Again, the bill is not about providing health care, it is about providing health care insurance.
You are asking questions that have no relation to HR 3200.
While the bill does not cover illegal immigrants, there are other provisions that strictly restrict a provider from questioning about immigration status.
So basically while the bill doesn’t cover illegal immigrants, there are provisions that prevent anyone from asking if you are illegal in the first place.
So if you can’t ask AND verify whether someone is in this country legally you are in effect giving illegal immigrants the same free or low cost healthcare as anyone else in that income bracket.
Since most illegals are low income, they woud get it.
Two seperate amendments to require verification of immigration status have been killed in House committees.
From a corporate standpoint I do not think they are morally equivalent. I see how you get there, but while they both share the guilt of steering jobs away from Americans, the people who hire the illegals are breaking American laws and paying below market wages. Those who outsource are breaking no laws and usually pay at least a fair wage for the market they are in.
So, while they may share one attribute, they differ in the other two. And consequently I feel no need to hold the same opinion of both.
Well, Obama keeps going back and forth on how he refers to it. Regardless, if someone is proposing such huge reforms that will solve the problems, that one very big problem just can’t be ignored. It has to be taken into account. Not doing so is irresponsible and disingenuous, if not dishonest.
Not actually how goods distribution is priced, but thanks for playing.
No, really, you’re partly right. There’s a lot of food that isn’t picked by migrant workers. There are a lot of undocumented aliens that are paid just as much as if they were citizens. Raising pay wouldn’t destroy the economy at all.
However, the loss of the labor force would be a short-term shock if farmers all complied, & I’m not sure you would actually get compliance–partly for this reason. Which is where we are.
If the Health Commissioner says we don’t require proof of citizenship to determine eligibility, is it clear clut that “people in this country illegally cannot get insurance through the public option”? Is there any language requiring the Health Commissioner to require such proof? Is there any likelihood or precedent that, without such language, the Health Commissioner would, in fact, require proof of citizenship?
To date we don’t have much of a track record for requiring proof of citizenship for anything, even where it’s clearly illegal. In point of fact, the very idea that we should be walking around with some sort of citizenship proof is anathema to many Americans.
Therefore, HR3200 is simply being disingenuous–or playing the populace for fools–if the bill says something which in practice is unenforceable, in principle has no broad support for having ever been enforced, and in fact has a rather long history of being ignored in the breach.
The doublespeak on both sides needs to end for this debate to proceed.
Yes, the current health plan will result in the opportunity for illegal aliens to purchase healthcare through current and public-option pathways.
No, there is no plan to require citizenship at the time of purchase even if it is technically illegal to do so. It is technically illegal to immigrate here without going through the proper channels and yet millions of people have done so. It is technically illegal to work here without the proper papers and yet millions of people have done so.
It may become technically illegal to buy insurance without citizenship and yet millions of people will do so. Those promoting the bill know that this loophole will get them where they want to get with the least amount of resisitance by those who would otherwise block the bill on this account.
And the same sort of ridiculously unrelated arguments such as those around whether or not our food supply is cheaper because of illegal aliens will persist on both sides. The OP does not ask if illegal aliens are a net benefit. It wants to know if the current bill extends coverage.
Yes. Yes it does, regardless of any language about illegal aliens not being covered. The reason is that citizenship tests will not be applied, and in fact the philosophic bent for those promoting the healthcare coverage is universal coverage regardless of ability to pay or class or citizenship status.
It is none of those things. Illegal immigrants receiving care is not within the scope of the bill, nor is it an issue that has anything to do with health care insurance.
It is an extraneous bogeyman.
The Health Commissioner cannot say that. Why would you think that legally he could just ignore the clear language of the bill? Do you think former President Bush is likely to be HC?
Yes, there is. I quoted in my post above.
What the fuck are you asking? There is such language in the bill. I already quoted it.
Cite? Please show cites to corroborate your assertions. Please show that in practices where it is necessary to be in this country legally, the federal government has dropped the ball and not enforced that requirement by ignoring it. Are passports issued to illegals routinely?
No, it will not. As has been shown repeatedly, the public option will not be available to illegal aliens.
You are almost right here. There is no plan yet. As has been shown repeatedly, it will be up to the Health Commissioner to devise the plan, once HR 3200 is passed.
You have nothing but your own baseless fears and prejudices to back up your assertions. You have been shown repeatedly the language of the bill, yet you choose to cling to the words of Rep. Joe Wilson as a mantra. I pity you.
