heckofajobbrownie Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 "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." I'm not telling you that because it isn't. Where do you imagine that I'm telling you this? We just went over the subsidies. They're available to American citizens on a sliding scale. The size of the subsidy in the Baucus bill is the sticking point for some people, including Olympia Snowe. Yes, the public option with be subsidized for lower-wage workers. I'm not trying to tell you otherwise. Look, I've got to get some work done, but none of your complaints are policy complaints. You're saying it might bug certain people politically, so let's not do it. Well, we should do it because it's good policy, that's why. Because it would save some money by encouraging people to buy into the system. Not all illegal workers make $5 an hour. Some will buy into the system if we let them. That's a good thing. As for your list, really. How do you type this stuff without first thinking about how embarrassing it is? Not a single thing you listed was analogous to what we're talking about. Now, again, you guys flipped out when I suggested that conservatives reaction/opposition to this idea is mostly driven by their anti-immigrant sentiment. And yet here you guys are, unable to come up with a valid policy reason for opposing it, and Steve's even suggesting that the real problem with it is that people won't like the idea and it will make the plan harder to pass. In other words, the opposition is based on a reflexive anti-immigrant sentiment. Hey, when he's right he's right. Hey, the National Parks are a government program. So is the Post Office. Maybe we should bar them from visiting, even if they pay the fees, or sending a letter, even if they buy a stamp. They obviously shouldn't be entitled to taxpayer subsidies unless they're legal citizens. But they should be able to buy insurance if they choose to. It makes it a lot easier and cheaper for all of us when they need to get medical care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 In other words, the opposition is based on a reflexive anti-immigrant sentiment. Hey, when he's right he's right. Why should I be afraid or embarrassed to say that my opposition squarely rests with an anti - ILLEGAL immigrant sentiment. Mine does. Don't try to mix the two groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 They tend to mix themselves. I don't know if that describes you - I don't know you. But it makes me wonder: when you go out to eat, do you first make sure none of the help in the back are illegal immigrants? When you buy produce at the store, do you make sure it wasn't picked or harvested by an illegal? What about the meat you buy? Do you make sure it wasn't slaughtered and butchered by illegals? Do you check with health care providers? Landscaping companies? Construction companies? Cleaning services? And all the rest? Do you make sure you don't support those employers by refusing to give them your business? Like I said, I tend to doubt it. So I don't think you're anti-illegal immigrant sentiment is all that pure. I assume you enjoy all the benefits that the rest of us do. But god forbid one of them want to buy health insurance for themselves while they're here. That part must be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 "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." I'm not telling you that because it isn't. Where do you imagine that I'm telling you this? We just went over the subsidies. They're available to American citizens on a sliding scale. The size of the subsidy in the Baucus bill is the sticking point for some people, including Olympia Snowe. Yes, the public option with be subsidized for lower-wage workers. I'm not trying to tell you otherwise. So if an illegal is not one of those you suppose earns an above average wage he should be able to buy that as you see it. Correct? In which case he certainly is subsidized. Look, I've got to get some work done, but none of your complaints are policy complaints. You're saying it might bug certain people politically, so let's not do it. Well, we should do it because it's good policy, that's why. Because it would save some money by encouraging people to buy into the system. Not all illegal workers make $5 an hour. Some will buy into the system if we let them. That's a good thing. Should Canadiens be allowed to purchase it? They come to American hospitals by the droves. Should all foreign nationals be allowed to purchase it? On the same sliding (subsidized) scale as US citizens? As for your list, really. How do you type this stuff without first thinking about how embarrassing it is? Not a single thing you listed was analogous to what we're talking about. Your complete rejection of rathional tthought bother you? Now, again, you guys flipped out when I suggested that conservatives reaction/opposition to this idea is mostly driven by their anti-immigrant sentiment. Anti illegal. And yet here you guys are, unable to come up with a valid policy reason for opposing it, and Steve's even suggesting that the real problem with it is that people won't like the idea and it will make the plan harder to pass. Just tell Americans that the suggested plan is to allow illegals to purchase a policy subsidized by US taxpayers. Hey tell your own party., Republicans can't stop you. In other words, the opposition is based on a reflexive anti-immigrant sentiment. Hey, when he's right he's right. Anti illegal Heck. Again. You aren't supporting breaking US law are you? Hey, the National Parks are a government program. So is the Post Office. Maybe we should bar them from visiting, even if they pay the fees, or sending a letter, even if they buy a stamp. Yes Heck. They are in violation US law by being here. We should bar someone who has broken into your home from using the shower too. They obviously shouldn't be entitled to taxpayer subsidies unless they're legal citizens. But they should be able to buy insurance if they choose to. It makes it a lot easier and cheaper for all of us when they need to get medical care. If indeed taking care of criminals is the goal. Under your view we must first forgive the illegal entry. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Heck, they only tend to mix themselves when dishonest people rationalize away being disagreed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Steve, what part of "not able to receive federal tax subsidies" gets you to "will receive tax subsidies"? The sliding scale you mention is not available to people who are working in the country illegally. I don't get your point. But good to know you're against letting them pay to enter a National Park, or buy a stamp at the Post Office. And yes, if a Canadian is here working illegally (my former rugby coach was a Canadian working here illegally) and wants to buy into the public insurance plan they can do so. Except they would never bother, since they're already insured as Canadian citizens, and if the Canadians you suggest are coming to the US in droves for medical care they can't get in Canada (not really true) they are already covered by their Canadian insurance. So you don't have to worry about the Canadians. And I'd ask you the same questions as I asked John - do you make sure you're not receiving the benefits of illegal immigration and boycott businesses that employ illegals accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Steve, what part of "not able to receive federal tax subsidies" gets you to "will receive tax subsidies"? The sliding scale you mention is not available to people who are working in the country illegally. I don't get your point. Take a breath. If a policy is worth XXX and you get fir XX due to your economic status the rest of the cost is being subsiidized by the US taxpayer. Lower income people don't pay taxes. You're the one who wants to sell it to illegals. But good to know you're against letting them pay to enter a National Park, or buy a stamp at the Post Office. They are breaking the law by being here Heck. What part of that don't you get? And yes, if a Canadian is here working illegally (my former rugby coach was a Canadian working here illegally) and wants to buy into the public insurance plan they can do so. That's not what I said as you (might) know. Canadian come to the US for all kinds of needed treatment they can't get at home in a reasonable time. So: Why not let Canadia citizens buy in? Cheaper than paying full prive here eh? Or must they break in to receive the Heck bounty? Except they would never bother, since they're already insured as Canadian citizens, and if the Canadians you suggest are coming to the US in droves for medical care they can't get in Canada (not really true) Yes Heck. Really true. Oh you can suffer or die or come here if ya want. about the Canadians. And I'd ask you the same questions as I asked John - do you make sure you're not receiving the benefits of illegal immigration and boycott businesses that employ illegals accordingly? I'm sure I do Heck. I bet I drive on roads that were partially paid for by bribes and burn gasoline from countries where people have been killed for oil profits. So.....? If we couild replace the UAW with illegals the American auto industry would be #1 again right? Good to know you're up for it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 "If a policy is worth XXX and you get fir XX due to your economic status the rest of the cost is being subsiidized by the US taxpayer. Lower income people don't pay taxes." I can't make head or tail out of this, or how it relates to the proposal. You want to try it again? The plan will cost X amount of dollars. If you meet the eligibility requirements you will receive a subsidy, the size of which depends on your situation, or X minus the subsidy Y. Illegals aren't allowed to receive subsidies, so they can only purchase the insurance at full cost, or X. No subsidies, or Y. What part of this aren't you getting? And lower income people don't pay taxes? What world are you living in? As for this, once again, you make my head hurt: "Canadian come to the US for all kinds of needed treatment they can't get at home in a reasonable time. So: Why not let Canadia citizens buy in? Cheaper than paying full prive here eh? Or must they break in to receive the Heck bounty?" Like I said before, a Canadian in the situation you describe is covered by their Canadian insurance. The Canadian government will pay the American hospital/doctor's office for that treatment. There's no need for the Canadian citizen to buy into the system, nor is the American system being shortchanged. It's already covered. But yes, if they're in the country illegally and want to buy the public insurance here they should be allowed to do so, because it's better for us if they do. That way they don't show up at the emergency room without insurance. Did you imagine that I was only in favor of this for Latino immigrants or something? No Canadians or Vietnamese need apply? The rest of your post is the usual nonsense: what if I pretend he's for replacing the UAW with illegal aliens? How's he going to come back from that (which I made up in my head)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Or we can try it this way: why don't you mind that illegal immigrants can buy private insurance from an American company, but mind that illegal immigrants could buy public insurance from the US government? I can see not wanting the taxpayer to subsidize it, and I agree. No one is suggesting that they do. But why not let them buy insurance if they're willing to pay for it? Great, now I've wasted another day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 They tend to mix themselves. I don't know if that describes you - I don't know you. But it makes me wonder: when you go out to eat, do you first make sure none of the help in the back are illegal immigrants? When you buy produce at the store, do you make sure it wasn't picked or harvested by an illegal? What about the meat you buy? Do you make sure it wasn't slaughtered and butchered by illegals? Do you check with health care providers? Landscaping companies? Construction companies? Cleaning services? And all the rest? Do you make sure you don't support those employers by refusing to give them your business? Like I said, I tend to doubt it. So I don't think you're anti-illegal immigrant sentiment is all that pure. I assume you enjoy all the benefits that the rest of us do. But god forbid one of them want to buy health insurance for themselves while they're here. That part must be stopped. I do not buy into the notion that illegals only work at jobs that Americans won't do. Hey, my mother in law was cared for by an illegal Jamacan woman. She was the best. At the same time, it bothered me that she here. My solution would be to have somebody -even me - sponsor