Clinton health plan for Americans only

[jterrell]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_po/clinton_health_care

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that immigrants living in the U.S. illegally would not be covered by her proposed universal health care plan.


The New York senator said she supports basic health services for illegal immigrants, including hospitalization and treatment of acute conditions. But she said the magnitude of the nation's health care challenge means her universal coverage proposal would not cover the 12 million people living in the country illegally.

"People who are here legally deserve some better treatment and acceptance in the law than people who are not here legally," she said. "These are hard choices."

As for ways to reduce pressure on the overburdened health care system, she said she could envision using "carrots and maybe a few sticks" to motivate people to lose weight and make other behavioral changes that could help.

Speaking at a forum sponsored by several health care organizations, Clinton addressed a range of questions on the future of Social Security and Medicare, racial and gender disparities in health care coverage and ways to encourage medical students to become primary care doctors rather than specialists.

Most of all, there were questions about her proposed $110 billion health care plan and how it would bring order to a fractured system.

She didn't directly address questions of whether smokers or obese people should pay more for health care but said as president she would use the "bully pulpit" to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, particularly among young people.

Clinton, who has publicly fretted about her weight, drew laughs as she recalled competing for presidential physical fitness awards as a child.

"We were rounded up and taken to the gym where we had to jump and run. I was horrible at it. They kept telling me to run and I'd say, 'I'm running,'" she said. "It was a very strong message to children that the president cares about your health care. I personally believed Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy were sitting in the White House signing my certificate."

The former first lady also spoke about her failure to enact universal coverage during her husband's presidency, assuring audience members that she would not repeat the mistakes that doomed that effort.

Among other things, she said it had been a mistake to try and draft the plan out of the White House, and that as president she had no intention producing the specific legislation for Congress to consider.

"I'm setting goals for the country. But I know how important it is to work out the details in consultation with the Congress," she said.

Clinton scoffed at suggestions from Republican presidential rivals that her plan is little more than socialized medicine, calling them "old, tired accusations." But she acknowledged the need to bring a broad spectrum of interests together in order to enact her proposed plan.

"I think we'll have a very strong coalition that will be able to make the case to Congress," she said. "Nobody will come out of this process with 100 percent of what he or she wants."

Clinton also said the task would be made easier if more Democrats were elected to the Senate in 2008.

"It's one of my highest priorities," she said.

[jterrell]

I am surprised this has drawn nary a comment.

Guess the folks who bash this plan would rather not discuss this aspect of it.

[AtlCB]

I am surprised this has drawn nary a comment.

Guess the folks who bash this plan would rather not discuss this aspect of it.
There really isn't any detail about her plan in the article.

[jterrell]

There really isn't any detail about her plan in the article.

The biggest detail is that she would not cover illegal aliens under it.
The fact it is a universal health care plan for Americans is the biggest distinction that can be made imho. I want us to cover Americans and I want us to have a distinction between Americans and illegal aliens.

She also stated quite clearly that any plan would have to be worked through Congress and no one person would put through a plan without compromises.

Her lack of detail is because she pointedly states the base plan would have to be fleshed out with Congress.

Not that it matters to anyone but this is actually a politician being honest and letting you know in advance exactly what will happen in the political process.

[superpunk]

The fact it is a universal health care plan for Americans is the biggest distinction that can be made imho. I want us to cover Americans and I want us to have a distinction between Americans and illegal aliens.

I don't see how it's even possible. These illegals take advantage of government programs because their employers give them identification and SSN's. How do you stop that?

[zrinkill]

I am surprised this has drawn nary a comment.

What else can be said about socialism?

[jterrell]

I don't see how it's even possible. These illegals take advantage of government programs because their employers give them identification and SSN's. How do you stop that?

If they have illegal id and are paying taxes they'd be covered but would be paying for it.

A guy here who hasn't passed the citizenship test but is paying taxes and is a working member of the society is totally different than a guy not paying taxes with 4 kids getting free educations and free health care who will not obtain citizenship specifically because doing so would mean he starts paying taxes and for health care.

I think we need much more severe laws for employers who de-fraud the government in order to hire illegals.

We are going to see more and cities start deporting illegals and refusing to rent/lease to people without proper identification. We will see a reduction in this problem if we start looking at it from the standpoint of the American tax-paying citizen and not from the point of view of business.

I would be interested in hearing th libertarian take here as they usually have a take that is neither conservative nor liberal but based on a reduction of government interference in all areas.

[jterrell]

What else can be said about socialism?

In another words you didn't respond earlier because you can not read?

Lay out for the grounds for this being socialized perhaps? Then please to compare and contrast it to other areas of our lives.

[AtlCB]

The biggest detail is that she would not cover illegal aliens under it.
The fact it is a universal health care plan for Americans is the biggest distinction that can be made imho. I want us to cover Americans and I want us to have a distinction between Americans and illegal aliens.

She also stated quite clearly that any plan would have to be worked through Congress and no one person would put through a plan without compromises.

Her lack of detail is because she pointedly states the base plan would have to be fleshed out with Congress.

Not that it matters to anyone but this is actually a politician being honest and letting you know in advance exactly what will happen in the political process.
I wasn't attacking Clinton in this piece. I just don't think there was much information. Illegals not covered - ok, Congress to hash out details - ok

Not much to see here.

I'm not completely against universal healthcare. I just want see the plan. I want changes in the way government operates before I support a plan than we might regret later.

[trickblue]

The biggest detail is that she would not cover illegal aliens under it.

I don't believe that for a minute. Maybe not initially, but in time...

[Doomsday]

In another words you didn't respond earlier because you can not read?

Lay out for the grounds for this being socialized perhaps? Then please to compare and contrast it to other areas of our lives.

What makes it socialized is the fact that they are going to ram this down everyone's throats whether or not they want health care. I dont want to pay for health care for other people and I should have the right to not pay for health care for myself if I chose not to. I can afford to cover my own medical bills. The government needs to but out, Im tired of them dipping into my pockets and spreading my money around to people to lazy or unwilling to fend for themselves.

[zrinkill]

you can not read?

If you do not believe this is socialism ..... you are the one who cannot read.

Or you do not understand what socialism is.

Either way .... its pretty sad on your part.

