How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The times...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The times...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


100 posted 09-19-2009 08:27 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Just out of curiosity, if these illegal aliens are working at jobs that American citizens could be holding, then they are paying social security into the social security fund under phony numbers of some sort.  This money is withheld by the employer.  The worker never sees it.

     Have you ever seen your social security withholding?

     This money is paid into the social security fund for disability and for emergency care, as I understand it.  I'm certainly willing to be corrected about this.  At any rate, if this money is paid into the social security fund, it is money that these folks never see, and it represents the input of at least a significant number of the illegal aliens into our joint retirement system that they do not tap into at least in terms of actual retirement pensions.  WE tap into that money from them.  The money that they tap into for emergency medical care and other services may well be covered by the payments that they make through the withholding system into the social security system, which is, as I understand it, insurance for those people who pay in and the percentage of those who need care.

     Wouldn't that include these illegal aliens?

     If your withholding funds are not being paid into the system by your employer, we generally consider that the employer is committing fraud, don't we?  It is the employer's responsibility to make those payments and to make those payments, and to do the paperwork.

     How angry do you get at the millions are American citizens who work part or full time under the table and don't pay taxes on that income?  

     At any rate, it appears to me that the illegal aliens do pay sales taxes and a fair number of them pay social security withholding and other such taxes but never actually collect benefits from them.  We may be making more money from them, overall, than they are making from us.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


101 posted 09-19-2009 09:17 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I think Social Security is one of those currently unfunded or underfunded government obligations. The politicians helped themselves to the lock box and threw away the key a long time ago. Many of us may never see a penny of all that we have been paying into it.

If the illegals using phony or stolen SS#'s in order to work here illegally can't collect on it in the future, that's their own fault for breaking the law by being here illegally in the first place and by committing fraud on top of that. It doesn't entitle them to anything. I did hear something a while back though about Congress considering or passing legislation granting SS to illegals. I don't remember the details though. Too much has happened recently to keep up with it all, or to even retain some of it in the memory banks.

I'm not angry with anyone, Bob. If it didn't bother my conscience, I'd try to find work under the table myself!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


102 posted 09-19-2009 11:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"At any rate, it appears to me that the illegal aliens do pay sales taxes and a fair number of them pay social security withholding and other such taxes but never actually collect benefits from them.  We may be making more money from them, overall, than they are making from us." - BobK

A study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that in 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. Total uncompensated educational, health care and incarceration costs were estimated to be 10.5 billion. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/26/170334.shtml

Care to revise your comment, Bob?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


103 posted 09-19-2009 11:58 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     I do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media

     You may also wish to see a quick selection of the following:

http://mylifeasanalien.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/at-tax-time-illegal-immigrants-pa  y-taxes-too/  

     In keeping with my personal policy, you should have a look at the postings after the initial one  in the above listing.  The ones underneath will be expressing views that are closer to your own as I understand it, and which I find . . . personally difficult.  I chose to list this particular reference because it offered you these pieces, and because it gave you a chance to see that I try to look at therm as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/business/19illegals.html  

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

Sincerely, Bob Kaven


     I can supply a very large number of further references, should they prove of any interest.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (09-20-2009 01:44 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


104 posted 09-20-2009 01:26 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:
  Denise:
I think Social Security is one of those currently unfunded or underfunded government obligations.




     Social Security is funded.  Anybody who has social security tax withheld from their paycheck funds it, and this includes most of us.  Legal immigrants fund it the retirement portion, but do not benefit from it until they become citizens.  Illegal immigrants fund the retirement portion but do not benefit at all.  Their funds are nevertheless factored in to the income the government counts on the system generating every year.  I don't think many people actually complain about this, including the legal and illegal immigrants involved.

     Whether they actually have grounds for complaint would be an interesting but probably fruitless discussion.

     The notion that Illegal immigrants do not contribute to health care costs in this country, however, seems to me to be somewhat different.  The illegal immigrants do pay a fair amount of money in social security taxes and in income taxes and in sales taxes, many of which are designed to go to payment of health care costs.  Much as we complain about our various sin-taxes on tobacco and alcohol, for example, much of this money is supposed to be ear-marked for care of people with health problems due to consumption of these products.  Illegals pay their share of these taxes.  They may be said to pay a disproportionate share of social security taxes, because they will frequently not apply for refunds due to them.  And a substantial part of these social security taxes are paid out to hospitals.

