Would Health Care Reform Make Things Worse in America?
Posted by admin on 01/28/10 in Health Care Reform
The health care reform bills being debated in Congress threaten to shut out millions of immigrants. But Congress’ exclusionary policies toward immigrants will not simply leave immigrants worse off. They will inevitably jeopardize the nation’s economy and the health of all of us.
President Obama has prioritized health care reform to ensure that millions of Americans have a fair, affordable and efficient health care system. For immigrants, this vision is far from a reality. First, the current health care reform bill treats legal immigrants unfairly. Individuals who have waited years to come to the United States will be required to wait years in order to obtain affordable health care.
Immigrants are generally younger and healthier than the U.S. population at large. However, no one is immune to falling ill or having an accident. The current health care bill would require recently arrived, legal immigrants to wait five years to obtain the only option for affordable health care coverage, Medicaid. While low-income citizens will have access to Medicaid, the most vulnerable among us will continue to wait for affordable health care despite the fact that they pay taxes for the very programs from which they are excluded. There is no sound reason for Congress to discriminate against these individuals and prevent them from receiving basic medical care.
Congress and the White House also took an unprecedented step to prohibit individuals from buying — with their own hard-earned money — an American good that could help their families. The Senate version of the health care bill forbids undocumented immigrants from purchasing private insurance at full cost in the newly created insurance marketplaces. As a result, undocumented immigrants as well as their family members, who are often U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, will likely remain uninsured and will be forced to seek care in the emergency room.
The costs of providing health care for undocumented immigrants will not disappear after passing health care reform. It is unlikely that millions of immigrants, whose contributions keep up our standard of living and our economy functioning, will be deported. Instead, the cost of care will become the financial responsibility of the patient, the provider, the local and state governments, and every single taxpayer. Moreover, in order to exclude a few, there will be additional forms, documents, and bureaucrats that the rest of us will be subjected to. Buying the mandated health insurance could feel like a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Taxpayers will have to pay millions for this additional red tape and delay, all to keep a few people from buying health insurance with their own money.
Providers, employers, consumers, religious leaders, and state and local governments recognize that these policies are short-sighted and will cost all of us more in the long-run. Policies that attempt to exclude and ostracize immigrants also disproportionately harm all communities of color and immigrant-rich states like California and New York, further widening existing inequities in our nation. Yet because immigrants live in all 50 states, the intended and unintended consequences and costs of these restrictions will be far-reaching.
Ending discriminatory and exclusionary policies in this final round of negotiations is not only a matter of fundamental fairness and sound economics. It is required in order to not leave all of us worse off. Congress has a short window of opportunity to remove the restrictions on legal and undocumented immigrants in the health care reform bill. Doing so will not jeopardize the passage of the bill. Failing to doing so, however, will leave all of us, immigrant or not, worse off and wondering what happened to the promise of health care reform.
The people at thoughtbubble.org used the audio of a video I made to create this amazing Thought Bubble. SUBSCRIBE TO THEM at www.youtube.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Related Health Care Reform Articles
Question by What goes comes around: Do Cons really care about you and whats in this health care reform bill?
if they did they would of worked on a health reform bill way back when they were in control under the BUSH admin. But cons knew that their health care plan would have never passed and also the “people” would have not liked it.
Come on people CONS want to be elected in 2010. The Obama Health Care reflects from Cons winning in 2010.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out!
Best answer:
Answer by Shovel Ready
Cons, as you call them, had excellent healthcare proposals, none of which is in the current legislation.
What do you think? Answer below!
tag this
suroguner | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@ThePedub No. You don’t tear them up, you turn them over to state governments.
merrieminchewchd | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
Meet a Russian bride gettop5.info
skatelongboards | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@ThePedub u wann bet? tin the constitution the federal government has the right to regulate trade between the states. by setting up highways thats what there doing. so what you said is wrong come back to me if you wanna try it again
ThePedub | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@skatelongboards There are lots of things not in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we should have a national highway system, so should we tear up the highways?
kinglbkiv | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@skatelongboards Most of what the gov does is unconstitutional my friend. If we reform the gov and start operating it like a business and cut waste and fire all the lazy ppl it would function health care fine. The reason why gov health care is broke is because they only take out 3% of each dollar for overhead costs while private company’s take out 15-30%. I firmly believe company’s shouldn’t profit off ppls lives bc they start abusing there power to make more money like denying coverage.
skatelongboards | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@kinglbkiv heres the thing national healthcare is illegal……NOWHERE in the constitution does it say the federal government can do healthcare. now i would support a STATEWIDE healthcare but not a national one cause this is your life and health. do we really want to give the feds that much power over us. best if we keep it local or statewide so if it fails it will only effect 1 state not the whole country.
