Author Topic: National Health Care-Obama Plan  (Read 79076 times)

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2009, 01:05:42 PM »
Quote
Yes, there is.

I am not disparaging the American system. However, there are literally piles of laws, subsidies, government regulations burdening the process and creating extra cost for the American consumer. FDA approval along costs billions upon billions of dollars.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2009, 01:47:03 PM »
You're not going to vote them out.

But you can tell them to go their own way.  And pay their own way.  And to leave the rest of us alone. 

There is no reason we have to be swept up into their nightmare.  Unless we either wish to be or are afraid to say no.

In a time of unrepresentative, rogue government, maniacal statist ambitions, voter fraud, and an apathetic and ignorant populace, you have to be realistic about what your options really are.  The elephant isn't just in the living room, he and his friends are in all the rooms, and you have been consigned to the garage.  Get real.

"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

sanglant

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,475
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #27 on: July 17, 2009, 02:11:13 PM »
I am not disparaging the American system. However, there are literally piles of laws, subsidies, government regulations burdening the process and creating extra cost for the American consumer. FDA approval along costs billions upon billions of dollars.

Far more insulting than all of that, and the very start of the problem. The first step toward "Universal health care" was forcing doctors to treat medicare patients for a percentage of what they were charging everyone else, of course prices increased because they have employees bills, and insurance they had to pay. Eventually the prices got to where medicare was is paying what the doctor needs to make and everyone else is suffering. :mad: If you have to see a Dr.(or need lab work or mri type scans) and can't afford to pay those prices, there are ways to lower them. =)

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2009, 06:03:03 PM »
You're not going to vote them out.

But you can tell them to go their own way.  And pay their own way.  And to leave the rest of us alone. 

There is no reason we have to be swept up into their nightmare.  Unless we either wish to be or are afraid to say no.

In a time of unrepresentative, rogue government, maniacal statist ambitions, voter fraud, and an apathetic and ignorant populace, you have to be realistic about what your options really are.  The elephant isn't just in the living room, he and his friends are in all the rooms, and you have been consigned to the garage.  Get real.



Remember, you're in the minority?  Over half voted for Obama.  On his coattails, the senate and congress were filled with Democrats and "Independants". 
Representative democracy is mob rule.  Right now, the mob wants free health care. 
That is real.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

Fjolnirsson

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,231
  • The Anti-Claus
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2009, 06:43:45 PM »
Remember, you're in the minority?  Over half voted for Obama.  On his coattails, the senate and congress were filled with Democrats and "Independants". 
Representative democracy is mob rule.  Right now, the mob wants free health care. 
That is real.

Preach on, Brother Jamis! I'm afraid National Health Care is in our future, whether we like it or not. I would suggest you all get any serious conditions resolved, posthaste. It could be years before real quality health care is available again in the US, if ever. Gosh, that sounded melodramatic. Honestly, I see nothing but bad coming of this.
Hi.

sanglant

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,475
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2009, 06:47:38 PM »
oh, doctors are already opening cash only clinics, i hope to see cash only hospitals soon(just can't put in an emergency room) =D

Fjolnirsson

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,231
  • The Anti-Claus
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2009, 07:06:10 PM »
oh, doctors are already opening cash only clinics, i hope to see cash only hospitals soon(just can't put in an emergency room) =D

Those will soon be outlawed. Unfair to the poor, don't ya know.
Hi.

slingshot

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,031
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2009, 07:15:58 PM »
Assuming that universal health care does not pass the House and Senate, I hope that voters take notice of what/who they vote for in the future.  Most say things like, how much damage can be done by one president?  The country is already over extended financially. The stimulus has not worked in any tangible way and the powers to be still want to pass extremely expensive health care legislation.  I hope voters remember the tactics employed by the Democrats to ram through their legislation without public knowledge of what they are even passing.  Time will tell.  For me at this point it is just a question of limiting the damage.
It shall be as it was in the past... Not with dreams, but with strength and with courage... Shall a nation be molded to last. (The Plainsman, 1936)

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2009, 09:08:24 PM »
Those will soon be outlawed. Unfair to the poor, don't ya know.
They'll also outlaw private insurance somehow.  It probably won't be an overt ban, but they'll find a way to make it impractically difficult for average folks to avoid the public option.  One way or another, they will control your health.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2009, 09:15:11 PM »
The current crop of policritters want to turn us into another European country. All that remains to be seen is if enough Americans object to this notion to stop it. I think freedom is dying, personally. The world survived a long time without much of it, and I expect it will again.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2009, 10:55:34 PM »
Quote
They'll also outlaw private insurance somehow.  It probably won't be an overt ban, but they'll find a way to make it impractically difficult for average folks to avoid the public option.  One way or another, they will control your health.