[zrinkill]

I am tired of them dipping into my pockets and spreading my money around to people to lazy or unwilling to fend for themselves.

:bow:

[jterrell]

What makes it socialized is the fact that they are going to ram this down everyone's throats whether or not they want health care. I dont want to pay for health care for other people and I should have the right to not pay for health care for myself if I chose not to. I can afford to cover my own medical bills. The government needs to but out, Im tired of them dipping into my pockets and spreading my money around to people to lazy or unwilling to fend for themselves.

So then requiring id is socialized.
Requiring seat belts is socialized.
How many other things fall into this category?

Socialized is just a term neo-cons use to bash an idea they do not like.

We are socialized already.
You are already required to pay taxes and you do not get to decide where that tax money goes.

You already pay for health care for the people who do not have jobs and can not afford it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

What makes it socialized is the fact that they are going to ram this down everyone's throats whether or not they want health care. I dont want to pay for health care for other people and I should have the right to not pay for health care for myself if I chose not to. I can afford to cover my own medical bills. The government needs to but out, Im tired of them dipping into my pockets and spreading my money around to people to lazy or unwilling to fend for themselves.

Tell them to stop sending money overseas to Israel. Tell them to stop sending our military to countries like Iraq.

Tell them to stop voting themselves a pay raise.

Tell them to stop spending tax payer money on election parties.

Tell them to stop spending tax money on trips, medical care.

Shame is they have the money to pay for their own medical care and yet we still pay for them. How about that for socialized medicine.

[zrinkill]

Tell them to stop sending money overseas to Israel. Tell them to stop sending our military to countries like Iraq.

Tell them to stop voting themselves a pay raise.

Tell them to stop spending tax payer money on election parties.

Tell them to stop spending tax money on trips, medical care.

Shame is they have the money to pay for their own medical care and yet we still pay for them. How about that for socialized medicine.

I agree with all of this.

[AtlCB]

Tell them to stop sending money overseas to Israel. Tell them to stop sending our military to countries like Iraq.

Tell them to stop voting themselves a pay raise.

Tell them to stop spending tax payer money on election parties.

Tell them to stop spending tax money on trips, medical care.

Shame is they have the money to pay for their own medical care and yet we still pay for them. How about that for socialized medicine.

:hammer:

[AbeBeta]

I think we need much more severe laws for employers who de-fraud the government in order to hire illegals.


You do know that if this happens your grocery bill -- among other things -- will skyrocket, right?

Undocumented workers are very much the backbone of American agriculture. The idea that folks come here en masse to suck off the teat of the U.S. Government and all of its free services is just flat out racism. These folks are trying to make money to support themselves and their families just like the rest of us. The opportunities don't exist in their home countries nor is it possible for most to afford the legal process involved with legal immigration.

[jterrell]

If you do not believe this is socialism ..... you are the one who cannot read.

Or you do not understand what socialism is.

Either way .... its pretty sad on your part.

My gut reaction here is to call you names:)

But... I would quickly offer whatever I call you in regards to this position would apply to the masses.

In a different tact let's actually look at the topic.

from the wikipedia...
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.

Now let's compare that to a universal health care system as proposed by Hillary.

1. Hillary is not talking about the government being the employer or owner of hospitals and doctors. In another words the state would not control the means of production as socialist doctrines advocate.

2. The system would in fact offer any American the ability to see any doctor they could afford to see. Doctor's who refuse insurance would not be booted out of the country.

3. The requirement here for each American is to carry insurance. You will be able to choose to take on a medicaid type plan which would be cheap but offer crappy coverage and long lines or you could subscribe to a plan that Congress is offered.

But this requirement is all that must be met.

If you google america and socialized you will find hundreds upon hundreds of references to any universal health care plan as socialized. It's funny really that any effort to improve the coverage for our citizens be tar and feathered with a brush full of nonsense but it is.

We are essentially the only non-third world country that refuses to have universal health care.

McCain himself noted it costs the automakers 1700 per car in health benefits. In Japan under their universal health care plans it costs them 200. Japan opened a huge plant in Canada instead of the US to supply North American vehicles based on Canada's universal health care and of course on our crappy trade regulations which have us hemorrhaging trade deficits.

To go another route let me show you a socialized medical plan.

The state owns the hospitals and doctors can only work for the state.
The citizens would not pay nor have any access to extended services. All similar services would be equal in cost and you could not choose to go to a doctor more renowned for his care in a particular area. No Dr. James Andrews for you then. Not than any of us can afford him right now but the point being the option would not even be there under a socialized plan.

In short this is plain sophistry. It's just talk, its not accurate AT ALL.

[AbeBeta]

I don't see how it's even possible. These illegals take advantage of government programs because their employers give them identification and SSN's. How do you stop that?

They get SSNs and pay into social security. They cannot collect on that social security, it isn't their #, it is a fake SS. Any if they are being paid on a SS card then there employers are paying federal and state taxes, they aren't getting tax returns b/c they aren't going to raise red flags based on their SS.

So for undocumented workers in this situation, they ARE paying for services -- with less return than the average worker as they get no tax refund and don't collect on SS.

[jterrell]

You do know that if this happens your grocery bill -- among other things -- will skyrocket, right?

Undocumented workers are very much the backbone of American agriculture. The idea that folks come here en masse to suck off the teat of the U.S. Government and all of its free services is just flat out racism. These folks are trying to make money to support themselves and their families just like the rest of us. The opportunities don't exist in their home countries nor is it possible for most to afford the legal process involved with legal immigration.

If a business is operating and hiring illegal aliens I do not want to give them my business at all. I'd gladly pay more elsewhere.

Calling this racism is just stupid.
We have many Hispanics in the US legally who pay taxes.

Trying to paint them with the same brush as aliens is racism.

One group is breaking the law and the other is not.

Oh and by the way, my wife is puerto rican. My daughters are half boricua.

I certainly understand those wanting a better life. I am not at all against offering them that opportunity here. But I am against them coming here working for years off the tax rolls, sending their kids to schools here and sending money back to Mexico to other relatives. It is just another trade deficit we are facing.

I will grant that we need a plan to make hard-working honest folks citizens but not every illegal alien is here with the purest of intents. We need to have our citizens on the tax roles and carrying legitimate identification. Breaking laws because it is convenient is not an excuse.

