WE WERE ALL WITNESS TO A CONGRESSMAN CALLING OBAMA A LIAR FOR CLAIMING IN HIS STATE-OF-THE-UNION MESSAGE THAT ILLEGAL WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE OBAMA PELOSI LA RAZA HEALTHCARE “REFORM”.
AS IS ALWAYS THE CASE FOR HIS HISPANDERING CORPORATE OWNED PRESIDENT, IT IS CORPORATE PROFITS FIRST, ILLEGALS SECOND, AND FUCK THE STUPID GRINGOS FROM THEN ON!
*
For some, a struggle WHO THINKS ABOUT THE STRUGGLE OF THE AMERICANS?
Some illegal immigrants have used stolen Social Security numbers to qualify for health programs -- a form of medical identity theft increasingly on hospital radars. Many more scramble to pay for their medicine and doctors visits in cash, a challenge in an economy where day-laborer work has dried up.
*
HOW TO BUY ILLEGALS’ ILLEGAL VOTES: free healthcare!
WHY WE ARE IN SUCH A MONEY SQUEEZE
Florida ER doctor's notes
Having spent three weeks in a hospital in Naples, Florida with my wife I couldnt help noticing what was going on in the hospital and I had a lot of time to talk to the doctors and nurses about what I had observed. Below is a commentary from an ER Doctor. Do you think this might be a big reason our health care system and our social security system are so screwed up? Do you think this might be a big reason our taxes keep going up? Who do you think these people are going to vote for?
From a Florida ER doctor:
"I live and work in a state overrun with illegals. They make more money having kids than we earn working full-time. Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - thats right 8; all illegal anchor babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, We are the dumbest nation on earth. Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) for we elected the idiot idealogues who have passed the bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a revolution. Vote them all out in 2010. "
*
Sorting out claims about healthcare legislation
How would an overhaul really affect senior citizens? Abortion funding? Illegal immigrants?
By Noam N. Levey
August 10, 2009
Reporting from Washington — With lawmakers home for their August recess, a fierce battle has broken out over what precisely is in the mammoth healthcare bills being pushed by congressional Democrats. There has been no shortage of misinformation, much of it advanced by critics of President Obama's overhaul effort who have made sometimes outlandish claims. Here is a look at a few of the most contentious points.
Would illegal immigrants get free healthcare benefits?
Provisions in the House and Senate bills explicitly prohibit people who are "not lawfully present in the United States" from getting federal aid to help them buy health insurance in the new exchanges.
Congressional Democrats have resisted Republican efforts to put tougher documentation requirements on those applying for aid, arguing that that could discourage many poor people from signing up for health insurance.
No matter what happens with the legislation, illegal immigrants would almost certainly still be able to get care in emergency rooms, a major burden in some parts of the country.
THESE LA RAZA ENDORSED POLITICIANS, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI are well trained to speak out of both sides of their mouths!
*
A lie exposed
20 July 2010
Four months after the passage of Obama’s health care legislation—hailed by most of the media and the entire liberal establishment as the most progressive social reform since the 1960s—the reactionary implications of the measure are emerging ever more clearly.
The centerpiece of the plan, the White House claimed, was the extension of coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and the containment of costs that were making medical care unaffordable for average citizens. Cost-cutting and the implementation of “efficiencies” would not affect the quality of care, the president claimed. Moreover, those already insured would be able to keep their doctors and medical plans.
As the World Socialist Web Site explained, these claims were false. The purpose of the legislation was to slash health care costs for US corporations and the government by reducing coverage and rationing care for millions of Americans.
The ruling class saw Obama’s “reform” as an opportunity for corporations to dump their employer-paid insurance plans, or, at the very least, restrict workers’ ability to choose treatments, doctors and hospitals.
The result, the WSWS warned, would be the establishment of a class-based system where workers would be given inferior care while the rich continued to enjoy the best medical treatment money could buy.
Recent news reports have confirmed this warning.
A July 18 New York Times piece, entitled “Insurers Push Plans That Limit Choice of Doctor,” reports: “As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.”
Insurance giants Aetna, Cigna, the UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint have already offered plans with “limited networks” to smaller employers in New York, San Diego and Chicago, the article notes, adding that insurers and their consultants expect that “businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.”
“The tradeoff,” the Times writes, “is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.”
In New York, for example, Aetna’s “narrow network” plan provides access to only half the doctors and two-thirds of the hospitals offered by its traditional coverage, while in San Diego, 80,000 school employees, covered by UnitedHealth, have been put in a multi-tiered health plan where their out-of-pocket expenses depend on the quality and price of the physicians they choose.
