FACT CHECK: Health coverage for illegal immigrants

[Secretariat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_co/us_illegal_immigrants_fact_check

WASHINGTON – Rep. Joe Wilson is wrong.

In his speech to Congress Wednesday, President Barack Obama said the changes to health care that he's proposing "would not apply to those who are here illegally." That prompted Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, to shout "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber. Wilson later apologized for the outburst, but he didn't back down from his claim.

THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage.

[Lefty]

What aboutthe Senate ver? Whatrethe odds this language will survive?
I thought the R's offered up a bill prohibiting illegal aliens from govt run healthcare and the dims voted it down? Also they offered up a bil prohibiting fed money being spent on abortions. the dimsvoted it down. Why, if things are as you say?

[Boris]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_co/us_illegal_immigrants_fact_check

WASHINGTON – Rep. Joe Wilson is wrong.

In his speech to Congress Wednesday, President Barack Obama said the changes to health care that he's proposing "would not apply to those who are here illegally." That prompted Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, to shout "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber. Wilson later apologized for the outburst, but he didn't back down from his claim.

THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/10/taking_liberties/entry5301652.shtml
Does Joe Wilson Have A Case On Health Care, Illegal Aliens?

I hope you'll take the time to read this. It makes some very good points - too many to quote them all here without pulling in the whole article. Here are two:

What the Obama administration is proposing is something of a moving target -- just look at the varying opinions about whether last night's speech abandoned the "public option" -- but the White House health care page offers a reasonable summary. Nowhere does it talk about illegal immigrants.

In an interview in July with CBS News, Obama said he didn't want to include illegal immigrants but indicated that American taxpayers could be required to pick up some health care bills for their children. That's not the same as all illegal immigrants, which is what Wilson, the South Carolina Republican, was talking about.

So that brings us to to the House Democrats' proposal, aka H.R. 3200. It's true that one portion, Section 246, limits "federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." But H.R. 3200 is a large and complex bill and Section 246 is limited in scope; the overall bill contains far more moving parts than just affordability credits.


One likely reason why Democrats shot down Heller is that they're under pressure from the left to include -- or at least not explicitly exclude -- illegal immigrants. That would mean rejecting any requirement that applicants' eligibility as citizens or legal immigrants be verified.

Jennifer Ng'andu, deputy director of the National Council of La Raza's Health Policy Project, recently told the Associated Press that she believes any plan without coverage of illegal immigrants won't last. (Her group is the largest U.S. advocacy organization for Hispanics, especially Mexicans.) "If we don't talk about integrating communities that have been traditionally shut out, we're going to be talking about health care reform again in 15 years," Ng'andu said.

Added Elena Rios, president of the National Hispanic Medical Association: "We can't have the status quo. It's just a disgrace."

Which is why pointing only to H.R. 3200's section 246 -- which groups such as Factcheck.org have done -- is a bit misleading. Even the generally pro-immigration Los Angeles Times warned last month that: "The prospect of subsidized health benefits would raise the incentive for illegal border crossings. That's one reason insurance coverage for illegal immigrants should be addressed in the context of comprehensive immigration reform, not an overhaul of the healthcare system."

[delayjf]

THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage

I scanned throught the article but I don't think it mentioned the fact that CA Citizens voted to end state benefits for illegals by approving a Proposition to stop the benefits. That proposition was ruled unconstitutional by 2 federal courts and was turned down for review by the Supreme Court. So it would appear that reguardless of what's in the bill, the Courts will mandate benefits to illegals.

[chickenhead]

I scanned throught the article but I don't think it mentioned the fact that CA Citizens voted to end state benefits for illegals by approving a Proposition to stop the benefits. That proposition was ruled unconstitutional by 2 federal courts and was turned down for review by the Supreme Court. So it would appear that reguardless of what's in the bill, the Courts will mandate benefits to illegals.

Prop 187 was found unconstitutional because it was a state that did it...as the states civil employees (unfortunately you could say) were not ruled to have any standing in acting as national immigration enforcement. Since national immigration policy and enforcement explicitly falls under the Fed, if it were found unconstitutional it would have to be for a totally different reason than prop 187.

In other words, it wasn't any kind of "human rights" type issue. It was basically the state saying "if you don't do the job Feds, we will" and the courts saying that thats just not how things work.

[Pell Mell]

What's the difference if they give it to illegals because very soon there will be no illegals left to give it to.:mad:

[ddog]

If an illegal shows at an ER and the current setup is to "stabilize" and that illegal doesn't have coverage, who pays?

It doesn't matter if a HC law gives coverage to illegals or if you pay it via higher costs in your plan.

Why would we not bill the costs back to the illegals home country?
IS it our fault that his country couldn't control their borders?

O.T. alert , i am also tired of the "born here citizen deal".

If any HC is passed that "benefit" should be revoked starting the date of that passage.