There are lots of laws I'd love to break but they are not contrary to popular belief, optional.

[Ben_n_austin]

The biggest detail is that she would not cover illegal aliens under it.
The fact it is a universal health care plan for Americans is the biggest distinction that can be made imho. I want us to cover Americans and I want us to have a distinction between Americans and illegal aliens.

She also stated quite clearly that any plan would have to be worked through Congress and no one person would put through a plan without compromises.

Her lack of detail is because she pointedly states the base plan would have to be fleshed out with Congress.

Not that it matters to anyone but this is actually a politician being honest and letting you know in advance exactly what will happen in the political process.

And in the meantime, she loses a "few" Hispanic votes along the way.

[Ben_n_austin]

If a business is operating and hiring illegal aliens I do not want to give them my business at all. I'd gladly pay more elsewhere.

Calling this racism is just stupid.
We have many Hispanics in the US legally who pay taxes.

Trying to paint them with the same brush as aliens is racism.

One group is breaking the law and the other is not.

Oh and by the way, my wife is puerto rican. My daughters are half boricua.

I certainly understand those wanting a better life. I am not at all against offering them that opportunity here. But I am against them coming here working for years off the tax rolls, sending their kids to schools here and sending money back to Mexico to other relatives. It is just another trade deficit we are facing.

I will grant that we need a plan to make hard-working honest folks citizens but not every illegal alien is here with the purest of intents. We need to have our citizens on the tax roles and carrying legitimate identification. Breaking laws because it is convenient is not an excuse.

There are lots of laws I'd love to break but they are not contrary to popular belief, optional.


Oh, I couldn't agree more.

[AbeBeta]

If a business is operating and hiring illegal aliens I do not want to give them my business at all. I'd gladly pay more elsewhere.


Tel me, do you ACTIVELY seek out companies that do not use illegal labor? Or are you happy to just not know.


We have many Hispanics in the US legally who pay taxes.


We have many undocumented workers who also pay taxes and a) never get returns and b) cannot collect on their social security. Gee, that sounds like a win-win for the feds there.




Trying to paint them with the same brush as aliens is racism.

One group is breaking the law and the other is not.

Attitudes toward undocumented workers follows all the patterns of modern racial bias -- it is perfectly OK to hate them because they are doing something illegal. a simple justification opens the door to plenty of "oh, I'm not racist, but these people who do this..."

And I'm sure I don't have to inform you about the class biases within any culture, be it Puerto Rican, Mexican, etc. You know full well that those who came here legally are generally from better off backgrounds that allow them the luxury to immigrate legal. And please spare me the "I know person X and their family were dirt poor and they came here legally" stories - you know that isn't the norm.

[Ben_n_austin]

If they have illegal id and are paying taxes they'd be covered but would be paying for it.

A guy here who hasn't passed the citizenship test but is paying taxes and is a working member of the society is totally different than a guy not paying taxes with 4 kids getting free educations and free health care who will not obtain citizenship specifically because doing so would mean he starts paying taxes and for health care.

I think we need much more severe laws for employers who de-fraud the government in order to hire illegals.

We are going to see more and cities start deporting illegals and refusing to rent/lease to people without proper identification. We will see a reduction in this problem if we start looking at it from the standpoint of the American tax-paying citizen and not from the point of view of business.

I would be interested in hearing th libertarian take here as they usually have a take that is neither conservative nor liberal but based on a reduction of government interference in all areas.

I don't know.

I like what you're saying here, but I'm not sure that it necessarily plays out this way. It's an interesting intuitive look at thing. I like what you say.

It was once never such an issue for me, but seeing what it has done in regards to the state of our economy and reasoning about what it will do in regards to the economy in the future; the job market and *ahem ahem* the value of the dollar has changed my mind drastically about this matter.

And I'm with you on holding businesses responsible for breaking laws. I'd like to see some stiffer ramifications for that. This country's monetary system has become corrupt through and through.

I'd like to see it happen this way, but that's like when i wish in one hand and ___ in the other.

Good read, JTerrell. I'm following this whole thing because I see her as the likely nominee. But I'm still sticking to my moral and civic duty. I'm voting for Gravel until he drops out or... dies. lol

[BrAinPaiNt]

They get SSNs and pay into social security. They cannot collect on that social security, it isn't their #, it is a fake SS. Any if they are being paid on a SS card then there employers are paying federal and state taxes, they aren't getting tax returns b/c they aren't going to raise red flags based on their SS.

So for undocumented workers in this situation, they ARE paying for services -- with less return than the average worker as they get no tax refund and don't collect on SS.

I will admit right off the bat that I have no statistical knowledge concering wages in the area I am going to ask about.
So if anyone does please feel free to share.

You are saying II's (illegal immagrants) are getting fake social security cards.

You say they are paying into they system due to these fake SS cards.

Now many of these employers that hire II's are doing so because they can hire them so cheap. Some do not even pay minimum wage.

So are these employers cooking the books to make it appear they have 5 employees with 5 SS#s but are paying them at least Minimum Wage while they pocked the difference of actual pay?

See what I am asking here?

How can they be paying very much into SS and Taxes if the employer is not paying them a decent wage. Because if he wanted to pay a decent wage he would not go the illegal route in the first place.

If he is cooking the books, which it would seem the employer would have to be doing, than the II's employee is not really paying into the system what he or she should. Futhermore it would be another reason to go after Employers that hire II's as they are breaking the law hiring the II's and cooking the books and not reporting actual wages paid.

Your better line of thought, at least IMO, would be that the may pay taxes in the system while buying goods instead of out of their pay checks.

So, as I said before, I don't have the statistical numbers but logic would seem to indicate that maybe they are not really paying into the system, from their pay checks, as much as some would suggest.

[jterrell]

Tel me, do you ACTIVELY seek out companies that do not use illegal labor? Or are you happy to just not know.



We have many undocumented workers who also pay taxes and a) never get returns and b) cannot collect on their social security. Gee, that sounds like a win-win for the feds there.




Attitudes toward undocumented workers follows all the patterns of modern racial bias -- it is perfectly OK to hate them because they are doing something illegal. a simple justification opens the door to plenty of "oh, I'm not racist, but these people who do this..."