Page 16 of the bill. After the effective date of the health plan, it will be illegal for anyone to sell or buy private individual health insurance policies.

They're not even trying to hide it.

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2009, 11:04:28 PM »
It doesn't REMOTELY say that.  The infamous page sixteen defines and limits grandfathered plans.  Not without ramifications, but not remotely outlawing all private coverage either.



Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2009, 11:41:00 PM »
Not without ramifications is a pretty broad statement. If I have an individual policy and anything changes, I'm screwed.

Investor's Business Daily has a slightly differing view on the page 16 issue.

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2009, 11:50:55 PM »
Investor's Business Daily has a slightly differing view on the page 16 issue.

Yeah, yeah.  I spent an hour yesterday on this one.  I'll repost the full quote I posted the other place:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.


To clarify: Section 102(a)(1)(A)-(B) states in order to be included within the definition of "grandfathered health insurance coverage," coverage must:
--be already in effect when the bill goes into effect
--not enroll any new individual after the bill goes into effect
--except as pertains to certain enrollments of dependents
--not change most terms and conditions (refer to other portions of document for exceptions)
--comply with restriction on how premiums may be raised.

The subparagraphs of §102 means nothing at all without the preceding paragraph.

The IBD editorial is pure bs panic-mongering.

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2009, 12:06:20 AM »
Yeah, yeah? The bill doesn't allow insurance companies to enroll any new individuals after the effective date of the bill, and you think that warrants a "yeah, yeah"?

Doesn't that paragraph address HTG's concerns about banning individual coverage?

Sindawe

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,938
  • Vashneesht
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2009, 12:14:12 AM »
Lets see if we can puzzle this out...

On page 19, it states:

Quote
(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance  1
coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance  2
coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered  3
on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par- 4
ticipating health benefits plan.  5

So if the individual health insurance policy is not a "grandfathered" policy, it can only be offered as a "Health Exchange" particiating policy.

What is a "Health Exchange" participating policy?

Quote
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE EX- 6
CHANGE; OUTLINE OF DUTIES; DEFINITIONS.  7
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within  8
the Health Choices Administration and under the direc- 9
tion of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange  10
in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers,  11
through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of  12
affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a  13
public health insurance option.  14
(b) OUTLINE OF DUTIES OF COMMISSIONER.—In ac- 15
cordance with this subtitle and in coordination with appro- 16
priate Federal and State officials as provided under sec- 17
tion 143(b), the Commissioner shall—  18
(1) under section 204 establish standards for,  19
accept bids from, and negotiate and enter into con- 20
tracts with, QHBP offering entities for the offering  21
of health benefits plans through the Health Insur- 22
ance Exchange, with different levels of benefits re- 23
quired under section 203, and including with respect  24
to oversight and enforcement;  25


So. Mr. Unelected GovernmentPaidStooge sets the standard for what policies are to be offered under the "Health Exchange"


OK, so what is a what is "grandfathered health insurance"?

Quote
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT  1
COVERAGE.  2
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV- 3
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of  4
this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov- 5
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health  6
insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance  7
coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the  8
first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:  9
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—  10
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in  11
this paragraph, the individual health insurance  12
issuer offering such coverage does not enroll  13
any individual in such coverage if the first ef- 14
fective date of coverage is on or after the first  15
day of Y1.


Thus, if a policy is offered under this "Health Exchange", its under government dominion with respect to the type and manner of coverage.  Some clown in a tax funded office makes the call on the level of benefits, the level of treatment and how much tax payer money is saved by controling costs (aka benifits and payouts), and will likely get rewarded with promotions and raises for controling "costs".

If the policy is "grandfathered" and so NOT under the control of said tax paid clown, the group of invididuals who pay into the collective risk pool (which is what insurance is) will ever decline until such time as the costs to the policy issuer excede the monies coming into the pool.   Perhaps (or is it by design?) the issues of such policies will we driven out of buisness.

And in due time all the holders of the "grandfathered" policy die off, and since no new "grandfathered" polices may be issues, all that is left available is those policies under government dominion.

So those of us in this generation who want nothing to do with this stinking bucket of dren can "opt out", but our children or grandchildren will have no such option.

