The Answer: Illegals Do Not Have to Buy Health Insurance
Paul Lukacs answers my question from yesterday with a persuasive analysis.
So, basically, they’ll just keep going to the E.R. like they always have — without insurance, for non-emergency reasons, increasing the burden on emergency rooms that have actual emergencies to deal with — and we’ll continue to pay for it.
If you try that, you’ll be fined and perhaps jailed. But, you know, that’s because you’re a citizen.
P.S. Of course, as was pointed out yesterday, they’ll be citizens too, in short order. Obama needs a few million extra voters, and with ACORN gone, it’s going to be tougher to register the illegals. So make them all legal. Problem solved, and permanent Democrat majority assured.
Ain’t it lovely?
They can’t argue that amnesty will solve the problem of illegal aliens having more rights than US citizens because a few seconds after amnesty is signed there will be new illegal aliens sneaking past the border and those brand new illegals would have more rights than the illegals who just got amnestied.
And they wouldn’t have the chutzpah to claim that they will suddenly start enforcing immigration law after an amnesty. They aren’t enforcing the law today because they want the latino vote and they aren’t gonna want it any less after several million new latino voters are formed after amnesty. Logically, after amnesty, they’ll have more reason not to enforce immigration law in regards to post-amnesty new arrival illegal aliens.
j curtis (5126e4) — 3/23/2010 @ 3:14 amMister Patterico, sir, with all due respect, you need to have some olde-tyme private time in the woodshed with the original owner of that green bow-tie. You are busying yourself with your pity party when there is work to be done. Now is not the time to lie down and die. Quit sulking, stand up, man up, and get to work.
Never give up. Never surrender. Never, never, never surrender.
John Hitchcock (6f12c1) — 3/23/2010 @ 3:46 amAs each new atrocity is perpetrated, Sarah Barracuda looks better and better, does she not?
Icy Texan (574fae) — 3/23/2010 @ 3:55 amSarahcuda, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann are all definitely in the forefront. Boehner seems like good people but I’m not sure he has the Patton or MacArthur in him to do the job. The other three very well might.
John Hitchcock (6f12c1) — 3/23/2010 @ 4:08 amIf the GOP did ANYTHING at all to appeal to African-Americans and Hispanics that might change. But I think they like being the party of the white man too much.
JEA (53fe4f) — 3/23/2010 @ 4:11 amDidn’t I tell you it looked like they’re actually forbidden from buying insurance?
imdw (842182) — 3/23/2010 @ 4:59 amSo if illegals can get health care, and most states make it illegal to turn someone away from the emergency room based solely on their ability to pay, who exactly are these great masses of people one breath away from the grave if we don’t pass health care reform?
Steve B (5eacf6) — 3/23/2010 @ 5:14 amIf the GOP did ANYTHING at all to appeal to African-Americans and Hispanics that might change.
By “anything at all” you mean “thow trillions of dollars at them like the Democrats do”, right?
I think they like being the party of the white man too much.
And you like being the anti-white-man party way, way, way too much.
Subotai (5c0cc1) — 3/23/2010 @ 5:35 am“If the GOP did ANYTHING at all to appeal to African-Americans and Hispanics that might change. ”
It’s true. But some party should be for freedom, democracy, rule of law, prosperity and the like. Can’t help who that doesn’t appeal to.
tehag (2f7b2f) — 3/23/2010 @ 5:49 amJEA should have quit after typing “I think”, because what followed disproved the original asspull.
JD (1cb1b5) — 3/23/2010 @ 5:51 amThat’s nothing compared to the Federal ability to regulate those who do not buy insurance, and therefore do not engage in commerce, based on the interstate commerce clause.
We are no longer free born citizens. We are consumers bound by Federal regulations.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 3/23/2010 @ 5:57 am“Didn’t I tell you it looked like they’re actually forbidden from buying insurance?”
Sounds like you don’t understand how the mandate works.
Yeah, they are (technically) prohibited from buying subsidized insurance (but there is no enforcement). The question is: are they subject to the MANDATE anyway?
And the answer is no. They are specifically exempted from an obligation that citizens are subject to.
Patterico (be400c) — 3/23/2010 @ 6:42 amPat, put a $1 tax per post on imdw, timb, Dogcrap, and JEA, payable in advance of the posting. Send the proceeds, less a handling fee, to the US Treasury.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/23/2010 @ 6:46 amBest idea I’ve heard all year – you want to troll, then pay the fark up. Now.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/23/2010 @ 6:55 amYou mean like confiscating one person’s assets and income by force of law and using it to buy the vote of another?
