Obamacare should be available to DREAMers

[C-bus]

They either came from somewhere or they are born citizens. Send them back from wherenth they henceforth cometh from.

[smccrory]

https://nilc.org/dreamsummary.html

So, send high school graduates who grew up in America (I bet some speaking English better than many on this board) to a country they never knew, and instead accept others who's only merit by your rule is being born within the borders?

Edited November 15, 2014 by smccrory

[smccrory]

I bet the DNC would LOVE the GOP to try rounding up people into busses en masse on national TV.

[magley64]

Apparently his director of Health and Human Services thinks the 'Dreamers' and the new people should get free medical care.

As we all know, nothing is 'free' unless somebody else is paying for it and that somebody it would seem is you.

When the fuck did "Obamacare" mean "free medical care"? Never, that's when. Are you conflating Obamacare with medicaid? Last I checked Obamacare set up state and federal health exchanges where people could purchase medical insurance without fear of being turned down for preexisting conditions. As well as making it mandatory that everyone participate in the health insurance industry.

When did that turn into "free medical care"?

Edited November 15, 2014 by magley64

[drc32-0]

 

Try this, The Democratic party started the conversation of amnesty back in the days of Clinton. This is not a new thing.

 

Right and wrong...right that this is not a new thing,wrong that Clinton started it.the immigration reform act of 1986 gave amnisty to several million illegals.Who signed it into law...the same man that jump started the never ending escalating national dept.

The right wing's demigod,Ronald Reagan.

[C-bus]

https://nilc.org/dreamsummary.html

So, send high school graduates who grew up in America (I bet some speaking English better than many on this board) to a country they never knew, and instead accept others who's only merit by your rule is being born within the borders?

You make a good point.

[Strictly Street]

When the fuck did "Obamacare" mean "free medical care"? Never, that's when. Are you conflating Obamacare with medicaid? Last I checked Obamacare set up state and federal health exchanges where people could purchase medical insurance without fear of being turned down for preexisting conditions. As well as making it mandatory that everyone participate in the health insurance industry.

When did that turn into "free medical care"?

 

The phrase 'nothing is free' is not saying that they will get something for nothing.

 

Medicaid is not as you point out strictly speaking 'Obama-care'. Under Obama care Medicaid was expanded so they are related by the same law. They are not the same thing but they are similar. Both are subsidized by the Government via tax dollars they get from you over and above the premiums of the plans. So, yes you do pay one way or another. You are also correct that it isn't free. It is anything but free. Your tax dollars will be helping pay their subsidies.

 

This of course could change at any moment whenever Obama feels the need to change it.

 

Health and Human Services chief Sylvia Burwell seems to want to give it to everybody along with 'that will lead to benefits in everything from health care to economics' what ever that phrase means. Which coming from any loyal party official would seem to be testing the waters as it were to see if the idea will fly.

 

Another good question might be, How does adding foreign nationals to the 'Pool" effect it, the pool and the rate structure. Potentially for a large group of people who don't have SSI numbers or work under the table and/or don't file federal tax forms for income verification. Not saying all 'Dreamers' or others work under the table any more or less than any other group. By law only US citizens and legal immigrants have SSI numbers. So how will this effect the premiums paid by all? Income verification is still a problem for the IRS which they are struggling with for everybody anyway.

 

Add to the question what will be the focus of expanded immigration legalization? A lot more to this than meets the eye after you think about it for a bit. This is a trial balloon floated by a minor bureaucrat to test the wind.

 

So the original question still stands...

 

Pro or Con on the issue?

Edited November 15, 2014 by Strictly Street

[Strictly Street]

Right and wrong...right that this is not a new thing,wrong that Clinton started it.the immigration reform act of 1986 gave amnisty to several million illegals.Who signed it into law...the same man that jump started the never ending escalating national dept.

The right wing's demigod,Ronald Reagan.

 

I stand corrected. However I was referring to the concept that immigrants are potential Democrats. Which even the Democrats I listed thought that this was an issue that had to be carefully handled to avoid the perception that this is what they were up to. Notice that the quotes I listed didn't say that was what they were doing, rather they were saying they didn't want to be perceived as doing it.

 

Good catch on the Reagan thing. Interesting to note, nobody seems to connect the Reps with immigrants even though Reagan started it. Wonder why? Maybe it's just out of the public memory.

[smccrory]

How does adding foreign nationals to the 'Pool" effect it, the pool and the rate structure. Potentially for a large group of people who don't have SSI numbers or work under the table and/or don't file federal tax forms for income verification. Not saying all 'Dreamers' or others work under the table any more or less than any other group. By law only US citizens and legal immigrants have SSI numbers. So how will this effect the premiums paid by all? Income verification is still a problem for the IRS which they are struggling with for everybody anyway.

