August 23, 2009
Obama's health takeover leaves the door open for illegals.

Put a sign in front of your home saying "Burglary is not permitted" and leave the doors unlocked. Are you surprised when you valuables disappear?

Obama's health care bills have the token words about not benefitting illegals, but open new doors to them. Title II, Subtitle C, Section 246 of the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) stipulates "no federal payment for undocumented aliens." The Senate bill states that beneficiaries of federal health care programs must be a citizen or national or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States.

But there are many doors that will be opened. There is no verification of citizen requirement for this expensive entitlement. By contrast Medicaid currently has identity checks that prevent (more likely reduce) illegal aliens from collecting.

Congressman Dean Heller (R-Nev.) offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to correct that, but it was defeated along party lines.

During the House Energy and Commerce Committee's markup, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) offered an amendment that would require a check on immigration and citizenship status of those being signed up for Medicaid. It was defeated by one vote largely along party lines.

The Senate Finance Committee has not released text, only an outline that includes a mandate that individuals must carry health insurance or else face a fine. But illegals are exempt from the fine.

Run that by again: illegals are exempt from the fine. Sen. Baucus has worked very hard trying to figure out how to pay for this. Here is the result.

CNS News

"The [Senate] Finance outline says that illegal aliens will be exempt from that individual mandate. It sets up a system where you've got Americans and legal immigrants who have to have coverage or else pay a fine," Edwards said. "But illegal aliens would escape the mandate and any fine for not being insured. [James Edwards is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.]

"It appears that this sets up for illegal aliens to be free riders of sorts," Edwards said. "They still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve those (with) a medical emergency. Yet illegal aliens would be free from any responsibility or sanction that other people would bear."

Since President Obama says illegals are kept out when they are not, what else about these bills is he "incorrectly stating"?

Via Patterico in LA. See also Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas at The Hill.

Posted by Ron Hebron at August 23, 2009 09:17 PM | Email This
Comments
1. A complete insult to Americans. And an attack on their citizenship. Strong words? Absolutely. Deserved? Oh, you bet they are.

Posted by: Michele on August 23, 2009 10:42 PM
2. So how is this new, Ron? Doesn't our current healthcare system make it possible for illegal aliens to get emergency treatment that we ultimately pay for? What do you suggest as a solution -- passports or birth certificates required at the ER?

Posted by: scottd on August 23, 2009 10:46 PM
3. Scott-
Try this: Go to Mexico. Cut yourself very badly or maybe do a compound break on a bone. Go to a Mexican hospital and ask for treatment.

What they do is what we should do.

Here's another example of that just for fun: Move to Mexico with your children and put them in school. Ask the school to make sure they treat them specially and teach them in English for a few years until they get the hang of Spanish.

We should do that too.


Posted by: johnny on August 23, 2009 11:13 PM
4. Why cant we just send a bill to the country of the aliens that are requiring any services from our government? We have a bunch of people from Mexico here illegally, we know they are here and who they are, we know what services we are providing to them, the education, the food, the welfare etc....alls our country needs to do is send a bill to their country for the costs. Do that for ALL countries that have people here beyond that that they are legal for. Then, we just take that amount right from the top of the amount of aid that is given to the country from us! There...problem solved of US taxpayers footing the bill for all these people.

Posted by: mailgurl on August 23, 2009 11:53 PM
5. johnny: No, I don't think I'll try any of those things.

Maybe you can suggest what we should do in the US when someone shows up at the ER with a compound fracture. Just to make it specific, what should they do with your kid if he happens to show up without his parents or his birth certificate? While you're at it, explain how proposed health insurance reform will increase the amount of unpaid treatment we provide illegal aliens.

Posted by: scottd on August 24, 2009 12:00 AM
6. Requiring secure identification when you vote, drive a car or receive ER health care does not sound onerous to me. If it is later determined you are not who you say you are, then the beneficiary could be prosecuted and/ or deported. Note I am not advocating that anyone be turned away from ER care. I am advocating that we no longer tolerate identity fraud when handing out the privileges of U.S. citizenship.

Posted by: attila on August 24, 2009 03:26 AM
7. Scott-
Actually, I know what happens if a kid shows up and they can't verify insurance or other payment method. They stabilize then park them in a hallway somewhere. At least that's the way it was a few years back. (It happened to a nephew of mine.) A bit of a bummer, but he lived through it okay.

As for your second question: How would proposed changes in regulations increase the amount of unpaid treatment we provide illegal aliens?

Simple. Some judge somewhere will declare that this is what should happen.

I brought up the school thing for a reason. We spend billions in the U.S. providing specialized instruction to the children of illegal aliens because some judge decided it's a "right" for kids to go to school whether they are citizens of this country or not. Then some other judge decided that they have a right to be tought in their own language out of our tax dollars,etc.

