So clarify this. You, the son of a doctor and a non-naturalized citizen, want an enforcement mechanism that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving health care? Yes or no?

The realistic criticisms along these lines of the debate have to do with preventing illegal immigrants from receiving the credit post-treatment. But you and Jack seem to want to prevent that treatment altogether. Certainly Jack, who cited the losses due to having to care for those with no benefits and no citizenship as a weakness of the bill. Perhaps instead we can solve two problems with one stone and, when these illegal immigrants try to get free health care, we give them rat poison instead of medicine? No health care and they can't steal our jobs -- and it has a deterrent factor as well! This saves the taxpayers money, alleviates some burden on the health care industry, and solves the immigration dilemma.

Any health issues they would have means they go to the hospital and get treatment there. And besides, any health issues they have back in Europe they probably would come over here, as some have done already, as well as close family friends, to get better treatment and not wait x amount of time to get the treatment they would at home.

Sorry, they're not citizens. If one of your relatives bursts an apendix while visiting you, he or she will be left to die.

That's not true. It US law states that any one person going into a hospital must be taken care of regardless of citizenship.

I don't know if this is an issue in other parts of the country, but here in So Cal enough illegals with no insurance go to the emergency room at the closest Hospital for any and all healthcare (thereby turning a $40 UrgentCare visit into a $200 plus bill) where they cannot be legally turned away.

This costs money and also creates issues with over-worked emergency room physicians and over-crowded emergency rooms and contributes to an overall degeneration of the quality of care that these hospitals can offer.

Ultimately, we are paying - overpaying, in fact - for these folks healthcare because they do not have healthcare insurance. It would actually be cheaper for everyone if they did have insurance! One hospital here pays someone to track illegals who repeatedly come to the e-room for regular, non-emergency healthcare issues and pays for them to go to Urgentcare clinics and still ends up saving $.

Unless you're willing to live in a society that allows people to suffer needlessly (sorry, you're poor, can't help you), then you have to provide healthcare. What we have now just makes no sense since we provide the healthcare anyway - just in one of the most inefficient and leastcost-effective ways imaginable.

Non-naturalized citizen?

What we do not want is to have an illegal immigrant make a phone to a medical office, make an appointment to get blood work, or an x-ray test at a private practice where the bills are paid from our tax money. Illegal immigrants already get healthcare from taxpayers money, and a lot of it, because it is the law in the country. They go to a hospital, they get treatment. That's just, that's right that we pay for that as well as pay for our fellow citizens if they cannot afford it.

That is quite different, though, when an illegal immigrant, living here for years, refusing to get any kind of legal documentation, refusing to even become a US citizen, doesn't even want to learn English, wants to make an appointment with a private practice and we pay for the visit and the testing.

That's not true. Statistical data already showed that we will not be saving anything with this plan. It will cost us trillions from ten to twenty years. It's money that we do not have.

If there is a possibility that an illegal immigrant has an infectious disease that is airborne , you better fucking believe I'll pay to have his blood work done to make sure they find out.

Usually an airborne ID comes with illness, so at the hospital you not only already have an ID doctor already around, but your blood work will be done as well. It would actually take longer for a private practice as they take blood, send it to a lab, which can take between two to three days to get results (depends how good the lab is, a really good one gets it in between one to two days), the doctor of the private practice then submits the patient to the hospital, though depends on how ill the patient feels, then gets an ID doctor to visit the patient. If the patient is not too ill, then the patient has to make an appointment with an ID doctor and his/her private practice.

So in the end we'd end up paying for the physician's visit, plus blood work, and then the ID doctor's visit and so on.

Tough to say which is more efficient, but at least the hospital is all in one place, so i go with hospital.

So what you really want is for your father to not have to deal with illegals, is that what I am hearing?

Who provided your stats, Sarah "I can see Russia from my window" Palin? There is no final plan so there is no valid statistical data.

In California, 50% of all healthcare money is spent on paperwork and admin. We pay more - a lot more - than any other industrialized nation of healthcare and we are not even close to the top when it comes to quality.

We have a great healthcare system (if you evaluate great by how much profit can be generated by groups which deny healthcare).

We are 37th, we are 37th! Yay!

How would they do this? And, to get back to the larger point, has does this have anything to do with the current bill?

Within five seconds of that initial phone call to make such an appointment, the private practice receptionist is going to ask routine questions like "Do you have insurance?" and "What is your social security number?" and "Where do you work?" I'm not sure when the last time you were in a doctor's office, but getting paid for their services is kind of a big deal with them. So the premise itself is flawed because any private practice office would either make them pay up front or direct them to the nearest free clinic. And under HR3200, illegal immigrants are expressly denied access to the federal program, so any illegal alien telling a private practice clinic "The government's got me, hefe" is going to be turned away. So that fear you have will never ever ever be realized.