You are wrong.
Okay, let me see if I have this straight so far.
The healthcare reform bill seems to be about making sure that everybody can get health insurance.
Although the bill specifically says that anyone in the country illegally cannot get this public option insurance or the credits to pay for it, the argument being presented here is that, if the application process for the public option and the credits to pay for the public option premiums for low income workers does not require proof of citizenship, then illegal aliens will illegally obtain this insurance/credits. Am I understanding correctly so far?
If so, I only have one more question. How many illegal aliens are getting Medicare? 'Cause it seems to me that that would be a good predictor of whether or not illegal aliens are going to be able to get this public option insurance.
Close. The argument being presented is that despite the fact that HR 3200 will require proof that people are not here illegally, it will never be enforced (or even have a procedure for verification determined, despite the fact that the bill directs the HC to do so).
Perhaps the best resolution to the debate here will be to table it for now and revisit the issue after a bill passes–if it does pass–and see what actually happened.
I am unfamiliar with Mr Wilson except for his recent outburst; as I mentioned over in the IMHO section, I feel he should have been removed from the chambers on the spot for that particular outburst.
At a personal level I think the only workable solution is to get everyone who lives here–citizen or not–insured and paying into the insurance pool.
That personal opinion was not the issue raised in the OP. The issue raised was whether or not the bill being considered would do that for illegal aliens.
So, the 12 million uninsured illegals—25% of the 47 million that Obama trots out as the proof of the need of reform—don’t have “anything to do with health insurance”.
How very odd.
OK, I am still asking the question I asked before (because it seems to me that looking at what has already happened is good information when trying to predict what will happen)"
If there is a flaw in my understanding that makes illegals collecting Medicare irrelevant to this discussion, please let me know.
I tried to google an answer to my own question, but my fu is weak.
One can only get close to that number by misleadingly including **legal **non citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23sun1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
But the number that is being ignored here is the one from the under insured, the number of Americans with no or inadequate coverage is more than 47 million.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/05/news/economy/healthcare_underinsured/index.htm
I think the “vagueness” in the bill is a bit of a red herring. Stupid people like Joe Wilson and the tea bagging nuts who are shouting about the illegal immigration provision are not interested in clarifying vagueness. Because the original bill has been posted and the relevent sections cited, multiple times, there is no question of vagueness except for people too stupid to understand it, like the tea baggers, or too malicious to lie about it, like Joe Wilson.
Rather, I think they are trying to use “vagueness” in order to move the bill from one about health care to one about enforcement of illegals. The bill says, in plain language, that undocumented immigrants are not to be covered. That is quite clear to me, and many of us who can read. However, the bill does not provide for a way to distinguish who is illegal and who is not, and does not provide consequences for violations. That, I believe, is what the guys like Joe Wilson want. They want to hijack a perfectly good bill on health care and use it to enforce their dream of a white america and put in place jail time and punishment for illegals and their collaborators. All of which is besides the point of health care.
If they want to mess with illegals, they can do it in their bill, but they know they wont have such an opportunity to mess with Dems and obstruct a progressive bill, so they are making their case now. The health care bill is perfectly fine on the subject of illegals. It does not need any more clarification.
You are assuming that all people without legal U.S. immigration status are uninsured, which I really doubt is the case. Some of themhave U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouses, some of whom presumably have insurance coverage for their dependents. Or they may even have jobs of their own, with insurance coverage that they have earned.
Bolding mine.
The thing is, as has repeatedly been pointed out, the bill does direct that the Health Commissioner is to set up a method for determining a person status re: eligibility, even giving him powers to coordinate with other federal agencies (INS, IRS, etc.).
It would be COMPLETELY MORONIC to do anything that would discourage people, regardless of immigration status, from, say, seeking treatment for infectious diseases. Or do you think that bacteria decide who they will infect next based on whether that person is a U.S. citizen?
The part of the bill you are citing gives the Commissioner control over who is elegible for credits (subsidies), which is different from being eligible for the exchange itself. As stated, there is ambiguity in the bill whether illegal immigrants could participate when paying their own way. Obama seems to be willing to change that to make it illegal for illegal immigrants to participate in the exchange: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/latino-lawmaker-rips-obama-for-making-it-harder-for-illegals-to-buy-private-insurance.html
Personally, if they are paying, I say more power to them.