And I'm sure I don't have to inform you about the class biases within any culture, be it Puerto Rican, Mexican, etc. You know full well that those who came here legally are generally from better off backgrounds that allow them the luxury to immigrate legal. And please spare me the "I know person X and their family were dirt poor and they came here legally" stories - you know that isn't the norm.

Why would I assume anyone is breaking the law; much less at an institutionalized corporate level? If they are shown to be breaking the law they will lose my business.

I know both good and bad folks who have crossed the border; all dirt poor when they got here. The good folks generally eventually became citizens; the bad not so much. While I am against a blanket amnesty I am not at all against overhauling the process to give long time US residents with families and jobs citizenship.

Right now if you are an illegal and you commit a dozen or so robberies and get caught; they send you back to Mexico. Thats the big punishment. So you can cross back over the border and commit more crimes.

The illegals are smart enough to change names at each city as well. They don't carry legit id so can't really be tracked.

We have MS-12 and other gangs using this as a tactic now. Move their folks around in major cities with shifting id's commiting tons of crimes and knowing deportation is the worst result.

Racism and class-ism are two different things altogether. A class-ism argument is much easier to make.

I do not detest illegal aliens at all but merely maintain they need to get legalized in one way or the other. The system does take advantage of them as well. I am not denying that; especially those who are honest and hard-working. But it also aids the criminals and the free loaders. I am sure you are stating any group is completely free of those?

Our citizenship process is not ideal but the answer is not to continue having unfettered access to this countries jobs by anyone who can cross the border and allowing them selectively follow and/or break the laws here.

[AbeBeta]

I will admit right off the bat that I have no statistical knowledge concering wages in the area I am going to ask about.
So if anyone does please feel free to share.

You are saying II's (illegal immagrants) are getting fake social security cards.

You say they are paying into they system due to these fake SS cards.

Now many of these employers that hire II's are doing so because they can hire them so cheap. Some do not even pay minimum wage.

So are these employers cooking the books to make it appear they have 5 employees with 5 SS#s but are paying them at least Minimum Wage while they pocked the difference of actual pay?

See what I am asking here?

How can they be paying very much into SS and Taxes if the employer is not paying them a decent wage. Because if he wanted to pay a decent wage he would not go the illegal route in the first place.

If he is cooking the books, which it would seem the employer would have to be doing, than the II's employee is not really paying into the system what he or she should. Futhermore it would be another reason to go after Employers that hire II's as they are breaking the law hiring the II's and cooking the books and not reporting actual wages paid.

Your better line of thought, at least IMO, would be that the may pay taxes in the system while buying goods instead of out of their pay checks.

So, as I said before, I don't have the statistical numbers but logic would seem to indicate that maybe they are not really paying into the system, from their pay checks, as much as some would suggest.

Two separate arguments reflecting different situations.

There are many undocumented workers who obtain a fake SS card and make wages comparable with "legal" workers -- you have undocumented workers who obtain a fake SS card and make wages far lower then those of "legal" workers, likely because their employer knows and exploits their citizenship status. In either case, they do not get the benefit of getting a tax return or social security back. For folks in that situation, it is hard for me to see any legitimate argument for denying services. Anyone who lives in a city with a large immigrant population would be able to find a fake SS card without much difficulty.

For those without SS cards, generally working in agriculture -- their low wages subsidize our food costs, making produce and even meat far less expensive. The impact of that should not be underestimated -- things would be far far more expensive if farms had to pay minimum wage. This is why the Bush administration is pushing a guest worker program. That is a vital contribution to our economy that impacts everyone.

[jterrell]

I will admit right off the bat that I have no statistical knowledge concering wages in the area I am going to ask about.
So if anyone does please feel free to share.

You are saying II's (illegal immagrants) are getting fake social security cards.

You say they are paying into they system due to these fake SS cards.

Now many of these employers that hire II's are doing so because they can hire them so cheap. Some do not even pay minimum wage.

So are these employers cooking the books to make it appear they have 5 employees with 5 SS#s but are paying them at least Minimum Wage while they pocked the difference of actual pay?

See what I am asking here?

How can they be paying very much into SS and Taxes if the employer is not paying them a decent wage. Because if he wanted to pay a decent wage he would not go the illegal route in the first place.

If he is cooking the books, which it would seem the employer would have to be doing, than the II's employee is not really paying into the system what he or she should. Futhermore it would be another reason to go after Employers that hire II's as they are breaking the law hiring the II's and cooking the books and not reporting actual wages paid.

Your better line of thought, at least IMO, would be that the may pay taxes in the system while buying goods instead of out of their pay checks.

So, as I said before, I don't have the statistical numbers but logic would seem to indicate that maybe they are not really paying into the system, from their pay checks, as much as some would suggest.

There are cases in San Antonio, which where the 60 minutes report I saw focussed on, hired 5 to 7 restaurant workers and gave them 3 fake SS cards. The guys would cash their checks right their at the restaurant(where the boss would keep a cut) or at a "friendly"(they'd charge them much more than the going check cashing rate) check cashing place because they obviously didn't have any real info beyond a fake SS and a fake ID.

But the tax forms would be for a guy with like 5 kids and taxes paid were minimal. The tax payers get screwed, the worker gets screwed but the middlemen milking the system get a few extra bucks per week and the business pays minimum wage for workers and has them over a literal barrel.

[AbeBeta]

Why would I assume anyone is breaking the law; much less at an institutionalized corporate level? If they are shown to be breaking the law they will lose my business.

I know both good and bad folks who have crossed the border; all dirt poor when they got here. The good folks generally eventually became citizens; the bad not so much. While I am against a blanket amnesty I am not at all against overhauling the process to give long time US residents with families and jobs citizenship.

Right now if you are an illegal and you commit a dozen or so robberies and get caught; they send you back to Mexico. Thats the big punishment. So you can cross back over the border and commit more crimes.

The illegals are smart enough to change names at each city as well. They don't carry legit id so can't really be tracked.

We have MS-12 and other gangs using this as a tactic now. Move their folks around in major cities with shifting id's commiting tons of crimes and knowing deportation is the worst result.

Racism and class-ism are two different things altogether. A class-ism argument is much easier to make.

