Thread: Real healthcare cost?

This problem is not something to be looked at on an individual basis. This is something that has to be viewed as a national problem. There are always individual sob stories. I bet you have a sob story. I have sob stories in my life. Their individual sob stories were brought on by their own actions. They knew they were breaking the laws of this nation and do not want to pay the price for their criminal behavior. We cannot go through 12 million or more individuals case by case and decide who is worthy and who is not worthy. They need to be removed from this country and if they wish to immigrate legally go through the proper channels.

Self deportation has in fact worked in the past. BAck in 1954 President Eisenhower got tough on illegal aliens. In about 1 month approximately 488,000 illegal aliens self deported. Look it up at http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

However, as far as I am concerned, I don't see withdrawing all their right to access the health services would be a real solution, in fact, quite the opposite. Illegal immigrants ** might ** have brought undetected diseases from their homelands, or they might have contracted diseases within America, denying their right to healthcare while still allowing them to reside will make ALL Americans more prone to epidemics to previously-defeated contagious diseases (ie, flu going untreated and unmonitored). And it will have a tremedous negative impact on the nation, both on its financial loss and the already-established standard of health. It would be better to keep their health status in check, it may cost a sum of money now, but it might have prevent potential greater loss.

You say you are neutral yet in the above you clearly take the position that they should be here in the first place. That is not a neutral stance.

Building a wall around the boarder sounds like an impractical idea

I said specifically, building a wall alone seemed futile since they would just find other means.

These speak for themselves

And conducting in massive deportation does sound very uncompassionate, especially, we have heard many stories of those hard-working individuals willing to take the jobs most Americans wouldn't consider. I am well-aware that their persistence and dedication at work do not automatically grant them right to residency, but I just don't see massive deportation going in line with the character and value of some representative groups in this nation

Every one of the hard working individuals of impeccable character you refer to are law breakers and have jumped in front of people with REAL Character who are doing it legally and getting in line.

Here are some statistics for you and this was 2002, it would be worse now and this is just Los Angeles.

And, the comment re considering each person individually would be impossible. There are anywhere from 12-20 million illegals in this country. One of the first lessons I learned in life is "life ain't fair."

France, now, is attempting to deport their illegal immigrants. Forget the details but that may be an avenue for you to check out.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

WHERE YOUR TAXES GO - ILLEGAL ALIENS

Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare. See...

http://www.cis.org/

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Oops! Jumped the gun. Should add the results they found re those statistics I just posted from snopes.com:

Variations: Some versions attribute the statistics presented to a "retired San Diego police officer."

Origins: The various figures quoted above were not taken from a 2002 Los Angeles Times article. They appear to have been gleaned from a variety of sources and vary in accuracy as noted below:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
The California Vital Records Department of the Department of Health Services classified as "Hispanic" the race/ethnicity of 62.7% of all births occurring in Los Angeles county in 2001. The statistic quoted above therefore erroneously characterizes all parents of Hispanic heritage in Los Angeles County in 2001 as being "illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
In April 2005, Heather Mac Donald, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. On the issue of gang membership among illegal immigrants, she said:
No one knows for certain the percentage of illegals in gangs, thanks in large part to sanctuary laws themselves. But various estimates exist:

A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations. It commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
Note, however, that this statement references a California Department of Justice study (not an FBI report), and that it describes only a single gang in Los Angeles County (the 18th Street Gang), the gang that likely has the highest membership rate of illegal aliens.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
This figure also appears (unsourced) in Heather Mac Donald's testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.
Even if the statistic is accurate, however, it is subject to a variety of interpretations. For example, illegal aliens might be disproportionately represented by outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles because they are more likely to flee the jurisdiction before their cases are adjudicated than legal residents are (not necessarily because they commit a far greater share of the homicides in Los Angeles). This interpretation is supported by a University of California Davis summary of immigration issues that notes:
The Los Angeles Police Department has a 12-year old Foreign Prosecution Unit that pursues suspects who fled the US after committing crimes in Los Angeles and gives testimony when they are prosecuted aboard. The United States does not have extradition treaties with most Latin American countries but many countries, for example, Mexico, Nicaragua or El Salvador try suspects for murder and other violent crimes committed in the US.

The Foreign Prosecution Unit was founded in 1985, after a study found that nearly half of the LAPD's outstanding arrest warrants involved Mexican nationals who were presumed to have fled the country. The FPU works with Interpol to find suspects who flee abroad and then prepares the evidence so that the person can be arrested and prosecuted. The FPU clears about one-third of its cases, compared to two-thirds of all homicide cases in Los Angeles.

The Mexican consulate in Los Angeles has a representative of the Mexican attorney general's office to work with the FPU in prosecuting suspects in Mexico for crimes committed in Los Angeles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
The Los Angeles Police Department's "Most Wanted" list is viewable on-line, but since each entry generally includes only the ethnicity of a suspect (not his or her immigration status or nationality), and many of the entries refer to persons of unknown identity, it's difficult to verify the claim that 75% of the people listed therein are illegal aliens.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
Again, this figure appears to correspond with Heather Mac Donald's testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
The L.A. County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23% of inmates in county jails were deportable, according to the New York Times.
Note, however, that the 23% figure cited includes all deportable aliens, not just Mexican nationals.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
The number of Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles varies a bit from source to source (and according to how one defines "Los Angeles"), but according to Los Angeles Almanac, if both AM and FM stations are counted, and all programming formats (e.g., music, news, talk, religion, sports) are included, then it's fair to say that there are about 20 "Spanish speaking" radio stations in Los Angeles.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare
Although illegal aliens are not generally eligible to collect public welfare benefits, an illegal alien may receive benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps programs on behalf of his or her U.S. citizen child. (Any child born in the United States is considered a U.S. citizen, regardless of the parents' immigration status.) A 1997 General Accounting Office (GAO) report determined that in 1995 households headed by illegal aliens received a total of $700 million in AFDC benefits and $430 million in Food Stamps.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
As the Sacramento Bee recently reported, the "over 90%" figure for population growth in California is essentially accurate if the term "immigration" is defined to encompass both foreign immigrants and births to immigrant mothers:
When Department of Finance numbers are merged with Census Bureau numbers and birth and death data collected by the state Department of Health Services are added to the mix, showing that half of all births are to immigrant mothers, the inescapable conclusion is that foreign immigration and births to immigrant mothers together comprise all of the state's net population growth. Or, to put it another way, without foreign immigration, California would have virtually zero population growth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
It is true that Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute in revenue. It's also true that others have criticized his studies as flawed and arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that immigrants actually produce a net revenue surplus). For example, a University of California Davis Migration News article on "Illegal Immigration: Numbers, Benefits, and Costs in California" notes:
There is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures, and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced this conclusion.

Donald Huddle of Rice University set the benchmark for today's debate with a study that concluded that the legal and illegal immigrants who arrived since 1970 cost the US $42.5 billion in 1992, and $18.1 billion in California. According to Huddle, 7.2 million immigrants arrived legally and illegally in California since 1970, and the state incurred costs of $23 billion to provide them with services--half of the costs were for education and health care, and one-sixth were due to the costs of providing services to US residents displaced by these immigrants.

As with all such studies, Huddle made assumptions about how many illegal aliens there are, their usage of welfare and other public services, the taxes they paid, and their indirect economic impacts. Jeff Passel of the Urban Institute reviewed and revised Huddle's US estimates, and his calculations turned the $42 billion net cost into a $29 billion net benefit.

Most of the $70 billion difference between these studies arises from their estimates of the taxes paid by immigrants--Huddle assumes that post-1970 immigrants paid $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government, and Passel assumes they paid $70 billion. And the major reason for the difference in tax estimates is that Huddle did not include the 15 percent of each worker's earnings that are paid in Social Security taxes, while Passel did--this accounts for over one-third of the $70 billion difference.