     I would be interested to see if there was a good way of figuring out what the actual distribution of costs actually was.  The figures that Mike quotes above are figures that Grinch has already addressed earlier, and it would be interesting to see what an actual breakdown of the real  figures would be, no simply a rehash of the figures for unrecovered costs from hospitals.  Not all those figures are due to undocumented immigrants.  Having worked in hospitals, I've known a fair number of indigent patients, as well as people who've gone into bankruptcy because of health care costs.  Only a few of them have been illegals.  Many have been simply too rich for government assistance and too poor to pay food, rent and medical bills all at the same time.

quote:

    Many of us may never see a penny of all that we have been paying into it.



     Yeah, my Grandfather — my mother's dad, — said that.  He had a catastrophic illness at the end of his life, and if it hadn't been for social security and medicare, he'd have had to go into a nursing home.  None of us had the dough to take care of him.

     Have you every figured out what the actual total was that you put in?  They give you a regular accounting, you know.  If all that you were going to get was limited to what you'd already put in, how long do you think that would last, prices for things being what they are?  About two good months of hospital care would use it all up, wouldn't it?

     One big operation and two months of hospital care would just about wipe all that out and then some, if all that was being talked about was what you could do for yourself.  Even then it would leave you in debt, and that's not counting on the cost of medication or extended care afterward.

     The government, whatever its flaws, has been keeping ahead of that curve for about 75 years.  That's not perfect, but it's not terrible, either.  It's managed to keep up with people's lives getting longer and their quality getting better overall the whole time.  If it was making a profit off the whole business, it would never have been able to keep up.

    Making a profit is great for some things.  

     It's simply not the best solution for everything all the time and everywhere.

     For health care right now, profit seems to be getting progressively greater for the insurance companies and coverage seems to be getting progressively more limited for the folks who need it.  If you think of this in terms of the market, you might consider that the people who are selling insurance have too much of a monopoly on the market because they've got a lock on the people who set the ground rules.  It's not a free market.

     If the government sets up a single payer system that works and returns good service for a fair price, then the private companies are going to have to figure out some way of competing for their market share.  So far their method has been mostly cheating by stacking the deck.  That's what they're trying very hard to do again now.  If they fail, they may have to rethink their services and pricing structures.  That would be novel.

quote:

If the illegals using phony or stolen SS#'s in order to work here illegally can't collect on it in the future, that's their own fault for breaking the law by being here illegally in the first place and by committing fraud on top of that. It doesn't entitle them to anything. I did hear something a while back though about Congress considering or passing legislation granting SS to illegals. I don't remember the details though. Too much has happened recently to keep up with it all, or to even retain some of it in the memory banks.



     Illegals don't collect on pensions.

     They do collect on emergency services because it's in your interest (and mine) to have vaccinated people walking around rather than carriers of polio and smallpox.   Would that more of our citizens understood that.  It's in your interest (and mine) that people with Flu get treated before they spread it, and that they get vaccinated for that before that catch it.  The largest strides made in terms of length of life and in health of the population at large has been in terms of infectious diseases and in public health (such as in treatment and prevention of cholera and VD) and in provision of sewage and clean water.

     When we don't extend this care to every human being in the environment around us, it is the same as cutting our own throats.  That is a matter of pragmatics.  

     I believe the notions of actually finding a workable program to accomplish the exclusion of one group from the midst of another have tended to become less and less ethical the more explicitly the actual details of their execution — and I use the word advisedly — are made known.  I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong by being shown any half dozen or so successful and ethical programs for winnowing illegal aliens from the midst of a national population.  Any three, for that matter.

     I'd settle for a clear picture of any single program universally acclaimed as successful and ethical as a way of beginning discussions, however.  It would at least show that there is something we know we can work towards.

     If there is no such universally acclaimed success story, I would suggest that demands that we hold out for a situation in which illegal aliens can be excluded successfully, ethically and pragmatically from our society are simply  ways in which we are able to stop thinking realistically about what our country actually needs and what we actually need to do to make the best real country out of what we have to work with.  We're simply sticking our heads in the sand.  And saying, "So there!"

      
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


105 posted 09-20-2009 05:13 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
It's no doubt a difficult thing to track,


No Denise, it's a totally impossible thing to track due to the way your system works.