Except that doesn't happen. There isn't a doctor in a private practice anywhere in this country that would allow what you described above to happen. They would tell them "No insurance or cash? Goto the emergency room." Its happened to me and I have insurance, just not the insurance that this particular doctor accepted anymore. Told me he'd treat me but I'd have to pay by cash/credit card otherwise I had to goto the emergency room. This was my doctor of 10 years. It wasn't anything critical so I found a new doctor in my network. The point is what you're saying above is a fantasy.

Thanks Leeds, I didn't have the energy to type this.

And just so I'm not accused of dodging anything...



The method of enforcement favored by CIS is the SAVE option, which was voted out of the new bill because it defeats the very purpose of universal health care. The method of enforcement people like Joe Wilson are seeking is to deny illegal aliens health care, which is unacceptable.

So you are in favor of non-US citizens receiving health care under some circumstances? Now you understand why the Democrats did not want the provision denying healthcare to illegals under any circumstances. It is not, as some would scare you into believing, so that illegal aliens can get non-emergency care on the public dime. It's so that any human on US soil will receive emergency care if needed. It's what separates us from animals.

(202) 225-2452. Joe Wilson's phone number, by the way.

Not true for me. I stopped buying the NY Times because of their right-wing bias when they helped Bush lie us into an illegal war. It's all about your perspective, I guess. I would consider myself on the left side of the political spectrum, but certainly not the far left. I do still read the NY Times online a fair bit (I agree with you and Xcheck regarding the internet being the primary problem of the print media) and can't recall reading anything in there I would consider demonstrating the "twists and ideologies of a small group of leftists that do not relate to the majority of the country." It just reads like first and foremost an establishment paper to me that swings a little to the right at times and a little to the left at others.



link, please?

Bah - statistics will say anything that you want them to say.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli

As an Immigrant in a country that provides me with Healthcare (SOCIALIZED OMG) im damn sure i could never get them to give me an appointment at a GP and get tests done or whatever on their dime till i had my national insurance number.

You know who else the bill doesn't specifically deny healthcare coverage to? Leprechauns. Stop lying, Obama!

I fuckin' saw a leprechaun getting free health care at the ER in my town the other day. Total bullshit, man. If they want to get free health care for all of their pot-o'-gold and mischief-related injuries, they should go back to their own fairy-tale worlds to get it.

I think I saw that same Leprachaun! He was getting his broken leg fixed after falling out of a tree...

QUOTE(Hockey101 @ Sep 11 2009, 11:11 AM)
And the best way to prove that point is that MSNBC is like the TV station for the NY Times and the other leftist papers, and MSNBC has horrible TV ratings. The majority of the people do not have much interest in what liberals think and how they think. People react to such bias and they don't support it by either buying a paper or switching to CNN or FoxNews.

I would say this is a reflection on catering to the lowest common denominator more than a reflection on political views. The majority of people are watching TV with pretty flat EEG levels, and Fox News is catering to the flattest of the flat.

To you it is unacceptable. It is acceptable to common logic that we shouldn't have more tax burden to cure people that refuse to become legal and just want to take advantage of the system. Illegal immigrants already get healthcare here in the US, so stop saying that people want to deny healthcare to illegals when we already have it as a law that they must be treated in hospitals.

Again, the Congressional Research released a document saying otherwise.

In a private office, yes they ask you that information, but if Democrats are refusing to enforce amendments to 3200 that say that no illegal immigrant will have his/her medical bills, outside of hospitals, paid by taxpayers money, and that abortions will not be paid, then it is a direct intent for Democrats to make future amendments that address those issues. So....if that is the case then illegals will get treatment from private practices and government will pay doctors with tax money.

And it's jefe.

But that scenario happens with the bill allowing illegals to gain access to the government program to which doctors will abide by. It's not fantasy. I already provided material stating that the possibility is open for it to happen.

Illegal immigrants already get the healthcare. If democrats are certain that illegal immigrants will not be granted access to government paid insurance then they shouldn't have any issues with a bill that re-enforces that notion. Yet they do. Why?

If illegals do gain access to it, then they will have the right to step into a walk-in clinic or a doctor's office and government will pay.

Well, that's because you're a far left person and missed out on the majority of NY Times articles that attacked and criticizes the Bush administration from the day he stepped into office.