Keep feds out of healthcare!support a statewide healthcare for your state!
66jewkoala | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
ahah , america don’t like socialism ,yet they vote they go in public waterclosets , they support their troops and the war industry , they like their police , isn’t that socialist
but when it’s something like paying for others to get healthy , that’s no way
Look, my country actually have health care and I never heard somebody complaining about it (the rich can pay their own care in a private doctor)
They even wonder how “the so called best country in the world” is so late for that …
adamladley | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@shmuli9 Not fully correct. You get the actual healthcare for free. However if you want extras, you can pay for them.
kinglbkiv | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
This debate is so simple i cant fathom why some are against gov run health care. If you run the gov like a business and cut waste and fire all the lazy bums it would be more efficient. Why would you put your life in the hands of corporations who’s only intensive is to maximize profits versus lowering cost and providing coverage. They get billions for providing no service when that money should be going back into the system
appapo3 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
Airport security is now performing free medical screening with advanced technology. You may also opt for a free colonoscopy .
anon0019 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@aminizle
I am 25. But anyway, the point is that people below 25 are people with rights too (so many people forget this?). If a young person deems it unnecessary to have insurance (or anyone for that matter if they so choose) and subsequently subsidize an aging, unhealthy population, company, or community – it’s really their right. Insurance is expensive. Some people don’t have the cash/are against it ideally, and are willing to take risks… it’s kind of an American thing to do.
anon0019 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@TheDancingRadio
it’s capitAl, broski
But anyway! Where did i say anyone has the right to be treated in a hospital?
Would I personally turn someone down if it were my hospital? No, as a matter of fact I’d probably have a policy which opens care to all. However, in this scenario forcing me to treat someone just straight up takes my personal rights away. I’m simply not obligated to. Sure everyone should aspire to be a “good Samaritan”, but we aren’t constitutionally obligated to, you know?
dirtdogg123 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
a right? what about my right to own a fancy sports car biatch?!
shmuli9 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
If virtually every other “advanced” country (and many not-so-advanced countries) didn’t have some form of guaranteed health care, OR if medical treatment weren’t so expensive in the US (people without insurance routinely used to have babies in hospital – and the whole stay cost maybe $500, as opposed to $20,000 or more today), I wouldn’t think it was necessary, but if EVERY country except “these United States” has comprehensive health, why isn’t there such a thing here?
shmuli9 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
In England, AND Canada, there is still a VERY healthy “private insurance” industry. The only thing that this health care “reform” will do is ensure a BASIC level of health care availibilty to everyone. (In the UK, if you ONLY have “the National Health”, it means that if you are in hospital, you most likely will be in a ward and won’t have – gasp – a private TV, but almost ALL jobs in the UK offer “perks” in the form of private hospital rooms, TVs and telephones.)
Dasmaster1 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@mds1303 So in other words aside from there most likely will still be a private sector your saying they are not good enough to compete with free healthcare?
mds1303 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@Dasmaster1
the pricate sector you speak of will not exist because they can’t compete with the governement
bamaedgecore | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@wildbloodydragon You havent been following U.S. politics for the past 2 years have you…
Dasmaster1 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@mds1303 Nothing is ever black and white and you do have valid arguments for your position and i would be a fool to deny that.
However just because Healthcare is trash right now does not mean we should not strive to improve it. And a major part of that is believe it or not making it available for all.
I for one trust that we as a country actually can manage that without to much trouble in the end. Of-course there will always be private sectors that your completely free to go to for a fee.
wildbloodydragon | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@bamaedgecore From the looks of things you don’t. Since when did non-profit become charity?