 :mad:

So, what do you think NOW Claire?
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Gowen

  • Metal smith
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,074
    • Gemoriah.com
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2009, 12:17:52 AM »
What is the incentive for employers to continue to offer health care when the .gov provides it for free?  None!  I have fairly good health/dental/vision coverage right now, costs have been going up and the company has gotten tighter and tighter with coverage.  The government starts offering it and I can see my company first charging to have it, then raising the fee to push everyone out and into .gov coverage.
"That's my hat, I'm the leader!" Napoleon the Bloodhound


Gemoriah.com

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2009, 12:20:07 AM »
Who is "Claire"?

Were you under the illusion that current health insurance policies are not subject to a variety of gov't regulations?  New private health insurance options will be subject to new gov't regulations.  This is not that radical.

Grandfather clauses exist in virtually every regulatory scheme on virtually every level of government.  This grandfather clause outlaws private health insurance in the same way that the grandfather clause allowing my mom's teaching license to remain valid outlawed teachers, or that grandfather clauses allowing houses with old wiring to be sold without complete rewiring outlaws home electrical use.

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2009, 12:21:21 AM »
What is the incentive for employers to continue to offer health care when the .gov provides it for free?  None!  I have fairly good health/dental/vision coverage right now, costs have been going up and the company has gotten tighter and tighter with coverage.  The government starts offering it and I can see my company first charging to have it, then raising the fee to push everyone out and into .gov coverage.

Well, that's simple, they have to offer it, and they aren't allowed to overcharge for it. Great solution, eh?  ;/

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2009, 12:53:59 AM »
BridgeWalker, I'm having a hard time figuring out what your position is on all of this. Care to clarify?

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2009, 01:16:29 AM »
I have no firm position. 
I think the IBD editorial is incredibly misleading, and that annoys me. 
I think that health care reform is a good idea. 

I could never afford decent health care when I was paying 30%+ of my income for health insurance, because the premiums killed us and the deductibles/copays made actually getting care impossible with what little money was left--hence eight years of chronic shoulder pain before I was broke enough that medicaid for the surgery. A one hour surgery should not cost $25,000. 

I have had great experiences with gov't provided healthcare.  I also am cognizant of the fact that my health care is in large part publicly funded, and I keep it cheap.  For example, my OB care is provided by a clinic staffed entirely by residents (and the birth itself is already paid for, out of pocket, to an unregulated midwife--$2000).  My dental care is provided by the UM Dental School.  I see a regular pulmonologist from time to time, paid for by Medicaid.  Me being either dead or in and out of the ER is not in the public's best interest.

I am not convinced that having corporate wonks controlling my healthcare is better than having gov't wonks control my healthcare.  This may be the result of a couple of profs who worked in health care law for a while and faced some pretty devious behavior from insurers.

I am not convinced that a demi-god-like demagogue is the right person to spearhead this effort, but I'm not convinced that anyone else could.

I am pessimistic about the short term, but am glad that a shake up seems inevitable. 

I am in the midst of the one of the worst economies in the nation, and my spouse is employed by a small firm that cannot afford to offer insurance, but may shortly be required to do so.  This may mean that his job will disappear or his hours cut in half.  We're drowning financially now, so anything that makes life more difficult for small business is a bad thing for us. 

I hope to run a small firm someday.  Under the current system, I can't because I am uninsurable except under an employer's plan.  Under the future system, I likely won't be able to because I will not have the budget to offer insurance, at least not at first. 

My position on health care reform?  Rock, meet hard place.   :|

But I like accuracy in journalism.

The issue is, imho, too complex for someone with as little interest in politics as I possess to really take a firm stand on.  My only firm position is that if an editorialist wants to spazz people out about an issue, he should do so using facts and not distortions.  The IBD editorial outright lies about what the provision is cites states.  That pisses me off.  I want health care reform, but I have little doubt that the current effort is going to seriously screw a lot of people in various ways, including quite possible my family.   
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 01:21:52 AM by BridgeWalker »

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #46 on: July 18, 2009, 01:27:52 AM »
Well, BridgeWalker, I can see where you fall into the category of those who really can't get health insurance, or not at a price that's within reason.

The number of people like you, though, is relatively small. The 45 million figure bandied about is also a distortion.