Remember the figure I supplied for that UK hospital - £4,845 - that's a pretty precise figure don't you think? Do you want to know why?

In the UK we have a single payer system augmented by private insurance. To get treatment in the UK you need a National Insurance number. They give you a nifty little card to prove you're eligible or they can retrieve it from a central database if you supply your name and address.

Anyone who doesn't have a National Insurance number isn't a UK citizen and treatment is chargeable. If the patient is an EU citizen and is eligible for health care in an EU country and can prove it the UK government will honour that cover and recover the cost from the relevant country. Everyone else gets charged. Obviously a small number can't or don't pay but the exact amount can be precisely calculated because 100% of the people not paying are non-UK citizens.

In the US however the overwhelming number of people incurring unrecoverable costs are US citizens - the largest group of uninsured people - illegal immigrants are a smaller but undetermined subset.

Because your system lumps all unrecoverable costs into one pot there is absolutely no way of calculating the amount that illegal immigrants cost the tax payer. The best you can do is estimate as I did earlier.

You could eliminate a large proportion of the cost incurred due to illegal immigrants by changing your system - a single payer system would do it - but that would seem to be a rather large hammer to crack an extremely small nut.

quote:
but I think your estimates may be a bit on the low end, Grinch. The 200 million was the estimated costs to hospitals as unrecoverable, not the total cost to taxpayers.


I was simply working off the figure you supplied Denise.

quote:
Here is a study that puts the estimate for total illegal immigrant healthcare costs to federal and state governments at 10.7 Billion annually


Is that your final offer or will it go up when I explain why it's wrong?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


106 posted 09-20-2009 08:24 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"In the UK we have a single payer system augmented by private insurance. To get treatment in the UK you need a National Insurance number. They give you a nifty little card to prove you're eligible or they can retrieve it from a central database if you supply your name and address. Anyone who doesn't have a National Insurance number isn't a UK citizen and treatment is chargeable."

=======================================================================

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-wont-cover-illegal-immigrants--55021087.html

It would appear that the President and Congress have no intention of following the UK example in that regard.

Many California hospitals cannot afford to absorb costs and many are forced to close due to financial mandates for treating illegal immigrants. As recently reported, 84 California hospitals are closing their doors forever. Hospital closure degrades health care to all in the community and results in job losses. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/26/170334.shtml

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has a report (PDF Format) in their spring issue that points out the detriment of illegal aliens to the health and health care system of Americans. http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000859.html


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


107 posted 09-20-2009 12:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says there should be an investigation into the hidden-camera video involving employees at the activist group ACORN and a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp. The two ACORN workers are seen apparently advising the couple to lie about her profession and launder her earnings to get housing aid.

The video is only the latest problem for the group, which had nearly $1 million embezzled by its founder's brother and has been accused of voter registration fraud. The House and Senate voted last week to deny federal funds to ACORN.

Obama told ABC's "This Week" in an interview broadcast Sunday that what he saw on the video "was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated." But the president did not say who should investigate. And he said it is not a major national issue he pays much attention to.

"Frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely," Obama said. "I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_acorn


LOLOL! Anybody who believes  that has a double-digit IQ.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


108 posted 09-20-2009 12:34 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, do you really think that having a public option will foster competitiveness with private insurers when it will be the government who holds all the cards, from funding sources (taxation) to making all the rules of the game? I don't see that as a level playing field.

I also pay income taxes, sales taxes and SS taxes. That doesn't entitle me to free healthcare.

Perhaps your grandfather's prediction will come to pass in this generation. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, with the baby boomers coming of age. I thought it ironic that when the H1N1 vaccine becomes available it will only initially be available to those under 50. That seems to coincide precisely with Obama's healthcare advisor's (Zeke Emanuel) philosophy of age-based treatment.

And I'll ask you one last time since you didn't answer me the first two times:

About the only thing that the so-called 'birthers' agree on is that Obama is withholding all documentation pertaining to his past life that could shed any light on his citizenship status to the tune of over a million dollars so far. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask 'why?', do you?


Are you implying that I am playing games with you on the numbers, Grinch? That I'll 'up' a figure next time around simply because you've 'explained' why the one given is wrong?

