And no one is arguing that point, however the corollary to this stimulating discussion is that in order to do the second, the first must be accomplished if you wish to decrease the cost of health care.
For an instance: If we are going to do something which could potentially cost a trillion dollars, is there a way for it to be done which costs less? This might not entail the USG running anything and instead focus on health care reform measures(which might not encompass a UHC).
Really a moot point. Even if a bill restricts treatment for illegals, once awarded amnesty they will qualify anyway.
If you can get them to pay taxes then amnesty is a really really great deal!
But what about the next wave?
Clairovoyance offered as evidence? Cool! Do we get to do that too, or just you?
Search your feelings and you will find the answer.
In theory it should cost less.
If an illegal alien in the US gets sick or injured they have to go to the Emergency Room. ER costs are far, far beyond the costs of seeing a doctor. Now, some things demand an ER visit but your kid having, say, the flu could (and should) be seen by a doctor in their office for a fraction of the cost of the ER. Unfortunately today that mother will trundle into the ER to have her kid with the flu checked out. That is a far more expensive proposition as well as overloading ERs (which is a real problem as well).
Heh, I am filing all of your one liners when you contribute nothing to the discussion.
I fear I may run out of storage soon.
Well, not if you combine it with a way to deter people here illegally. I hear what you are saying and what someone else said about amnesty. Do the people believe that those who receive amnesty are going to be the very last illegals to enter our country?
Why do we lax so much in enforcement? Can nothing be done? I am sure enforcement costs money but does it costs as much to the taxpayer as the increased costs of medical insurance due to the same problem?
Also, did she have the kid here illegally? If so, hey he is covered and so is she!
The Sioux have a saying, that when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs in the dark, the one that barks is the one that was hit.
Illegal immigration has been with us as long as I can remember and I presume before that too.
Guess we need a bigger wall, mines, auto-targeting machines guns, rabid wolves and a lot more guards.
Remember as well that a lot of business relies on illegal immigrants. I saw an interview with a farmer (I forget where) who was decidedly conservative and decrying the blight that is illegal immigration who, without missing a beat or seeing any inconsistency, then said he absolutely depended on migrant workers for his harvest. There was no way in hell he could pay minimum wage to US workers and stay in business and he also noted that Americans were awful workers (demanding breaks, 8 hour maximum day then overtime, slow) compared to the migrant workers who really get the job done fast and well and don’t bitch.
Want your apples to go from a staple to a luxury?
It may be that the US does not try too hard to stem illegal immigration because to an extent a lot of people depend on illegal immigrants.
This is why interjecting illegal immigrants into every conversation is so silly. To the extent someone has an issue with illegal immigration, there will be that problem with almost everything. Yes, there will be undocumented residents going to school, going to emergency rooms in dire health situations, walking on sidewalks paid for by tax dollars, etc. Do we really need to hold up funding for construction projects because illegals will make use of them? I seriously think that’s what’s next. The illegal immigration debate is a separate one entirely, and tossing it into everything ranging from school vouchers to Cash for Clunkers is dizzying.
Which is why I didn’t want to get into the points of why and what and where. Originally it was a question that was asked that the liberals have been avoiding. That answer was yes, they are covered whether or not the wording for UHC states otherwise.
I prefer “If you’re taking a lot of flak, you’re probably over the target”.
But that probably just reflects our diverse movie-watching tastes.
If by “covered” you mean that one way or another we all pay for anyone who is unisured’s health care when they walk into an ER then yeah, they are covered. Everyone is. We already have UHC! Woot! :rolleyes:
It sounds like you are a bit unclear on the concept here. If illegals pay full freight for insurance from a public option, do you object? Some low income people will get subsidies - they don’t qualify for this. Any problem?
The insurance issue is totally separate from the emergency room issue. The uninsured today who walk into the emergency room (citizen or whatever) are raising the cost of insurance. If you get more people covered by a UHC you will lower it, both by getting more people to pay something and by more efficiency, as Whack-a-Mole said.
You responded by deterrence. Is your method letting them die outside of the ER and sending the video back to Mexico? I don’t quite understand what you mean.
This was actually a GOP talking point…“You already have UHC! Any sick person can go to the ER!”
If you asking for my optimal solution to the problem, it is not so cut and dried. Deterrence to me could be the most cost effective of a couple of different solutions.
We can deter any and all illegal immigration (however you see fit, although financially sound)
Provide amnesty BUT with significant enforcement of the payment of taxes (Currently, most illegal immigrants send money back home and claim > 6 dependents so they aren’t paying much) This might classify as the foot your own bill.
Make no changes to the immigration problem and assume that they won’t use health care any more than they do now (I call this the Ostrich syndrome)
The bottom line is that regardless of what gets done or not done about public health care (as we obviously differ upon what we want) Illegal immigration has it’s hands in many pockets. Health care just being the current one we are talking about.
How much money could be made from these illegal immigrants if we provided them with amnesty and started collecting taxes? Likely not as much as the Lib’s think they are going to get by taxing the rich but it might help offset the current expenditures on ER visits by the same immigrants here illegally or otherwise.
I’ve seen conversation with conservatives asking the liberals what they thought of a voluntary ‘low income’ health care plan to take care of those who are in dire need? Kind of like Medicare or caid, or WIC.
Stop the bus. Your proposed solutions are all about curbing illegal immigration. Are you saying the brakes should be placed on health care reform until we can stop illegal immigration? Should the brakes be placed on any program that illegal immigrants may get some benefit from somehow? No new roads until we can stop illegal immigrants from using them?
In any case, we’re not even dealing with a bill that is offering to assist undocumented residents with paying for health care costs. We’re talking about a bill that does not have explicitly state that we must require proof of legal residency before admitting anyone into the ER. We’ve never done that, so the question is how do you want to address the issue of people who show up with head wounds, but can’t cough up a birth certificate. Are we going to in circles, because your answer will be “deterrence” again?
Would a certificate of live birth do? 
As noted illegal immigrants mean you get cheap produce. The costs to harvest if you have to pay American minimum wage plus overtime plus benefits would be staggering to most farmers that need this service. A lot of inexpensive produce you get comes with these guys behind it. Is that enough to offset what they take out of your pocket? Not sure. Enough to offset the collapse of many farms which could not pay for American labor? I do not know. But keep it in mind. There is more to this than illegal aliens bilking you of your money.
It extends to more than farms too. Generally illegal aliens do a lot of the scut work no one else wants to do and they do it cheaply.
Heck, not even always scut work. I could take you to a place in Chicago where skilled laborers (and unskilled) line up every morning. I asked the gas station attendant when I was there what the deal was. He said construction firms would roll up in a truck (knowing this is there) and would say they need (say) two carpenters and someone to shovel shit. $50 each for the day, $30 for the shoveller. Guys with the skills would raise their hands, foreman dude would pick out a few and off they’d go.
Talking to the attendant he said that happens everyday and apparently these guys are known for working hard so are sought after.
Anyway, your hands are in their pocket too as you benefit from their cheap labor.