Interesting article. There's also a quiz in the article to test your knowledge about ACA (Affordable Care Act) or Obamacare.
Two things I learned from the article Allan provided:
As things are today before Obamacare kicks in, an average family pays $1,000.00 per year for their health insurance due to the cost-shifting for medical services provided to uninsured folks who weren't able to pay for their own care.
Illegal aliens aren't required to comply with the mandate.
My question on this one is, will they still be able to go and get free care that would still be cost-shifted to you and me even though you and I are complying with the mandate?
It doesn't seem right; they can't have it both ways. If they (the FEDS) are going to force everyone to be in Obamacare, then that should mean EVERYONE. IF illegals are able to use the medical facilities THEN they should be required to be paying into the system like everyone else.
So that means the illegals will continue to get free healthcare while you and I get to pay for their care, yet these folks are employed earning a living, etc, here in America. No wonder they keep coming here to live. FREE HEALTHCARE. That's not reasonable, in my opinion.
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 9:04am
Just for the record, the Obama Administration has expelled many more illegal immigrants than the previous Administration ever did.
Furthermore, our down economy has sent many immigrants home on their own accord. You can find articles corroborating what I've just said all over the internet.
I rather doubt free health care was the primary reason many ventured into the United States in the first place.
Sure, a system should be established to get illegal immigrants into the system. Greater numbers are young and able-bodied, and wouldn't require that much health-care, except for maternity care. (The difficulty, of course: The remaining undocumented immigrants live in day-to-day fear of being found out and deported; hence, they would be suspicious and fearful of any system which attempted to enroll them in some sort of health care arrangement.)
I urge you to consider looking at this issue in the reverse. To avoid the fate of aging, graying countries like Japan, the United States better harness the young able-bodied immigrants while it still can.
The immigrant-bashers utterly fail to grasp that we will soon have a society of younger Latin Americans and Asian Americans buttressing an older population of whites and increasingly, blacks, in hospitals, assisted living, and nursing homes. Better hope the younger ones of Latin and Asian heritage show some compassion and understanding for those Caucasians and African-Americans. Bluntly (and crassly), it will be the browns who shoulder responsibility for elderly whites and blacks.
Yes, I'm going a bit over the top with this imagery, but I'm shocked that most people don't seem to even contemplate the consequences of this almost inevitable demographic shift.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 10:50am
Allan: I have thought about that. I've commented some time ago (back when Mark Rice was posting here), that with the 50 million babies having been aborted since 1973 due to Roe v Wade, that the 12-20 million illegals could be a way to replace some of those lost taxpayers of abortion which would help Social Security and Obamacare.
My point above though was, IF they're going to be using the system, then they should also be paying into it. But you point about the illegals being wary of signing up is the sticking point.
Frankly, I believe we as a nation, either need to deport these folks (which would be really crazy) or give them a pathway to citizenship so that they can pay taxes, and be a part of the entire system, not just be a drain on it. These folks generally are hard workers and most probably would make great additions to our nation.
If we really want to deport folks, let's deport the "career welfare folks", who are milking the system for all its worth and have no plans or desire to find a job (I'm not referring to folks who are laid off due to this recession) back to their heritage nation's as they truly are a drain on our society while we keep the hardworking illegal aliens.
You are correct, that our nation is becoming more brown and black and far less white. This bodes well for the DEMS as those groups tend to be more DEM than GOP. So that should give folks a preview of where our nation will go in terms of policy, etc.
You mention about hoping the younger browns and asians will show some compassion for elderly whites and blacks. It's worse than that; I don't see much compassion now for the elderly by any of the younger folks of any color, generally speaking. Remember the movie from the early 1970's that dealt with this issue, forget the name. But bottom line was anyone over 30 was put to death. So when those young folks eventually take over government, we just might see those "death panels".
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 1:13pm
As usual, this issue is distorted and misrepresented as a race or "anti-immigrant" issue.
The true issue is following the law. Millions of immigrants, of every racial background, have followed the rules for immigrating legally. The current generation of lawbreakers create the greatest affront to those millions of immigrants who followed the rule of law.