And what do you mean, "link please"? I only said that the NYTimes is like the MSNBC of television. That's my opinion. If you want i can link this thread's url as the link per your request....?

As with accounting, but factoring in costs is not exactly what you want them to say. Bottom line is that this will cost trillions and we're not even out of a deep recession yet.

Take advantage of the system? What do you think? That they're laughing all the way to the ER about how they're "getting one over on the US taxpayer"?

What you fail to understand, is that illegal aliens end up in emergency rooms specifically because they have no health insurance. Having health insurance allows you to see a doctor when you first notice you have a little problem. Without health insurance, you end up in the ER when you've neglected that little problem, and it's now a big problem. You also end up in the ER because you can't stitch your kids' wounds. You can't set your own broken bones. And you can't deliver your own babies. And there are more AMERICANS without health insurance than there are illegals. Illegals without health insurance aren't going to be in a private doctors office any more than an American without health insurance. There are Americans who can't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, either. Because of that, they also avoid clinics. End result, they end up in the ER when they're seriously ill. And of course, they have no means to pay for it. That is what drives up health costs.

If more people in this country had access to standard medical care, there would be less crisis care in ERs. If I could vote on it (oh, i did), I vote for my taxpayers' dollars to go to pay for universal health care, and no more bailouts.

Just a question... in 101's world.....when an illegal steps into the doctors office on the taxpayer dime....

Wouldn't they be immediately flagged and deported?

Why would the illegals do this?
They might as well walk into the office with a sign saying "I am here illegally"

Call it a hunch but I think their goal is to stay in the country..not be kicked out.

So there's your answer to my yes-or-no question. (His Dad's a doctor, by the way!)



If this is a non-issue, then why is a stupid senator from South Carolina screaming at the president?

YOU LIE!



Jesus Christ. I've been drinking for four days straight and I still can tell that this makes no sense whatsoever.

Private practices will treat unicorns before they offer medical services to anyone without either cash or insurance. And, unlike illegal immigrants, HR3200 does not contain an express provision that would deny government reimbursement to unicorns. So you make a great point. Assuming that unicorns will qualify ahead of them for medical treatment in private practice settings, the possibility is totally plausible.

Because it's a provision in a UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PLAN that would require a health care provider to check to see whether or not someone would qualify for a UNIVERSAL health care plan. "ALL YOU CAN EAT!!!" (Note: Does not apply to all food.) We silly Democrats (and many Republicans) just don't feel that human beings should be denied basic health care simply based on where they have the blessing to originally come from.



Click to view attachment

If only. There was a provision. In the. Bill. That said expressly denied. Illegal aliens. Access. To the federal program.

What made you determine that I am "a far left person" when I just told you that I don't consider myself such? If I can assume that it's not a reading comprehension thing (maybe not a safe assumption), then what makes you think you understand my political position better than I do?

Do you consider yourself "far right"? I remember you were celebrating when some fringe far right anti-immigrant whites-only party did well in some European election. That sounds pretty "far right" to me. But maybe it's not? Would the "far left" then cheer on socialist and communist parties in Europe? Because I don't do that.

What I do believe in are principles such equality for all people under the law, social justice for the oppressed, the dignity of the individual, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the scientific method, peace, the value of learning, the value of hard work, respect for others, charity, separation of Church and state, sovereign power that derives from a mandate of the people and other such enlightenment-era things. If these are "far left" positions these days, then I guess we're all hurtling towards the dark ages (sadly, just about each of these positions has come under attack).



I meant what's your evidence for that claim? Sure, it's your opinion. Is your opinion based on any facts or any particular line of reasoning?

My opinion is that your analogy is weak, because both MSNBC and FOX News appear to have made deliberate decision to position themselves on one or the other sides of the political spectrum. The NYTimes on the other hand, seems to me to try quite hard to be non-partisan. They don't always succeed, and in my opinion they seem to fail more often on the side of being too pro-establishment (which used to mean pro-Bush), but I do think they generally try. If you had said that the Wall Street Journal is analogous to FOX News, I would have the same issue with the analogy. Both the NYT and WSJ are essentially pro-establishment papers first and foremost, while MSNBC and FOX News are ideologically-focused media outlets. That's a big difference.

BTW, you never did comment on Obama's education speech, now that he's given it despite your objections. What did you think? Was he as doctrinaire as you feared?

Okay, so money is more important than people's health. Duly noted.

In this case, literally!

Ok there is a difference between illegal immigrants getting health care, and being treated in a hospital.

Illegal immigrants aren't on any kind of health plan, and in most jobs those health plans are refered to as health care. The terminology is being used to purposefully confuse the majority of people.

