Friday, September 11, 2009

On Terminological Inexactitude

Sorry to keep picking at this particular scab, but this needs to be said.

Joe "Horrible Breach of Decorum" Wilson called the President of the United States a liar on Wednesday night on the matter of whether or not those in this country illegally would have eligibility for Obama Care. Once everyone's jaw lifted from the floor, the President said, "not true."

The consensus seemed to be that Wilson was out of line for calling the president a liar. Was Wilson right?

The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting out "You Lie!" at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. "We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

At the risk of inflaming my portside friends, let's just say the president was suffering from a little terminological exactitude. And this has happened before, of course.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

From FactCheck.org:
One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we’ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They’re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don’t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don’t offer it.
/****************************/

Doesn't seem that complicated to me. The bill would prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving ANY taxpayer assistance in purchasing health insurance.

Admittedly, none of the proposals would prevent illegal aliens from buying health insurance with their own money, and approximately 50% now have insurance. But wouldn't you want them to have that? After all, we as a society decided a long time ago that we would not refuse emergency medical care to anyone. So if an illegal who lived here and could afford it wanted health insurance, wouldn't it be practical and advantageous to let them get it?

One of the problems with health insurance is that we don't have enough people paying into the pool and spreading the risk. Would you rather have illegals be denied health insurance and running up an unpayable tab at an ER, or paying into the system and helping to keep it viable for everyone?

My fear is that we will end up cutting off our noses to spite our faces. If they can get the insurance without taxpayer assistance, I say let them. Seems like common sense to me.

Furthermore, to characterize this as insuring illegal immigrants, which is what I think you are doing, is akin to saying that the government purchases federal highways for illegals because nothing in the Transportaion appropriations bill prevents illegals from using interstate highways.

Regards,
Rich

Mr. D said...

So what were Kent Conrad and his pals doing, then?

Anonymous said...

Mark,
they were being dumb wimps.
See Cutting off your nose to spite your face. We have a potential unintended consequence: The 50% of illegals who are now covered could find themselves without insurance if this stupidity persists.

Rich

Mr. D said...

Or we could kill this thing and start over with tort reform, portability and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. And treat benefits differently for tax purposes, allowing individuals to have the opportunity to buy insurance on the private market without it being so financially onerous.

Anonymous said...

Mark,
if you add regulation of the insurance companies so that they cannot arbitrarily deny or retroactively repeal coverage, I would be on board.

I am a victim of getting completely hosed by an insurance company. It's a long story, and I have work to do. Nobody died, but it has relegated me and my family to catastrophic coverage at exorbitant rates for the last six years, and counting. It has a lot to do with why I haven't been to a doctor in 20 years, and why I will never be able to get decent insurance while continuing to be self-employed. (And why my dog has better medical care than I do.)

Rich

Mr. D said...

If insurance companies could compete across state lines, one would insure you, Rich.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. That would help, and I am all for that. But i still believe that insurance companies will need to be watched for discriminatory practices. Unlike most forms of insurance, HC insurance claims are usually doled out in dribs and drabs. So insurance companies have the ability to assess when a patient poses a potential long-term risk, and can then dismiss them as clients. This happens all the time. I am not claiming this practice is rampant, but it's pretty well documented that it happens far too often. Being able to cross state lines can be helpful, in that it creates greater competition. But once you sign on to an insurance plan...in for a penny, in for a pound. This is particularly true when the dread pre-existing condition exists. They really have you up against a wall.

Rich