By such means, the employers stand to save 15 percent.
“Affordability is the most pressing agenda item,” Dr. Sam Ho, the chief medical officer for UnitedHealth’s medical plans, told the newspaper. That Obama’s health care “reform” was from the start about cutting costs, rather than improving coverage, is a fact of which the Times and the rest of the liberal establishment were well aware and which they assiduously concealed from the public. As the article points out, insurance executives at Cigna were sounding out CEOs about super-cheap plans even as the bill was being prepared.
“What this does is eliminate the Gucci doctors,” Peter Skoda, the controller of Haro Bicycle Corporation in Vista, California, told the newspaper. “Facing a possible 35 percent increase in its rates,” the Times notes approvingly, “Haro switched to an Aetna plan that prevents employees from seeing doctors at two medical groups affiliated with the Scripps Health system in San Diego. If employees go to one of the excluded doctors, they are responsible for paying the whole bill.”
The Times notes that the last time corporations and insurers tried to restrict access to specialists and hospitals—with the establishment of Health Management Organizations or HMOs in the 1990s—it provoked an enormous public backlash. That is why Obama, with the help of the New York Times and other media, sought to conceal the real content of his health care “reform” from the population.
Under the terms of the plan, corporations are not obliged to provide insurance at all, let alone maintain present levels of coverage. On the contrary, companies that maintain insurance plans the government deems too costly will face a punitive tax. Moreover, employers are liable to pay only a small fine—well below the cost of continuing to pay premiums—if they drop workers from their insurance coverage.
In Massachusetts—where the state government enacted a health care overhaul in 2006—hundreds of employers are opting to dump coverage and force workers to sign up for the state subsidized health care program. According to a recent Boston Globe article, under conditions of rising costs and the continued economic downturn, companies say it has become far cheaper to pay the state penalty for not covering their workers—roughly $295 annually per employee—than to pay thousands in premiums.
Similar financial incentives will kick in nationally, once the Obama plan goes into full effect.
Under the legislation, workers who are stripped of their employer-paid benefits—along with those presently uninsured—will be forced to buy coverage on so-called insurance exchanges run by the states. If they fail to do so, they will be fined.
The insurance giants, which stand to make a windfall from the influx of approximately 24 million new customers, are betting that their cut-rate plans will be popular among workers who cannot afford quality coverage, the Times reported. “We think it’s going to grow to be quite a hit over the next few years,” Ken Goulet, an executive vice president at WellPoint, one of the nation’s largest private health insurers, told the newspaper.
The New York Times led the campaign for the passage of Obama’s health plan. On March 24, in a Times article entitled “In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality,” David Leonhardt wrote that the legislation was “the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.” It was, he continued, part of a “deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.”
This was a bold-faced lie, and the Times’ well-paid writers and editors knew it. In fact, Obama’s plan to gut health care was part of the unfinished business of the corporate-government offensive against the working class launched in the 1980s. This was also signaled by the Democratic president’s attack on health benefits for auto workers during last year’s forced bankruptcy and restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler.
The record of the WSWS on Obama’s health care “reform” sets us apart from all those pseudo-left organizations and middle-class liberal publications like the Nation, which promoted the anti-working class legislation.
Jerry White
*
Congressman Brian Bilbray, along with 55 other Members of Congress, is urging the leaders of the United States House of Representatives to include a method of enforcement for benefits under any new plan of nationalized health care. The text of the letter follows:
September 15, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232 United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable John Boehner
Office of the House Republican Leader
H-204 United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Speaker and Republican Leader Boehner:
As discussion on health care reform continues, we urge you to include measures that will prevent illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits in any health care reform bill considered by the House. While the House bill currently says illegal immigrants cannot get benefits, the statement is meaningless because the bill contains no verification mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants will not receive benefits.
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently issued some troubling information on the immigration-related provisions of the current health care bill, H.R. 3200. Specifically, the new CRS Report R40773, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, points out the following:
• CRS states that H.R. 3200 "does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the [taxpayer-subsidized Health Insurance] Exchange."
• While section 142(a)(3) of H.R. 3200 states the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner to administer the "individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits," no specific enforcement mechanism is outlined in the bill.
