Health Care For Illegal aliens DEBATE
USA TODAY EDITORIAL
Our view on health care: Everyone benefits if illegal immigrants are insured
The more people who purchase policies, the more costs are spread.
Remember this little heath care drama from September?
President Obama, addressing Congress: "There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false."
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.: "You lie!"
Hardly a great moment in American political discourse. In fact, it seemed to symbolize how far the quality of civilized debate has fallen. But the noise over illegal immigration and health care reform hasn't gone away, so let's take a look at the substance.
All versions of medical overhaul would bar illegal immigrants from getting any federal subsidy or participating in the so-called public option, if there is one. But there is a significant difference between the plan passed by the House last week and language in the main Senate bill: The House would let illegal immigrants buy insurance on newly created exchanges. At full cost. With their own money. The measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee would not.
The House approach is far superior, not just for immigrants but for society as a whole. Just as the public is better protected when illegal immigrants buy auto insurance, the same goes for health coverage.
Illegal immigrants with the means to buy medical policies should be encouraged to do so in the exchanges, not chased away. Their premiums would help cover costs for everyone else, including older workers, those with previous medical conditions, and women who pay through the nose for maternity coverage if not part of a large pool.
Fact is, illegal immigrants without insurance will continue to get sick. They will continue to receive care in hospital emergency rooms and clinics, both of which are supported directly or indirectly by taxpayers, the insured population, or both. That being the case, wouldn't we want to encourage those who can help defray the costs to do so?
Opponents fixate on the government role in setting up the exchanges, "stores" where private companies could offer policies. True, taxpayer money would go to create these marketplaces. But these fixed costs would not go up in any measurable way if illegal immigrants participated.
Actually, the opposite is true. Weeding out illegal immigrants from the exchanges could be expensive. The costs of checking records would have to be borne by policy holders or taxpayers. And the hassles of proving your legal status could dissuade some legal residents and citizens from buying insurance.
Such checks would, of course, be imposed on people looking for government assistance — and rightly so. But they should not be imposed on paying customers. Department stores don't purposefully delay their customers at the checkout line. Why should insurers be forced to?
For all the political heat surrounding this issue, in truth it would not affect a huge segment of illegal immigrants. According to the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute, of the estimated 12 million unauthorized people in this country, about 3.7 million have insurance through an employer.
That would not change as the result of health reform. About 7 million have no insurance at all, and some 362,000 or so buy insurance outside of work. Only the last group, plus the small segment of uninsured who have the means to buy insurance, would be effected.
Illegal immigration is a serious problem. It should be stopped. For the moment, though, the question is: Do we want to benefit from the immigrants' presence here? Or do we want to get so hung up on the politics of immigration that it leads to warped and nonsensical public health care policies?
Posted at 12:22 AM/ET, November 12, 2009 in USA TODAY editorial
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can post a comment at this link:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/11/ ... .html#more
=============================================
Opposing view: Don’t let them buy policies
Insurance for illegal immigrants means longer waits, higher costs.
By Dan Stein
On the surface, it seems logical to allow illegal aliens to purchase health insurance through an exchange that would be established under the House-approved reform bill. Upon closer examination, however, there are many good reasons to bar illegal aliens from it.
The exchange would be indirectly subsidized, maintained and managed by a massive federal bureaucracy estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to cost $41 billion to $51 billion over 10 years. Even if illegal aliens pay their own premiums, they are still accessing a government run "store" subsidized by American taxpayers.
Uncompensated care for illegal aliens already costs taxpayers $11 billion a year. Extending health insurance to illegal aliens would be even more expensive. CBO concluded "that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."
Greater utilization by illegal aliens could impact health care quality for all Americans, resulting in longer waits at the doctor's office and reduced access to services. Thus far, no Capitol Hill hearings have addressed this possibility.
Allowing illegal aliens to participate in the exchange would create yet another powerful magnet for illegal immigration. If non-legal residents can obtain coverage, people needing expensive care would come here, purchase low-cost policies through the exchange and utilize medical services that far exceed what premiums cover, thereby raising costs for everyone else.
Permitting illegal aliens to access the exchange would also further accommodate their presence in the USA, creating additional arguments for a mass amnesty. Amnesty advocates would contend that access to the exchange is tantamount to government acceptance of their presence in the USA.
The very fact that coverage for illegal aliens has become a part of the health care debate underscores the failure of our immigration policies. We are allowing into the USA millions who cannot provide for their own needs.
The best option of all would be to reinvigorate meaningful enforcement that reduces the number of illegal aliens in the country and require skills-based immigration.
Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, November 12, 2009 in USA TODAY editorial
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You can post a comment at this link:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/11/ ... icies.html