I'd like to think that we could address the problems of the 15 to 20 million people who cannot get health insurance without handing over the health industry to the government. In fact, I'm 100% certain we can.


longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: National Health Care-Obama Plan
« Reply #47 on: July 18, 2009, 11:24:54 AM »
Quote
Remember, you're in the minority?  Over half voted for Obama.  On his coattails, the senate and congress were filled with Democrats and "Independants". 
Representative democracy is mob rule.  Right now, the mob wants free health care. 
That is real.

And THAT is exactly my point, thank you, and accounts for why I say what I say.  We are in the minority, most probably a permanent minority, and increasingly a minority that is unprotected and naked in terms of its Constititutional protections and liberties.  In my view we are on the verge of being overrun by "mob rule," as you rightly say.  Therefore we have a choice: divorce or enslavement.  No one is saying that separation is easy; it may not even be possible.  But what will happen in the alternative won't be easy either.

***

If Obama wants doctors to work without profit I suggest he try that experiment first on lawyers and see how far it gets.

"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals
« Reply #48 on: July 19, 2009, 09:58:24 PM »
Of course it will cover 12 Million illegals, after all they are great, faithful, Democrat voters.

Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals

Sunday, July 19, 2009 6:32 PM

By: David A. Patten 
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_obama/2009/07/19/237484.html?s=al&promo_code=83A4-1

On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.

The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.

The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade.

Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs.

But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals.

Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers.

"We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."

Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan.

Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.

GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program.

A description of the amendment on Heller's Web site state it would "better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it."

The Web post added, "The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits."   

The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.


The two systems cross-reference Social Security numbers and employment information to establish whether an individual is a U.S. citizen.


Critics: Free Health Care Means More Illegals


A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public health care bill.

Anti-immigration activists say the availability of low-cost benefits, including health insurance and in-state tuition, will only lure more immigrants to come to the United States.

Political analyst Dick Morris, in his recently released best-selling book “Catastrophe”, warns that giving illegal free health care will lead to a flood of new illegals who can take advantage of such a benefit not offered in their home countries.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, agrees with that sentiment, writing, "Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported."

But a small fraction of illegals end up deported, as many make widespread use of fake IDs to easily gain access to government benefits programs.

"Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment," wrote Ronald W. Mortensen in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper. Mortensen says one of the big misconceptions about illegals is that they are undocumented.

James R. Edwards Jr., co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, recently wrote on National Review Online that "it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap."

Edwards says none of the legislation under consideration actually requires any state, federal, or local agency to check the immigration status of those who apply for the program.

The assumption is that companies have vetted their employees to ensure they are eligibility for legal employment – a difficult task for employers given the active market in fraudulent documents. Thus Edwards maintains "some of the money distributed … inevitably would go to illegal aliens."

The estimates of illegal aliens in the United States without health insurance vary. The most commonly cited statistic, attributed to the Center for Immigration Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, holds that 15 percent to 22 percent of the nation's 46 million uninsured are illegal aliens. That would be between 6.9 million and 10.1 million people. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed the nation United States has 12 million or more undocumented aliens.

John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, recently told National Public Radio that about 6.1 million illegals – about half of all illegals in the United States – lack documentation and therefore would not be legally eligible for benefits under the current health care reforms.

Sheils says the other half of the nation's illegals – 5 million to 6 million – use false documents to obtain on-the-books employment. Many of them are already insured under their employers' plans, he added.

"A lot of those people are getting employer health benefits as part of their compensation," Sheils told NPR.

Certainly, some contend that undocumented workers who are gainfully employed and receiving benefits such as health insurance are contributing to society. But the fact remains that, once equipped with a fake ID, a person in the United States illegally can obtain both a job and the benefits that go with it.

Estimates of the cost of providing illegals with medical care vary. Most uninsured illegals who need medical attention obtain it from hospital emergency rooms. And several states are already straining under the huge burden of paying for the health costs of illegal aliens.

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million.

Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually.

One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines. This is presumably due to the fact that they are not supposed to participate in the program anyway.

Even if no illegals were likely to benefit from health care reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda.

"I've got to do health care, I've got to do energy, and then I'm looking very closely at doing immigration," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared in June.

Reid explained the urgent need for amnesty in terms very similar to those that Democrats have used to press for health care reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said.

Immigration expert Edwards, for one, says health-care reform may itself need serious medical attention before it is healthy enough pass through Congress.

"The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born," he writes. "When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care."


Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals
« Reply #49 on: July 19, 2009, 10:57:43 PM »
It's impossible to argue with the word "free."
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.