That knocks me back a bit since you are obviously intelligent enough to know that the two numbers given by me are estimates of two different costs; the first being the unrecoverable costs to hospitals due to the uninsured population (and I'll even grant you that this figure is for legal and illegal resident uninsured), the cost of which doesn't get passed along as a tax liability to citizens, but does do damage to individual communities in healthcare services due to overcrowding and hospital closures, as Michael noted above, and the second being costs to the federal and state governments soley due to illegal immigrant healthcare, which does get passed along to taxpayers. Apples and Oranges.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


109 posted 09-20-2009 12:40 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

He supposedly didn't know about the March on DC last weekend either, Michael. But we waived to him as he flew over the crowd on his way to Minnesota!

Obama is either very uninformed or very disingenuous. Neither speaks very well of him.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


110 posted 09-20-2009 12:55 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
It would appear that the President and Congress have no intention of following the UK example in that regard.


I think you're mistaken Mike - you don't need to be a UK citizen to purchase private health insurance. I think you misread this bit:

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option"

The public option, like the NHS in the UK is only applicable to eligible citizens, private insurance is available to anyone willing to pay for it.

The UK and US are exactly the same in this regard.

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


111 posted 09-20-2009 01:43 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Are you implying that I am playing games with you on the numbers, Grinch?


No, I'm implying that you are trying to find figures to prove a flawed assumption when the reality is that no figures exist.

The point I'm making is that the way your system works there is no way to accurately separate the unrecoverable costs of health care incurred by illegal immigrants from those incurred by ineligible US citizens. The best you can do is guess, which is what all those racist fear mongers who cite illegal immigrants as the source of all your problems and keep manufacturing telephone number figures to back up their inane claims.

No matter what figure you dig up to try to prove your point a probable maximum of only 3% of the total can ever be applicable to illegal immigrants. For every $3 you claim they're costing you it's costing you $97 for the ineligible US citizens.

What you need is a system that insures everyone - universal health care would do it.

On to your two sets of figures:

quote:
the first being the unrecoverable costs to hospitals due to the uninsured population


These are people who get treatment without cover, are billed but don't or can't pay. The $200 million. A probable maximum of 3% can be attributed to illegal immigrants the rest is attributable to uninsured Americans but the bottom line is you don't know exactly how much is attributable to illegal immigrants beyond it probably being less than 3%.

quote:
the second being costs to the federal and state governments soley due to illegal immigrant healthcare


This is where people get treatment and the cost is claimed against Medicare or Medicaid by the hospital, sometimes illegally, they call it "presumptive coverage". Again a probable maximum of 3% can be attributed to illegal immigrants the rest is attributable to ineligible Americans. The cost of this is totally incalculable. You can pick a number from 1 to 100 billion and nobody can prove you're right or wrong. The only thing you can say is that whatever number you select at random illegal immigrants will only be responsible for a maximum of 3%.

It's a self-defeating argument Denise.

However much illegal immigrants are costing you uninsured Americans are probably costing you more by a country mile. Why are you concentrating on 3% of the problem and ignoring the other 97%?

It makes no sense.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


112 posted 09-20-2009 03:07 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Regarding California and illegal immigration Victor Hanson
wrote in 2002 with a follow up in 2007:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_2_do_we_want.html


http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_mexifornia.html


.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


113 posted 09-20-2009 04:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I think you're mistaken Mike - you don't need to be a UK citizen to purchase private health insurance. I think you misread this bit:

Actually, that was not the part I was referring to. It's my understanding from your words that, should a person not prove to be a UK citizen (and must show proof), he is chargeable. In the current US plans being offered, no proof of citizenship is necessary...there is simply no charge.

I consider that a difference...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


114 posted 09-20-2009 04:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          I responded to your comments about "so called birthers" in posting number 55.  Briefly, I said:

quote:

           It was Huan Yi who brought up the topic.  You already know my thoughts on the matter and do not take them into consideration.  Should you believe that Huan Yi feels they are a vital and lively issue, you should take them up with him.



     I think it is a non-issue.

     Should you feel that it is an issue that demands discussion, I am certain there are others who are as fascinated by the ins and outs of the issue as you are, and it would be more fruitful for you to continue the discussion with them.  

     I felt the issue was closed when I saw the birth certificate on line.  I believe that the business about long form and short form birth certificates has been put to rest by the Sate of Hawaii.  I feel that the truth of the President's position has been checked by actual reasonably objective sources.  You and I have had discussions about this in the past. The continual "yes, butting" on the side of the birthers has reached a place where it hinges on more and more obscure pieces of data and the data seems more and more tenuous.  Each time one odd statement is refuted, another odd and even more tenuous statement shows up with even less connection to any sort of central line of reasoning.  

