"Illegal immigrants will not be covered by this bill." They should be.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

My two cents:

I think illegal immigrants shouldn’t be given health care until they earn their citizenship. “How would this work?” you ask. Well this is how it would work: first of all illegal immigrants with technical skills and otherwise good potential are made citizens along with their immediate families, thereafter a service based system is created where illegal immigrants who serve in the military or other government service for a year or two will be given citizenship along with their immediate families. How about that?

[Frank]

@Curtis LeMay

I think illegal immigrants shouldn’t be given health care until they earn their citizenship.

OK. If an illegal immigrant shows up in the emergency room with an inflamed appendix or a heart attack, what then?

[Skammer]

@fuzzypickles

Which people are you talking about? Last I checked, the audience here is primarily atheist/agnostic, and quoting the Bible to support a moral argument makes no sense at all. It’s as silly as quoting the Bible in reference to shopping for Purina Cat Chow (Daniel 6:16).

This is asinine.

1. The most vocal critics of health care reform proposals have been conservative/Republican.
2. Many of the most vocal conservative Republicans are self-proclaimed Christians.
3. I tossed an aside to those people to point out why their opposition to healthcare for illegal aliens may be contraindicated in the New Testament.

Yes, the audience here is mostly - but not completely - athiest/agnostic. Why do you have your panties in such a wad that I tacked on a Bible verse aimed at the Evangelical crowd, even on this board? Jesus fucking Christ, why don’t you address the topic instead of pissing on such a minor point?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Frank

OK. If an illegal immigrant shows up in the emergency room with an inflamed appendix or a heart attack, what then?

Give them treatment. Hell, even Pat Buchanan supports allowing emergency treatment to illegal immigrants.

[Frank]

@Curtis LeMay

Give them treatment. Hell, even Pat Buchanan supports allowing emergency treatment to illegal immigrants.

Well, how is that not health care, and how do we not pay for it?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Frank

Well, how is that not health care, and how do we not pay for it?

IE, if you have a heart attack and need some treatment fast we will pay for it but if you say need anti-allergy medicene the government ain’t paying for it.

[Frank]

@Curtis LeMay

IE, if you have a heart attack and need some treatment fast we will pay for it but if you say need anti-allergy medicene the government ain’t paying for it.

Fair enough. How about anti-appendicitis or anti-heart attack medicine? Health care is far cheaper (and more effective) before the health issue reaches the emergency room.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Frank

Fair enough. How about anti-appendicitis or anti-heart attack medicine? Health care is far cheaper (and more effective) before the health issue reaches the emergency room.

First of all helping Illegal Immigrants get citizenship through Government Service is much cheaper then either option.

[DigitalC]

@Curtis LeMay

First of all helping Illegal Immigrants get citizenship through Government Service is much cheaper then either option.

So the way to help illegal immigrants get health care is by making them legal? you know, that might be the first thing you’ve said i completely agree with.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@DigitalC

So the way to help illegal immigrants get health care is by making them legal? you know, that might be the first thing you’ve said i completely agree with.

Through government service I said. If they commit any sort of crime they will be deported.

[magellan01]

@DigitalC

So the way to help illegal immigrants get health care is by making them legal? you know, that might be the first thing you’ve said i completely agree with.

What an interesting notion. I wonder how such thinking could help rid us of thieves, embezzlers, wife beaters, rapists, etc… Sheer genius.

[Ludovic]

There must be some sort of rule for my middle of the road tending toward liberal self: namely, no matter how much I agree with a conservative position there’s some prominent guy out there that makes my reasoned position seem ridiculous.

I’m all for deporting illegal aliens. (I’m also for increasing quotas once we have taken care of the problem of illegal aliens, as the low quotas are indeed one reason for their breaking the law.) But comparing their crime to rapists and thieves is ridiculous.

(And it’s not just magellen if you want to quibble on prominence. The current GOPers in the congress are certainly not being reasonable in their anti-immigration arguments, either.)

[Sitnam]

@Skammer

I wasn’t going to respond but since you asked me to elaborate on my third point…

You wouldn’t normally respond to the arguments I raised in your OP, but since I brought up religion you will?

@Skammer

I’m well aware that the bulk of the posters on this board tend to be dismissive (if not hostile) to religious arguments, and furthermore I agree that religious arguments are inappropriate to discussions of public policy. In my defense, however, I’ll note that

1. The fact that I pulled out a Biblical quote does not negate my main point, which is that healthcare is a moral issue (religion aside);

I didn’t say it did, I just said it doesn’t add to it. Or do you not agree you can be both moral and not Christian.

@Skammer

2. I specifcially addressed that aside to “those who call themselves Christian” because
3. Many of those on the conservative side of the argument do, in fact, self-identify as Christian, so I was making an argument to specifically appeal to them.

This apparently is the wrong message board for you.