It's always the same thing with these entitlements. It's not what's IN the actual bills, it's what happens when the bureaucrats begin twisting the words once they become law.


Posted by: johnny on August 24, 2009 06:44 AM
8. I wonder if Senator Baucus would have a problem if we tossed everyone who failed the immigration status check required in his bill?

How will illegals escape the individual mandate? They have to prove their status as illegals, right? Can we have ICE simply deport them at that time?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 24, 2009 06:51 AM
9. They stabilize then park them in a hallway somewhere.

That stabilization could cost a bundle and could be life-saving. So I assume your OK if we keep doing that even without documentation?

Simple. Some judge somewhere will declare that this is what should happen.

In other words, no change from what we have right now...

Posted by: scottd on August 24, 2009 07:03 AM
10. Dems need victim votes to stay afloat. If they can promise something to keep getting elected, they will.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 24, 2009 07:04 AM
11. scottd, one thing that is *new*, is that un-insured Americans will be mandated to buy insurance while illegals will not.

See the problem?

Posted by: Gary on August 24, 2009 07:19 AM
12. "In other words, no change from what we have right now..."

Thanks Scott. Then there is no reasonable need to change!

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 24, 2009 09:01 AM
13. Frankly I would rather take an illegal over many/most native-born Americans. These guys want to be here --- they work hard, they put themselves in danger to get here and they support their extended families.

I think the real reason why most people (esp. Pat Buchanan types) have issues is really because these folks are not from lily-white countries(Ireland). Today society makes it unacceptable to say this openly so we go thru all these hoops.

These guys grandkids will get the nobel prizes and they are the future. By the 2nd/3rd generation they will start beoming unproductive just like most native-born Americans (esp. pat buchanan types)!

I say more illegals and free h/c for them....maybe throw some natives (yes you) out if we need to cut costs and balance for other reasons (ecological etc.).

Go at it!

Posted by: issaq trav on August 24, 2009 10:07 AM
14. If Obumble is so concerned about reining in Medicare costs, why hasn't he named someone to head the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services?(18 Aug NY times pg A-15).

Posted by: mike336 on August 24, 2009 10:12 AM
15. Mr. Johnny...ref: "because some judge decided it's a right" and "it's what happens when the bureaucrats begin twisting the words once they become law."

Why do so called conservatives want activist judges?

The judge interpreted the bill. Why don't you use democratic means to "tighten" the bill so this is black and white? Or throw the judge out with votes? Let me see that would be deomocratic! You don't have the votes to tighten the bill or add clauses forbidding what you claim! So you want an activist judge....just one who is activist on your side!

As far as bureaucrats and other officials go most (nay, all) work for folks who are elected. So they are beholden to elected officials...don't like it find an alected official that will tighten the screws on the bureaucrat. That would be deomocracy. You don't have the votes do you?

Conservatives just want judicial activism because they don't have votes to stop affirmative action etc that they are against. Go find votes and stop whining!

Posted by: issaq trav on August 24, 2009 10:22 AM
16. #15 "Conservatives just want judicial activism because they don't have votes to stop affirmative action etc that they are against."

-

Um... yes, we do.

Posted by: Gary on August 24, 2009 11:06 AM
17. From a Canadian perspective, here are a few points:

*Our healthcare system, contrary to what some medical-financial sector shills say, is excellent. Treatment (even in ERs) is reasonably prompt and the equipment is up-to-date. The 'doctor shortage' you may have heard about was due to the Medical Associations' successful lobbying efforts, aimed at capping medical school enrolment (to create a sellers' market for their services). The worst problem with the Canadian system is that there are a lot of services NOT covered (dental, eyecare, podiatry, pharmaceuticals).

*Like the U.S. healthcare system, the worst problem is the closed-shop nature of medical professions. You can't have 'competition', when medieval-style guilds have a chokehold on the market. Self-regulation (without any public oversight) plus monopoly equals a disaster.

*Healthcare fraud, including by U.S. citizens, is a BIG problem in Canada. Saying you'll not allow illegals to access medical services is unenforceable, since ERs will simply fill up with aliens, who--by law--need to be treated.

*Like the U.S. and Britain, 'liberal' politicians in Canada love mass immigration--legal, or otherwise. This is because of the Liberals, Democrats and Labourites ties to the developers'/construction industry's lobbies. A constant influx of warm bodies are needed to keep the real estate bubble inflated. With zero population growth, you don't need to keep building housing and associated infrastructure (roads, schools).