By the way, it is NOT true that Obama has deported a greater number of illegal aliens. As we saw with his position in the recent Supreme Court ruling, he has tried to make it more difficult for police to identify criminals in Arizona including the ruthless drug gangs who have murdered thousands of innocent people. Obama consistently takes sides with the criminals and lawbreakers.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 1:35pm
Teatime: From what I've read, Obama has indeed deported far more illegal aliens than Bush Jr. Can't speak about the Presidents before Little Bush, but I believe Jr's. record is what Allan was referring to.
When I talked about deporting the welfare bums who won't look for work, that covers all colors as whites are the largest population on welfare, so don't make it a racial issue, because it isn't. That was why I said to deport them to their heritage nation which could be Italy, Ireland, England, etc.
My point was IF we're going to deport folks, why not get rid of the dead wood who choose to NOT work even though they are very physically able to work, rather than these young hard working Hispanic folks, who are willing to work at work that most Americans wouldn't consider doing for chump change.
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 1:52pm
I should have been more precise. Prior to President Obama's immigration announcement a few weeks ago about allowing law-abiding children of some illegal immigrants to remain, the PACE of the deportations was running ahead of George W. Bush's... but not the absolute number.
From a REUTERS story, September 20th, 2011:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Barack Obama says he backs immigration reform, announcing last month an initiative to ease deportation policies, but he has sent home over 1 million illegal immigrants in 2-1/2 years -- on pace to deport more in one term than George W. Bush did in two.
The Obama Administration had deported about 1.06 million as of September 12, against 1.57 million in Bush's two full Presidential terms.
This seeming contradiction between rhetoric and reality is a key element of debate over U.S. immigration policy...
I apologize for not making that distinction in my initial comments; I was rushing as I was prepping for the Noon show.
That said, I challenge you to produce the evidence of the the murders of thousands of innocent people, by implication, just in Arizona. As "Mike from Delaware" and "Shawn" have occasionally asked from you, please show us the facts.
I do know some ideologically-driven sheriffs in Arizona have been too quick to blame the Mexican cartels for violence when it was apparently nothing of the sort.
One recent example from The ARIZONA REPUBLIC, June 5th, 2012:
BABEU CRITICIZED FOR RUSH TO TIE CASE TO LAX BORDER
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu was quick to blame Mexican cartels for the grisly deaths of five people in a case that Tempe law-enforcement authorities are convinced is a murder-suicide unrelated to the bloody drug war south of the border.
For more than three days after the torched Ford SUV was discovered in Pinal County's remote Vekol Valley, a well-known drug- and immigrant-smuggling corridor, the sheriff repeatedly linked the apparent killings to Mexican drug violence. Babeu, a Republican who rose to prominence as a border-security hawk, even took a politically charged swipe at Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
'All information is pointing that this is connected to the violent drug cartel smuggling in this high smuggling area,' Babeu said Saturday via his Facebook page. 'The border is NOT more secure than ever, Ms. Napolitano!'
Through Tuesday, Babeu and his office continued to draw a connection between the five deaths and drug-cartel smuggling violence, even after receiving information from Tempe police on Monday that seemed to shift the focus of the investigation to a missing family who Tempe police suspected may have died in a murder-suicide incident...
By the way, folks talk about illegal immigration to the United States as though it's a recent phenomenon, and pretty much limited to Mexicans and other Latin Americans, Haitians, and of course, Middle-Easterners and other Muslims bent on harming America.
The reality is much more complex. Over decades, Massachusetts and New England have seen illegal immigrants from such countries as Ireland and Portugal.
And with regard to illegal immigration from south of the Rio Grande, many people seem to suffer from historic amnesia: The 1880's saw the first substantial use of undocumented Mexican-American labor as U.S. industrialists started construction of a railway to connect Mexico and the United States (Of course, paradoxically, much of that territory within the U.S. had been Mexican soil prior to the Mexican-American War!) The Mexican Revolution in 1910 dispatched tens of thousands of Mexican migrant workers to the U.S. The Great Depression in 1929 triggered the first round of Mexican deportations. Then came World War II and a worker shortage. Under the Bracero program, Mexican migrant workers returned north of the border. An initiative in 1954 called "Operation Wetback" (hence, the derogatory term) sent more than one million undocumented workers south of the border (again). So human beings have really been treated like cogs in a machine, depending on the whims of America's labor needs.