     While there may be some extremely small chance there is some truth to it — and I say this with the same attempt at open-mindedness that I would extend to somebody who is certain the earth is flat and wishes to prove it to me — I need to be convinced.  I would actually need to be engaged thoughtfully and with good will by those who hold this position.  That would include their thoughtful willingness to consider and — at a minimum — actually remember what I've said to them already on the subject.  This hasn't happened so far, and I see little evidence that it will happen in the future.

     That includes being told that I haven't responded when in fact I have.

     I do not believe that there is sufficient fact to the case for me to spend time discussing it.  For the President to spend time talking about it would steal time best used in other ways when his lawyers could deal with it more efficiently.  If I see at some point there is enough fact for me to want to discuss it, or if I grow outraged enough for one reason or another, I may change my opinion.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven

    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


115 posted 09-20-2009 04:32 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi,

           Victor Hanson is an extraordinary Historian.  His work on the Greek Hoplites is well worth reading both for the wonderful quality of his prose and for the trenchant quality of his thinking.  For a man such as yourself, he would be a wonderful resource about the nature of man and war, and he is well respected by the wonderful John Keegan as well.

     I don't know that any of these qualities makes him a particularly well qualified commentator on modern politics, although he has attempted to fill that role.  His somewhat self-righteous and bellicose book published a year or so after 9/11 proved itself a well intentioned attempt to justify the Bush administration's tissue of lies.

     I will need to read the articles you've referenced to be able to comment any more fully.  Hanson is, among other things, owner of a family run vineyard; and he will have had relevant experience, and he will have written about it tellingly, so I can say honestly if a touch ruefully that I look forward to being taken to task brilliantly by a man worthy of admiration.

    Thanks for digging this one up, Huan Yi.

All my best, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


116 posted 09-20-2009 04:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

When one starts talking about the small percentage illegal aliens are costing US citizens and the hospital system, one cannot also ignore the rest of the picture. Health care for illegals represents about 1/6 of what illegals actually cost when you figure in education, social services, etc.

Our immigration policies are basically a joke and you may recall that I was completely against Bush on that topic. Our policies are surpassed in stupidity only by the military "Don't ask-don't tell" lunacy. What the government is basically saying is that it is against the law to enter the country illegally. However, if you do manage to accomplish that, then you can apply for all of the social services, education and emergency health care you need. In other words, we will reward you for being able to get through the border. Why shouldn't they try?? Now, this proposed bill is simply enforcing the fact that they will continue to be covered, even while the president and democrats say they won't. The simple fact that no one will be required to prove citizenship when receiving treatment spells that out quite clear. Again I ask....why SHOULDN'T they keep trying? We are making it too lucrative for them not to....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


117 posted 09-20-2009 05:06 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
In the current US plans being offered, no proof of citizenship is necessary...there is simply no charge.


That's only half true Mike, proof of citizenship is definitely not required for private insurance inclusion, for public insurance however it is a mandatory measure of eligibility in both the UK and US.

The confusion arises when it comes to emergency treatment.

It's definitely true that almost all hospitals are obliged to treat emergency cases, which are life, limb or organ threatening. Even if the patient does not have sufficient health insurance. That's where Denise's $200 million unrecoverable costs come from, but none of that is a consequence of any of the proposed bills, it's due to an act passed in 1986 - the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


118 posted 09-20-2009 06:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Dead' patient in Barack Obama health care speech lived another three years

A patient whose death President Barack Obama highlighted as an example of poor health care in fact had his insurance reinstated and was able to live another three years.


By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 5:23PM BST 17 Sep 2009

The president told the poignant story of Otto Raddatz, without naming him, during a speech to Congress last week aimed at reinvigorating support for his proposals to reform health care.

He said the Illinois man was dropped by his insurers in the middle of chemotherapy treatment, because they discovered he had failed to report a gallstone which he claimed had been unaware of.

"They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it," the president said in his primetime address.

In fact following complaints by his sister, a lawyer, and Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general, the patient's policy was reinstated within three weeks of it being rescinded in early 2005, according to the Wall Street Journal.

His insurers then paid for a stem-cell transplant that kept him alive until this year.