[boxcar]

If an illegal shows at an ER and the current setup is to "stabilize" and that illegal doesn't have coverage, who pays?

It doesn't matter if a HC law gives coverage to illegals or if you pay it via higher costs in your plan.

Why would we not bill the costs back to the illegals home country?
IS it our fault that his country couldn't control their borders?

And is it our fault that our own country doesn't control its borders?

Boxcar

[ddog]

And is it our fault that our own country doesn't control its borders?

Boxcar



is that a question?

I am looking for something that can be put into place.
This border control deal is so much a creature of the "capitalists" here on both sides that it will not fly.

We need to do something that the "capitalists" may support.

Border control on our side is not possible given the pugs and dims leadership!

How many more years will it take you to realize that. :bang:

[boxcar]

is that a question?

What part of a "?" don't you understand? :rolleyes:

I am looking for something that can be put into place.

Something is in place. It's spelled L-A-W-S.

This border control deal is so much a creature of the "capitalists" here on both sides that it will not fly.

We need to do something that the "capitalists" may support.

Border control on our side is not possible given the pugs and dims leadership!

How many more years will it take you to realize that. :bang:

So...since you seem to be saying there is no integrity with the capitalists or the state, it seems to me that the "something" that we "need to do" is have a good ol' fashioned revolution. It's time to clean out the den of vipers, wouldn't you agree? Isn't it high time to refresh that "tree of liberty" with the blood of patriots and the scum?

Boxcar

[witchdoctor]

If an illegal shows at an ER and the current setup is to "stabilize" and that illegal doesn't have coverage, who pays?

It doesn't matter if a HC law gives coverage to illegals or if you pay it via higher costs in your plan.

Why would we not bill the costs back to the illegals home country?
IS it our fault that his country couldn't control their borders?

O.T. alert , i am also tired of the "born here citizen deal".

If any HC is passed that "benefit" should be revoked starting the date of that passage.

DDog hit the problem square on the head. The government may not pay directly for illegal alien health care but the hospital still has to render care. If those cost are not passed on or covered, some hospitals in the Southwest may go under. Before the IMTALA laws were passed, you could ship unfunded patients and illegal aliens to the "county" hospital.

During my training in San Antonio, it was not uncommon to see patients in the ER being shipped from the local Catholic hospital to Bexar County Hospital after the Sisters of No Charity had done a wallet biopsy and found the patient lacking suffient funds to stay there.

[46zilzal]

During my training in San Antonio, it was not uncommon to see patients in the ER being shipped from the local Catholic hospital to Bexar County Hospital after the Sisters of No Charity had done a wallet biopsy and found the patient lacking sufficient funds to stay there.

Small world. I did a 6 week clinical rotation in Bexar County Hospital my senior year and stayed in a local Catholic college dorm (used to educate for the priest hood there). I made full use of the great U. of T medical library there to do a senior paper on peripheral nerve entrapment pathology.

[delayjf]

If those cost are not passed on or covered, some hospitals in the Southwest may go under.

I'm surprized that has not already happened. There have been at least 5 hospitol that have closed or shut down their ER.

[delayjf]

Prop 187 was found unconstitutional because it was a state that did it...as the states civil employees (unfortunately you could say) were not ruled to have any standing in acting as national immigration enforcement.

CH,
I was not aware of the above, thanks for the clarification. My next question would be - would the courts, despite any wording to the contrary in HR3200, require the states to provide HC to illegals just as they require the states to provide schools and other public services?

[slewis]

CH,
I was not aware of the above, thanks for the clarification. My next question would be - would the courts, despite any wording to the contrary in HR3200, require the states to provide HC to illegals just as they require the states to provide schools and other public services?


Delay,

You're asking a question which cannot be answered until.....

This issue will find it's way to the Supreme Court if use of public funds and vouchers are prohibited to illegals. Thats the way it goes down in todays bull shit USA.

Im confident that with the current fiscal situation this country is in and given the dynamics of todays Supreme Court, it WILL be struck down.

[PaceAdvantage]

Border control on our side is not possible given the pugs and dims leadership!

How many more years will it take you to realize that. :bang:Not for me to answer for him, but I believe he does realize this...as do I...

[ddog]

CH,
I was not aware of the above, thanks for the clarification. My next question would be - would the courts, despite any wording to the contrary in HR3200, require the states to provide HC to illegals just as they require the states to provide schools and other public services?


my guess is that if you are taking fed funding (if you don't you are busted for sure) you will have to provide. due to fed mandates , without the fed funding, or even with it, the states go broke.

congress can put an end to it, and keep the courts out but i don't think you will get a majority to support it.

LOTS of people make TONS of money based on this corrupt deal that is HC in this country.

[Tom]

Im confident that with the current fiscal situation this country is in and given the dynamics of todays Supreme Court, it WILL be struck down.

ANY bill that requires citizens to purchase HC insurance has to be struck down.