Huddle excluded Social Security taxes because, in his view, contributions today need to be offset by the promise of benefit payments to immigrants when they retire. Passel included them because the federal government treats Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis.
An article published by the Urban Institute drew similar conclusions:
According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates major reductions in immigration to the United States. "The Costs of Immigration" (Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle's study actually show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion
Last updated: 5 May 2006

Originally Posted by bravee1997

** (this is addressing other responder) I totally protest that illegals should ***somehow*** pay equivalent medical insurance bills just like every other US citizens. My question comes next, would be how to get them pay the bills afterward or beforehand. I think we are getting into somewhere, why doesn't the government set up an insurance system and make sure those illegals can pay their health insurance, and hence, it will have a stronger say when denying services to those who don't have such insurance?

Gee, I guess that would be me.

I really don't have a clue about what you're trying to say here.

I'm not talking about insurance or a government program. I'm simply asking why it's ok for an illegal to not pay for services received.

Originally Posted by CountFloyd

Originally Posted by bravee1997

** (this is addressing other responder) I totally protest that illegals should ***somehow*** pay equivalent medical insurance bills just like every other US citizens. My question comes next, would be how to get them pay the bills afterward or beforehand. I think we are getting into somewhere, why doesn't the government set up an insurance system and make sure those illegals can pay their health insurance, and hence, it will have a stronger say when denying services to those who don't have such insurance?

Gee, I guess that would be me.

I really don't have a clue about what you're trying to say here.

I'm not talking about insurance or a government program. I'm simply asking why it's ok for an illegal to not pay for services received.

What makes you think I support the idea of giving free medical services to illegals. In simpler English, I, like you, DON'T BELIEVE IT IS RIGHT FOR ILLEGALS TO GET FREE MEDICAL SERVICES WHILE THE UNINSURED US CITIZENS CAN'T. I suggest you to read all my post more thoroughly, even my quote (However, as far as I am concerned, I don't see withdrawing all their right to access the health services would be a real solution, in fact, quite the opposite) you attempt to point has NEVER meant free med services for them as BEING OKAY!!?? I am really confused of where you get the idea.

Instead of occupying the valuable space here by accusing the stuff you IMAGINE I have claimed solely based on your preconception and misinterpretation, why don't you sit back and chill out, read my posts more carefully before posting a reply, appreciated it!!

From what I have read, the vast majority of costs for healthcare treatment given to illegal aliens is for the delivery of babies. In one hospital alone in Texas, Dallas' Parkland Memorial delivered over 1300 illegal alien babies in just one year. I hardly see how baby deliveries can be considered as emergency healthcare. And you know these illegals do not stop at having just one baby, they keep cranking them out as long as we continue to foot the bill, not to mention all the social service programs they then qualify for, since their babies are born as U.S. citizens.

I am not against emergency care for serious health issues or accidents, but I think a pregnancy is a lifestyle decision, one that should not be made unless you can afford to provide for the costs of having and caring for a baby. But these illegals are totally scamming the system, making taxpayers fork out the money to provide them with everything they need to have a family. What's next, they start saying thet having a car is an essential need, so we have to pay for them to have cars? Where the hell does it end? We can't be the provider of every need for every third world baby making machine who happens to get their pregnant butts across the border.

Dallas Morning News:

A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants, hospital officials said. In 2004, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies.

Some of you got really strong points with backup evidence, I will be doing a brief summary of the main points discussed so far:

** breaking laws in the first place, thus, non-negociable to certain rights
** unjustly taking the medical and other resources (ie: jobs) away from the US citizens
** hospital closedown due to unpaid services
** hurting the US economy
** acknowledgment of some decent illegals, but it's a national problem thus should be dealt with as a whole
** prior success in self-deportation
** contributed in high crime rate

I will look more into them before commenting. Since I would like to focus on the aspect of medical services, I am going to ask a few more questions.

1) Define who has the right to health service in a particular nation. What do you base your definition on?

2) How SHOULD you deal with the person happens to be outside of this definition. If exceptions can/can't be made, explain.

3) More specifically, now since illegals living in the US is a reality and imminent massive deportaton is highly unlikely, how should the medical professionals or the medical system respond to illegal with certain illness (be that i) flu, ii) cancer, iii) minor ailment, iv) delivery, or v) life-threatening car accident) asking for help?

4) **IF** you agree that we should save their lives but not minor illness, does it somehow create an injustice among them or other problem (ie: abuse of emergency services)?

5) Anyone support an idea that illegals should have no right AT ALL to get access to health services since they don't pay for it?

6) Does anchor baby have the right to stay in the US?

1) Define who has the right to health service in a particular nation. What do you base your definition on?

Health service is for any citizen in this country "LEGALLY".

2) How SHOULD you deal with the person happens to be outside of this definition. If exceptions can/can't be made, explain.

Anyone that fits another description shouldn't be here in the first place. So there is no reason for a number 2

3) More specifically, now since illegals living in the US is a reality and imminent massive deportaton is highly unlikely, how should the medical professionals or the medical system respond to illegal with certain illness (be that i) flu, ii) cancer, iii) minor ailment, iv) delivery, or v) life-threatening car accident) asking for help?

See number 2. As well "who" said massive deportation cant be a reality ? Enforce our current laws and they would deport themselves.

4) **IF** you agree that we should save their lives but not minor illness, does it somehow create an injustice among them or other problem (ie: abuse of emergency services)?

Sorry, Once again see 2/3..Simple answer is to "ENFORCE" current laws on the book. The rest will take care of its self.

5) Anyone support an idea that illegals should have no right AT ALL to get access to health services since they don't pay for it?

It might sound harsh..However if someone is in this country "ILLEGALLY" they have no rights, to any benefits of a "legal" citizen.

6) Does anchor baby have the right to stay in the US?

According to some officials they do.If this law was interrupted correctly then your answer is no.

Catering to any Person in this country "illegally" is wrong. "ENFORCEMENT" is the only true option.

1 - In a perfect world everyone would get adequate healthcare. That is not the world we live in. Right now there are 45 million American citizens without health insurance (my family accounts for 4 of them). We cannot afford $1000 a month in premiums and $1000 deductable per person and we make too much money for Medicaid. My husband is a veteran and cannot get benefits through the VA because we make too much money. Why am I supposed to have compassion for a person illegal squating in my country when my family cannot even get adequate health care. We go to the doctor only when necessary and when necessity calls for it we pay through the nose. For instance my 5-year-old daughter split her chin open so off to the emergency room we went one night. 30 minutes of time to fix her chin and two weeks later I have a bill for $1300. What did we do. We paid it. Illegals don't pay it. So I guess the answer is anyone in this country legally gets healthcare.

2 and 3 - An illegal alien who presents to the hospital with an immediately life threatening condition should be treated. Cancer, flu, minor illness, etc. is NOT immediately life threatening. A panel of physicians could define life threatening.

4 - No it does not create an injustice against anyone. American citizens do not have the right to free health care so why in the world should illegal aliens get free health care. Here is the difference. As an American citizen they can track me down and bill me for services rendered. In fact I know a woman who was put in jail for not paying a hospital bill, absolutely true. An illegal gets medical care and they disappear. There is story after story where they have identification with many different names. They walk out the door and are gone forever and the American taxpayer foots the bill when many Americans themselves are not able to pay for their own healthcare.

5 - As I said immediately life threatening situations only. Heart attack, severe injury, etc.

6 - There should be no such thing as anchor babies. The ammendment has been misinterpreted. And there is documentation to prove what the intent behind the ammendment was at the time it was written. Comments made by the men who wrote the ammendment plainly state their intention was NOT that any person born in this country is a citizen.