 

Risk Pooling is a super-important concept to understand fully, to know how any insurance policy works.  It's also critical, to even start to comprehend what universal healthcare (or it's watered-down versions called the ACA and Romney's Massachusetts plan) address.  Unfortunately though I've been in the financial I.T. industry for 15 years, I don't have the time to really do the topic justice on an online forum with highly varied starting points of understanding, but I'll try to lay out the skinny in the hopes it forwards the understanding of even a few.  Sorry if that comes off as paternal, but working in the industry, I see massive gaps of understanding between how risk pools work and the wildly incorrect assumptions that others have, leading to anti-productive conversations over political and regulatory policy.  With that, here goes.

 

Let's first define a risk pool.  Wikipedia's first line is good enough: "A risk pool is one of the forms of risk management mostly practiced by insurance companies. Under this system, insurance companies come together to form a pool, which can provide protection to insurance companies against catastrophic risks such as floods, earthquakes etc. The term is also used to describe the pooling of similar risks that underlies the concept of insurance. While risk pooling is necessary for insurance to work, not all risks can be effectively pooled. In particular, it is difficult to pool dissimilar risks in a voluntary insurance bracket, unless there is a subsidy available to encourage participation.^[1]"

 

Now let's define who are effectively in the U.S. healthcare risk pools:  In America, if you have an insurance policy, you are a member of its risk pool.  You premium pays for not only what the actuaries expect your policy-lifetime costs to be (plus a profit to the insurance company of course), but also for the pooled costs of everyone in that policy.  That also means that the young and healthy pay not only for their own expected costs, but for the massive number of baby boomers who are living longer than the system expected, and are accounting for the vast majority of health care costs with an average of 5 or more chronic conditions.  It's cruel irony that the Greatest Generation is now placing the highest burden on health care costs, but hey, that's what risk pools are about.  And to even out the costs, it's absolutely critical that you get lots of young people to join the pool and pay premiums to reduce the aggregate risk concentration.

 

Now, what if you don't have insurance?  Who pays for that?  You already know the answer...

 

As a country we've decided not to withhold emergency care.  If you present to an E.R. or call 911 with a life-threatening condition, Hospitals are required (with few exceptions) to at least stabilize you because we have adopted a national identity of at least that level of sympathy.  This is true for every class, race, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, political party, and yes, citizenship status.  Now, think about who presents to the ER: They're not just auto accident victims, but more regularly they're people who let their health go too long, usually because they didn't have preventative and mitigative healthcare insurance coverage.  And since they were not in a private risk pool, they default to the national pool.  In other words, medical support was too expensive for them when they were just a little sick, and now that they're chronic, it's time for the public to pay exponentially higher expenses.

 

So the actuarial math problem exists whether a person wants to believe in math or not (it's a lot like physics in that regard :-)).  Without an individual mandate, the public is left to pay for chronic, life-threatening conditions at the end of years of personal neglect arising from no preventative care.  I sometimes think of it as an accident chain, like when you don't visit a dentist for a decade and end up with severe tooth decay and cardiac-related stress from infection compensation.  Or when an "illegal" mother fails to bring their kid to a physician because she can't afford the checkup on under-the-table seasonal migrant pay, if she can even get care in the first place, thus presenting the child to the ER once a condition degrades to that point.  Again, without private risk pool membership, the membership defaults to the national pool where costs are far, far higher and visits are repeated.

[drc32-0]

 

Good catch on the Reagan thing. Interesting to note, nobody seems to connect the Reps with immigrants even though Reagan started it. Wonder why? Maybe it's just out of the public memory.

Why?

A well oiled,and financed propaganda machine...Fox News,OxyContin Rush,Glen Beck,Americans for Prosperity and on and on.As the old tactic goes,say it enough and it becomes the truth.Besides,all of the above mentioned folks have learned that you can make hundreds of millions of dollars telling the right wingers what they want to hear.

[ReconRat]

Our attempts at universal health care aren't all that good compared to countries that have succeeded in doing so. On the other hand, they expect to pay a large percentage of their income. 20% to 35% of income for premium care. Way more than we are willing to pay.

 

Our numbers, the percent of people with private insurance or government insurance stays about the same, but are paying more each year. 1.3% were picked up by state and federal marketplaces. Medicare enrollment increased. Medicaid about the same. The percent of uninsured drops by 5% of total population, leaving about 13.4% still uninsured. About 1% of population lost insurance coverage for whatever reason.

 

edit: add about 4% illegal aliens... for 104% population - yeah, they don't have health insurance either

Edited November 16, 2014 by ReconRat

[Strictly Street]

Why?

A well oiled,and financed propaganda machine...Fox News,OxyContin Rush,Glen Beck,Americans for Prosperity and on and on.As the old tactic goes,say it enough and it becomes the truth.Besides,all of the above mentioned folks have learned that you can make hundreds of millions of dollars telling the right wingers what they want to hear.

 

Hmm.... like Obama's machine only one sided. You might be on to something here. Media manipulation.

Interesting concept.

 

Not being mean to you or anything but here is the gap of what is in the news and what is not.

It does seem to be very partisan, of course it does  depend on how you see it and who you ask.

 

Interesting how you see the reps as the bad guys while the dems clearly control the media.

By the very things you quote, that is the story, but not the other side..

 

interesting...

 

I mean, I could easily make the same argument the other way.