• CRS also notes that "there could be instances where some family members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not. For example, in a family consisting of a U.S. citizen married to an unauthorized alien and a U.S. citizen child, the U.S. citizen spouse and child could meet the criteria for being a credit-eligible individual, while the unauthorized alien spouse would not meet the criteria. H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families."
Our constituents find these provisions unacceptable. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that there are almost two million families in the United States where illegal immigrant parents have U.S.-born children, and even more mixed-status families exist. If H.R. 3200 becomes law in its current form, billions in taxpayer funds could go to those who are in our country illegally.
Most of our concerns could be easily addressed by requiring individuals applying for affordability credits to undergo citizenship verification using one of the existing programs used for various social service programs. We urge you to adopt language such as the Heller amendment (offered in the House Ways & Means Committee during the markup of H.R. 3200, July 16, 2009) or the Deal amendment (offered in the House Energy & Commerce Committee markup of H.R. 3200, July 31, 2009) in the final version of any health care reform legislation to close these costly, unnecessarily loopholes.
Sincerely,
*
Illegals Receiving Health Care …."But....( of course there is!)"
“If you’re in this country illegally, should you be able to get health care?” CNN’s John King asked Mrs. Pelosi.
“No, illegal immigrants are not covered by this plan,” she replied.
Mrs. Pelosi’s remarks are downright deceptive, according to Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who points out that the proposed health care legislation “ contains gaping loopholes that will allow illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded benefits .”
These loopholes, Rep. Smith maintains, are “no accident.” He maintains that the proposed legislation, despite months of debate, still contains no mechanism for verifying if applicants are legal residents or not.
The Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee attempted to address this loophole by an amendment proposed by Congressman Dick Heller (R-Nevada) which would have required applicants for government provided or subsidized health care to demonstrate eligibility through the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) systems.
But, on July 29, the Heller Amendment was soundly defeated by the following 26 Majority Members of the House Ways & Means Committee: Xavier Becerra (Calif.), Shelley Berkley (Nev.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Joe Crowley (N.Y.), Artur Davis (Ala.), Danny Davis (Ill.), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Bob Etheridge (N.C.), Brian Higgins (N.Y.), Ron Kind (Wis.), John Larson (Conn.), Sander Levin (Mich.), John Lewis (Ga.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Kendrick Meek (Fla.), Richard Neal (Mass.), Bill Pascrell (N.J.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.), Linda Sanchez (Calif.), Allyson Schwartz (Pa.), Pete Stark (Calif.), John Tanner (Tenn.), Mike Thompson (Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), and John Yarmuth (Ky.).
The Federal for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) believes the legislation is now purposefully self-contradictory in order to ensure that the millions of illegal Latinos will receive coverage. FAIR points out that while one provision of the proposed health care reform bill states illegal immigrants will not be eligible for benefits, the legislation remains without any system of verification for determining if a patient is a legal or illegal U. S. resident.
Moreover, Fair insists, the bill leaves open the possibility that if one citizen family member is eligible for benefits, then the entire family — including illegal immigrants — is also eligible for the benefits.
“At a time when the federal government is running trillion dollar deficits, and the projected costs of the proposed health care overhaul seem to grow with each passing day, the committee that writes our tax laws wants Americans to pay for the health care costs of illegal aliens,” says FAIR President Dan Stein. “Given the opportunity to close loopholes that would cost the public billions of dollars each year, Democrats on the committee unanimously rejected an amendment that would bar illegal aliens from a national health care program.”
The cost of treating illegal aliens amounts to nearly $11 billion a year, according to calculations done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a non-profit group that opposes illegal immigration. And that cost is not expected to go away if a health insurance reform bill becomes law.
According to FAIR’s Director of Special Projects Jack Martin, illegal immigrants presently cost U. S. taxpayers $10.7 billion a year for health care. The numbers are contained in a report that FAIR plans to publish in the near future.
“The current health care bill is looking as if it is leaving a very large loophole for medical coverage being provided to illegal aliens,” Martin said.
So again, yes, the speaker of the House can say: "We've made no provision for Health Care for Illegal Aliens". But, is she in fact telling you the WHOLE truth or only half a truth. I am an independent voter and I, at this point, have my opinion. You be the judge for your own opinion.
*
The politics of Healthcare Reform
from the AP -
"Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in National Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.
That's right. Lawabiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't submit to the ObamaCare prescription.
Lawbreaking bordercrossers and deportation fugitives would be spared.
For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegals aren't getting free health care, and that even if they were, they'd not be draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing nonemergency health services for illegals.
"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert M. Pestronk of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the AP."
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment