TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- How exactly do illegal aliens in the US get welfare instead of deported??!

I can't help you with the first part, the second part is fairly straight forward.

If you are in need of medical care and go to a health care provider (hospital), you cannot be refused treatment. It doesn't matter if you can pay or even if you're a US citizen. You could tell them absolutely nothing about yourself, and they'd still have to treat you by law. So, if you come into the country with a pertinent medical need and go to a hospital you'll be treated. If you then decide to leave the country, or not give the hospital any means of reimbursement, then it was "free" for you. It's a fairly common practice with both aliens and uninsured Americans alike in emergency departments throughout the US.

Re: How exactly do illegal aliens in the US get welfare instead of deported??!

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I'm trying to understand this better. I was recently refused entry to the US and accused of attempting to illegally immigrate and collect welfare as an illegal alien in California. What I don't understand is how is that legally possible? Since I do try to play the law to my advantage when I can, I'm honestly confused on this as 1. If it is legal, why can't I do it? 2. If it is illegal, why could I do it? Is this a federal-state thing. Where the state says it is ok but the Feds say it isn't? Can people explain how I would go about being an illegal alien in California and going on welfare there? I'm honestly currious at this point.

as a parent (or having certain qualifying dependents such as an elderly person ir disabled person) you would get certain welfare benefits, but not as a single white dude.

Re: How exactly do illegal aliens in the US get welfare instead of deported??!

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I'm trying to understand this better. I was recently refused entry to the US and accused of attempting to illegally immigrate and collect welfare as an illegal alien in California. What I don't understand is how is that legally possible? Since I do try to play the law to my advantage when I can, I'm honestly confused on this as 1. If it is legal, why can't I do it? 2. If it is illegal, why could I do it? Is this a federal-state thing. Where the state says it is ok but the Feds say it isn't? Can people explain how I would go about being an illegal alien in California and going on welfare there? I'm honestly currious at this point. Secondarily - how do I get all my medical bills paid for me, as this was another concern of the DHS officers? I thought the US medical system was very private - if it isn't - how exactly do I get better medical care as an illegal alien than US citizens - VERY confused - but currious...

Short answer - california doesn't appear to base eligibility on INS residency status. The fed gives states money to administer their own welfare systems, including medicaid, so each state has different requirements. States like california make eligilibity less restrictive because they need an enormous flow of unskilled labor to field the vast farms (americas most productive agricultural state). No joke!

I could be totally off-the-mark on this one (i'm not researching the issue), but it would seem logical to think cali applies its general policy of less restrictive access to government resources to something like welfare benefits. Almost all of calis big cities prevent state and local employees from asking people about their citizenship status. Cali is a nice place to go if you don't have a green card. Although, this is a large contributing factor in California's enormous budget deficit.

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.hrsa.gov/reimbursement/s...Eligibility.htm

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I can't help you with the first part, the second part is fairly straight forward. If you are in need of medical care and go to a health care provider (hospital), you cannot be refused treatment. It doesn't matter if you can pay or even if you're a US citizen. You could tell them absolutely nothing about yourself, and they'd still have to treat you by law. So, if you come into the country with a pertinent medical need and go to a hospital you'll be treated. If you then decide to leave the country, or not give the hospital any means of reimbursement, then it was "free" for you. It's a fairly common practice with both aliens and uninsured Americans alike in emergency departments throughout the US.

Which is why Bush quipped that we already have universal health care coverage - it's called the emergency room.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Which is why Bush quipped that we already have universal health care coverage - it's called the emergency room.

those patients are still stuck with a bill that could ruin their credit. Pretty good deal: save a life, take away future opportunities.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 those patients are still stuck with a bill that could ruin their credit. Pretty good deal: save a life, take away future opportunities.

So bad credit is now worse than being dead or horribly disabled?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono So bad credit is now worse than being dead or horribly disabled?

yeah, so you totally missed the point. It's not free healthcare if the patients are taking a hit to their credit history. But, that may be less relevant if the person already has shitty credit.

God forbid someone actually be expected to take care of themselves, let alone get a free pass when someone saves their life. There is no free lunch. Those people are not victims. If life is sacred and priceless, I'd say those people got a pretty good deal on the tab.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka God forbid someone actually be expected to take care of themselves, let alone get a free pass when someone saves their life. There is no free lunch. Those people are not victims. If life is sacred and priceless, I'd say those people got a pretty good deal on the tab.

