No Citizenship, No Treatment

[slyc_willie]

Not sure where I fall on this issue. At the moment, I'm somewhere in the middle.

Listening to my local radio news talk show host tonight. Apparently, a couple of hospitals in Dallas, and reportedly one in Galveston, Texas, have adopted the policy of refusing non-essential medical care to illegal aliens.

By federal law, of course, a hospital cannot turn someone away if they require medical service that would save their life or limb, or that would help deliver a baby. Obviously, these hospitals are not refusing such service.

What they are refusing, however, is, say Jose Garcia gets a nasty cut on his arm. He's out of luck. Same thing if he has run out of his AIDS medication. If the medical service required is not needed to immediately save his life, Mr. Garcia is turned away at the door.

Is this taking the whole "protect our borders" issue too far? Or is it a necessary step to do so?

The talk show host made an interest analogy. He equated illegal aliens being treated at hospitals with the following scenario: Suppose you are out to dinner, and once you are finished, the waiter informs you that the party of five at the table beside yours has said that you are paying their check. Essentially, the analogy is not inaccurate. Illegal aliens, of course, cannot have health care, so if they utilize the services of the hospital, that means someone else is paying for it. Ostensibly, tax payers.

Now, I'm not a big fan of swaggering about where my tax dollars go. Honestly, I don't care so long as there are police, firefighters, and hospitals. But the point made is an interesting one.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm not sure they don't pay taxes.

Perhaps not the payroll and income tax, but I'm sure they pay sales taxes.

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm not sure they don't pay taxes.

Perhaps not the payroll and income tax, but I'm sure they pay sales taxes.

And that's an excellent point. Many are also employed under false social security numbers, so perhaps the government is also receiving income tax from them.

So if the tax issue isn't an issue (not saying it's not -- I'm fuzzy on tax law), then what would be other reasons for refusing non-critical care?

 

[sr71plt]

I recently read (in Parade magazine, I think) that many employers are trying to mitigate their own problems by sending the employers share of the Social Security payments to a fund set up for this in the SS administration (seems pretty cynical of the SS administration, though)--and that there is enough money just sitting in that fund to underwrite medical care for illegals now.

I'm also conflicted on this. If they are illegal, I don't think they should just continue to get social services--I certainly don't think they should get state-supported college aid. If they need medical treatment, I think they should get it--and then be shipped. (Of course that means they won't come in for medical treatment. But if they are illegal, they are illegal. And if they aren't paying their share, I don't think they should continue to be carried by the rest of us). Administering "catch and return," of course is a real headache.

The elegant solution, of course, is to make all Central American and South American countries U.S. states--then they'll want to ship out to Europe instead of here.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And that's an excellent point. Many are also employed under false social security numbers, so perhaps the government is also receiving income tax from them.

So if the tax issue isn't an issue (not saying it's not -- I'm fuzzy on tax law), then what would be other reasons for refusing non-critical care?

Nationalism, and the bottom line, of course!

I am sure many hospitals would love to close their ERs to indigents, they lose money hand over fist treating people who will never pay the bill. This is one point where these hospitals thought it was worth a try, where their rationale might seem plausible.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The GOP tried to increase the sales tax to pay for illegal healthcare, but folks saw it for what it was and kicked some butts.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I say resettle them in Iraq.

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm also conflicted on this. If they are illegal, I don't think they should just continue to get social services--I certainly don't think they should get state-supported college aid. If they need medical treatment, I think they should get it--and then be shipped. (Of course that means they won't come in for medical treatment. But if they are illegal, they are illegal. And if they aren't paying their share, I don't think they should continue to be carried by the rest of us). Administering "catch and return," of course is a real headache.

I thought about this as well. But I doubt this would be some kind of slick attempt by INS to snare illegals. Imagine the cost involved with that, not to mention political firestorms that would arise . . . .

 

[slyc_willie]

Nationalism, and the bottom line, of course!

I am sure many hospitals would love to close their ERs to indigents, they lose money hand over fist treating people who will never pay the bill. This is one point where these hospitals thought it was worth a try, where their rationale might seem plausible.

I'd be interested to know the proceedings at those hospitals' Board of Directors meetings as they debated this policy. Were their concerns financial, or nationalist?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'd be interested to know the proceedings at those hospitals' Board of Directors meetings as they debated this policy. Were their concerns financial, or nationalist?

Is that a leading question...

my take-- they are all about the financial. Nationalism is a good reason if anyone asks.

 

[sr71plt]

I thought about this as well. But I doubt this would be some kind of slick attempt by INS to snare illegals. Imagine the cost involved with that, not to mention political firestorms that would arise . . . .

I don't see why the INS shouldn't snare illegals. If they are illegal, that's what the INS is for--finding them.

 

[slyc_willie]

I don't see why the INS shouldn't snare illegals. If they are illegal, that's what the INS is for--finding them.

Essentially, yes. But imagine the outcry from the public if there were INS agents staking out hospitals, or standing in the lobby checking IDs. The word 'gestapo' would hit the media as fast as you could say 'Big Brother.'

 

[slyc_willie]

Is that a leading question...

my take-- they are all about the financial. Nationalism is a good reason if anyone asks.

Yeah. Ain't no business like politics, huh?

 

[jomar]

Hospitals may charge eight dollars for an aspirin, but when it's all said and done they have limited resources and are writing off lots of money they aren't getting reimbursed by insurance companies much less indigents and illegal aliens.

Despite the US being the big melting pot and all, illegal aliens are a huge drain on not only medical, but other social services. I'm not unsympathetic, but it's a tough issue.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

*deep breath...*

Illegal = Get nothing.

Back to basics, square it up, a little fiscal responsibility and conservative economics, please.

 

[amicus]

Not sure where I fall on this issue. At the moment, I'm somewhere in the middle.

Listening to my local radio news talk show host tonight. Apparently, a couple of hospitals in Dallas, and reportedly one in Galveston, Texas, have adopted the policy of refusing non-essential medical care to illegal aliens.

By federal law, of course, a hospital cannot turn someone away if they require medical service that would save their life or limb, or that would help deliver a baby. Obviously, these hospitals are not refusing such service.

What they are refusing, however, is, say Jose Garcia gets a nasty cut on his arm. He's out of luck. Same thing if he has run out of his AIDS medication. If the medical service required is not needed to immediately save his life, Mr. Garcia is turned away at the door.

Is this taking the whole "protect our borders" issue too far? Or is it a necessary step to do so?

The talk show host made an interest analogy. He equated illegal aliens being treated at hospitals with the following scenario: Suppose you are out to dinner, and once you are finished, the waiter informs you that the party of five at the table beside yours has said that you are paying their check. Essentially, the analogy is not inaccurate. Illegal aliens, of course, cannot have health care, so if they utilize the services of the hospital, that means someone else is paying for it. Ostensibly, tax payers.

Now, I'm not a big fan of swaggering about where my tax dollars go. Honestly, I don't care so long as there are police, firefighters, and hospitals. But the point made is an interesting one.

~~~

slyc-willie...excellent thread and question and one sticky wicket it really is.

I watch the news continuously and the latest political buzz seems to be that the active controversy over the Iraq War is being placed on the back burner and that Illegal Aliens and Health Care, may be the major topics during the next year as the Presidential election nears.

This is so much a political issue that it is difficult to sort out partisanship and real issues. For example, the Republicans wishing to sustain Agri-business are pulled towards not acting against illegals but at the same time are pulled to construct a border fence and crack down on businesses hiring illegals. The Democrats are also split between the influence of the Labor Unions who want all illegals gone to protect American jobs, but the knowledge that Hispanics vote heavily Democratic in all elections, pull them in the opposite direction.

It is an issue that spans more than a generation, back to the 'Bracero's', in the 60's & 70's, seasonally imported workers who were wanted and accommodated and have raised families here and become part of the population.

Parts of Southern California and many other border cities all the way to New Orleans have huge Latino populations, some approaching a majority in statewide population.

If you have listened to the ongoing debate over the past few years, as it sounds like you and many have, then you fully realize the difficulty of arriving at an amicable solution that will satisfy all sides of the argument, I doubt there is such an answer.

I for one, personally, do not like the vision of an "Iron Curtain" across our Southern Border, nor do I like the Gestapo like tactics of the INS as they raid companies and industries in search of illegals.

On the other hand, making many schools and government agencies bi-lingual to accommodate Spanish the speaking community does not thrill me either.

I also do not like the aura of fear that surrounds the Latin communities that have become a part of the American scene. Nor do I like to think about the issue raised by the threadstarter, that of people with medical needs being turned away because they are Mexican.

Good luck resolving this...

Amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

I for one, personally, do not like the vision of an "Iron Curtain" across our Southern Border, nor do I like the Gestapo like tactics of the INS as they raid companies and industries in search of illegals.

A recent policy put into place has required everyone at the restaurant where I work to furnish proof of citizenship or legal immigrant status by January. As it turns out, our best grill cook had been using an appropriated social security number in order to get a job.

He has applied for citizenship, and we're hoping he'll get it by January. But INS has already been by twice to 'check on him.' He was nearly deported last month.

An incident like this makes me wonder as to the logic on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, the guy is an excellent employee and we'd hate to lose him. he works hard and efficiently and has never missed a day. On the other, he has, technically, been an illegal immigrant for over a year.

 

[neonlyte]

Nationalism, and the bottom line, of course!

I am sure many hospitals would love to close their ERs to indigents, they lose money hand over fist treating people who will never pay the bill. This is one point where these hospitals thought it was worth a try, where their rationale might seem plausible.

Makes a hospital sound like a business, Stella...

We are discussing legislation to ban the medical treatment of non-qualifying foreigners in UK. We cannot ban all foreigners as we have treaties with the EU and many other countries. It might be a case of showing your passport at reception.

 

[sr71plt]

Makes a hospital sound like a business, Stella...

Hospitals are businesses in the States, yes. We don't have a national medical system here.

 

[matriarch]

*Setting myself up for the likes of Ami to come rushing in*....

I don't care how many of you shoot me down, or how dismissive you become, in my eyes there are two must haves in any 'democratic' caring, society.

'Free' healthcare from birth to death for everyone.
'Free' education.

Without these we will always be a divisive and divided society. The 'haves' and the 'have nots'.

 

[neonlyte]

*Setting myself up for the likes of Ami to come rushing in*....

I don't care how many of you shoot me down, or how dismissive you become, in my eyes there are two must haves in any 'democratic' caring, society.

'Free' healthcare from birth to death for everyone.
'Free' education.

Without these we will always be a divisive and divided society. The 'haves' and the 'have nots'.

They'll have to fight me too, Mats. I can't imagine living in a society where primary health care is not a human right.

 

[matriarch]

They'll have to fight me too, Mats. I can't imagine living in a society where primary health care is not a human right.

 

[Liar]

*deep breath...*

Illegal = Get nothing.

Back to basics, square it up, a little fiscal responsibility and conservative economics, please.

You needed a deep breath to say that little?


Anyway...here's my thoght:

There is no such thing as illegal people. Only illegal actions.

An "illegal migrant" is a foreign citizen (or stateless person) who has committed an illegal action. Namely, entering the country without permission.

If health care is refused for committing an illegal action, shouldn't this apply to all who have committed illegal actions? Tax evasion, parking tickets, drunk driving, jaywalking... Why targeting a specific crime?

 

[matriarch]

You needed a deep breath to say that little?


Anyway...here's my thoght:

There is no such thing as illegal people. Only illegal actions.

An "illegal migrant" is a foreign citizen (or stateless person) who has committed an illegal action. Namely, entering the country without permission.

If health care is refused for committing an illegal action, shouldn't this apply to all who have committed illegal actions? Tax evasion, parking tickets, drunk driving, jaywalking... Why targeting a specific crime?

There are times when I really, really, really love you.
Genius.

 

[amicus]

slyc-willie, if apologies are required, consider them tendered...

To become a doctor of medicine requires about ten years of ones life and a huge investment by someone.

About the same is true to become a professional Nurse.

Less is required to become a certified teacher, but still, it is a difficult and strenuous course of study.

I also takes, I think, very special individuals to devote a life time to medicine or teaching, very, very special people. I could not bear the suffering of pain of others to work in the medical field, nor do I have the patience to teach the young, even those who want to learn.

I know the dreams of the 'ideal' society, democratic or not, that you wish, Matriarch, but it is just that, a dream, just like religion a promise of life after death a desire to be immortal, to live forever.

In the real world, people live and die and they have to labor in one form or another to provide for their existence.

Who pays for your free medical care and education?

Or do doctors and nurses and teachers work for free?

Amicus...