*Both the costs imposed by illegal aliens on healthcare AND urban sprawl can only be addressed by immigration reform. Ending birthright citizenship, the prompt removal (no appeal, or assylum claims) of people in the country illegally and SEVERE criminal penalties for immigration violations are needed. Throwing the employers of illegal aliens in jail, for VERY long terms, would be a powerful deterrent. (The government could even confiscate and dispose of their business assets.) Requiring proof of legal status for driver's licenses, large purchases, bank deposits and rentals/purchases of housing (including motels/hotels) should be mandatory; failiure to report illegal aliens and visa overstays to the authorities should be a jailable offense. Religious institutions should also be prohibited from granting sanctuary. This has happened in Canada.

Posted by: Adam on August 24, 2009 11:16 AM
18. ref: Mr. Gary "Um... yes, we do."

You have doen a good job of keepign them hidden for the last 30-40 years?

Why didn't Bush-Delay etc. pass ant-affirmative action, ant-iabortion, severe-illelgal crack down, pro-school prayer etc. etc.

I guess they had the votes! Or maybe they live on another planet? (This last one is probably true!)

Is it scary to see the world changing around you? Don't have skills to compete? Find it hard to move beyond joe-plumber jobs? Worreid about the future of "stupid" family members? Man all those chinese and Indians and mexicans...save me...thy want my jobs/money.

ha ha you sound like a victim!

Posted by: issaq trav on August 24, 2009 11:24 AM
19. Every time the issue of affirmative action is voted on by the people, it (affirmative action) loses.

I sound like a victim? Why exactly?

Posted by: Gary on August 24, 2009 11:33 AM
20. Because you claim to have votes for your pet causes (illegal immigration, affirmative action etc.) and the bureaucract/activist-judges keep styming you and giving away your world to the mexicans etc.

I think you have been a victim of these judges for so long.

Let us see Roe v Wade was in 1970s, civil rights (with affirmative action undepinnings) in 60s. 30/40 years is a long time to clarify what the legislators meant (and so people wanted) since you have the votes. No?

Sure a few adjsutments have been made in some states on affirmative action. Even galciers move faster than that. You poor victim! You have the votes and yet this is all you have been able to accomplish.

Delusion or lie -- take your pick.

Posted by: issaq trav on August 24, 2009 12:06 PM
21. johnny,

here are our experiences w/ foreign hospitals:

england, severe kidney infection. immediately treated, no cost. (visitor)

england, appendectomy. taken in immediately, appendix removed, recovery in hospital. no cost. (visitor)

italy, broken arm. treated immediately, no cost. (visitor)

italy, broken leg while climbing. rescue and treatment, no cost. (nato)


bush didn't try to end abortion because republicans know it's one of the last means of controlling the sheeple on the right.

Posted by: mike on August 24, 2009 09:15 PM
22. The illegal problem is that the subsidized individual care, or even "free" plans that will be created won't screen for citezenship. Yes the ER problem remains but we become a magnet for long term chronic care disease.

We will make a market for low or no cost plans for very expensive and long term treatment regimens. The bill COULD and SHOULD require citezenship to participate in a health plan, it doesn't. It's a major departure from today. You can't get chronic disease drugs issued at the ER for regular monthly use. They don't do dialysis.

Posted by: cecil on August 25, 2009 06:15 AM
23. Issaq trav wrote:

I guess they had the votes!

Actually, no they didn't. Who led the Senate from June 2001 through November 2002? That Democrat, Tom Daschle, meaning it wasn't in GOP hands.

And the GOP never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, either. It's a completely different time and situation now. But being a good little liberal you will forget your history if it's "inconvenient" to your point...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 25, 2009 06:45 AM
24. Not surprizing considering other things he has said sounds like spin to me!!!

Posted by: Laurie on August 25, 2009 07:00 AM
25. Ref: 23. Posted by Shanghai Dan at August 25, 2009 06:45 AM

I get it now!
They (Rs) had the votes all along but just didn't have control of the Senate, esp in 2001-2002. Also although they had the votes and sometimes had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) they didn't have filibuster proof majorities ever. So see they always had votes but there were little details that were problematic! Not their fault...they were just victims! You think we should start "affirmative action" for Rs so they can stop being vicimized with all these votes!

Anyway, you claim "It's a completely different time and situation now." Wow!

They still have the votes (always have) but it is now only a matter of time before they have the filibuster Senate. And then house and then presidency (take the country back from that "black guy").

At least one thing is clear I understand why you are a conservative republican and why you are so scared of "those people" taking your jobs! Thank you for making my day...very nice!

Frankly if I had your IQ I would be equally worried and also be a republican!

Posted by: issaq trav on August 25, 2009 08:59 AM
26. At #25,

You don't see the contradictions in what you wrote?

