(Illegal) Immigration may threaten health vote

[peejay 327]

Immigration may threaten health vote

By Jared Allen - 11/05/09 07:38 PM ET

The illegal immigration issue is emerging as the biggest threat to passing healthcare reform in the House.

Congressional Hispanics have threatened to vote against the bill because of a last-minute threat from within the Democratic Caucus to bolster the House bill’s immigration restrictions to match those included in the Senate Finance bill.

And they’re also fighting President Barack Obama, the original sponsor of the language prohibiting illegal immigrants from accessing the public health insurance exchange.

On Thursday afternoon, four leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) traveled to the White House to meet with Obama on behalf of the entire group.

Officially, the purpose of their meeting was to talk to the president about healthcare.

But CHC members, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the group’s message was clear: Drop your insistence on preventing illegal immigrants from accessing the public exchange, even if their only option is to pay for insurance plans entirely out of their own pockets.

A public exchange is a nationwide pool of health insurance providers that would facilitate access to coverage for individuals and employers.

Obama has promoted the concept as a key component of healthcare reform.

The House healthcare bill already bars illegal immigrants from enrolling in the public option and from receiving subsidies for health plans.

But if the final Senate healthcare bill contains the exchange-prohibition provision that’s in the Finance Committee bill, the provision could also be included in a conference report.

And CHC members have said publicly that they would have a very difficult time voting for any healthcare bill that contained such a provision.

“I am concerned about the manner in which the exchange has been characterized, and I understand the politics of it,” said CHC Vice Chairman Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), “but it is very bad policy.”

Gonzalez was at the White House meeting along with CHC Chairwoman Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) and Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the only Hispanic member of the Democratic leadership.

Vulnerable Democrats may push for language that would match the Senate provision on preventing illegal immigrants from accessing a public exchange.

And while there was no identifiable sponsor or group of members pushing for that last-minute change, a Democrat with direct knowledge of the process for guiding the healthcare bill through the Rules Committee described it as a distinct possibility.

If House leaders determined that they needed to insert the Senate immigration language in order to pass the healthcare bill, the Senate language would be included in a “self-executing” rule allowing for consideration of the healthcare bill containing the change.

Should that occur, members of the CHC have said they will vote against the rule. Assuming all Republicans vote no, a revolt of any more than 37 Democrats would torpedo the legislation. The CHC has 27 members.

But a significant number of Democrats — largely from conservative districts — may demand such a change if they believe Obama and Senate Democrats will stand firm on their support for stronger language than the current House language.

“I have to be able to reassure my constituents that those who are here illegally cannot avail themselves of the provisions provided in this healthcare bill,” said freshman Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.). “The Senate language may tighten that up a bit.”

Connolly said he wouldn’t necessarily need the Senate language to allay his concerns, but he said that he can’t make that determination until he sees the final language of the bill.

“You’ve got real competing interests among Democrats in the House over abortion and immigration, and I believe the immigration issue is the more significant of the two,” he said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66649-im...-threatens-vote

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Taxpayer funded subsidies shouldn't go to to illegals, but I don't see the problem letting them buy policies (other than those provided by public option) with their own money. The larger the pool gets, the cheaper it is for everyone. And it'll just mean illegal money will end up benefiting legals... its just kind of how insurance works.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am getting deja vu.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=227289

Edited November 6, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[HAL 9000 96]

Taxpayer funded subsidies shouldn't go to to illegals, but I don't see the problem letting them buy policies (other than those provided by public option) with their own money. The larger the pool gets, the cheaper it is for everyone. And it'll just mean illegal money will end up benefiting legals... its just kind of how insurance works.

And this is where it will likely end up.

Thank you for your balanced, less hysterical, opinion.

[Dan J 277]

Taxpayer funded subsidies shouldn't go to to illegals, but I don't see the problem letting them buy policies (other than those provided by public option) with their own money. The larger the pool gets, the cheaper it is for everyone. And it'll just mean illegal money will end up benefiting legals... its just kind of how insurance works.

If a public option is going to work it will basically be a public run insurance company with anyone being able to purchase a policy at the full premium. The only difference is that it will provide subsidized policies to those who qualify.

[peejay 327]

I am getting deja vu.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=227289

Yes you already posted the same article, but under another post title. Who knew?

