VOX Trump quietly cut legal immigration by up to 65%
This is what immigration restrictionists have been waiting for.
I have to wonder how many of us would be US citizens if Trump had been President in the 1850 to 1900 period?
CNBC rump suspends entry of immigrants who cannot pay for healthcare
This is so ironic given that Republicans do not want to mandate that citizens meet the basic requirement.
This is what immigration restrictionists have been waiting for.
I have to wonder how many of us would be US citizens if Trump had been President in the 1850 to 1900 period?
CNBC rump suspends entry of immigrants who cannot pay for healthcare
This is so ironic given that Republicans do not want to mandate that citizens meet the basic requirement.
"Some immigrants, mostly family members of US citizens or green card holders, can apply for lawful permanent residency abroad and obtain a green card almost immediately. Otherwise, immigrants can come to the US on two types of visas: those for immigrants who intend to settle in the US permanently and eventually obtain a green card, and those that only allow an immigrant to remain in the US temporarily.
In order to get a green card, an immigrant will have to prove to a consular officer that they will obtain health insurance within 30 days of their arrival in the US. If they can’t, they must demonstrate that they will be able to pay for their medical expenses.
The proclamation does not lay out clear procedures for determining whether immigrants meet the proclamation’s requirements — it will be up to individual consular officers charged with evaluating visa applications and the State Department, which is expected to issue internal guidance on it.
But based on insurance coverage alone, the majority of adults who were granted green cards over the last three years would have been shut out."So if this is an acceptable position for immigrants... Why is the GOP against this for US Citizens?
22 comments:
Isn't Trump just enforcing Obama's "affordable" care act? How can you possibly object to that?
That of course is the irony I mentioned...
Conservatives are okay with citizens free loading on the system by going uninsured or underinsured.
And yet they want to force it upon potential new citizens, to keep the poor and needy from coming to America.
Thus my question...
"I have to wonder how many of us would be US citizens if Trump had been President in the 1850 to 1900 period?"
Irony? Sounds more like wishful thinking, that when something is "free" nobody will want it. People cannot "freeload" unless someone is willing to be the patsy, and in this case, with Somebody Else's Money. The idea you can force somebody to buy something they don't want and don't need and can't afford has always been the fundamental flaw in Obamacare or anything like it.
And as shown in the comic, GOP method does encourage free loading... Why would people pay for health insurance if they don't have to?
The simple reality is that we consumers and tax payers are paying for the ER care, healthcare, disability care, bankruptcies, etc for every ill person who did not buy enough insurance or have enough wealth. :-(
And of course we can force people to buy insurance to protect society from having to pay an individuals unplanned costs, we do it every day.
It is called automobile liability insurance...
We already spend a crap-ton of money on Healthcare in this country (Public and private funding). I don't see why a more equitable distribution of that money is an issue. We're the last "civilized" country still trying to figure this out.
Moose
I am sure "equitable distribution" is a strong argument for anything...
But I sure do believe that every citizen should pay for health insurance...
Rather than relying on tax payers and consumers to pay their bills.
This is an interesting piece though
"But I sure do believe that every citizen should pay for health insurance..."
We already all pay for healthcare.
Moose
I love this quote:
"Governments limit payment amounts to keep costs low. Doctors have less incentive to provide quality care if they aren't well paid. They might spend less time per patient to keep their costs down."
Then incentivize health outcomes. Keep your patients healthy and reap the rewards.
Moose
Or this:
"Universal health care forces healthy people to pay for others' medical care."
That's a description of the insurance model.
Moose
"We already all pay for healthcare."
Oh please... If one is using the ER or on Medicare they are only paying for a tiny bit of their personal healthcare costs.
How exactly does one pay for health outcomes?
My doctor gets paid better if I eat healthy, exercise, don't smoke, visit them, etc?
Actually we are voluntarily in health insurance programs, no one forces me to pay my premium... I choose to pay my premium because I want to protect my family and wealth in case something really bad and expensive happens.
Which is the crux of our problem... A lot of folks are fine with questionable or no insurance because they know they will get care and they don't have any wealth to lose.
"It is called automobile liability insurance... "
And do you also carry "uninsured motorist"?
And the big question is, who gets to decide what health insurance you need, want and can afford? is one-size-fits-all, government-run, taxpayer-funded the best solution, the one that gave us the best health care in the world? Don't talk about outcomes, just what has become possible.
"If one is using the ER or on Medicare they are only paying for a tiny bit of their personal healthcare costs."
And the rest of us pick up the cost.
Moose
Jerry,
ACA just required basic health insurance, nothing special but nothing skimpy.
Jerry and Moose,
It sounds like you are both okay with forcing others to pay for the care of the irresponsible folks in the world.
One wants to do it through taxes, defaulted costs transferred to others, bankruptcies, etc.
The other wants to do it via higher taxes.
I would prefer that everyone help pay their insurance premiums to the best of their ability.
And you want to FORCE people to do so, or at least that is what Obamacare requires. Trump is just enforcing that law. Where's the problem?
Yes I do believe that everyone should be forced to carry a threshold amount of health insurance.
Whereas Trump and yourself are apparently wanting to let citizens free load while holding potential immigrants to a higher standard.
I just think it is a bit hypocritical.
as soon you say "everyone" and "forced" in the same sentence, I think you alienate everyone who is a freedom loving American. Not only that, but while carrying health insurance may be prudent, to suggest that there is some appropriate "threshold" that applies to "everyone" is exactly the sort of socialist, dictatorial policy that brought us Obamacare in the first place. and your whole logic for this extremist tactic is that if people are not responsible for themselves, that somehow makes the taxpaying public responsible for them. I don't see it. Personal responsibility means personal responsibility.
And you are woefully inconsistent here. You seem to think that everyone should be required to have health insurance, and yet you object strenuously when Pres. Trump wants to require a certain class of people to have health insurance?
Actually I am being very consistent.
"everyone should be required to have health insurance"
You and Trump are the inconsistent ones who think some people "should be required to have health insurance, while others should be allowed to free load on consumers and tax payers.
And it is pretty easy to know what coverage is common and necessary, just look at what is offered by employers like my own. And most of us appreciate. :-)
If you have a cheap policy, you are likely to become one of the freeloaders.. :-(
As usual, you have your own unshakeable view of the world. You think you can force people to make responsible decisions by telling them Uncle will take care of you if you don't. You think you and I, being responsible, should be FORCED to subsidize those who are not.
Since Obamacare requires everyone to have health insurance or pay the penalty, there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with requiring immigrants to comply with the law. What is stupid is the law in the first place; see above.
And it is pretty easy...? So whatever your employer offers is exactly what every single person needs, wants and can afford? Where did you ever get that idea? And why should "coverages" even be a question? The prepaid model is far less costly all the way around and it doesn't matter what ails you.
If I am single, young, healthy and have a cheap policy, I am no more likely to "freeload" (not that such a thing is possible) than somebody with cadillac insurance and a lot of problems.
I don't think we should be forced to subsidize the irresponsible people, I just know that we are. The ER funding, bad debts funding, etc comes from all of us in one way or another. And until we allow people to "die in the streets", this is how it will be. Where do you think all that medical care funding comes from?
I just want to make sure everyone pays ahead for potential issues that may occur. That is what insurance is for. If they can not afford the premiums, that is another issue that needs to be addressed.
Please explain why your fantastical "pre-pay method" is cheaper? Do their buildings cost less? Do their staff get paid less? Is their MRI machine cheaper?
Unfortunately even young people can rack up huge medical expenses. However it is less likely and that is why ACA allowed their premiums to be 1/3 of older people.
The current Quality of US Care is not great given the very high cost.
"I just want to make sure everyone pays ahead for potential issues that may occur. That is what insurance is for. If they can not afford the premiums, that is another issue that needs to be addressed."
You seem to be laboring under the popular Tina Smith illusion that insurance can pay out more than it takes in, that somehow having health insurance is equal to having health CARE. It's not. There is nothing different about health care that should distinguish it from any other good or service. Those who want it need to find some way to pay for it, either insurance, direct payment (self insured or debt) or charity.
Involving government in these economic choices simply distorts the marketplace and no doubt greatly increases costs with no benefit. It is another form of wealth redistribution at best.
And my "fantastical" method works, and it's very real, despite your sneering. I had it for a time, before Obamacare, and it was half the cost (and better quality) compared to conventional "fee for service" insurance.
They are finding a way to pay it... They go to the ER, go bankrupt, etc and you help to cover the costs. It is very charitable of you. :-)
Government is involved whether you want it or not. We the citizens agreed that it was unacceptable to deny medical care to those who can not afford it. Therefore we the people help pay the bills as noted above.
Please explain why your fantastical "pre-pay method" is cheaper? Do their buildings cost less? Do their staff get paid less? Is their MRI machine cheaper?
Post a Comment