her for citizenship. Happy ending is that she is now a US Citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Thats great John, i am glad she took it upon herself to become a legal citizen, there are to many who want to come here and take advantage of our welfare system. Yes, many illegal aliens are hard workers, but they are ignorant to the fact that they dont have to take the job at half the price. It is killing the US economy. I have a friend, him and his brother have been in the roofing business for over 30+ years, he is telling me that he cannot compete with the mexican roofing companies. They are doing the jobs at co$t. How can that be I asked? he said simply they will charge the supplies under one of their names and never pay for it. And when the credit runs out they insert a new name. The only thing he can compete with is government work that requires the E-verify for workers on the job site. And because it is bid work they are just staying a float. But as we all know the Democrats need the Illegals to keep voting them in office, and with Acorn being investigated and under the microscope it is getting harder for them to conduct business as usual with all of the ballot box stuffing and signing dead people up to vote crap we heard of in all of the battleground states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 I've worked at restaurants and hotels with staffs made up of many illegals. They were not only some of the most hardworking people you'd ever want to have, but some of the nicest. Don't you imagine that your stories and mine are replicated a thousand times over? I'm not sure that really matters, but it should inform your decision. These people aren't monsters; for the most part they're workers. And many of them have no intention of staying. They're here to make money and take it home where it's worth more than they could ever hope to make. And it's anecdotal, but of the 20 or so that I've worked with and known in my time, I've never met one who wanted to stay. Clearly some do. And I'd agree with you that not all the jobs they do couldn't be done by Americans, construction and landscaping being two areas that, until recent years, were rarely staffed by illegals, but now are almost completely. But this is all somewhat beside the topic we're discussing. Take the woman in your scenario. Say she became ill and needed her appendix taken out. Who do you want to pay for it? Earlier you were suggesting deporting her after her treatment. Do you think she'd want to go to the hospital if she knew she was going to be arrested? Why not give her the opportunity to buy public insurance while she's here - or more importantly, why bar her from doing that? She will receive no federal subsidies. And her medical costs will be lower for taxpayers as a result. Or you can go with spite and pay more. But that's not a very smart way to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 I've worked at restaurants and hotels with staffs made up of many illegals. They were not only some of the most hardworking people you'd ever want to have, but some of the nicest. You know what Heck? I agree with you 100%. I've worked in and around that business all my life. And I won't waste much more time while you try to twist this conversation to another of your ridiculous personal attacks. " Or you can go with spite " The bottom line is this. I'd venture that someone working here illegally is doing so because he can do better here than in his home country. He takes risks every day for that. The employer by and large saves money by getting some service at below market value. But they're both breaking the law regardless of whether or not that busiuness is more profitable. Even if it means that beer or meal costs a little less. Even if I enjoy that fellows company. Now you may want to drift off into some kind of open border policy you wish for but lets stay with the matter at hand. The public option (if it comes to pass) will have a price tag. I can't believe it will end up being revenue neutral. I'd doubt you seriously could either. But the purpose of having it is to offer a less costly subsidized plan to those who can't or don't wish to pay what a for profit company would charge. So no matter what anyone may wish, the US taxpayer is going to pick up at least some of the cost. Just like healthy Aetna customers pick up the tab for unhealthy ones. Etc. Also "Do you think she'd want to go to the hospital if she knew she was going to be arrested?" Nope. Would any illegal worker decide to come clean to sign up for a public plan? What do you do with any illegal once the authorities know thgey're here? Just disregard the law? What do you do Heck? With skyrocketing unemployment (no matter who you blame) and Americans having to cut way back on the lives they've spent years working toward, I can't see the hard left of your party pulling this one off. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 PS on a side note in 1986 or so I had to drive up to Peterborough Ontario to pay a big fine to spring my aax player out of the can. He was packing to return to the states after staying a week or two, with a girl he'd met after our visas expired. That's when immigration lockled him up. I then had to get him out of the country. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Illegal immigration is a very tricky subject cos we need to balance out humanity with rules but i just want to point out that there are not only good illegal immigrants but bad ones too. ever since the season started the politics section has taken the back bench for me .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Exactly. I started a thread long while back, about the tramatic effect of Mexican drug gangs that have come over here illegally. Then somebody says "But they should be citizens because a certain Mexican lady works very hard, and she is a wonderful person. Why do you hate her" kind of crap. The truth is, ignoring the criminals who came here for more affluent pickings... must not get hc and ss and welfare and the vote. But that vote, hey now, that seems to be what the liberals dream of. An even MORE dependent class of people, who know enough English that they can be manipulated with socialist quips and appeals for votes. People come here from all over the world and become citizens. Coming here illegally is crime. Get over it if ya don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.