What, exactly, do you think you are arguing? And with whom?
I am arguing that any action which serves as a deterrent to sick people seeking health care, regardless of immigration status, is contrary to the U.S. public interest. And I am arguing it with anyone who believes that having medical facilities check patients’ immigration status is a good idea.
I have enough headaches at work with clients who are here legally, but can’t convince some bureaucrat at the DMV to issue them a driver’s license to which they are legally entitled because the DMV doesn’t understand immigration law. Let people do the jobs they are trained for; let medical professionals practice medicine. Don’t make them enforce immigration laws. It’s just going to create a nightmare, and one that I don’t care to see expanded to the public health arena.
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
Ah. I see the confusion: this bill does not address health care, only health insurance.
And as for the tone of your first post, it seemed you had some issue with me or my position, but all I am doing is quoting the bill currently under consideration, HR 3200.
Also, no one is, AFAIK, “legally entitled” to a driver’s license. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege granted only after certification; it is not a right.
Last, nothing in HR 3200 would make medical care givers check a person’s citizenship or immigration status.
I will have to deal with the bulk of this later, but my clients in question were not even granted the opportunity * that state and Federal law explicitly allowed them * to obtain a driver’s license. They met all the other criteria (posession of a foreign driver’s license with countries that have reciprocity agreements with the applicable U.S. states, etc.) set by the states in question, but because the bureaucrats in charge of administering the program didn’t understand the (admittedly complex) set of documents that gave them lawful U.S. immigration status, they were not allowed to complete the application process.
ETA that you may be quoting HR 3200, but many other issues have been discussed in this thread, and I am also addressing some of those raised by others. (Including the prospect of requiring verification of immigration status before allowing the purchase of medical insurance and/or providing medical attention, which I vehemently oppose.)
Heh. I just heard on CNN that Wilson voted in 2003 to pay for treatment of illegal aliens. But that was under Bush, and we all know IOKIARDI.
Of course the issue of vagueness is dreamt up. You know what I don’t see in the bill? I don’t see anything about people not being allowed to insure their pets. And don’t even give me any business about only people being eligible; I want a way to *ensure *that our tax dollars aren’t paying for veterinary care. This means the vagueness needs over whether my dog Skip can be covered needs to be addressed with details over how you define “people,” and what measures will be taken in order to confirm or deny the humanness of the patient applying for insurance.
I don’t even think the real agenda here is to curb illegal immigration at all. I think they know if they generate enough confusion and anger about “illegals,” they can hijack yet another legitimate issue and derail it with hysteria. I wish I knew why illegal immigration is injected into everything, especially when it doesn’t even have anything to do with the issue at hand. Wait, no, I do know. It’s because you can derail any issue if you work up enough people about illegal immigrants.
Ah. Ok. That’s a bit more detailed than your previous post, and I understand what was frustrating you in that situation. Thanks for clarifying.
I’m not aware of any provision in HR 3200 with respect to restricting the purchase of private insurance, nor for recieving medical attention. The only restriction (to the best of my knowledge and rightly, IMO) is on the use of the publicly-funded insurance.
I certainly would argue against making care providers into a de facto arm of the INS; care providers should provide care, period.
Thanks for the info, I stand corrected. I’m convince, however, that such a power available for the Health Commissioner is, in the Joe Wilson’s of the world’s minds, not enough. They want something specific in there that says how illegals are to be rounded up and denied care, not just an opportunity for the HC to do so. That is why I maintain that these people are trying derail the bill by bringing up these pointless tangients
You read my mind!
First, I agree with your general assesment of the motives of the naysayers.
Second, let me point out that HR 3200 does not contain “an opportunity” for the HC to deny publicly funded health insurance to illegals, it contains a directive mandating that the HC come up with a process to assess and deny. It’s not an option.
Third, I suspect that even if there were a process delineated in the bill, many would simply claim it was not adequate and still be against the bill, using that bogeyman instead of the current one. In other words, they will never be satisfied, and will continue to deserve the currently popular moniker “the party of no”.