Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Delusianne pointed out that the rules you've cited, exist, but don't appear in the language of the bills that originated programs like Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Identification issues were addressed separately. Now tell us all why identification issues related to this legislation cannot be addressed separately.
A rule 'saying' illegal immigrants aren't eligible exists, but a mechanism for citizen verification isn't required. And the Dems have rejected the requirement of such. That's the problem.
Why should verification be addressed seperately when there is already a working system in place? The Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program that the Dems rejected is already in use by other government entitlement programs. Why won't the Dems vote to use it in the health insurance reform bill?
A rule 'saying' illegal immigrants aren't eligible exists, but a mechanism for citizen verification isn't required. And the Dems have rejected the requirement of such. That's the problem.
Why should verification be addressed seperately when there is already a working system in place? The Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program that the Dems rejected is already in use by other government entitlement programs. Why won't the Dems vote to use it in the health insurance reform bill?
Maybe they won't vote to use it because they want to discuss whether it's the best screening program or whether another screening program would be better? Currently, we know that some illegal immigrants are getting around the screening mechanisms for various benefits programs. The healthcare legislation doesn't go into effect for at least two years. The final healthcare may not contain any public option, so a federal screening mechanism would be unnecessary. After all, Republicans don't expect insurance companies to comply with such screening if anyone, illegal or not, applies for private insurance, do they?
Not adopting the Heller Amendment specifically into HR 3200 doesnt mean that no verification mechanism will be applied. It does look odd that none of them explained voting it down (at least as far as I can find), but obviously if there's a public option the Health Choices Commissioner will have verification means in place.
And the bill doesn't have to have anything in it about identification verification, because that matter can be addressed as we proceed in this process. I take it, you agree with that.
No, I don't. Why would anyone trust a moving target from a President who's a known liar?
Quote:
As fas as Obama's exact words----the reforms he is proposing don't apply to illegal immigrants.
Then why is there an insurance mandate for illegal immigrants in the bill? Obama lied.
Quote:
His proposals never address illegal immigration at all.
Don't be obtuse. This was never about addressing illegal immigration; it's about illegal immigrants obtaining publicly funded entitlements for which they shouldn't be eligible because the Dems refuse to legislate citizen verification in the health insurance reform bill. The CRS concurs, as does the CIS.
Quote:
The report analysis that you cite does not say that illegal immigrants are being given access to federal benefits. It does say that the new legislation could legally be interpreted, based on precedent
Exactly the problem, which is why verification needs to be addressed in the bill.
Quote:
...to require illegal immigrants to purchase insurance, but from private providers, not from the public option.
No, the insurance mandate does not separate public option from private proiders in the insurance requirement of the bill, or in the report.
Quote:
It is unreasonable of you to think that such a public option will not have screening measures in place, when other federal benefits programs currently do have screening measures. The only question is not whether there will be screening, since any application system is a screening mechanism, but how in-depth that screening will be. Heller's amendment proposal was about how in-depth that screening would be, but the Democrats on the Ways and Means committee decided that on this, as on numerous other amendments that were proposed and decided against, that a fuller exploration of options was in order.
Wow, you're spinning like mad. After saying no to the Heller amendment which would require citizen verification, where's the Dems' 'fuller exploration' of options? Show us!
Maybe they won't vote to use it because they want to discuss whether it's the best screening program or whether another screening program would be better?
Such as?
Quote:
The final healthcare may not contain any public option, so a federal screening mechanism would be unnecessary.
False. Affordability credits apply to any insurance, public option or private, purchased through the exchange.
False. Affordability credits apply to any insurance, public option or private, purchased through the exchange.
Ah - I'll bet the Health Choices Commissioner's role would make a Heller Amendment redundant.
I'll bet they didnt want to adopt the HA because of party politics, but that doesnt mean they're not going to put in verif. mechanisms via this health Choices Commissioner.
No, I don't. Why would anyone trust a moving target from a President who's a known liar?
Then why is there an insurance mandate for illegal immigrants in the bill? Obama lied.
Don't be obtuse. This was never about addressing illegal immigration; it's about illegal immigrants obtaining publicly funded entitlements for which they shouldn't be eligible because the Dems refuse to legislate citizen verification in the health insurance reform bill. The CRS concurs, as does the CIS.
Exactly the problem, which is why verification needs to be addressed in the bill.
No, the insurance mandate does not separate public option from private proiders in the insurance requirement of the bill, or in the report.
Wow, you're spinning like mad. After saying no to the Heller amendment which would require citizen verification, where's the Dems' 'fuller exploration' of options? Show us!
Let's keep this civil. I'm not spinning anything.
Step by step. There isn't an insurance mandate for illegal immigrants in the legislation. There is an insurance mandate for residents of the United States. The CRS and CIS simply make the point that illegal immigrants are, generally, residents of the United States, and that other government entities such as the IRS have definitions in place regarding "residents" regardless of their legal or authorized status. Therefore, the CRS concludes that "it would seem" that illegal immigrants, like other residents, would be required to have some sort of insurance. That's it, that's all there is to the CRS analysis. Illegal immigrants who did not carry insurance would be breaking an additional law and would risk the additional penalties inherent in breaking laws.
The proposed legislation states explicitly that illegal immigrants would be ineligible to receive any federal funds. They wouldn't qualify for credits. They wouldn't qualify for public option. The proposed legislation doesn't address screening for identification, and it doesn't have to. It's perfectly sound to address identification screening separately, as all the other federal benefits programs have done. Social security didn't include screening procedures when the legislation originating it began. Medicare didn't include screening procedures when the legislation originating it was enacted. The insistence that this legislation should do so is a partisan argument that ignores that there is ample opportunity to address screening procedures as we proceed.
Furthermore, screening procedures written into this legislation might actually be construed to apply to private insurance companies and their qualifying procedures. Is it your intent that private companies should be prohibited from insuring illegal immigrants? You have indicated previously that you didn't care. So, in that case, wouldn't it be actually a better idea to separately address identification verification if a public option actually does end up a part of this legislation, an outcome that is currently not a certainty?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This was never about addressing illegal immigration; it's about illegal immigrants obtaining publicly funded entitlements for which they shouldn't be eligible because the Dems refuse to legislate citizen verification in the health insurance reform bill. The CRS concurs, as does the CIS.