[SMR 368]

Taxpayer funded subsidies shouldn't go to to illegals, but I don't see the problem letting them buy policies (other than those provided by public option) with their own money. The larger the pool gets, the cheaper it is for everyone. And it'll just mean illegal money will end up benefiting legals... its just kind of how insurance works.

I see a problem. They're illegals. If they have money in the first place to buy the policy, they almost certainly are earning money somehow. That's illegal.

I have no problem with people coming here and would actually like if it was easier. But if you make it easy for people to live here after violating the law and coming here illegally, it doesn't help the country. You need to either enforce the law or change the law. Making a system that is specifically designed to not catch people that are violating the law disregards any definition of justice that I can think of and should be offensive to every law abiding American.

[Dan J 277]

Taxpayer funded subsidies shouldn't go to to illegals, but I don't see the problem letting them buy policies (other than those provided by public option) with their own money. The larger the pool gets, the cheaper it is for everyone. And it'll just mean illegal money will end up benefiting legals... its just kind of how insurance works.

I see a problem. They're illegals. If they have money in the first place to buy the policy, they almost certainly are earning money somehow. That's illegal.

I have no problem with people coming here and would actually like if it was easier. But if you make it easy for people to live here after violating the law and coming here illegally, it doesn't help the country. You need to either enforce the law or change the law. Making a system that is specifically designed to not catch people that are violating the law disregards any definition of justice that I can think of and should be offensive to every law abiding American.

The point is, a healthcare system should be pretty much ambiguous to immigration status except when providing tax payer funded subsidies. If you require every person to have a legal status in the US, in order to buy health coverage, then you make the system less efficient. As each provider, government or otherwise has to spend money and time verifiying each applicants legal status.

Keep it simple, don't make the healthcare system the immigration police.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I have mixed feelings. Anybody that wants to should be able to buy insurance. I would rather unlawful permanent reseidents have insurance, rather than show up at the ER to take care of their healthcare needs.

On the otherhand, it will be difficult to determine whether or not the premium paid by the UPR will contain any taxpayer subsidies, since the program itself will be have to be heavily subsidized to compete with private insurance companies. As it stands now, a stand-alone public option will have to charge more than what private insurance plans are charging, if the current state plans are to be used as evidence.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Dan J 277]

I have mixed feelings. Anybody that wants to should be able to buy insurance. I would rather unlawful permanent reseidents have insurance, rather than show up at the ER to take care of their healthcare needs.

On the otherhand, it will be difficult to determine whether or not the premium paid by the UPR will contain any taxpayer subsidies, since the program itself will be have to be heavily subsidized to compete with private insurance companies. As it stands now, a stand-alone public option will have to charge more than what private insurance plans are charging, if the current state plans are to be used as evidence.

At least in Minnesota the state plans are required to charge more than private companies by law. Its suppose to be an option if no private option is available. Which is kind of stupid.

[HAL 9000 96]

I have mixed feelings. Anybody that wants to should be able to buy insurance. I would rather unlawful permanent reseidents have insurance, rather than show up at the ER to take care of their healthcare needs.

On the otherhand, it will be difficult to determine whether or not the premium paid by the UPR will contain any taxpayer subsidies, since the program itself will be have to be heavily subsidized to compete with private insurance companies. As it stands now, a stand-alone public option will have to charge more than what private insurance plans are charging, if the current state plans are to be used as evidence.

Which is what others would prefer. We have to think things through a little more pragmatically.

We'll see what the public plan charges when its in effect, and as it stands, and how it plays as a competitor. If what you say (to scare against it, perhaps) is true, then people simply won't sign up for the public option and stick with 'cheaper' (LOL) private coverage.

[Pooky 3,807]

I have mixed feelings. Anybody that wants to should be able to buy insurance. I would rather unlawful permanent reseidents have insurance, rather than show up at the ER to take care of their healthcare needs.

On the otherhand, it will be difficult to determine whether or not the premium paid by the UPR will contain any taxpayer subsidies, since the program itself will be have to be heavily subsidized to compete with private insurance companies. As it stands now, a stand-alone public option will have to charge more than what private insurance plans are charging, if the current state plans are to be used as evidence.

Which is what others would prefer. We have to think things through a little more pragmatically.

We'll see what the public plan charges when its in effect, and as it stands, and how it plays as a competitor. If what you say (to scare against it, perhaps) is true, then people simply won't sign up for the public option and stick with 'cheaper' (LOL) private coverage.

See Dan + Gemvita's post above yours.