@Skammer

In summary, your honor, stick it up your ass that last sentence of reason #3 was not aimed at you nor intended to be the hinge of my argument.

It was point #3 of your argument, how on this planet could it not be taken as a ‘hinge’. And your ‘Christian’ language is unappreciated in GD, take it to The Pit.

[magellan01]

@Ludovic

There must be some sort of rule for my middle of the road tending toward liberal self: namely, no matter how much I agree with a conservative position there’s some prominent guy out there that makes my reasoned position seem ridiculous.

I’m all for deporting illegal aliens. (I’m also for increasing quotas once we have taken care of the problem of illegal aliens, as the low quotas are indeed one reason for their breaking the law.) But comparing their crime to rapists and thieves is ridiculous.

You’re not familiar with analogies, are you? They seek to explain relationships among two sets of things, not between the sets themselves. So if I offer human:two legs, dog:four legs, I am not attempting to equate man with dog. If I offer bird:air, fish:water, I’m suggesting a fish is an any way like a bird.

Did I really just have to explain that?..:rolleyes:

[Ludovic]

You’re not really analogizing, you’re equivocating. Trying to make things seem more equivalent than they actually are.

[magellan01]

@Ludovic

You’re not really analogizing, you’re equivocating. Trying to make things seem more equivalent than they actually are.

No, it was an analogy. Raping someone is is a heinous crime, a crime of violence. It doesn’t come near the crime of sneaking into the country or overstaying a VISA. They’re in different universes in that regard. Yet, they are both 1) crimes that are 2) perpetrated by criminals. If you can do away with one class of criminal by making the illegal behavior legal, voila, you can solve the whole crime problem the same way, right?

And since you seem new to this, you might want to look up “sarcasm” and “hyperbole” before responding.

[fuzzypickles]

@Skammer

3. I tossed an aside to those people to point out why their opposition to healthcare for illegal aliens may be contraindicated in the New Testament.

Your mistake was assuming that Christians would listen to you with an open mind. Christians only quote the Bible to support what they already believe; if you point out a passage in the Bible which does not agree with their platform, they’ll dismiss it with, “Oh, that part doesn’t count anymore,” or “You’re not interpreting it right.” Remember, logic plays little part in Christian-biased arguments; their religion is all about fostering their dogmatic beliefs upon you, not listening to what you have to say in return.

@Skammer

Why do you have your panties in such a wad that I tacked on a Bible verse aimed at the Evangelical crowd, even on this board?

Because it’s disrespectful to people who do not believe in Christ. Are you implying that Christians have a higher moral standard than Buddhists & Zoroastrians?

Look, you’re right, this is a silly and pointless hijack. It’s just that quoting the Bible to support ANY argument is a potentially contentious tactic on this particular forum. Before debating any weighty topic, it’s always important to get a feel for the “board culture” first.

@Ludovic

You’re not really analogizing, you’re equivocating. Trying to make things seem more equivalent than they actually are.

Like this.

[Blalron]

@magellan01

No, it was an analogy. Raping someone is is a heinous crime, a crime of violence. It doesn’t come near the crime of sneaking into the country or overstaying a VISA. They’re in different universes in that regard. Yet, they are both 1) crimes that are 2) perpetrated by criminals. If you can do away with one class of criminal by making the illegal behavior legal, voila, you can solve the whole crime problem the same way, right?

And since you seem new to this, you might want to look up “sarcasm” and “hyperbole” before responding.

There’s a difference between crimes which are inherently wrong (such as rape and murder) and things which are wrong merely because the law declares it to be wrong (such as parking violations and marijuana posession). Illegal immigration belongs to the latter category.

[JRDelirious]

I gotta agree that in realistic terms one cannot really provide all full services for every person within the borders so cutoff criteria must be established, and indeed being within the borders without authorization is an appropriate cutoff criterion. It’s not a pleasant notion but as someone said above, better the good, imperfect and possible, enacted, than the ideal, perfect and impossible, merely imagined.

Of course it would help if various sectors of our economy were not quite perfectly happy to create a high demand for cheap labor, as long as it stays illegal. When trying to get here legally requires a huge time-and-resource-consuming rigmarole and hoop-jumping to allow in one in a hundred of those who want in, but the reality on the ground is that there IS work and a chance for a better life for most of those hundred if they look for it, SOME way of regularizing – 'cause you will not be able to eliminate – that market demand HAS to be put in place.
BTW, nitpick: a VISA (all caps) is a credit card. The authorization to enter the country for a specified reason and time is a visa (regular word).

[FriarTed]

To Skammer’s credit- you make a compelling case that actually makes me reconsider my position. If we are going to have some sort of UHC, then making sure there’s not a disease-afflicted undocumented class is to the best interests of society.

I’m thinking that UHC is going to happen within the decade, and that even with laws against it, illegals or undocs will great some treatment just out of sheer humanity.