 

Odd that it would be the same thing.

 

So I guess we are left with the same idea from both points of view.

 

The other guy is a bad man while I am a good man.

 

Yep, it is all about the 'OTHER' guy. Who you should be very afraid of, because, ....

 

Perhaps we are all being mislead... Worrying about left or right all the while...

[ReconRat]

Comprehensive immigration reform must be built on strong borders and legal rights to employment. First, all ... states must contribute resources to border states to ensure that illegal crossings are prevented. This must include better policing, electronic fences, and more enforcement personnel. Funds must also be used to transport those worthy of deportation to their home countries after a legal process.

Second, a transparent and efficient regime of legal work permits must be put in place. Most immigrants come to ... because there is a market demand for their services. A system of guest work permits granted in the applicant's home country is the first step. This would be funded almost entirely by application fees. Illegal immigrants must be allowed to qualify for these guest passes upon payment of a fine, with a guarantee of returning to their home countries upon expiry of the work permit. Work permit holders must have the right to change employers without losing the right to work—essential to prevent exploitative slave labor. Employers must be able to hire and fire workers under the scheme, and there must be no entitlement to welfare payments from the state. This model will eliminate the black-market economy, ensure tax revenues, and create a climate for acceptance and reconciliation.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704362004575000770798227684

A plan? For the USA? Nope, for the European Union. Their illegal immigration problems are worse, at a much smaller percentage. They've already progressed to the stage of riots and vigilantes. One thing they do know, is amnesty doesn't work. It only causes more immigrants to show up to join the party. Sometimes a lot more.

Edited November 16, 2014 by ReconRat

[Strictly Street]

Yea or ney?

 

so far it's 50/50

 

Good idea or not?

Edited November 16, 2014 by Strictly Street

[magley64]

If I have to purchase insurance, so should they.

[Strictly Street]

If I have to purchase insurance, so should they.

 

Good point.

[ReconRat]

maybe the USA needs to build health care facilities in Mexico

[drc32-0]

Hmm.... like Obama's machine only one sided. You might be on to something here. Media manipulation.

Interesting concept.

 

Not being mean to you or anything but here is the gap of what is in the news and what is not.

It does seem to be very partisan, of course it does  depend on how you see it and who you ask.

 

Interesting how you see the reps as the bad guys while the dems clearly control the media.

By the very things you quote, that is the story, but not the other side..

 

interesting...

 L

I mean, I could easily make the same argument the other way.

 

Odd that it would be the same thing.

 

So I guess we are left with the same idea from both points of view.

 

The other guy is a bad man while I am a good man.

 

Yep, it is all about the 'OTHER' guy. Who you should be very afraid of, because, ....

 

Perhaps we are all being mislead... Worrying about left or right all the while...

Of course it's all media manipulation.

It's like watching the book "Animal Farm" being brought to life.

We're (at least the ones who are paying attention) in the final chapter where the animals look in the farm house window and can't tell the pigs from the men.

Like the animals in the book,we(the working class) have been played.

[Strictly Street]

Of course it's all media manipulation.

It's like watching the book "Animal Farm" being brought to life.

We're (at least the ones who are paying attention) in the final chapter where the animals look in the farm house window and can't tell the pigs from the men.

Like the animals in the book,we(the working class) have been played.

 

 

Great analogy.

[smccrory]

Great analogy.

 

Agreed.  Been a while since I read that one.

[smccrory]

Yeah... I loved John Belushi in that.

LOL. "Farmer, farmer, farmer!"

[smccrory]

Now this is just a screw up no matter how you slice it: Immigrants baffled by HealthCare.gov lapse (from @AP) http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7voqtVYQ

[Uncle Punk]

All foreign invaders should be shot in the head on sight.

[ReconRat]

Now this is just a screw up no matter how you slice it: Immigrants baffled by HealthCare.gov lapse (from @AP) http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7voqtVYQ

Made me look it up. Maybe not a mistake at all. The health care website is for citizens. A green card is permanent resident. Not sure that permanent resident is included or excluded. And probably no one else in government is sure about that either. The grey zone would be if a person would become a citizen in the next year (year of health care), or was within the 90 days prior to residency requirements (which is the typical in advance of application limit).

Path to U.S. citizenship

A lawful permanent resident can apply for United States citizenship, or naturalization, after five years of residency. This period is shortened to three years if married to a U.S. citizen. Lawful Permanent Residents may submit their applications for naturalization as early as 90 days before meeting the residency requirement. Citizens are entitled to more rights (and obligations) than permanent residents (who are still classified as aliens in this respect). Lawful Permanent Residents generally do not have the right to vote, the right to be elected in federal and state elections, the ability to bring family members to the United States (permanent residents are allowed to sponsor certain family members,^[11] but this is often not practical due to long approval delays),^[12][13] or eligibility for federal government jobs. Male permanent residents between the ages of 18 and 25 are subject to registering in the Selective Service System. Permanent residents who reside in the United States must pay taxes on their worldwide income, like U.S. citizens.

 

[magley64]

So are we going to get a government shutdown every year now?