The government does not currently offer it’s own health insurance. The government does help start, fund and run many non-profit organizations. You must be living in a different realm to not know these things.
How about I stay and stick a dick in your mouth? I’d prefer that.
mds1303 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@Dasmaster1
i don’t know if you are arguing for or against my point?
our system is the same if we changed to a socialzed system there is no way we could handle the strain and yes wait times go up and quality of care goes down…
not to mention when you have the money coming from government funding they simply have to decide who is in the most need, aka rationing care…..and i feel if i work hard and take care of my body i should have the ability to determine what treatments i need
bamaedgecore | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@wildbloodydragon (The government does not control non-profit organizations or charities).
I know, I own a non-profit booking company.
Tiny mind?
Do you know what non-profit and charity are?
NOW you pay the government to insure you less, but you get less, everyone has to pay, and away go private companies. It kills people and jobs, and likewise I will not pay for it.
Why dont you move to canada?
Or kill yourself…
Dasmaster1 | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@mds1303 As far as im concerned Cuba has the best healthcare and no one else comes close. The major problem facing socialised healthcare is the lack of personnel.
Sure it might have been fine dealing with the majority of the people but when you drag in the rest in the system without considering the new strains wait times are inevitably.
However at the end of the day even the poors health is in your best interests because someone is going to have to scrape off the chewing gum off the walls.
wildbloodydragon | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@bamaedgecore No sir, I’m saying you should your facts straight, stop blowing this out of proportions, and chill the fuck out.
A non-profit health insurance ran by the government is well within the means of our country right now.
In case your tiny mind cannot comprehend what non-profit and insurance mean: It means if you can’t afford health insurance, you pay the government to insure you for less. Simple as that.
bamaedgecore | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
@wildbloodydragon That was taken down later during the Reagan Era as it was unconstitutional.
Just like every other liberal policy.
Big government, more spending.
Im not paying for your monstrosity of a socialist government.
Canada might but I certainly wont.
You and you lying joke of a president, the largest failure to ever take the oath of office.
Well, he’s your president, not mine.
Darwin | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
No. they are too busy dropping their pants and bending over to the corporations.
CONvict Shrubya | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
not a bit.
they are simply trying to obstruct democrats and gain political capital
Bob Dole said as much when he admitted that Republicans blocked health care reform in the 90′s because it would have empowered Democrats for decades.
“And [Dole] repeatedly blamed “partisanship” for the failure to produce a bill so far…”Sometimes people fight you just to fight you,” he said. “They don’t want Reagan to get it, they don’t want Obama to get it, so we’ve got to kill it…Health care is one of those things…Now we’ve got to do something…Dole also talked about the failure to get a health care reform bill through Congress in 1993 and 1994 when President Bill Clinton proposed it. He blamed himself — and Hillary Clinton — and finally politics. “Politics took over,” he said. “And you lost.”
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/20187
CONSERVATIVE TSUNAMI | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
this avatar is so familiar to me was it smitty???
Monica Sardonica | Jan 28, 2010 | Reply
Do LIBS understand that this will BANKRUPT our country? How is it possible that you cannot see this? Do you like having a JOB? It’s those “evil, rich corporations” who create the wealth and opportunity that you are so quick to scorn.
By the way, your LIBBY friends in the house and senate do NOT GIVE A RAT’S BEHIND about your healthcare!!! They want YOUR LIBERTY; and you, the sheep, willingly march to the slaughterhouse, so easily enticed by their disingenuous rants about “compassion”.
Thank you, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi!!! You are turning us into FRANCE. An impotent, socialist state, with NO FUTURE.
WAKE UP.
Healthcare is not a right. It is offered to you as a good/service. If you want to steal it, then use the emergency room for your healthcare and refuse to pay. I do not have responsibility over your body or your health. If you want a cadillac healthcare plan, then WORK FOR IT.
flabbered | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
That’s what I’d like to know, what’s in th ebill for which Tom Harkin all but nominated Harry Reid for sainthood for getting passed eith shady backroom deals.
Dillard | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
I wouldn’t think so, since all I hear from those pathetic pricks is “NO, NO. NO!” Not a single alternative suggestion has come from the Con side – not one!