Recent poll: 51% of self identified Democrats don’t know who Pelosi is, 70% don’t know who Reid is … these moroons vote to make sure they get their share of what they have called “Obama Dollars”
quasimodo (4af144) — 3/23/2010 @ 6:57 am[…] Illegals Have to Buy That Mandatory Health Insurance? Will They Be Fined If When They Don’t? and The Answer: Illegals Do Not Have to Buy Health Insurance and Stupak’s Opponent Now Numbering Over 10,000 on Facebook and Senate Bill Passed by House Legal […]
Gallows Humor, The “Funny” Side of ObamaCare… Conservatives: Gotta Laugh & Not Despair, Tomorrow We Fight Again « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/23/2010 @ 6:59 amthis could very well be an unintended benefit.
having passed the Obamacare abortion, there is now a disincentive for illegals to sign up for amnesty: why would they put themselves on the hook for the ridiculous expenses we are going to be facing when they can stay illegal, continue to ride the gravy train for free as they are now, and vote anyway, like they do here in California?
after all, its not like the feds are going to suddenly round them up and deport them en-mass, other than the occasional staged raid to try an make it look like the laws are being enforced.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:04 amI don’t get it. First, folks were angry at the prospect that illegal aliens would be participants in health care reform. I recall a whole bunch of protests and even someone yelling “you lie!” during the state of the union about this issue. Now you’re angry because illegal aliens won’t be paying into health care but will still receive emergency benefits. Which is it?
stephen (23d911) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:10 amStephen
its not complicated. we want illegal aliens to face discrimination against them, not in their favor. you know, because they are ILLEGAL. sheesh.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:18 amWhat do Democrats do to appeal to them?
Secret Squirrel (6a1582) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:19 amYes, Stephen, you don’t get it.
Thomas (a3c869) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:24 am“First, folks were angry at the prospect that illegal aliens would be participants in health care reform.”
Not so. They can reform anything they please, as long as they do it in THEIR country, and use THEIR money. No one here is going to be the least bit upset.
At least, I’m not going to be.
Hellfire, if you want to get together with Barry O and split his multi-million dollar annual income in the name of spreading the wealth around, I’m cool with that. Go be commies, and enjoy…just leave me out of it.
Dave Surls (a55225) — 3/23/2010 @ 8:05 amBTW, Acorn’s not gone; it’s just rebranding itself.
10SCgal (9d2e60) — 3/23/2010 @ 8:12 amRACISTS !!!!!!!
JD (2dc3b2) — 3/23/2010 @ 8:20 amSo Mayor Tony V was all happy about his windfall under the subsidies clause because…now he can spend it wherever he effing wants! Let the ERs deal with it.
Patricia (e1047e) — 3/23/2010 @ 8:25 amI don’t get it.
Understatement of the year.
Which is it?
Reading = comprehension. However, in your case – duh.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/23/2010 @ 9:03 amJEA
What do you have against white people? Or are you incapable of a reasoned response? Do not bother replying if all it’s going to be is the standard idiotic and unsubstantiated liberal diatribe.
WhiteAmericanMale (63f1e1) — 3/23/2010 @ 10:10 amwell, at least his comment proved his initial statement….. its too bad stupid isn’t instantly fatal most of the time.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/23/2010 @ 10:20 amIf this happens, I can tell you that “going John Galt” will become a reality. Not just with conservatives, but with your hard working, non-political, every day person. Regardless of party affiliation, people are NOT going to put up with that. This will be the straw that breaks the camels back.
As a by product of this move, the amount of “new voters” the democrats think they’re going to get will pale in comparison to the number they will lose.
Tony (a00751) — 3/23/2010 @ 12:44 pmOkay, Patterico, I think i see something huge in the health care legislation. Now if this is the bill they passed, they have made a major f— up. Here’s the law i am looking at.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590ENR/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590ENR.pdf
Now there is a reconciliation bill, which is linked to, here: http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/press/10news12.pdf
but that is not the bill.
Now try something, here. try searching for the letters: “sever.” what don’t you see? the word “severability.”
That means that congress did not put in a severablity clause. So without a severability provision, it then falls back on the courts to determine whether any of it can be severed. so what if the mandate is found unconstitutinal? could you really sever it out?
I would say no.