Different reason for the plan, maybe?

[SMR 368]

Taxpayer funded subsidies shouldn't go to to illegals, but I don't see the problem letting them buy policies (other than those provided by public option) with their own money. The larger the pool gets, the cheaper it is for everyone. And it'll just mean illegal money will end up benefiting legals... its just kind of how insurance works.

I see a problem. They're illegals. If they have money in the first place to buy the policy, they almost certainly are earning money somehow. That's illegal.

I have no problem with people coming here and would actually like if it was easier. But if you make it easy for people to live here after violating the law and coming here illegally, it doesn't help the country. You need to either enforce the law or change the law. Making a system that is specifically designed to not catch people that are violating the law disregards any definition of justice that I can think of and should be offensive to every law abiding American.

The point is, a healthcare system should be pretty much ambiguous to immigration status except when providing tax payer funded subsidies. If you require every person to have a legal status in the US, in order to buy health coverage, then you make the system less efficient. As each provider, government or otherwise has to spend money and time verifiying each applicants legal status.

Keep it simple, don't make the healthcare system the immigration police.

Why should the government run healthcare system ignore who someone is? As it is now, health insurance requires a social security number. You have to be positively identified (usually this is wrapped in with getting a job in the first place when you get employer provided health insurance).

Trying to run a system where you aren't required to have ID and SS# would actually be more expensive and less efficient since you would have to create a system to document undocumented aliens that would be oblivious to the fact that they are undocumented. I'm not suggesting that we need to run a background check on every person as they apply for health care. Just require them to have the basic documents required to work in America or a valid entry visa and I-94.

[HAL 9000 96]

I have mixed feelings. Anybody that wants to should be able to buy insurance. I would rather unlawful permanent reseidents have insurance, rather than show up at the ER to take care of their healthcare needs.

On the otherhand, it will be difficult to determine whether or not the premium paid by the UPR will contain any taxpayer subsidies, since the program itself will be have to be heavily subsidized to compete with private insurance companies. As it stands now, a stand-alone public option will have to charge more than what private insurance plans are charging, if the current state plans are to be used as evidence.

Which is what others would prefer. We have to think things through a little more pragmatically.

We'll see what the public plan charges when its in effect, and as it stands, and how it plays as a competitor. If what you say (to scare against it, perhaps) is true, then people simply won't sign up for the public option and stick with 'cheaper' (LOL) private coverage.

See Dan + Gemvita's post above yours.

Different reason for the plan, maybe?

Different legislation, more likely. I suppose such a law would lose its purpose once a competitive national plan would go into pragmatic effect.

But I would be curious as to the premium costs of MN public plans as compared to non-employer sponsored (self-employed) plans.

[HAL 9000 96]

Taxpayer funded subsidies shouldn't go to to illegals, but I don't see the problem letting them buy policies (other than those provided by public option) with their own money. The larger the pool gets, the cheaper it is for everyone. And it'll just mean illegal money will end up benefiting legals... its just kind of how insurance works.

I see a problem. They're illegals. If they have money in the first place to buy the policy, they almost certainly are earning money somehow. That's illegal.

I have no problem with people coming here and would actually like if it was easier. But if you make it easy for people to live here after violating the law and coming here illegally, it doesn't help the country. You need to either enforce the law or change the law. Making a system that is specifically designed to not catch people that are violating the law disregards any definition of justice that I can think of and should be offensive to every law abiding American.

The point is, a healthcare system should be pretty much ambiguous to immigration status except when providing tax payer funded subsidies. If you require every person to have a legal status in the US, in order to buy health coverage, then you make the system less efficient. As each provider, government or otherwise has to spend money and time verifiying each applicants legal status.

Keep it simple, don't make the healthcare system the immigration police.

Why should the government run healthcare system ignore who someone is? As it is now, health insurance requires a social security number. You have to be positively identified (usually this is wrapped in with getting a job in the first place when you get employer provided health insurance).

Trying to run a system where you aren't required to have ID and SS# would actually be more expensive and less efficient since you would have to create a system to document undocumented aliens that would be oblivious to the fact that they are undocumented. I'm not suggesting that we need to run a background check on every person as they apply for health care. Just require them to have the basic documents required to work in America or a valid entry visa and I-94.

Not always the case. BCBS and Humana can do 000-00-0000 as SSN options during enrollment. We should all know this, having spouses that didn't have SSNs at the time of enrollment.