I do not detest illegal aliens at all but merely maintain they need to get legalized in one way or the other. The system does take advantage of them as well. I am not denying that; especially those who are honest and hard-working. But it also aids the criminals and the free loaders. I am sure you are stating any group is completely free of those?

Our citizenship process is not ideal but the answer is not to continue having unfettered access to this countries jobs by anyone who can cross the border and allowing them selectively follow and/or break the laws here.

Your portrait of the "bad" illegal may be accurate -- but you know that isn't the majority or even 1% of the people who come here without documentation. The problem is that ANY group will not be free of such bad folks -- and there is an increasing tendency to paint ALL undocumented workers in that regard.

If you are so against illegal immigration, I suggest that you do a great deal of research to identify what organizations use such labor. Pretty much that would mean ruling out any agricultural product from the U.S., all those nice wines from the Napa Valley, etc. etc. etc.

[jterrell]

Your portrait of the "bad" illegal may be accurate -- but you know that isn't the majority or even 1% of the people who come here without documentation. The problem is that ANY group will not be free of such bad folks -- and there is an increasing tendency to paint ALL undocumented workers in that regard.

If you are so against illegal immigration, I suggest that you do a great deal of research to identify what organizations use such labor. Pretty much that would mean ruling out any agricultural product from the U.S., all those nice wines from the Napa Valley, etc. etc. etc.

Actually we do not know the percentages, thats one of the problems.

Hispanics in this country get under-represented in the census and every other area because of the lack of documentation.
True advocates would be for getting them legalized not supporting their continued exploitation.

I can't tell you the last time I had a California wine.
I am also not a real big vegetable fanatic.

Now my steaks and potatoes are sacred...lol but I already pay well for those.

Excepting Native Americans we all got here via immigration at some point in the family tree. I respect that but also that they were documented coming through Ellis Island.

Anyone who doesn't pay its workers minimum wage shouldn't be in business. That's really all there is to that. Wine is what 8 bucks for a cheap bottle now? I am sure they can pay minimum wage.

Coming here it illegally is breaking the law. Being here and working undocumented or under false documentation is breaking the law. Intent is a wonderful thing but continued breaking of the law is going to eventually be stopped. So simply comply and we will not have these issues of good folks lumped with the bad. Right now they are all criminals even if its varying degrees.

[AbeBeta]

Coming here it illegally is breaking the law. Being here and working undocumented or under false documentation is breaking the law. Intent is a wonderful thing but continued breaking of the law is going to eventually be stopped. So simply comply and we will not have these issues of good folks lumped with the bad. Right now they are all criminals even if its varying degrees.

A little thought exercise is useful.

Imagine that you live in another country where the economy is crap, there are few jobs, you can barely feed your family, and you live under an oppressive (or alternatively ineffective) government. You know under the current system your children will never have the opportunity to thrive, to go to college, hell, to even finish 8th grade.

Your options are a) a long and difficult process that may never allow you to migrate, b) tons of money to bribe officials along the way to speed up your process, or c) leaving immediately yet "illegally" so that you can support your family.

Anyone with a shred of love for their family would choose c - in many cases it is the ONLY viable option. Simply 'complying' with the law is easy to say but nearly impossible for most people in this situation.

[zrinkill]

Wow ........ Abersonc's far left stance made me find myself agreeing with jterrell ...... who I was arguing with in the first place.

I think the Far Right Burm and the Far Left Abersonc is gonna turn the rest of us into moderates ..... :laugh2:

[AbeBeta]

Wow ........ Abersonc's far left stance made me find myself agreeing with jterrell ...... who I was arguing with in the first place.

I think the Far Right Burm and the Far Left Abersonc is gonna turn the rest of us into moderates ..... :laugh2:

It is sad that actually trying to understand the situations that people live under is just for liberals then. Of course that takes an ability to think and a recognition that there are many sides to issues.

[Viper]

I guess my biggest question is, what SSN’s are they using to slip by the system. Are stealing law abiding citizen’s SSN’s? I have a friend that had his stolen, he is fighting with the system now.

[ThaBigP]

So then requiring id is socialized.
Requiring seat belts is socialized.
How many other things fall into this category?

Socialized is just a term neo-cons use to bash an idea they do not like.

We are socialized already.
You are already required to pay taxes and you do not get to decide where that tax money goes.

You already pay for health care for the people who do not have jobs and can not afford it.

None of what you mentioned above is "socialism" - which is part of the problem. A lot of folks nowadays don't even know it when they see it or hear it. Socialism occurs when a government starts to nationalize portions of the economy (i.e. government owned and run), or redistribute wealth through taxation and transfer payments (such as welfare, foodstamps, nationalized single-payer healthcare etc). The intended goal of socialism is to even out the economic playing field, so to speak. Some folks can't afford health care on their own (or don't want to buy it, for whatever reason) - socialism's solution is to pay for that care through tax money (which is just other people's money confiscated by the government). Same with income redistribution (the aforementioned entitlements such as welfare, etc). So, what you have is the socialist/communist creed of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". And, no, "socialized" is *not* just a word tossed around by "neo-cons" to bash programs they don't like. Did it ever occur to you that, you know, just perhaps, conservatives don't like socialism? And would label a socialist plan....(drumroll please....) ... "socialism"? Nationalizing what amounts to 1/5 of our economy (the medical industry and its companion insurance industry) is *precisely* socialism. The problem with socialism is that it is does not work. Taking from those that "have" and giving it to those that "have not" (in many cases, you could replace those words with "do" and "do not") takes away the incentive to take on ecomonic risk and to innovate. Let me give you an example of why socialism to "make things fair" doesn't work, using an example many people are somewhat familiar with: Generic drugs and drug patents. Many folks hate the idea that drug companies, after developing a new drug, get to enjoy a patent on that drug. Meaning only they can sell it. When the patent expires, generics hit the market at a fraction of the "real" drug's price. Why is this so? Isn't that unfair, especially to those who can't afford the full-priced, patened drug? Well, here's the problem. Developing a new drug costs millions upon millions of dollars, not only for medical chemists' salaries, but equipment as well as the tangle of paperwork and regulation to go through to get FDA approval. And you may not be aware that many drugs never make it to market, but it still cost millions upon millions of dollars to develop (only to have to be abandoned for one reason or another, so no money is ever made back on those). That cost is borne by the pharmaceutical company who developed it and its investors. If not for patents, the generic drug companies could just sit and wait, letting the first company bear all the costs and hurdles of deveoping the drug, only to copy-cat it as soon as it hits the shelves at much lower cost since, after all, they never had to spend any money on research and development. It's a parasitic relationship, then, to have socialism. When folks are allowed to simply dip their hands in other's pockets if they can't or don't feel like affording something on their own, where is the incentive for those who have the money to keep earning any (by creating businesses, developing real estate, etc all at significant cost and risk)? If a drug company would never recoup it's investment in new drugs because copy-cats could piggy-back on their hard work, why waste the time and money deveoping new ones? Just play the waiting game like the generics do. But....what if everybody decided to wait for "someone else" to do the work so that they could piggy-back on it? No work would get done.

[ThaBigP]

Wow ........ Abersonc's far left stance made me find myself agreeing with jterrell ...... who I was arguing with in the first place.

I think the Far Right Burm and the Far Left Abersonc is gonna turn the rest of us into moderates ..... :laugh2:
Actually, I have to disagree - at least from my interpretation of his post. It seems to me he is merely pointing out that, from their point of view, they had no choice. And I have to agree. I would steal to feed my family if I had to, and that's illegal too (remember Katrina?). The alternative, of course, is that we all starve. Now, the real issue is that we have been so lax in our immigration enforcement that we (the US) have created incentives for the illegals to cross, and have not held our own businesses accountable for hiring illegals. To compound the problem, our lax enforcement removed any incentive the illegal population may have had to change their own nation for the better. Why bother when you can just run across the border? We continued to look the other way as a nation, because illegals = cheap labor = cheaper products and services. Now the problem is getting pandemic, and could very well lead to the demise of our Republic as we've known it for the past 200+ years if something is not done....NOW. The Ottoman Empre and Austria-Hungary collapsed due to having a mish-mash of cultures and languages that wanted to stay "separate" from the others, the Balcans have had their national boundaries redrawn neawrly every generation for hundreds of years for the same reason with entire nations disappearing from the map, on and on and on... Towers of Babel do not stand for long. My proposal? Build the fence and guard it with Border patrol with Nation Guard on standby further back. ENFORCE the laws we already have on the books. Throw the book at business who violate the law knowingly. As for the illegals already here? As you catch them circumstantially (i.e. arrested for other charges or whatnot), deport them. But I don't believe in a nation-wide manhunt for illegals. I care not a whiff about the 10-20 odd million illegals here already so much as I care about stopping the next 50 million. This whole "what do we do with the ones already here?" nonsense has caused paralysis-by-analysis that is only allowing the problem to get worse and worse - we debate endlessly while thousands more cross every day. If we stop the flow now, the ones already here will slowly integrate into society, especially their children and grandchildren (which was the entire point of our immigration policy anyway - don't take in so many at a time that they overwhelm society and form separate "sub nations" in our nation). Also, with our policies actually being enforced on our own businesses, the incentive for many to stay will dry up as well.

[Doomsday]

So then requiring id is socialized.
Requiring seat belts is socialized.
How many other things fall into this category?

Socialized is just a term neo-cons use to bash an idea they do not like.

We are socialized already.
You are already required to pay taxes and you do not get to decide where that tax money goes.

You already pay for health care for the people who do not have jobs and can not afford it.

Im not saying everyone should get to chose where the tax dollars are spent, though I believe as a society we should have some input. I would also argue that forcing me to pay for health care or even insurance for that matter is a joke. BigP summed it up pretty good. It gets to the point where 10 percent of the people are burdoned with the expense of 40 percent of the society. There are people in our society that truly need help because they are unable to fend for themselves or are just down on their luck and need a hand to get back on their feet and I have no problem with helping those people out. There are others who are just lazy and want a free ride, there needs to be incentive for them to take care of themselves or they will continue to be a drain on society.

And for the record I dont think the government should be in the business of forcing ADULTS to wear seat belts or helmets for that matter. I believe in personal responsibility not in government mandated policy controlling every aspect of our lives.

[jterrell]

A little thought exercise is useful.

Imagine that you live in another country where the economy is crap, there are few jobs, you can barely feed your family, and you live under an oppressive (or alternatively ineffective) government. You know under the current system your children will never have the opportunity to thrive, to go to college, hell, to even finish 8th grade.

Your options are a) a long and difficult process that may never allow you to migrate, b) tons of money to bribe officials along the way to speed up your process, or c) leaving immediately yet "illegally" so that you can support your family.

Anyone with a shred of love for their family would choose c - in many cases it is the ONLY viable option. Simply 'complying' with the law is easy to say but nearly impossible for most people in this situation.

Aber,
You do not magically poof into that situation.
You got married in Mexico, had kids in Mexico and then all of a sudden realized you needed to move??

People all over the world dream of coming to America when they grow up. Most of them can't cross a stream then decide they are all good to go.

My complaint is not with folks getting here. It with folks getting here and never bothering to make it right by becoming a citizen.

There are large segments who have no desire to be Americans at all.

I would love to walk into Jessica Alba's bedroom now because there are nice things there....

Illegal is illegal. There are ways to get here legally and there are ways once you are here to become legal. I have worked with lots of foreigners who have become citizens.

Being born a Mexican citizen is not a free pass to the US.
Or at least it shouldn't be.

If you want to become an American and have American children then God bless you. But that means following the laws of America not just providing for your family.