Mr Obama appears to have exaggerated the story after White House speechwriters lifted it from the news website Slate.com without thorough checking.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6202915/Dead-patient-in-Barack-Obama-health-care-speech-lived-another-three-years.html


....and Obama still doesn't understand why people  don't believe him. Go figure......
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


119 posted 09-20-2009 06:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike,

         Quoting myself is less work than writing it out again and I find myself getting more tired more easily these days.

     I begin by talking about illegals (and legals, for that matter, while they aren't yet citizens) not being able to collect social security pensions.

quote:


     They do collect on emergency services because it's in your interest (and mine) to have vaccinated people walking around rather than carriers of polio and smallpox.   Would that more of our citizens understood that.  It's in your interest (and mine) that people with Flu get treated before they spread it, and that they get vaccinated for that before that catch it.  The largest strides made in terms of length of life and in health of the population at large has been in terms of infectious diseases and in public health (such as in treatment and prevention of cholera and VD) and in provision of sewage and clean water.

     When we don't extend this care to every human being in the environment around us, it is the same as cutting our own throats.  That is a matter of pragmatics.  

     I believe the notions of actually finding a workable program to accomplish the exclusion of one group from the midst of another have tended to become less and less ethical the more explicitly the actual details of their execution — and I use the word advisedly — are made known.  I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong by being shown any half dozen or so successful and ethical programs for winnowing illegal aliens from the midst of a national population.  Any three, for that matter.

     I'd settle for a clear picture of any single program universally acclaimed as successful and ethical as a way of beginning discussions, however.  It would at least show that there is something we know we can work towards.

     If there is no such universally acclaimed success story, I would suggest that demands that we hold out for a situation in which illegal aliens can be excluded successfully, ethically and pragmatically from our society are simply  ways in which we are able to stop thinking realistically about what our country actually needs and what we actually need to do to make the best real country out of what we have to work with.  We're simply sticking our heads in the sand.  And saying, "So there!"




     When I say, "would that more of our citizens understood that," I mean that we've got lots of citizens who figure that it's somebody else's responsibility to get vaccinated and prevent them from getting measles and mumps and smallpox and polio, not that you should understand it's in your interest to have everybody around you vaccinated against these illnesses.  Not understanding the need to get vaccinated against these basic illnesses whose prevention has been understood for almost a hundred years is like believing in the usefulness of drinking sewage, with the exception of folks who are allergic to egg products and some of the other culture mediums used to grow the vaccines themselves.

     I would like to know how you are planning to exclude illegal immigrants from the fabric of American life without acting unethically and possibly illegally in the process.  And I would like to know how you believe that withholding care from these people in emergency rooms and preventative care in general does anything but attack the health welfare of the population in general. Were you planning on leaving the bodies unburied as well to save the extra money?  

     You do understand, outrageous as it sounds, that this is the logical extension of the complaints you are voicing?

     Why not sit down and come up with a thought through plan that accomplishes what you'd like and doesn't have the unwanted side-effects that I'm certain you'd rather avoid?

     This might actually be something that everybody could do together, rather than something that everybody would have to fight each other to accomplish.

     I might not like that people drive without insurance, for example, get into accidents and kill themselves and other people, or injure themselves and other people.  That doesn't mean I'm in favor of letting them bleed to death on the side of the road, and letting the cars and bodies rot there, even if they don't have the money to pay for a tow or to pay for getting stitched up.  Are you?

     Perhaps you could quote some figures about how well private donors did during the 19th Century, when there were a great many deaths from unmarked railway crossings in the cities of the United States.  Perhaps you could use those figures to show how well these private donors worked in the absence of government help?  I'd be interested to hear.  I honestly don't have an answer, though because it's hard to apply funds to a need without some sort of systematic organization, I suspect that governmental structure rather than ad-hoc organization would probably be more effective.  I might be wrong.

     In the mean time, instead of fighting about immigration and health care, why not try to look at it together.

     For example:

     What do you want your health care system to do for you and for your country?

     How many of the people in the country do you think it ought to cover?

     How do you think we ought to pay for it?

     How much should it cost?

     What do you think it ought to pay for?



     I think those are five pretty decent questions.  I'm willing to take a shot at answering them if you are.  Heck, I'm willing to take a shot at answering them even if you aren't.  I'm even willing to say I don't know where I really don't know.