This is rich.

Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 25, 2009 09:57 AM
27. Hey issaq trav - the whole race card dealio has been played by the dhimmis until it only demonstrates itself as Liberal Projection. Are you now admitting that you are a racist?

Knock it off...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 25, 2009 11:42 AM
28. You don't quite understand how politics works in the US, do you? President Bush and the GOP tried to push through several reforms only to be blocked by a filibuster in the Senate.

See, if you can't get it past a filibuster, then you go nowhere. That's why it wasn't complete control.

Of course, now that Obama and the Democrats run things, it is a completely different situation in that there is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Literally any policies or bills they want to push through, they can and there isn't anything the GOP can do to stop it.

Do you now see the difference?

And as far as the IQ goes, if you're the Ashwani I'm thinking of, then I'm the guy that did all the audio CODEC and custom hardware development for Wonderhorse. Seems my IQ was fine back then when Mark, Matt, and John hired me on early in the process (about a year before you joined the team, and just before it all crashed and burned).

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 25, 2009 04:18 PM
29. Here is the thing --- you never had the filibsuter-proof majorities because you never had the votes (amongst people at large) to get you that majority.

Two good things:
#1 In WA state (saetlea rea) Rs don't matter so you are whistling in the wind.

#2 Even with such ecnomic turmoil and a black guy as president the Rs haven't gotten much traction --- much less than they should have. This bodes weel for the future of the country.

So good to see a "reginal southern party" try to drop roots here....you should keep at it.

b'bye

Posted by: issaq trav on August 25, 2009 05:57 PM
30. Wow, that was pretty incoherent... Might want to try it again, but when you're not chemically impaired?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 25, 2009 06:00 PM
31. Here is the thing --- you never had the filibsuter-proof majorities because you never had the votes (amongst people at large) to get you that majority. Also, the way demographics (non-white population increases) are working it should only get harder hopefully.

Two other good things:
#1 In WA state (Seattle area) Rs don't really matter so much of this is whistling in the wind.

#2 Even with such economic turmoil and a black guy as president the Rs haven't gotten much traction --- much less than they should have. This bodes well for the future of the country.

So good to see a "reginal southern party" try to drop roots here....you should keep at it.

b'bye

Posted by: issaq trav on August 25, 2009 06:05 PM
32. "Since President Obama says illegals are kept out when they are not, what else about these bills is he "incorrectly stating"

I am getting to the point where I no longer feel some sort of obligation to be polite to the left. I believe in being polite. My wife and I were raised to help out folks who are less fortunate than us. We help look after the wonderful 90 year old woman who lives next door, (who by the way is a lifelong Democrat). The liberal environmental lawyer who lives across the street ignores her.

Polite doesn't work when one disagrees with these folks. Polite really is not a good strategy when you are dealing with folks that idolize Marx, Mao, and Che. I don't think there is much reason to be polite to people that try to ruin Christmas for children every year, and viciously attacked Sarah Palin, a wonderful decent woman who just happens to oppose one of the lefts' biggest sacred cows, the killing of innocent unborn children.

The quicker the country figures out who these people really are the faster we can send them into historic oblivion, where they belong.

They are flat lying about what they want national healthcare to look like. Their sneaky lawyers wrote a 1,100 page bill, (one of several circulating in the House and Senate...that sure doesn't confuse the issue even more), that cannot be comprehended by any reasonable person and then tried to ram it through Congress before anyone could possibly examine it. Then they have the nerve to shout at us "have you read the bill?". Of course they want a single payer system. Of course they will cover abortions. And of course they will cover illegal immigrants that they regard as yet another voting base they can pander too.

You don't have to be a genius to understand what these people are. I'm not going to be nice to them anymore. They sure aren't nice to us.

This is why people get angry at these town hall events. The left is trying to fast talk the country into accepting the socialist agenda they have been dreaming about since most of them were in college.

Thank goodness the polls are now showing that the decent, reasonable people who make up most of this country have finally had enough of the left.

And besides, the President throws like a girl.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 25, 2009 06:09 PM
33. issaq trav - the second time around was no more coherent than the first. You should steer clear of the street drugs...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 25, 2009 06:57 PM
34. Precisely why I say it is no use trying to be nice to these leftists, Alpahbet Soup.

I'd be a lot more forgiving if just a few of the leftists were angry name callers.

When you discover that nearly every one of them are insulting, miserable lying creeps such as ivan, demo kid and john jensen there is a pattern.

I'm tired of trying to have a reasoned discussion with these folks.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 25, 2009 07:50 PM
35. The left also has said we have talking points aren't they confusing us with them!!

Posted by: Laurie on August 29, 2009 10:18 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?