[jterrell]

None of what you mentioned above is "socialism" - which is part of the problem. A lot of folks nowadays don't even know it when they see it or hear it. Socialism occurs when a government starts to nationalize portions of the economy (i.e. government owned and run), or redistribute wealth through taxation and transfer payments (such as welfare, foodstamps, nationalized single-payer healthcare etc). The intended goal of socialism is to even out the economic playing field, so to speak. Some folks can't afford health care on their own (or don't want to buy it, for whatever reason) - socialism's solution is to pay for that care through tax money (which is just other people's money confiscated by the government). Same with income redistribution (the aforementioned entitlements such as welfare, etc). So, what you have is the socialist/communist creed of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". And, no, "socialized" is *not* just a word tossed around by "neo-cons" to bash programs they don't like. Did it ever occur to you that, you know, just perhaps, conservatives don't like socialism? And would label a socialist plan....(drumroll please....) ... "socialism"? Nationalizing what amounts to 1/5 of our economy (the medical industry and its companion insurance industry) is *precisely* socialism. The problem with socialism is that it is does not work. Taking from those that "have" and giving it to those that "have not" (in many cases, you could replace those words with "do" and "do not") takes away the incentive to take on ecomonic risk and to innovate. Let me give you an example of why socialism to "make things fair" doesn't work, using an example many people are somewhat familiar with: Generic drugs and drug patents. Many folks hate the idea that drug companies, after developing a new drug, get to enjoy a patent on that drug. Meaning only they can sell it. When the patent expires, generics hit the market at a fraction of the "real" drug's price. Why is this so? Isn't that unfair, especially to those who can't afford the full-priced, patened drug? Well, here's the problem. Developing a new drug costs millions upon millions of dollars, not only for medical chemists' salaries, but equipment as well as the tangle of paperwork and regulation to go through to get FDA approval. And you may not be aware that many drugs never make it to market, but it still cost millions upon millions of dollars to develop (only to have to be abandoned for one reason or another, so no money is ever made back on those). That cost is borne by the pharmaceutical company who developed it and its investors. If not for patents, the generic drug companies could just sit and wait, letting the first company bear all the costs and hurdles of deveoping the drug, only to copy-cat it as soon as it hits the shelves at much lower cost since, after all, they never had to spend any money on research and development. It's a parasitic relationship, then, to have socialism. When folks are allowed to simply dip their hands in other's pockets if they can't or don't feel like affording something on their own, where is the incentive for those who have the money to keep earning any (by creating businesses, developing real estate, etc all at significant cost and risk)? If a drug company would never recoup it's investment in new drugs because copy-cats could piggy-back on their hard work, why waste the time and money deveoping new ones? Just play the waiting game like the generics do. But....what if everybody decided to wait for "someone else" to do the work so that they could piggy-back on it? No work would get done.

Requiring health insurance is no different than requiring car insurance or enforcing seat belt laws.

They are laws not socialization.

Are they invasive laws? Yes, but they are all laws on the books to protect us on different levels.

As I laid out above Hillary's plan is hardly close to socialization and in fact is very much what they have in place now in the state of Massachusetts that Romney pushed.

[jterrell]

Im not saying everyone should get to chose where the tax dollars are spent, though I believe as a society we should have some input. I would also argue that forcing me to pay for health care or even insurance for that matter is a joke. BigP summed it up pretty good. It gets to the point where 10 percent of the people are burdoned with the expense of 40 percent of the society. There are people in our society that truly need help because they are unable to fend for themselves or are just down on their luck and need a hand to get back on their feet and I have no problem with helping those people out. There are others who are just lazy and want a free ride, there needs to be incentive for them to take care of themselves or they will continue to be a drain on society.

And for the record I dont think the government should be in the business of forcing ADULTS to wear seat belts or helmets for that matter. I believe in personal responsibility not in government mandated policy controlling every aspect of our lives.

Dooms,
What I am saying is we already pay Medicaid and Medicare costs for those folks who do not work. This plan has nothing to do with that. The distinction Hillary made about illegals was big to me because then it would have been massively expensive. Now it is merely a matter of offering Medicaid at a cost to lower income folks who are without any healthcare at all.

I can't say I disagree about some of these laws being rather silly and invasive but this is a law I support because it is for the working folks not the non-working folks. Right now if I have a job say selling flowers chances are excellent no one is offering me any type of insurance and if I get the flu I could go to the emergency room and get seen free of charge. How efficient is that?
Or I could go to a prima-care or whatever and pay 200 bucks to see a nurses practitioner and get a week's supply of antibiotic. That's insanely expensive. But those without healthcare are not gonna get the negotiated office visit rates. They are gonna get gouged.

[ThaBigP]

Requiring health insurance is no different than requiring car insurance or enforcing seat belt laws.

They are laws not socialization.

Are they invasive laws? Yes, but they are all laws on the books to protect us on different levels.

As I laid out above Hillary's plan is hardly close to socialization and in fact is very much what they have in place now in the state of Massachusetts that Romney pushed.

I wasn't claiming the above laws are "socialization" (quite the contrary) - and I agree with you they are invasive laws, which is what a lot of people refer to as "nanny-statism" (as opposed to "welfare-statism" of socialism and communism). I was pointing out what socialism really means, and why many oppose it. But here is a good lesson, by the way. Why does the government *get* to demand you own car insurance? Because you're operating your vehicle on *public* roadways. The lesson there is that anything handed out or administrated by the governement always has strings attached. And strings are added year after year. The same will happen with government-run or single-payer healthcare. Like to smoke and drink? Great. No coverage for you. Later you will be denied for engaging in "risky" behaviour (riding a motorcycle, too many speeding tickets, etc). Radio is regulated by the FCC. And as a result, actually does *not* enjoy the full protection of the first amendment. Government is now regulating political speech, with the McKane/Feingold act (aka campaign finance reform). There's no end to government's hunger for power, as any history book will tell you. Case in point, all the invasive laws you mentioned earlier.

[zrinkill]

But here is a good lesson, by the way. Why does the government *get* to demand you own car insurance? Because you're operating your vehicle on *public* roadways. The lesson there is that anything handed out or administrated by the governement always has strings attached. And strings are added year after year. The same will happen with government-run or single-payer healthcare. Like to smoke and drink? Great. No coverage for you. Later you will be denied for engaging in "risky" behaviour (riding a motorcycle, too many speeding tickets, etc).

Nice.

[Sasquatch]

The lesson there is that anything handed out or administrated by the governement always has strings attached. And strings are added year after year. The same will happen with government-run or single-payer healthcare. Like to smoke and drink? Great. No coverage for you. Later you will be denied for engaging in "risky" behaviour (riding a motorcycle, too many speeding tickets, etc). Radio is regulated by the FCC. And as a result, actually does *not* enjoy the full protection of the first amendment. Government is now regulating political speech, with the McKane/Feingold act (aka campaign finance reform). There's no end to government's hunger for power, as any history book will tell you. Case in point, all the invasive laws you mentioned earlier.

