ON THE FLOOR OF
THE SENATE, A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE YELLED AT OBAMA THAT HE WAS A LIAR FOR
CLAIMING ILLEGAL WERE NOT INCLUDED IN OBAMACARE! AND YES, OBAMA LIED. HE AND LA
RAZA PELOSI DEVISED IT SO ILLEGALS, WHOM ALREADY GET “FREE” MEDICAL COSTING
LEGALS BILLIONS, ARE INCLUDED!
The ruling was also trumpeted
by liberal publications as a great victory for health care and for ordinary
people. In reality, the decision upholds legislation whose main purpose is to
cut costs for corporations and the government, while slashing billions of
dollars from Medicare and other social programs.
US Supreme Court upholds Obama’s
health care law
By Kate Randall
29 June 2012
29 June 2012
In
a 5-4 US Supreme Court decision released on Thursday, Chief Justice John G.
Roberts Jr. joined with the nominally liberal wing of the high court to uphold
key provisions of the Obama administration-backed health care legislation.
The
decision maintains the pro-corporate provisions of the bill, including the
“individual mandate” to purchase insurance from private insurers. At the same
time, the court undermined the key constitutional arguments used to support
corporate regulations. It also ruled that the federal government cannot
withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that decide not to participate
in an expansion of eligibility for the program.
The
ruling on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act, passed into law in March 2010, was predictably hailed by President Obama.
Coming five months before the presidential election, he said it was a “victory
for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure.”
Congressional Republicans and presumptive Republican presidential candidate
Mitt Romney, meanwhile, vowed to work to repeal the legislation in November.
The ruling was also trumpeted
by liberal publications as a great victory for health care and for ordinary
people. In reality, the decision upholds legislation whose main purpose is to
cut costs for corporations and the government, while slashing billions of
dollars from Medicare and other social programs.
Every step of the way, the
bill was crafted to meet the demands of the private insurers, the pharmaceutical
lobby and the giant health care chains. Any vestige of what could be termed a “reform” has been
stripped away—including the inclusion of a government-run option on the health
care exchange.
What
remains is a requirement that all but the poorest individuals purchase
insurance or pay a penalty. The
insurance industry will be guaranteed a new influx of tens of millions of
cash-paying customers, and there will be no meaningful oversight over what they
can charge for premiums. The legislation is still purposefully unclear
about what “minimal” standards employers and insurers must meet for coverage.
This is under conditions of a
deep budgetary crisis for virtually all US states. Along with the federal
government, they have responded by slashing Medicaid and other health care
programs. At the same time, corporations are dumping or slashing insurance
policies as part of an attack on wages and benefits. The general impact of the
law will be to shift these costs onto the backs of individuals, who will be
left to the mercy of private insurers offering less and less coverage for
higher premiums.
Moreover,
millions will likely remain without insurance, unable to afford it given the
very limited subsidies, but still forced to pay a penalty of hundreds or even
thousands of dollars.
In
his remarks hailing the ruling, Obama placed emphasis on certain provisions of
the bill that are popular—such as proscribing lifetime limits on insurance
payouts and requiring insurers to offer plans to individuals with preexisting
conditions. However, the largest insurers have already modified their cost
structures to maintain profit levels with these provisions, and had announced
that they would leave them in even if the law were overturned.
The
reactionary character of the ruling—and the law that it upholds—was underscored
by the fact that the majority opinion was written by Justice Roberts,
traditionally part of the four-justice right-wing bloc. He was joined by
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had been anticipated as the “swing vote” on the
court, sided with justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia
in their own thoroughly right-wing dissent.
While
upholding the health care reform, the ruling was based on arguments that will
serve to undermine corporate regulations and social programs. In particular,
Justice Roberts joined with the other right-wing justices in rejecting the
administration’s argument that the law was constitutional on the basis of the
government’s ability to regulate commerce (the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution). Instead, he based the ruling on the government’s authority to
use its taxation powers (likening the penalty for those who do not purchase
insurance to an additional tax).
On
the Commerce Clause, Roberts wrote, “That Clause authorizes Congress to
regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.”
This ruling is highly significant because, beginning in the New
Deal era of the 1930s and 1940s, Supreme Court decisions used the Commerce
Clause to support the authority to prohibit child labor, regulate corporations
and justify social reforms.
For
the past 15 years the Supreme Court has worked to set limits on the scope of
this clause when it comes to social issues. In a separate 61-page opinion,
Justice Ginsburg called Robert’s arguments on the Commerce Clause “stunningly
retrogressive,” noting that they harken back to the era before the New Deal “in
which the Court routinely thwarted Congress’ efforts to regulate the national
economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it.”
The
one provision of the health care law that the court rejected was the only
measure relating to the expansion of government programs for health insurance.
Under terms of the act, Medicaid, which is jointly administered by the states
and federal government, would be expanded to cover all individuals under the
age of 65 with incomes at 133 percent of the poverty level or less.
The
move would account for some 11 million newly insured individuals—who will
receive the bare-bones care provided by Medicaid. According to the legislation,
the federal government would provide 100 percent of the funds to cover this
expansion of Medicaid up to 2016, gradually decreasing to 90 percent thereafter.
As
the bill was written, if a state did not implement this expansion, the federal
government could withhold all of its funding for Medicaid to that state. The
high court rejected this in the strongest terms, writing, “In this case, the
financial ‘inducement’ Congress has chosen is much more than ‘relatively mild
encouragement’—it is a gun to the head.”
