White House clarifies position on medical care for illegal immigrants
The White House has released the key details of how illegal immigrants would be treated under the Obama plan for health care reform.
Here are the key bullet points-
- Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate.
- Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.
- Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don’t participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible.
- There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.
While the bad news is that, once again, the White House will appear to have folded as a result of the challenge presented by Rep. Joe Wilson, thus emboldening the nut jobs who have already been building shrines to the South Carolina Republican in their gun closets and survival shelters, the good news is that questions of insuring humane treatment of undocumented aliens in emergency room situations would, at least in Obama’s plan, be put to rest.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Rick, I’m disappointed in this. A lot of my neighbors are illegals, and I am concerned for them. This is going to continue the precedent of them getting more and more unwelcoming, and disrespectful to those who are already here. A couple posts ago, you asked what Jesus would do. I answered with what he said. Jesus also commanded his disciples to “welcome strangers with love”. Not getting the love vibe right now.
iskid – While I see your point, there is another side to the equation. A country, while it should be welcoming foreigner to its shores (particularly this country whose population is a melting pot), must fulfill its primary obligations first to its own citizens. The real issue is the immigration policy that makes it difficult for illegals to become legal and, therefore, entitled to the rights of citizenship along with the obligations.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think what makes it difficult for so many people is that illegals, because of their very status, do not pay the taxes which make many services available, yet are permitted to use those services just the same. Now, I do agree that all bets are off when an illegal is in a medical crisis. We have a basic, moral obligation as humans to take care of people who are in need of this medical assistance.
The solution is to create a program where everyone who wants to come to this country can do so in a fair and reasonable manner. As so many of whom we are talking about tend to be Mexican nationals, I always like to point out how incredibly difficult it is to become a citizen of Mexico. Way harder than here in the USA. I lived in Mexico for many years. While I was afforded the status of a landed immigrant, the road to citizenship was virtually impossible. As a landed immigrant I did not so much have a legal right to even discuss Mexican politics let alone a right to avail myself of the country’s social services. When your realize how hard Mexico makes it for me to gain citizenship in their country -and I am certainly able to support myself without their government’s assistance- one feels just a bit less sympathetic.
What’s disrespectful is disregarding US laws and entering this country illegally and then consuming social services paid by US citizens. I try to put myself their shoes, but I have respect for others, and could not do what they’ve done. I just have little sympathy for those who think it is ok to break the law because there is work in the US, no matter how long ago it was. So definitely a good thing not to include them in social health insurance.
What should have been done 15 years ago was an increase in immigration limits for border countries to support the labor demand. The infrastructure could have better prepared for that growth. Instead we have illegals in limbo demanding for their “free” stuff from the money in my pocket. Not much love here.
my version of Jesus philosophy/quotes:
In response to another comment. See in context »“be compassionate and respectful, but protect your borders. Allow too many in, and everyone will suffer.”
“give an inch, and they’ll take a mile. Is giving them the hope worth the 2000 Mexicans that have died in that mile?” – is it fair to say that by being weak on the border is killing Mexicans?
“Help and love those in despair…in their home. Help make their home a better place to live” – anyone ever have their in-laws involuntarily move into your home, eating your food? Then I have to provide my in-laws with health car? Illegal immigration sometimes feels that way. I would much rather help them in their home, so they can eventually support themselves.
Sounds like your real problem is with your in-laws!
In response to another comment. See in context »I wonder if you’ve ever had a look at research on just how much the illegal immigrants actually benefit from the social system, ie. the “free” stuff your reference. If you have a strong point of view on this,and you appear to, might be a good idea to do some googling on the subject. You might be surprised.
I’ve done a little in the past, and just did a bit more. My instincts and common sense say it’s adds up to a lot of money. However, the web research is real sketchy as I know it’s difficult to measure, and easy to be biased.
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/national_data/
I found a “FIAR” group with some possibly biased stats. Some seem accurate, but don’t appear to reflect those that may be paying taxes on their income. Still they’re stating a total of around 30-40 BILLION per year. Much higher than had imagined.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060407_072803.htm
Oh and $6 billion in lost SSN revenue.
And that is not accounting for their share of other social costs (military, police, fire, use of city buildings, etc). But I don’t believe they are subtracting taxes that some may be paying through invalid SSNs and other means. But I doubt it’s a very large offset.
Then I see others researching the cost of products. What has their labor done to reduce costs of products here? But then their surplus of low income labor force is also hurting the existing low income labor, forcing salaries to stay flat or dropped, only to be squeezed out and propped up by higher minimum wages.
Interesting data. It only makes me more frustrated on the illegal immigration situation. I try to have some sympathy, but I’m a person of respect, and these stats only show disrespect of their actions.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, I really appreciate that people like you and Froma Harrop see through both the racist rhetoric of the right and the political correctness of the left toward a realistic and practical view of what’s the right national policy concerning illegal immigrants.
In my view it’s pretty simple: Fines/jail time for illegal (and exploitative) *employers*. And the very savvy President Obama is quietly going about it, according to a recent Harrop column.
Time to move away from anarcho-capitalism and toward a thoroughly regulated social democracy. Just as you indicate, Rick.
However, I hope, in consideration of the environmental impacts, you’ll reconsider you statement, “The solution is to create a program where everyone who wants to come to this country can do so in a fair and reasonable manner.”
The “solution” is for the US to commit to living within its economic, ecological and political borders. And that means either cutting our population in half or cutting our consumption in half or a combination. Quickly. Yet we are adding 33 million people a decade, 65% attributable to immigration. No one has a right to live like we do. Not intending immigrants; not ourselves.
Except this is a republic, not a social democracy. Social democracy is inherently the opposite of liberty and freedom, no matter how good your intentions are. They have historically opened the gates to unhappy times.
Social democracy is leveraging power (usually government) to lower everyone’s standard of living for the greater good of the collective. And that will have be done against the choice of the people and their freedoms.
If the government would have done their one true job and protect the country and the economy, they would have better managed legal and illegal immigration years ago. It would have resulted in a stronger country that would have been more environmentally friendly, and more stable to handle increased immigration over time.
I also know we have a right to choose the live the way we do. To say other wise conflicts with the constitution and reiterates my view of social democracy.
The classical liberal way to make changes is to educate and convince the people to make better choices in their lives.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bob-
Did I say The solution is to create a program where everyone who wants to come to this country can do so in a fair and reasonable manner.” somewhere? I might have– I write a lot of stuff on here so I sometimes forget. If it was me, could your reference where I wrote this so I can see what I had in mind as it doesn’t actually sound like something I would have said.
As to the rest of your comment, I completely take your points.
In response to another comment. See in context »