that would have to be resolved legally; this is where my lack of specific legal knowledge comes into play. But what I can say is that the Prop 187 decision isn't the relevant case law to federal health care reform. But it's possible KrazyP was talking about something else.

Depending on the specific implementation of the public option, if state involvement occurs anywhere in design or implementation, I suspect equal protection comes into play. Note in the above example, the states did not make any laws, yet the equal protection clause was still brought out. It is not absolutely necessary for state laws to exist for the application of the equal protection clause to occur. I'd have to think/read on this more, but it's getting pretty late; nonetheless, it is not out of the question that the equal protection clause might be applied. Which is what KrazyP said, in effect.

Again, I'm not going to speak on potential 14th amendment applications because I can't. But I can say that what the Prop 187 decision said is that states don't get the right to make their own decisions regarding immigration policy; federal law overrides it. And the concern that KrazyP expressed is that *federal law* will be overridden in favor of the highest standard of care. Well, it may or may not, I'll leave that to others, but not on the basis of the Prop 187 decision.

[rahdam]

I wouldn't say "exempt," just that the clause wouldn't apply. I'm sure that if two federal laws were in contradiction to each other that would have to be resolved legally; this is where my lack of specific legal knowledge comes into play. But what I can say is that the Prop 187 decision isn't the relevant case law to federal health care reform. But it's possible KrazyP was talking about something else.



Again, I'm not going to speak on potential 14th amendment applications because I can't. But I can say that what the Prop 187 decision said is that states don't get the right to make their own decisions regarding immigration policy; federal law overrides it. And the concern that KrazyP expressed is that *federal law* will be overridden in favor of the highest standard of care. Well, it may or may not, I'll leave that to others, but not on the basis of the Prop 187 decision.

I agree that the absolute specifics of the Prop 187 case would probably not apply. Just the same, the spirit of the application might very well end up at the federal level through legal mumbo jumbo. Given Napolitano's assertion (in the OP), there is reason enough to believe that it might be an issue. Speculation? Sure. Beyond reasonable possibility? Nope.

[rahdam]

Article: Will Reid's Public Option Gamble Pay Off? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Relevant text:

The bill that Reid intends to introduce would include a public option with a so-called "opt-out" provision, giving states the ability to decide not to offer a small share of their residents the chance to buy into a government-run health-insurance alternative. Ostensibly, such a provision would appeal to moderates, who object to the public option as giving the government too big a role in health care. But in practice, it is difficult to see why any state would actually make the decision to opt out, considering that no one would be forced to buy into the public option, and it would not cost states any additional money. Reid offered few details as to how the opt-out mechanism would work.


Evidence of state involvement, in support of the argument that the 14th amendment would apply.
Notice the clause "giving states the ability to decide not to offer," emphasis added.