Private insurance companies would never be so heavy-handed as to deny people coverage or jack up prices for behaviors that might effect their bottom line. :rolleyes:

As for your suspicion of government in general, there are places in the world that approximate the radical conservative ideal that is at the core of many of your criticisms. But I don't think drawing comparisons between ACTUAL places such as the hinterlands of Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and other lawless areas with weak and ineffective government structures and, say, the "nanny/welfare" states of Europe would prove very convincing.

[AbeBeta]

Aber,
People all over the world dream of coming to America when they grow up. Most of them can't cross a stream then decide they are all good to go.


Yeah, many of them come in on tourist or other forms of visas and never leave -- funny how people don't piss and moan about all the Canadian and English people who are here illegally -- b/c there are a ton of them as well



My complaint is not with folks getting here. It with folks getting here and never bothering to make it right by becoming a citizen.

There are large segments who have no desire to be Americans at all.


Not "bothering" to become citizens -- how come when there is an amnesty, tons of people come forward to become citizens then? People don't "bother" because of a number of reasons, one being the fear that they will be deported immediately if they have come into the country illegally. Again, put yourself in that situation - would you risk everything you fought to earn in your new country to come forward and say "we got here illegally"?

Also, language is a huge issue - anyone who has tried to learn a new language knows that if you take it up as an adult it is really damn difficult - if you happen to be a) working in a job where you don't need English, b) working long hours and several jobs, and c) not particularly well educated in your native language in the first place, then learning English can be damn near impossible. (and any of you who are going to say "well if you want to be in America learn English -- I say shut up until you learn a foreign language as an adult, then you can talk about how others should learn English)




If you want to become an American and have American children then God bless you. But that means following the laws of America not just providing for your family.

FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF AMERICA? Takes two to tango there -- there are millions of jobs (6 million at the nearest estimate) that go to undocumented immigrants. The government clearly looks the other way on those jobs -- so let's not crow about following the laws of American until our own citizens actually do that themselves.

[dback]

Does anybody know if doctors (family practice, ER, OB/GYN, etc.) would be required to accept the Universal Health Care plans outlined in this file from her web site?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

I know that Medicaid is notorious for only paying between twenty to forty cents on the dollar for medical bills (this according to some word of mouth according to some doctors I know) and I am curious how well the UHC plans would pay.

[iceberg]

So then requiring id is socialized.
Requiring seat belts is socialized.
How many other things fall into this category?

Socialized is just a term neo-cons use to bash an idea they do not like.

We are socialized already.
You are already required to pay taxes and you do not get to decide where that tax money goes.

You already pay for health care for the people who do not have jobs and can not afford it.

and neo-con isn't a term to describes someone 'stance' either, is it?

amazin to me how you can demean lables while slappng one around.

[Sasquatch]

Actually, I have to disagree - at least from my interpretation of his post. It seems to me he is merely pointing out that, from their point of view, they had no choice. And I have to agree. I would steal to feed my family if I had to, and that's illegal too (remember Katrina?). The alternative, of course, is that we all starve. Now, the real issue is that we have been so lax in our immigration enforcement that we (the US) have created incentives for the illegals to cross, and have not held our own businesses accountable for hiring illegals. To compound the problem, our lax enforcement removed any incentive the illegal population may have had to change their own nation for the better. Why bother when you can just run across the border? We continued to look the other way as a nation, because illegals = cheap labor = cheaper products and services. Now the problem is getting pandemic, and could very well lead to the demise of our Republic as we've known it for the past 200+ years if something is not done....NOW. The Ottoman Empre and Austria-Hungary collapsed due to having a mish-mash of cultures and languages that wanted to stay "separate" from the others, the Balcans have had their national boundaries redrawn neawrly every generation for hundreds of years for the same reason with entire nations disappearing from the map, on and on and on... Towers of Babel do not stand for long. My proposal? Build the fence and guard it with Border patrol with Nation Guard on standby further back. ENFORCE the laws we already have on the books. Throw the book at business who violate the law knowingly. As for the illegals already here? As you catch them circumstantially (i.e. arrested for other charges or whatnot), deport them. But I don't believe in a nation-wide manhunt for illegals. I care not a whiff about the 10-20 odd million illegals here already so much as I care about stopping the next 50 million. This whole "what do we do with the ones already here?" nonsense has caused paralysis-by-analysis that is only allowing the problem to get worse and worse - we debate endlessly while thousands more cross every day. If we stop the flow now, the ones already here will slowly integrate into society, especially their children and grandchildren (which was the entire point of our immigration policy anyway - don't take in so many at a time that they overwhelm society and form separate "sub nations" in our nation). Also, with our policies actually being enforced on our own businesses, the incentive for many to stay will dry up as well.

The empires you mention were cobbled together from smaller kingdoms, principalities, and other settled and concentrated groups who constituted distinct ethnicities and cultures that could make legitimate claims on the land on the basis of continuous habitation. The example isn't apt for immigrants who become dispersed within the host nation and assimilated over time like other diaspora populations (Jewish, African, etc.). Our own history of non-English speaking immigrants suggests that these dire warnings will prove just as unfounded today as they were at other times in our history (nativists, etc.).

[Doomsday]

Private insurance companies would never be so heavy-handed as to deny people coverage or jack up prices for behaviors that might effect their bottom line. :rolleyes:


The difference is private insurance companies have competition which limits the type of restrictions they can put on their coverage.

[AbeBeta]

The difference is private insurance companies have competition which limits the type of restrictions they can put on their coverage.

you keep believing that Milton Friedman.

[jman]

The biggest detail is that she would not cover illegal aliens under it.
The fact it is a universal health care plan for Americans is the biggest distinction that can be made imho. I want us to cover Americans and I want us to have a distinction between Americans and illegal aliens.

She also stated quite clearly that any plan would have to be worked through Congress and no one person would put through a plan without compromises.

Her lack of detail is because she pointedly states the base plan would have to be fleshed out with Congress.

Not that it matters to anyone but this is actually a politician being honest and letting you know in advance exactly what will happen in the political process.

Now that is a true statement, as Hillary points out...Clinton also said the task would be made easier if more Democrats were elected to the Senate in 2008.

"It's one of my highest priorities," she said.

Hmmmm, Health Care or getting more Democrats elected.