As far as the "following the law", I confess to being somewhat jaded. Whether the Pharisees of the Bible, white Afrikaners in South Africa, white segregationists in the South, or modern-day immigrant-bashers (who would probably wilt at performing some of the jobs immigrants perform; look what happened to Alabama after passage of tough anti-immigrant laws), pardon me, but it seems some people just LOVE to hide behind the letter of the law. (When the shoe is on the other foot, however, as with the Sussex County sheriff, the law is invalid!)
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 4:39pm
I'm going to keep asking this question on any ObamaCare-related blog post until someone responds. I honestly, sincerely want to hear the Republican answer to this question. Repost:
Can someone on the right-side of the political spectrum explain something to me? Perhaps that has been answered and I've just not seen it. And I don't mean to belittle your argument, so please forgive my wording if it comes out that way.
So Republicans are always for smaller government, and especially smaller federal government, leaving as much as possible to states' rights. I get that. And it is this argument that some have been using to justify RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare... Romney did it on a state level, and that's ok, but Obama's is federal, and we don't like federal initiatives this big. Am I right so far?
So here's my question... do you really believe that argument, or is that just a way to get around RomneyCare? Example: if ObamaCare didn't exist, and Markell came up with an identical plan (we'll call it MarkellCare for simplicity), would you be ok with it? Regardless of the "penalty" vs "tax" word games (because in the long run, they're really just the same thing, just different wording to make it legal or illegal), RomneyCare and ObamaCare aren't all that different. So if Delaware were suddenly introduced to MarkellCare, would it be as acceptable as RomneyCare in your arguments against ObamaCare? Or would you be automatically opposed to it, too, largely because it was introduced by a Democrat instead of a Republican?
Again, apologies for my tone... this whole argument just strikes me as insanely hypocritical. So I'm looking for a clearer version of the argument, so I can better understand your objections.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 5:46pm
Shawn: I believe our friends here who are loyal Republican/TEA folks will never respond to our questions, but the post I posted earlier in the week says quite well what probably IS the reasoning of today's GOP.
You see, today's GOP is far more to the right wing than Tricky Dick Nixon, the Heritage Foundation of the 1980's, or the GOP Congress of the 1990's during the Clinton years. Yea hard to believe that Newt Gingrich is considered a moderate by today's GOP/TEA folks.
So that means that for 3 decades the GOP supported a market driven solution to providing a healthcare plan for ALL Americans (shame the DEMS weren't smart enough to take them up on that plan back then). Today their position matches my paraphrase of what Senator Mitch McConnell said on one of those talking head shows this past Sunday. I've reposted it here below to remind everyone of what Today's GOP/TEA folks position is on healthcare, enjoy:
"I think a good paraphrase of what Mitch McConnell said is:
"I've got mine, yea you poor saps pay for my great health-care and pension plan. Yep by golly, I've got mine, too bad for you that you aren't going to get any -heh heh. Now can we all stop flappin' our gums about this blasted health-care thing and focus our Senatorial efforts on getting the next war started against someone? My buddies in the deefense industries are getting mighty nervous, because Iraq is finished and Afghanistan is winding down. What's that? We could use some of that money no longer needed for fightin' to provide health-care innnsurance for those working stiffs who don't have healthcare innnsurance. Son, are you listenin' to what I've been a sayin'? We in the G O P don't care a whit about them folks. We've got ours, too bad for them. Now son, you're deeelaying me in getting to my golf game....."
So bottom line is, today's GOP wants to keep the non-functioning very expensive medical system we now have, because they've got theirs, heck with everyone else. Shawn that is the answer to yours and my questions to our GOP/TEA friends here.
Do you realize that "Saint" Ronald the Reagan and Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich wouldn't pass muster today with today's GOP/TEA folks, because they aren't conservative enough?? Even Reagan wasn't as conservative as today's GOP/TEA folks are. Now THAT's scary.
Wed, Jul 4, 2012 5:21pm
Shawn: Please check out my latest commentary on the previous "Mitch McConnell uninsured not a priority" post. In it, I give an illustration of how it failed in the Soviet Union, and I believe that's what the TEA folks are concerned about.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.