     Is anybody willing to look at them with me?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

    
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


120 posted 09-20-2009 06:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Miss Raddatz told the Chicago Sun-Times she took no issue with Mr Obama.

"The point is that my brother lost his insurance coverage when he was dying," she said, adding that her brother had been suffering from stage IV non-Hodgkins lymphoma.


I thought that was the important point too but you're right Mike they should have got the rest of the facts right.

Simply repeating what you read on the interweb is never a good idea.

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


121 posted 09-20-2009 06:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I don't mind answering them Bob. It'll not be tonight though. It's bedtime in the UK.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


122 posted 09-20-2009 07:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, I read the entire article and I agree that the insurance company was wrong (and horse's arses) in terminating coverage when they did BUT, at least, through legal action they were able to get it re-instated shortly thereafter. The system worked...and the patient lived another three years.

Whenever I get facts wrong on here, I get them wrong. I'm not speaking to 200 million Americans. Obama should at least get his facts straight and clear, especially when he is asking for public trust. All of his "personal" examples like Tilly Mae in Memphis or some such other prime-time character are just people his speechwriters dig up and feed to him....not much to instill confidence there.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


123 posted 09-20-2009 09:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm not the one acting without good will, Bob. I merely asked you to directly answer a direct question, which you, for some reason refuse to do.

I also am not the one who has to prove anything. Questions have been raised, beginning two years ago during the primaries, that have been ignored, swept under the carpet and ridiculed, and now any documentation that could help answer those questions have been officially sealed from view. I don't accept a digitized computer generated online "certification" attested to by FighttheSmears, MoveOn and FactCheck as a satisfactory production of evidence, while all the actual documentation exists behind lock and key, and a very expensive lock and key at that.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


124 posted 09-20-2009 09:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


I would like to know how you are planning to exclude illegal immigrants from the fabric of American life without acting unethically and possibly illegally in the process.

Beats me. Off the top of my pointed I would say stop all social services...food stamps, unemployment, education or whatever social services they are awarded now. Would I deny them emergency treatment? No, I wouldn't..but, upon their recovery, I would have them deported with instructions on how to apply legally for citizenship. I would make them understand there there would be little benefit to entering the country illegally.

Perhaps you could quote some figures about how well private donors did during the 19th Century, when there were a great many deaths from unmarked railway crossings in the cities of the United States.

Sure, Bob, right after I research what private donors did with regards to the Black Plague in the 14th century   Whatever point you are trying to make with that example is lost on me.

Am I in favor of letting people bleed to death by the side of the road? Thanks, Bob....guess you just can't help yourself.

What do I think about health care. I think it should be mandatory for all who can afford it and I think it should be made affordable. How? Cracking down on the insurance companies, getting serious about tort reform, reducing waste in the hospital system, going after the drug companies, etc etc etc. There are many ways to make it more affordable. You seem to insinuate I feel the health care system is fine and doesn't need any changes. Neither I, or anyone I know, believes that.....but  it does need a lot of tweaking. What it does NOT need is to be government run. Government has proven that it cannot run ANY business effectively...perhaps because many of it's members  have no business experience. This particular government has done nothing more than quadruple the national debt in less than a year. Obama claims it will not add to the debt, a statement refuted by almost everyone. He claims he can finance it partially by eliminating waste. What has stopped him from initiating policies to eliinate waste up until now? He claims it will not interfere with private insurance, another statement refuted by the CBO and everyone in a position to know better. He simply wants it to be government run.

I believe health insurance should be like car insurance, in a way. With car insurance, those with less money take out less coverage but still meet the minimum. Those with more can take out as much extensive coverage as they want. If you believe that every person is entitled to health insurance, then why don't you believe that every person has the right to drive a car, whether or not they have insurance? Last time I checked, the constitution made no mention of either car insurance or health insurance being one of our inalienable rights.

There are millions of people here who can afford health insurance and yet don't carry it. Why? WHo knows? Feelings of indestructability, youth, or simply not wanting to...your pick. SHould you be paying for their health care? Should I?  The government sees fit to make us responsible for their health care needs, but  not them? What's wrong with that picture?

Those are my thoughts and, yes, I know you can take them apart and have a feast with them so proceed if you like. You asked my opinion and here it is....period. Are there holes in it? Undoubtedly. If I had all of the answers, I'd run for Congress, so at least there would be one person there who knows what he's talking about.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The times...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors