Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Liberals Seek Health Care Access for Illegals


Chicopee John

Recommended Posts

A group of House Democrats say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange

 

The Washington Times

 

 

Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access, The Washington Times reported on Monday.

 

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

 

"Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room," said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

 

Honda was joined by more than 20 of his colleagues in two letters laying out the demands.

 

Coverage for immigrants is one of the thorniest issues in the health care debate, and one many Democratic leaders would like to avoid. But immigrant rights groups and the Democrats who sent the letters say they have to take a stand now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a big surprise.WSS

 

Sad but true, Steve.

 

In all honesty, the entire notion of providing government (i.e. taxpayer) support for those in the country illegally makes no sense to me. Simply put, I just don't get it.

 

I disagree with abortion but, at least, I can understand why people feel the way they do - even though I strongly disagree. However, I can't see why there is any support for this at all.

 

Is it another small step on our way to a 'One World Community'.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is a perfect example of your side not having a clue. I'll be happy to defend it. Something tells me that in the next few hours you guys will even agree with me.

 

Let's take an easy example: a guy who is here illegally and works in construction gets a nail through his hand. He needs to go to the emergency room.

 

Who would you like to pay for his emergency room care: him, through the premiums and deductibles he'd pay through a public insurance plan, or the taxpayers, as they mostly do now?

 

John, no one is talking about giving illegal aliens taxpayer subsidies. They're talking about allowing individuals who are in this country to buy into the public plan. Just as illegal aliens are allowed to buy into any private health insurance plan. Just as illegal aliens are allowed to buy a new stereo or a piece of furniture. There are no laws prohibiting them from buying any of this. So you're just wrong. There are no subsidies proposed. They'd just be buying public health insurance.

 

This is probably not going to be something many illegals will do, as most don't make a lot of money. But let's remember: not all people who are working in this country illegally are lower-end workers. Some will take advantage of the increased access. Not many, but some will. That will save the rest of us money. It will save hospitals money.

 

But what Republicans - and you guys - are essentially saying is, "Let's not even allow them to pay for their own insurance! Let's make it absolutely sure that when they walk into an emergency room we pick up the tab!"

 

This is what you get when you start from "I don't like illegal aliens" rather than "How do we craft the best health policy."

 

Let's not be that guy.

 

Anyone have a problem with it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

Let's put it this way, instead of putting lipstick on a pig...

 

Two rival Mexican gangs, all members who are here illegally,

 

have the drug money to buy med insurance.

 

So, when they get into a big war, they all end up

 

in the emergency room, with bullet holes in them, and a child

 

who has a multiple fractured leg in a sports accident, is on hold for two hours.

 

because the government run insurance required proof of insurance, but

 

the parents are out of town for the evening, and the friends who took your child

 

to the hospital, call you. But, the hospital has bigger problems, remnants of the gang

 

go to fighting again, in the hospital, after following their injured gang groups there,

 

and the child who can't prove they have insurance because it can't be done over the phone

 

because the government says so and the child gets accidently killed in the crossfire

 

because a bunch of spineless, greedy liberals wanted the illegal aliens to come here and get health insurance

 

so they will be dependent on the gove forever, and they will always VOTE DEMOCRATIC

 

and Obama can become America's first Chavez.

 

I'll bet you will eventually come around to MY way of figuring it....

 

Liberals love illegal immigrant gang members for their votes !

 

So there ya go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moral to the story, which Heck will not get, but most others will, is:

 

The illegal immigrants are criminals, every one of them. Encouraging them to come here makes the problem worse.

 

Liberals want those votes, and our country is going to get very, very, very screwed up because of it.

 

They shouldn't be here. If they go to the hospital, I say use the money to send them back and let them

 

go to the hospital where they came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is a perfect example of your side not having a clue. I'll be happy to defend it. Something tells me that in the next few hours you guys will even agree with me.

 

Let's take an easy example: a guy who is here illegally and works in construction gets a nail through his hand. He needs to go to the emergency room.

 

Who would you like to pay for his emergency room care: him, through the premiums and deductibles he'd pay through a public insurance plan, or the taxpayers, as they mostly do now?

 

John, no one is talking about giving illegal aliens taxpayer subsidies. They're talking about allowing individuals who are in this country to buy into the public plan. Just as illegal aliens are allowed to buy into any private health insurance plan. Just as illegal aliens are allowed to buy a new stereo or a piece of furniture. There are no laws prohibiting them from buying any of this. So you're just wrong. There are no subsidies proposed. They'd just be buying public health insurance.

 

This is probably not going to be something many illegals will do, as most don't make a lot of money. But let's remember: not all people who are working in this country illegally are lower-end workers. Some will take advantage of the increased access. Not many, but some will. That will save the rest of us money. It will save hospitals money.

 

But what Republicans - and you guys - are essentially saying is, "Let's not even allow them to pay for their own insurance! Let's make it absolutely sure that when they walk into an emergency room we pick up the tab!"

 

This is what you get when you start from "I don't like illegal aliens" rather than "How do we craft the best health policy."

 

Let's not be that guy.

 

Anyone have a problem with it now?

 

Absolutely. Why can't we - for once, perhaps - actually cure the disease, not treat the symptoms.

 

BTW, any public option has government subsidies. You know that, Heck. Who is funding the program?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, fellas. When an illegal alien walks into an emergency room, who would you like to see pay for it? Would you like to have him carry insurance that he pays for, or would you like to make it absolutely sure we pick up his tab?

 

No action needed - in your humble opinion - to reduce the number of illegals in this country? I'd like to illiminate them 100%, but that is an unachievable goal.

 

If an illegal walks into an emergency room, he should be treated, IMHO, and then deported as soon as practical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take an easy example: a guy who is here illegally and works in construction gets a nail through his hand. He needs to go to the emergency room.

Heck

******************************************

 

Heck, you put lipstick on a pig here. The guy who works in contruction is a criminal, and shouldn't be here.

 

Or, do you think those Mexican gang members will happily pay their fine for not buying insurance?

 

My reply is only slightly more ridiculous than yours, and mine is sarcastic. Yours is actually sincere.

 

Function that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was hysterical. Democrats are doing it for the votes of illegal immigrant gang members. Who can't vote.

 

How about any of the rest of you - preferably someone who functions properly?

 

The Dems want the (eventual) votes - actually the votes right now given the state of controls on our voting registration practices.

 

The Repbs want the cheap labor.

 

Once again, it is the American taxpayer that loses.

 

It ain't rocket science.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, what to do about the illegal immigration issue is mostly separate. No matter what you do, you're going to have people who are here illegally, likely millions of them, and they're going to need medical care, and they're going to show up in emergency rooms. What are you going to do with these people, rather than imagining a fantasy world where they've all been deported?

 

Again, do you want them to carry health insurance or not? The only way it costs more money for taxpayers is if the population of the illegal immigrants who buy public insurance is less healthy and needs more care than the general population. Seeing as how most illegals are younger than the general population, and that any illegal who would buy into the plan would be more well off, I think it's more likely that the opposite is true.

 

Again, the subsidies in the plan are something that aren't available to illegal immigrants, or even many Americans. They're only available to American citizens who qualify for them.

 

If the illegals who do buy insurance use less care than the rest of the population, that would help drive premiums down, not up. (Although the effect is likely negligible, as there aren't going to be enough illegals who buy into the plan to matter much either way.)

 

Lastly, you should think about what you're saying. Take a woman who is here illegally and is the day care worker for an American family. There are tens of thousands of these people in the country right now. Come to Los Angeles and see how many people hire illegals to take care of their kids. (Because it's cheaper, and because the quality is good. Many even use them to teach their kids Spanish while they're at it.)

 

Say this woman is a victim of a robbery, or of domestic violence.

 

You'd not only like to make sure she carries no public health insurance and that we pick up her bill, you'd like to put an enforcement mechanism in at the hospital that identifies her as an illegal and then deports her?

 

Think that through a little more.

 

What person is going to show up at a hospital when they know it's going to result in their arrest and deportation?

 

This is what you'd like to see? We'll hire you, let you work for us, pay you less than we'd pay a citizen - but if you need medical care we'll treat you, then turn you over to the INS, cuff you, and deport you?

 

I don't think this is a very good or humane idea. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a very good or humane idea. Do you?

 

No, it ain't pretty.

 

A question, Heck. Do 'illegals' have to show any id - I imagine they have to cite their lack of 'documentation'. I guess they have to do something. Maybe T's model would work a lot better - go after the employers and make them pay over and above what a specific visit costs.

 

If you discourage the hiring folks, you discourage the 'working' folks and the need for this type of care diminishes. The incremental fine on the employers would go into a pool to pay for others.

 

Illegal immigration and providing health care benefits to illegal immigrants go hand-in-hand, Heck. How can you compartmentalize them like you do?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no, no. What you're describing is what we do now - we provide (for the most part) free health care for illegal aliens. This plan is to have them buy health insurance - it's to have them pay for it. In the same way you don't "get" health insurance for your health care provider - you pay for it through your premiums and deductibles and co-pays.

 

I just had a baby six months ago. And I have health insurance. I'd wager I've paid close to $8000 out of pocket since he was born, from the $3000 hospital bill to the dozens of bills for his doctor visits since. Plus, I pay to carry my insurance, and pay more to cover my wife and child.

 

If I were an illegal, I could get that all mostly for free and let someone else pick up the tab.

 

And you're for this system? You and the Republicans are going to demagogue this issue in order to defend this system?

 

Oddly enough, the best remedy for illegal immigration is what T suggested - it's fining the employers who hiring them, and cutting off the supply of labor. Just think about what's happened during the recession - fewer jobs available for immigrants, fewer immigrants. Fining employers who hire illegals would have the same effect.

 

But you touched on another problem with that - which Republican (or Democratic) Party do you imagine wants to tell the business community that we're going to start fining them en masse for hiring illegals?

 

And which Americans - especially the ones who are supposedly concerned with tax increases - are willing to pay more for just about every service they receive, every restaurant meal, every piece of produce, etc?

 

These aren't easy questions to answer because Americans, like always, want it both ways: cheaper goods and services, less of the immigrants who help make that happen. Just like we scream about mounting deficits, but would go apeshit if someone touched our entitlement spending or military budget.

 

But allowing and encouraging illegals to buy health insurance? That seems like a pretty easy question to answer. Of course we should. It benefits everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we agree to disagree Heck.

 

I want to cure the disease and you want to treat some symptoms.

 

I, too, like T's model but the Party's won't allow the cure - albeit for different reasons.

 

PS What happens when an illegal - let's say one with access to affordable health care - shows up at the ER and still lacks insurance? What do we do then? Is, or is there not, a need to incent participation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how often you guys always stumble into some version of the Democrats' plan without realizing it.

 

Think of it this way: if this were an American in your scenario, who can afford to buy insurance but chooses not to, it's not much different than the illegal - we treat them in the emergency room and then send them on their way, hoping to be able to extract as much of the payment from them as we can.

 

And that's why the reform plans call for incentives/tax penalties to make people carry insurance.

 

So while you started this thread to decry the idea that we allow illegals to be able to buy into the public insurance plan, now you're talking about a system where it'd be better if we made them carry it if they wanted to work here, or at least acknowledging that it is better if your hypothetical illegal is covered. I know that's not the point you're getting at, but it does go back to what I was saying earlier. Often times the same people who go crazy over the idea that people spend money on shoes and stereos instead of buying health insurance are the same people who are against a plan that would make it pretty close to sure that they would buy health insurance.

 

(It doesn't seem to bother them that we make people buy car insurance, but...)

 

But to answer your question more directly, what happens then? We treat the person and they walk out of the emergency room hopefully having paid at the desk, but more likely not.

 

I can't imagine that you're suggesting that when, say, Donte Stallworth gets drunk and hits someone else with his car, that if this time the Latino guy is in the country illegally we'll turn him away at the hospital so as to discourage more of them from coming here to pick our fruit.

 

What are you suggesting we do in that scenario?

 

This is the problem with your thinking, I think. There's no way that we're not going to treat people who need care in our emergency rooms. Just like there's no way that you wouldn't receive care if you get injured while on vacation in Europe or Canada or Singapore. We're going to treat these people. They're living here, whether you like it or not. If you want to make it so fewer of them are here, perhaps the most disgusting way to do it would be to deny them medical care at the hospitals.

 

And it's never going to happen anyway, because it would involve proving your citizenship before you were treated. Think about how that would work for more than a few seconds. Well, it wouldn't.

 

Now, again, would you like to give them an opportunity to pay for their own care, or make it illegal? Just think about that when you hear all the screeching about this proposal today on Fox/Rush/Beck.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's why the reform plans call for incentives/tax penalties to make people carry insurance.

 

 

If you are receiving health care benefits at an ER - be it for a catastrophic injury or a bad case of Budweiser Flu - what incentive can there be to make you purchase it? You don't buy a cow if the milk is free.

 

To a certain extent, MA requires folks to purchase health insurnace and it, simply put, is not working. Deeply in debt.

 

 

To your point, if somebody is involved in a car accident and lacks liability insurance, they are most likely brought before the courts - with or without being thrown in jail before hand.

 

In your model, what happens to somebody who refuses to purchase health insurance and, then, requires services from a healthcare facility? Sounds like you would say something like, "Please pay" and, when they claim they won't (or can't), let them walk away without consequences.

 

 

 

Maybe there is no solution to this as long as we allow these illegals to remain in this country. We need to incent them to return to where they came from.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is a perfect example of your side not having a clue. I'll be happy to defend it. Something tells me that in the next few hours you guys will even agree with me.

 

Let's take an easy example: a guy who is here illegally and works in construction gets a nail through his hand. He needs to go to the emergency room.

 

Who would you like to pay for his emergency room care: him, through the premiums and deductibles he'd pay through a public insurance plan, or the taxpayers, as they mostly do now?

 

The employer who hired him?

 

John, no one is talking about giving illegal aliens taxpayer subsidies. They're talking about allowing individuals who are in this country to buy into the public plan. Just as illegal aliens are allowed to buy into any private health insurance plan. Just as illegal aliens are allowed to buy a new stereo or a piece of furniture. There are no laws prohibiting them from buying any of this. So you're just wrong. There are no subsidies proposed. They'd just be buying public health insurance.

 

No subsidies?

So poor Americans would pay the same as rich ones?

Or will low income workers be subsidized in this fantasy public plan?

 

 

This is probably not going to be something many illegals will do, as most don't make a lot of money. But let's remember: not all people who are working in this country illegally are lower-end workers. Some will take advantage of the increased access. Not many, but some will. That will save the rest of us money. It will save hospitals money.

 

But what Republicans - and you guys - are essentially saying is, "Let's not even allow them to pay for their own insurance! Let's make it absolutely sure that when they walk into an emergency room we pick up the tab!"

 

That's not going to change enough to notice.

And the practice will continue for anybody Retardless of insurance.

 

This is what you get when you start from "I don't like illegal aliens" rather than "How do we craft the best health policy."

 

Liking or not liking illegal aliens has nothing to do with it.

But that's a typical attack from you.

 

Let's not be that guy.

 

You are that guy, like it or not.

 

Anyone have a problem with it now?

 

 

Only if we agree that there are a certain set of perks priviledges and benefits one is eligable for as a citizen of the US.

 

If not then why bother with borders at all?

 

 

 

But in the end it doesn't look like there'll be a plan like the one you dreamed up.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illegal or not, I've seen migrant workers.

 

They don't make enough money to buy medical insurance. Unless

 

you can lower the cost to less than a pair of used tennis shoes for three kids

 

at a garage sale.

 

There's a big migrant farm about eight miles from here. Nice people, but they

 

don't make the money to buy health insurance. That's just not an idea that common

 

sense has anything to do with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, you're suggesting that we do this at the hospitals? Seriously? You think that's the right way to reduce illegal immigration?

 

What are you proposing that we do?

 

What do you mean the MA plan isn't working? It's got funding issues (what doesn't in a recession?) but it's also got the benefit of covering almost everyone in Massachusetts.

 

And funny you picked today to make that case. Here's the poll of Massachusetts residents on whether they like their new plan, released today:

 

Public support for Massachusetts’ closely watched health insurance overhaul has slipped over the past year, a new poll indicates, but residents still support the path-breaking 2006 law by a 2-to-1 ratio.

 

Amid a severe recession that has led to cuts in state programs and unrelenting job losses, 59 percent of those surveyed said they favored the state’s multimillion-dollar insurance initiative, down from 69 percent a year ago. The poll, by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe, found that opposition to the law stands at 28 percent, up slightly from 22 percent in a June 2008 survey.

 

Percolating throughout the poll findings is a gnawing concern over rising health care costs, suggesting that support could erode further if the state fails to slow the growth of medical spending.

 

With key features of the state law at the heart of the blistering national health care debate in Congress, architects and observers of the Massachusetts plan say the poll findings indicate that a national overhaul is not only possible, but politically viable.

 

“Three years in operation, and with 97 percent of people covered, you have a majority of support, and that is a lesson for Washington,’’ said Robert J. Blendon, a health policy professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and the poll’s co-director.

 

The poll found that 79 percent of those surveyed wanted the law to continue, though a majority said there should be some changes, with cost reductions cited as the single most important change that needs to be made.

 

Only 11 percent of state residents favored repealing the law, similar to last year’s finding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how often you guys always stumble into some version of the Democrats' plan without realizing it.

 

Even funnier that that classification is all you can relate to.

 

 

 

Now, again, would you like to give them an opportunity to pay for their own care, or make it illegal? Just think about that when you hear all the screeching about this proposal today on Fox/Rush/Beck.

 

 

 

Oh sorry.

What's the counter again?

Olbermann Soros CNN.

 

That was great Heck.

 

Hey. Should you get the employees meal discount at a restaurant you don't work at?

 

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, it's good to hear from you again, Steve.

 

For you first line, we're talking about subsidies for illegal immigrants, obviously not for lower- and middle-income Americans. Read the paragraph. You're upset about nothing.

 

Secondly, I mention that this isn't going to have much of an effect, but the effect would be positive, not negative. Then you come in and say it won't have much of an effect. So what's the problem with doing it?

 

As for your last line, there are obviously certain perks and privileges for being a citizen, and no one is suggesting what you imagine they're suggesting. If we didn't differentiate between illegals and citizens then everyone would be eligible for the subsidies. But they're not, are they? Illegal aliens can't do a number of things citizens can do, or aren't eligible for loads of programs citizens are eligible for. I'm sure you know this. I think.

 

Right now illegals are free to buy the same private health insurance you carry. All this is saying is that they should be free to buy the public one if they so choose as well, so as to encourage more illegals to cover themselves, as the public plan should be easier to afford than a private plan. They are not, however, entitled to taxpayer subsidized insurance.

 

Why would you have a problem with that? What part of America disappears if the Mexican gardener or the Haitian health care worker chooses to buy from the public plan instead of from Aetna?

 

If this encourages more illegals to carry insurance and pay into the system, while not receiving any taxpayer help, what's the problem?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, look what is in the news ! Say,

 

San Fernando Valley.. Say, that's S. California?

 

Hmmm.... I wonder where those gang members are from?

 

Maybe not here legally?

 

But Heck thinks they should have gov supplied health insurance?

 

hmm. hmmm. hmmm.

 

 

********************************

 

L.A. NOW

 

Southern California -- this just in

<H1 class=entry-header>Infant killed in Van Nuys gang shooting</H1>September 27, 2009 | 2:50 pmPolice said the shooting that killed a 4-month-old boy and injured two others in Van Nuys early this morning was prompted by an argument between rival gang members.

 

The baby, Andrew Garcia, was being fed by a family friend who was holding him inside a car parked at 14300 Kittridge Street, close to the site of a party. Anna Contreras, 28, the friend, and Eric Ramirez, who was standing outside the car, also were shot and injured.

 

LAPD Det. James Nuttall said the baby’s father “is linked to a criminal street gang” and that Ramirez is a known gang member. Contreras and the boy’s mother have no criminal history, he said. The group had been at the party about a block and a half away, Nuttall said.

 

 

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d83...a5a1cd5d970b-pi

 

Two suspects, believed to be members of a rival gang, got into an argument with the group near the car between midnight and 12:30 a.m., Nuttall said. One of the two suspects fired a shotgun six times and both fled on foot, police said. Ramirez, 18, was shot, along with Contreras and the baby.

 

The infant was “caught in the middle of a gang confrontation,” Nuttall said. “It’s a disturbing crime scene.”

 

Contreras, who is pregnant, and the baby were transported to UCLA Medical Center, where the child died shortly afterward. Contreras was in stable condition. Ramirez walked to nearby Valley Presbyterian Hospital.

 

Nuttall says police are asking for the public’s help in identifying the suspects involved and says, “Somebody has to come forward.”

 

Anyone with information about the crime can call police at (818) 374-0040.

 

-- Corina Knoll and Ari B. Bloomekatz

 

Photo: Andrew Garcia. Credit: The Garcia family

 

More in: Homicide Report, San Fernando Valley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>If not then why bother with borders at all?>> WSS

 

That's what Heck's guys, including XXXX and XXXZ, want at the end of the day.

 

No, it's to not waste money on things that make no sense, like keeping illegals from buying health insurance, or constructing an enormous border fence.

 

Speaking of, how is that border fence doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you are apt to say, Heck, I don't believe that this research study had adequate controls and is representative of the residents of MA.

 

Plus, the Globe barely has ANY credibility these days.

 

John, please. I say that when I can show how a study isn't done right. I don't say it because it sounds good.

 

What's your problem with the Harvard/Globe study? Have you spotted something wrong with the methodology or sample? I doubt it. You certainly haven't mentioned anything.

 

No, you just don't like its conclusion. That's not the study's problem. That's your problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, it's good to hear from you again, Steve.

 

Awww.....

 

For you first line, we're talking about subsidies for illegal immigrants, obviously not for lower- and middle-income Americans. Read the paragraph. You're upset about nothing.

 

Secondly, I mention that this isn't going to have much of an effect, but the effect would be positive, not negative. Then you come in and say it won't have much of an effect. So what's the problem with doing it?

 

So what's the problem with not doing it? That would make it easier to pass wouldn't it?

 

As for your last line, there are obviously certain perks and privileges for being a citizen, and no one is suggesting what you imagine they're suggesting. If we didn't differentiate between illegals and citizens then everyone would be eligible for the subsidies. But they're not, are they? Illegal aliens can't do a number of things citizens can do, or aren't eligible for loads of programs citizens are eligible for. I'm sure you know this. I think.

 

Sure. And why is that?

 

Right now illegals are free to buy the same private health insurance you carry. All this is saying is that they should be free to buy the public one if they so choose as well, so as to encourage more illegals to cover themselves, as the public plan should be easier to afford than a private plan. They are not, however, entitled to taxpayer subsidized insurance.

 

You're telling me that the (probably non existent) public option will have the same costs to every wage earner?

 

The 8$ an hour guy will pay the same premium as the $150 K one?

I don't believe that would be the case Heck.

[/b]

 

Why would you have a problem with that? What part of America disappears if the Mexican gardener or the Haitian health care worker chooses to buy from the public plan instead of from Aetna?

 

What part disappears if he gets SS ?

Federal grants for college?

If he can vote?

Food stamps Sec 8 housing?

VA benefits?

 

If this encourages more illegals to carry insurance and pay into the system, while not receiving any taxpayer help, what's the problem?

 

Because part of what makes them illegal is being part of that underground economy.

You think that guy can take a part of his five bucks an hour and pay for the public option?

You think the gardner will expose himself to inmmigration in order to shell out a couple hundred of his slightly more than a couple hundred bucks?

 

Be serious Heck.

How much do you expect the public option to cost?

 

But the bottom line is that if you and the president are going to try to sell this plan as something that illegals can participate in, best of luck.

 

WSS

 

WSS[/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...