Walking into a hospital if your sick and being treated is not having healthcare.

To be fair he is saying getting health care.....which everyone does if they go into a emergency room.

The plan which addresses health care COVERAGE is what illegals will not have access to regardless of how 101, Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh spin it.

Yes 101 I lumped you in with those fools because you obviously drink the kool-aid.

This is clever as hell.



And another.


Now this is a protest I could get into. Protesting...with satire. I think Rachel Maddow is right. The only way to combat the absurdity of "tea-baggers", "birthers", "deathers" and "Obamacare" haters is with more absurdity. Good job, people. Also, +100 for Taco.

Sorry for being away and not responding.

No, I do not have a problem with undocumented receiving care. For gog sake, they are here already!!! The problem is already here AND needs to be resolved now. Although I came to this country legally, my mom did not and therefore I have to be mindful of those that came after me. The whole HC debate centers around the affordability factor and the millions being uninsured, and how these factors are contributing to the runaway cost. And to not take into account and try to ignore the whole 12+ million undocumented factor is either a calculated moved by the president because of the subject deep implications or an incompetency in his part (which I don't it is).

-------------------------------------------
For those that think these folks are dying in hospital doorsteps I will again will suggest you take a trip to a facility like the Lincoln Hospital in the Bronx or any city hospital in your and see for yourself how many deads are in the doorsteps. If that were to be happening, don't you think the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, or any major news outlet would be running daily stories?
HC comprehesinve reforms means that all issues/concerns/problems are taken into account and a solution is found. Therefore, the complexity and eventual implementation of any plan needs to be done at a stages to verify everyone has been taken care of and things that don't work are reviewed and revisions implemented.
Granted, nobody is perfect the 1st time, but an attempt to be as right as possible is necessary here. For such a complex issue the administrations is trying to ram this thru without any meaningful debate. Is it prudent and wise in lieu of the fact:
-We are broke.
-The government has never shown the ability to run any program in a successful or efficient manner. Why should there be a difference now? Why is skepticism bad? Why don't we tackle the medicare/medicaid fraud and inefficienies first and verify the $500 billion savings intended to pay 1/2 of the overall cost are not only attainable, but that it will not impact services and senior citizens. Reality and the math do not add up. Hence, the questioning from many quarters.
The facts are we can't afford nor we do have a chance to be wrong on this one. A $1 trillion is going to be spend and to not take into account ALL the stake holders in this matter is a fallacy. If this plan was so great, then why don't the Dems pass it? They have the super majority in both houses. Therefore, they don't need the Reps. Dems could take credit for not only finally passing HC reforms, but its great content and reapt the fruits of it next fall. Take all the pundits like myself and ask yourself the simple question as to why the Dems don't pull the trigger on this piece of legislation? It will certainly not be the 1st time they act in such manner. They freaking did it with the stimulus bill last February. No Rep in the House voted for it and only 3 (Specter, Snowe, Collins) voted for it in the Senate.

What about medicare? It's vastly more cost-efficient than private insurance plans, and although I don't have direct experience with it, the seniors seem to like it (on the other hand, if medicare were unsuccessful or inefficient, perhaps we should replace it with private for-profit insurance for some and no insurance for others?). But perhaps medicare is an unfair example, since it is a program that directly pertains to government's ability to run a gigantic health care system.

BTW, I would like to learn more about these proposed death panels. How would one get involved with these? If health care reform passes, there will of course be a gigantic need to get these death panels up and running as quickly as possible.

I assume these will be unionized government jobs (none of this TSA crap), although I hear that some of the blue dog Dems may be willing to forego the public death panel option and outsource some death panels to private contractors (Blackwater, Aetna, etc) in order to get Republicans (Collins, Snow?) on board. Depending on the pay (will there be an opportunity for earning bonuses?) and time commitment involved (I'm only available in the summers and on unpaid faculty furlough days), I might be interested in one of these positions.

If anyone knows what the minimum qualifications are and the application process, please send me a link. Thanks!

I don't think I have the qualifications to be on a death panel myself, but I would like to throw my name into the hat for a job as an executioner. I think I could be quite good at it. Unless its gonna be one of those humane lethal injection type deals. In that case I might have to pass. Needles freak me out.

I read that the executions were going to be like Carousel in Logan's Run.

Oh see, I heard it was going to be more like this:

Click to view attachment

"What's going on? I was told to report to oncology. Who are these dancing women?"

Click to view attachment

"Pancreatic cancer Mr Jones! You know how our celebrity death panel feels about pancreatic cancer."