So if the mandate is unconstitutional, the whole enchilada goes under.
Now maybe congress can save it if they pass the reconciliation, which includes severability. So we have to stop this reconciliation. if we stop the reconciliation, and the surpreme court strikes down the mandate, maybe the whole thing goes down.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/23/2010 @ 1:37 pmProblem solved, and permanent Democrat majority assured. Ain’t it lovely?
“[O]ur nation has been increasingly affected by illegal immigration. This legislation takes a major step toward meeting this challenge to our sovereignty. At the same time, it preserves and enhances the Nation’s heritage of legal immigration. I am pleased to sign the bill into law.
[Our] administration asked the Congress to pass a comprehensive legislative package, including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws, and legalization. The act provides these three essential components. The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here. [‘Ain’t it lovely’ how well that worked out.] We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”
–President Ronald Reagan, 11/6/86 signing statement, Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 3/23/2010 @ 1:41 pmhttp://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/110686b.htm
It is usually misleading to judge every character within a group by the general behavior or condition of a group as analyzed by statistics. Case in point: I have a friend with a Masters in Spanish who sells insurance in Oregon with an office in a “Mexican” area. At least 75% of the people who come in have been in the country since they were children but they cannot get a SS card so they can’t get a driver license. All speak English, pay taxes, have good credit and are basically Americans…..BUT. As he says, “It’s a bullshit deal.”
Howard Veit (d0000b) — 3/23/2010 @ 1:45 pmBtw, i am reading this act and it gets even better.
You also don’t have to pay the penalty if you are in prison.
Now, mind you, i figure most prisoners will not be able to afford the penalty anyway. But what about, say, a person like Martha Stewart. I mean she went to prison, but there was no good reason to think she couldn’t afford the mandate.
So she gets off the hook and I, a law-abiding citizen, do not.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/23/2010 @ 1:47 pm<#32 As Martha-My-Dear might say in her case, “It’s a good thing.”– Martha Stewart ;-/
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 3/23/2010 @ 1:51 pmDSCA
Reagan also promised to control the borders after amnesty. he didn’t, so the real result of his actions was a tenfold increase in illegal immigration, because they were hoping for the same deal.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/23/2010 @ 1:56 pmQuote-a-matic Disco Stu strikes again. Thank you for reminding us that Ronald Reagan was human, and therefore capable of error.
Icy Texan (a27687) — 3/23/2010 @ 2:06 pm> You also don’t have to pay the penalty if you are in prison. … So
> she gets off the hook and I, a law-abiding citizen, do not. — A.W.
Nice point. In prison, of course they use PrisonCare, not their own doctors and insurance. What a confusing mess. So that would be questionable to force them to pay for insurance impossible to use.
Wesson (473ced) — 3/23/2010 @ 2:24 pmThe point made in the last paragraph is too often taken for hyperbole.
But, I want everyone to understand that what is mentioned there — making illegals legal for the purpose of gaining needed votes — is EXACTLY what the Clintons did in 1995 and 1996, and it changed California politics completely.
Prior to that time, where I lived, a typical “swearing-in” ceremony for newly naturalized citizens — predominantly Mexican and Central Americans who had entered illegally — was performed by a federal magistrate in a large auditorium, and consisted of anywhere from 50-100 new citizens.
But, after the Dems lost the house in 1994, those ceremonies began to get a little larger each time, and by late 1995 and into 1996, they were being held at a local athletic stadium, sometimes with as many as 3000 new citizens.
And, right outside the entrance was a table staffed by Dem. party activitists with voter registration forms for all those new citizens who had Bill Clinton to thank for their new status.
The GOP won many statewide races in California going back to the 60s, both Gov. and US Senate. The Cong. House delegation was also pretty evenly divided.
Reapportionment following 1990 did some damage to GOP House seats, but nothing like the addition of hundreds of thousands of new voters who owed a debt of gratitude to the Dem party. Now it takes an extraordinary event like Gray Davis getting recalled for GOP candidate to win statewide.
So, I wouldn’t for a minute think a replay of 1995 would not be about to take place. If comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty are unpalatable now, that doesn’t stop the Obama Administration from simply telling INS – just like Clinton did – to open the spigot on naturalizations.
Shipwreckedcrew (227d8b) — 3/23/2010 @ 2:41 pmAmerica: The more the merrier.
imdw (017d51) — 3/23/2010 @ 3:00 pmFTFY.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/23/2010 @ 3:18 pmIndeed.
