No access to healthcare???

[Yo Mamma]

Outrageous! Illegal immigrants and how they drive up our health care costs.

[Yo Mamma]

I see the liberals are afraid of the truth.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

I see the liberals are afraid of the truth. 

 

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the .

I don't know anyone (liberal or not) who is saying illegals aren't contributing to runaway health care costs.

[NCVol]

I tell you what I think should happen - we fine employers of illegals - say, $10,000 per illegal at each workplace - and use the proceeds to cover the social costs that those employers knowingly shove off onto the rest of society as they reap the benefits of low wage, disposable, illegal labor.  It's a perfect example of one of the inevitable outcomes of unregulated "free market capitalism" in this country - private benefits, social costs.  We see it every day in thousands of communities with illegal labor, as taxpayer bear the schooling, welfare, medical costs of illegals, while employers reap the private benefits of their low wage labor. 

[Just Win]

In addition to over 1/3 of physicians retiring if this demon  beast of a bill is passed you can look for more health delivery services either close up shop or be taken over by the same entity that runs the DMV and your local post office. Socialism always leads to rationing and shortages every time.



Walgreen's says no more government Medicaid customers link = http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html

Has Bart been promised a kick back
of some kind from the President
and  from Speaker Pelosi? Check out those
hospital agreements in Tennessee.
We could have a version of the
Cornhusker Kickback going on in
the Volunteer State.


Will Rep. Lincoln obey Speaker Pelosi and sentence the children in his district to the burden of
 a yoke of lifelong debt and insolvency?

[NCVol]

In addition to over 1/3 of physicians retiring if this demon  beast of a bill is passed you can look for more health delivery services either close up shop or be taken over by the same entity that runs the DMV and your local post office. Socialism always leads to rationing and shortages every time.

Medicaid is a STATE PROGRAM - there are fifty different ones across the country, chronically underfunded since the benefits go to poor people.  The bill in front of Congress hopefully takes some folks off of the Medicaid rolls by making insurance reachable for some poor working people who otherwise have two options - Medicaid or uninsured.  

BTW, what do you call the inability of poor people to afford the average 7,000 per person cost of our care but rationing by price?  It's different than some other kinds of rationing since it only affects poor people who don't matter much in the world of conservatives, but it IS a very effective form of rationing used all over the globe in developing countries to deny health services to poor people.  

BTW, cite for that "1/3 of physicians retiring" please....  Which right wing propaganda outfit made up that little statistic? 

But maybe you can help me out with the thought process here.  We know that the bill in front of Congress spends an extra $trillion or so over 10 years - that's the cost part.  And there are some revenues to offset the cost, none of them that I know of come from providers.  So the health care system is getting an extra $100 billion per year.  But what you're telling me is that $100 billion per year in extra funding, from covering 33 million uninsureds, is going to make physicians retire - $100 billion per year in more money available to pay doctors and hospitals and drug companies is going to lead to the loss of one third of our physicians?  I'm missing something....  Help me work through the math.  Where do the physicians lose in that deal? 

I'd have thought that the extra funding to cover 33 million would HELP providers who otherwise have to give uncompensated care - the doctors and hospitals who write off all those fees to the uninsureds.  So where does the money go if not to the providers? 

[Sasquatch]

- we fine employers of illegals -

In the Obamanation, this is a moot point:

Obama backs plan to legalize illegals

President Obama gave a thumbs up Thursday to the outline of a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a flow of low-skilled foreign workers for the future, saying the immigration bill being worked on by a Republican and a Democrat is "promising."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/obama-endorses-immigration-blueprint/

[NCVol]

It was a moot point under Bush, too.  Border enforcement was a joke, and interior enforcement of employers was literally almost non-existent.  The only time the Bush administration raided an employer was during the runup to the vote on immigration reform - to give some cover to the joke that there will be effective border controls, this time. 

And don't forget which President had the last big amnesty - that's right St. Ronald of Reagan! 

The problem is liberals want to legalize the illegals since they see a potential voting bloc, among other reasons.  "Conservatives" want to legalize the illegals since they kiss the rear ends of large (and small) employers who depend on a steady flow of immigrant workers to keep wages low all across the labor scale - it's a form of offshoring the remaining manual labor jobs that cannot be moved offshore, bring the exploitable, foreign low wage workers HERE.  There is simply not much of a deep pocketed opposition to legalizing those folks. 

[Sasquatch]

Do you know if the CBO included the complete access to government healthcare for the illegals new citizens in their scorecard?

[NCVol]

No, because the plans don't offer coverage to illegals, so why would the CBO score a provision that isn't in the plan being voted on?

Instead of allowing illegals to get insurance, we'll cover them by subsidizing the ERs and other providers who have to provide care to those uninsured illegals, which is such an awesome way to provide coverage now! 

But seriously, what is the correct policy for illegals?  If they don't get covered by their employers - this should be MANDATORY and there should be huge fines for employers of illegals who don't provide insurance - then YOU and ME will cover them by paying for ERs etc.  Otherwise, I suppose we could let them die in the streets - is that the option conservatives would prefer?  Because you either cover them up front with insurance, or on the back end by subsidizing the uncompensated care with higher premiums.  The one option that isn't reasonable is to deny them care and watch human beings die from lack of care.  So what is the right policy? 

[Sasquatch]

No, because the plans don't offer coverage to illegals, so why would the CBO score a provision that isn't in the plan being voted on?

Maybe you missed my earlier link. In the Obamanation, the illegals will suddenly become legal. When this happens they will be covered. The plan covers those Americans without insurance: i.e illegals who will be Americans. Therefore, it shows how meaningless the score from the CBO was.

But seriously, what is the correct policy for illegals?   

Enforcing the current laws for illegals, therefore eliminating the illegal activity. And please spare us your diatribe about past administrations. THEY WERE WRONG. It is time for HOPE and CHANGE.

[NCVol]

The CBO scores what IS in legislation, not what MIGHT BE.  And the point remains - if we're not going to cover "illegals" or those whose status has been made legal, then what is your preferred solution?  Let them die in the streets or just pay for more ER visits?  My own would be for employers who want to hire these folks on a "path to citizenship" to pay for their health care coverage, plus a little extra for schooling, etc.  It would make the beneficiaries of the cheap labor force pay for the costs of employing them!  The "free market" solution, IMO. 

But conservatives would call that "regulation" or some such, and therefore oppose it, then oppose any plan to cover the poor people who can't afford insurance, and so what is the solution? 

BTW, I do realize we need to look forward not back, but I'm a little tired of the right wingers demonizing the left on the immigration issue when there is NO EVIDENCE that the power structure on the right has ANY interest in reigning in illegal migration.  If you face facts, and start blaming it on both Obama AND the likes of Tea Party favorite Dick Armey, then we can have an honest discussion in this country about immigration.  As is the right wingers deny and play like the three monkeys that see hear and speak no evil about "conservative" leaders on this issue.  The WSJ for goodness sakes is a huge supporter of "immigration reform" for the obvious reason that employers support "immigration reform."  You can't discuss the issue without acknowledging that simple FACT.