Roberts
goes on to state, “The original program was designed to cover medical services
for four particular categories of the needy: the disabled, the blind, the
elderly, and needy families with dependent children.” But under the health care
law, he writes, “It is no longer a program to care for the neediest among us,
but rather an element of a comprehensive national plan to provide universal
health insurance coverage.”
In
fact, the Medicaid expansion—and the health care law as a whole—has nothing in
common with “universal health insurance coverage.” Nevertheless, the motive is
clear: it aims to limit the ability of the federal government to impose requirements
on the states to expand health coverage.
The
majority ruling in its favor of the legislation is an indication of a general
consensus for the Affordable Care Act within the ruling political
establishment. Roberts clearly made a highly political decision aimed at
ensuring that the law was not overturned.
The
differences within the ruling establishment over the bill have nothing to do
with improving the health and lives of ordinary Americans, and everything to do
with how best to impose the type of savage cuts demanded by the financial elite
in health care and other social programs.
A
solution to the very real health care crisis faced by millions of working
people and their families is not to be found in any of the institutions of the
bourgeois state or in either big business party, Democrat or Republican. The
answer lies in putting an end to the privately owned health care corporations
and medicine-for-profit and the establishing of genuine, socialized medicine.
|
CNN
INTERVIEW OF LYING LA RAZA PELOSI ON HEALTHCARE TO ILLEGALS
“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.
*
THE LA RAZA DEMS AT WORK! CALL THEM TODAY! SEND THEM PACKING BACK TO MEXICO!
THE LA RAZA DEMS AT WORK! CALL THEM TODAY! SEND THEM PACKING BACK TO MEXICO!
*
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 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."
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."
QUOTE FROM JOHN EDWARDS CAMPAIGN
MANAGER
"Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a
deal with the corporate world," Edwards Campaign Manager David Bonior said
during an interview with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. "If you look at his record
in Illinois when he had a major — sponsored a major health bill that's what he
did. He watered down with the help of the corporate lobbyist and they got a
weak product out of that."
Scarborough asked: "Are you saying that Barack Obama is a sellout to
corporate interests?"
Bonior replied: "He was four years ago in Illinois. All you have to
do is look at the legislation I'm referring to."
Bonior was referring to
health care legislation that Obama was instrumental in passing when he was an
Illinois state senator five years ago, in part because he worked with insurance
companies to make additions to the bill that would ensure their approval of the
measure.
WILL MEXICO
BANKRUPT AMERICA LIKE IT HAS MEXIFORNIA?
BOOK: Mexifornia: SHATTERING OF AN
AMERICAN DREAM (illegals call it their DREAM ACT)
Calif.
Hospitals Spend $1.25 Bil On Illegal Immigrants
July 05, 2011
While
the Obama Administration halts deportations to work on its secret amnesty plan, hospitals across the
U.S. are getting stuck with the exorbitant tab of medically treating illegal
immigrants and some are finally demanding compensation from the federal
government.The group that represents most of the nation’s hospitals and medical
providers recently urged President Obama to work with Congress to reimburse
them for the monstrous cost of treating illegal immigrants. Federal law
requires facilities to “treat and stabilize individuals” regardless of their
immigration status, but federal support for the services remains “virtually nonexistent,” according to a letter
submitted by the American Hospital Association to the president.This week
officials in California, the state with the largest concentration of illegal
immigrants, joined the call for federal compensation after revealing that
hospitals there spend about $1.25 billion annually to care for illegal
aliens. The figure skyrocketed from $1.05 billion in 2007, according to
California Hospital Association figures quoted in a local news report.The
problem will only get worst, according to officials, who say the $1.25 billion
for 2010 could actually be higher. They complain that federal law forces them
to treat patients in emergency rooms regardless of immigration status yet they
get stuck with the financial burden. This has forced many hospitals to curtail
services or close beds and could ultimately compromise healthcare.Nationwide,
U.S. taxpayers spend tens of billions of dollars annually to provide free
medical care for illegal immigrants with states that border Mexico taking the biggest
hit. Adding to the problem is the fact that Mexico, the country that provides
the largest amount of illegal immigrants in the U.S., has long promoted
America’s generous public health centers. It even operates a Spanish-language program (Ventanillas de Salud,
Health Windows) in about a dozen U.S. cities that refers its nationals—living
in the country illegally—to publicly funded health centers where they can get
free medical care without being turned over to immigration authorities.
Most Illegal
Immigrant Families Collect Welfare
April 05, 2011
Surprise,
surprise; Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal
immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their
American-born anchor babies.Even before the recession, immigrant households
with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives,
according to the extensive census data collected and analyzed by a
nonpartisanWashington D.C. group dedicated to researching legal and illegal
immigration in the U.S. The results, published this month in a lengthy report,
are hardly surprising.Basically, the majority of households across the country
benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants,
both legal and illegal. States where immigrant households with children have
the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62%), Texas, California and New York
with 61% each and Pennsylvania(59%).The study focused on eight major welfare
programs that cost the government $517 billion the year they were examined.
They include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the disabled, Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a nutritional program known as Women,
Infants and Children (WIC), food stamps, free/reduced school lunch, public
housing and health insurance for the poor (Medicaid).Food assistance and
Medicaid are the programs most commonly used by illegal immigrants, mainly on
behalf of their American-born children who get automatic citizenship. On the other
hand, legal immigrant households take advantage of every available welfare
program, according to the study, which attributes it to low education level and
resulting low income.The highest rate of welfare recipients come from the
Dominican Republic (82 %), Mexico and Guatemala (75%) and Ecuador (70%),
according to the report, which says welfare use tends to be high for both new
arrivals and established residents.
No comments:
Post a Comment