The passage of Prop. 8 was one of the effects. The polls that predicted its defeat did not take the effect of naturalized citizens into account.
Maybe that was why the same-sex “marriage” activists want federal courts to find a “right” to same-sex “marriage”. Another flood of illegal aliens becoming citizens will surely put same-sex “marriage” into the dustbin of history for a long time.
Michael Ejercito (526413) — 3/23/2010 @ 3:29 pmDo I think it is unfortunate that one side has a political stake in limiting how many people can find opportunity here? Yes. But on the other hand, at least there is someone with an incentive to invite more people to American opportunity. And the latter seems to have more power.
imdw (e870b9) — 3/23/2010 @ 4:22 pmI’m not sure how dude at the link determined that foreign tourists are not mandated. They don’t seem to be covered by any of the three exemptions. Religion, incarceration and:
INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT. — Such term [i.e., “applicable individual”] shall not include an individual for any month if for the month the individual is not a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States.
But the guy goes on to say:
There is no mandate for people who are not U.S. citizens or nationals. OK, foreign tourists legally visiting the U.S. are not required to be covered.
Foreign tourists would be lawfully present, I would think, so they don’t seem to be exempted in the bill. Is there some other language in the bill pertaining to foreign tourists? I think we will have to account for those people, especially to protect ourselves against medical tourism, but it should also be necessary to spell out how legitimate tourists are treated if they become ill or injured.
j curtis (5126e4) — 3/23/2010 @ 4:59 pmI forwarded this info to Limbaugh, BTW.
Patricia (e1047e) — 3/23/2010 @ 5:32 pmmaybe in immigrants will adhere an echo of the lost American spirit what embraced freedom…
our own citizens are a sorry, sorry lot I think.
happyfeet (71f6cb) — 3/23/2010 @ 5:38 pmWhy is it that certain types continually conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants?
JD (969700) — 3/23/2010 @ 6:32 pm“but it should also be necessary to spell out how legitimate tourists are treated if they become ill or injured.”
j curtis – Why, would you expect a change under ObamaCare?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/23/2010 @ 6:38 pmI don’t think we can hide our dirty socialist paradise’s light under a bushel.
Bienvenidos, comrades!
happyfeet (71f6cb) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:15 pmmi impoverished dirty socialist eurofarce of a little country es su impoverished dirty socialist eurofarce of a little country I think
happyfeet (71f6cb) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:17 pm47
Several reasons:
I would expect comprehensive health care reform to spell out how various people will be covered.
It’s problematic to give non citizens more liberty than citizens. Most Americans would change their citizen status to “foreign visitor in US” if that is the case. Foreigners haven’t had more liberty than Americans until today.
If ObamaCare is supposed to bring down the deficit, I’d expect there would be some safeguards in the bill regarding medical tourism and how hospitals will be compensated for treating visiting foreigners.
It also needs to be clarified how our mandated policies are supposed to cover US citizens’ health care while visiting overseas.
If these common sense things are ignored now, they will come up within a few months as an “oversight” or “unintended consequence”. Maybe some of these things are already covered in the bill, that is what I am trying to determine.
j curtis (5126e4) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:34 pmFourteen states sued Uncle Same today, regarding the individual mandate.
http://www.redstate.com/andrewhyman/2010/03/23/states-sue-uncle-sam-regarding-health-care/
Andrew (480035) — 3/23/2010 @ 7:53 pmWesson
> Nice point. In prison, of course they use PrisonCare, not their own doctors and insurance. What a confusing mess. So that would be questionable to force them to pay for insurance impossible to use.
You mean like forcing gay men to buy maternity insurance? You know, because that is in the bill, too.
A.W. (f97997) — 3/23/2010 @ 9:11 pmWHAT A BUMCH OF GARBAGE IN THESE POST , ILLEGAL HAVE CONTRIBUTED FOR EVER TO SOCIAL SECURITY , TAXES VIA THEIR PAY CHECK WITH NO WAY TO EVER BE ABLE TO GET A CENT OUT AND THAT IS bILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR , EVERYONE LOOK AT ILLEGAL EARNING MINIMUM WAGES ,HOW ABOUT HIGH TECH JOB EARNING MAXIMUM WAGES . GET THE FACTS .
joel (104ff2) — 3/24/2010 @ 1:54 pmAh, the coherent brigade arrives.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/24/2010 @ 2:29 pm