Eat Me | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
SCMITTY you are back man you have been under Bawney Franks desk for jeez what gotta be 4 months now huh.
Aisha | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
Most people understand that Obama Care will be rationed and managed. You don’t delete 500 billion from Medicare and think things will stay the same for the retirees. Millions and millions of elderly, disabled, and sick will die from denial of healthcare but they will still have to pay for it! Any American (with the exception of the Congress and Senate) will be one illness or sickness away from their casket. If you are young and healthy, don’t get in an accident. Those death panels may decide you are too expensive to fix and pull the plug on you.
brown9500v15 | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
If you pay attention here… Cons simply want for this country to fail, economically, militarily, and culturally.
The ONLY way for them to justify their piss-poor stewardship of the nation from 2000-2008 is for the Democrats to do WORSE (if that is even possible).
In any event… a total melt-down of the United States is the only way they can achieve their goal.
Nacho | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
MAry Landrau got 300 million and Ben Nelson got 40 billion for pork barrell projects to vote for this terrible bill. How does it feel to have democrats bought and paid for with YOUR tax dollars?
If the bill is SOO wonderful, why did Democrats opt out of it for themselves?
If this health care bill is soo needed, why wait 3 yrs to have it implemented? And yet taxes start right away?
This bill is not about health care! its about socializing 1/6th of our economy!
Peace through blinding force | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
Of course. That’s why conservatives and ONLY conservatives have tried to REVEAL what’s in these bills.
It takes more than being allowed to pick the committee heads to have “control.” In your lifetime, the GOP has NEVER had actual control of the legislature. Cooperation from Democrats has ALWAYS been required.
In as much as each and every complaint you have ever heard about the “health care” status quo was a PREDICTED result of Democrat-written legislation, it should have been obvious to you that NO Democrat would ever cooperate with fixing it and thus undoing their own work.
Democrats lost in 1994 not because they failed to pass “health care,” but becasue they TRIED to pass it.
It does not take even low-normal intelligence to realize that!
Daddy LOCz | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
First of all, who are you referring to when you say Cons? And second, I think that you are misinformed. You need to realize that the Health Insurance Industry dictates what changes, if any, will be made to health care.
Dennis | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
The cons wanted to abolish state line purchase regulations and reform tort suits to reflect valid suits and keep the frivolous suits from tying up resources and the court system. After all health care is not the only area where tort reform is needed. Take the lady that purchased the coffee and burned herself by placing it between her legs. She sued and got rewarded for blatant stupidity in a case that should have never been allowed in this court system to start with. There are many litigation processes going on every day that give the insurance companies reason to keep medical malpractice way above the bar. Doctors, nurses, clinics and hospitals are paying exorbitant rates to defend against sometimes ridiculous suits. Abolishing state line regulations would open up the market for more competition. The only thing needed in this case would be a class rating of policies to ensure consistency in the market place.
Di | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
See attached link discussing both bills. I don’t see a win/win situation for any American, just an expensive one. As the article states “the real bargaining has yet to begin.” The Dems are barreling on with this monster because they can, not because they should. It is poorly constructed, ill thought out and they will have to give a lot of concessions in order to merge both bills into something their Democrat lawmakers won’t choke on. Add to which Republicans have offered compromises and solutions, with Reid and Pelosi shouting them down. No spirit of bipartisanship there then – what a surprise. On the plus side, they can’t blame Bush for this one.
Hugh Ouancaires | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
1. Health care didn’t / doesn’t need “reform,” which has already been defined by Dumocrats as basically screwing up health care for 90% of Americans who already have it in order to insure 10% who don’t.
2. Conservatives don’t think the government should control health care; Dumocrats do.
3. Dumocrats who controlled Congress since 2007 would have blocked health care reform under a Republican president anyway for purely political reasons, until the Dumocrats could take credit for it themselves under a Dumocrat president — you know, like they are doing right now.
4. A majority of Americans definitely do not like that Dumocrat health care plan
5. The Republicans have proposed several alternative health care plans in 2009, ALL of which were killed in Dumocrat-controlled Congressional committees.
You and the other liberals don’t really know what you’re talking about.