I'm all for promoting people to take better care of themselves and NOT seeing a doctor for every ailment. Nevertheless, everyone should have some insurance against catastrophic events. There aren't many people who could pay for their own cancer treatment (radiation, chemo therapy, and surgery) entirely from their salary, especially if they aren't working because of the cancer (just an example). the same goes for sudden accidents that would cause a person to need an emergency room visit. I went to the ER a few weeks ago because i injured my kidney while snowboarding, and the cost was enormous, something like 10K for a few hours in the ER. I could probably pay for that myself, but many people couldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I'm all for promoting people to take better care of themselves and NOT seeing a doctor for every ailment. Nevertheless, everyone should have some insurance against catastrophic events. There aren't many people who could pay for their own cancer treatment (radiation, chemo therapy, and surgery) entirely from their salary, especially if they aren't working because of the cancer (just an example). the same goes for sudden accidents that would cause a person to need an emergency room visit. I went to the ER a few weeks ago because i injured my kidney while snowboarding, and the cost was enormous, something like 10K for a few hours in the ER. I could probably pay for that myself, but many people couldn't.

How much of that 10K are you paying out because so many other people couldn't pay their bills and leave you subsidizing them through your own high bills?

Also, I agree about people not being able to afford cancer treatment (hell, probably only a handful of people could actually absorb such a cost burden), however socializing/nationalizing/whatever you want to call doing it to healthcare will not automatically make such treatment accessible to everyone. Rather it will mean the government rations out such treatments to those deemed most likely to benefit from it while turning a cold shoulder to those that it determines will not benefit enough from the treatment to justify it. I don't know about you, but I don't want my government being the determinor of what my life is worth, let alone making me wait for weeks or months to see a physician and receive proper treatment.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How much of that 10K are you paying out because so many other people couldn't pay their bills and leave you subsidizing them through your own high bills?

I paid the 100 ER copay (and 3 bucks for a few weeks worth of percocets). Thank god for my company insurance.

EDIT: If i didn't have insurance there would have been little chance i would have went to the ER, even though i had external manifestations of internal bleeding (if you catch my drift). Likely, I would have waited until either (i) the pain was intense (which it never was), or (ii) I became overly tired suggesting a loss of too much blood. Neither happened, but the prudent move is to go to the doctor because, apparently, my injury could have been life threatening (so said the harvard educated ER physician - although i think doctors tend to be a bit dramatic sometimes).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Also, I agree about people not being able to afford cancer treatment (hell, probably only a handful of people could actually absorb such a cost burden), however socializing/nationalizing/whatever you want to call doing it to healthcare will not automatically make such treatment accessible to everyone. Rather it will mean the government rations out such treatments to those deemed most likely to benefit from it while turning a cold shoulder to those that it determines will not benefit enough from the treatment to justify it. I don't know about you, but I don't want my government being the determinor of what my life is worth, let alone making me wait for weeks or months to see a physician and receive proper treatment.

instead of having the government do that, we currently have private companies doing it. Our system implicitly provides that the lives of people with high paying jobs are worth more than people with low paying jobs. Shit, despite the popular believe that government employees have good health care benefits, the reality is that belief is a load of shit. There are so many restrictions on the doctors they can see and the procedures for which they are approved. Most of those people get their insurance under HMO plans, which suck gigantic balls (from experience under my mother's HMO when i was a kid). My insurance plan from a giant corporate employer provides almost no restrictions to access any doctor for almost any purpose (i have to pay a little bit extra for this plan - about 400 more a year over the 600 base cost). We won't even discuss the people who can't get health insurance because their employer doesn't offer a plan, or the plan their employer offers is woefully inadequate (e.g., the > 1 million walmart associates).

Do you think it makes more sense for insurance companies to be run on a non-profit basis? It seems to me that at least that might widen the umbrella for greater willingness to cover less healthy people since the current system pushes them to only cover the healthiest and most capable while denying coverage to those who might need healthcare the most? I just don't want something that is "gubment owned and operated."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do you think it makes more sense for insurance companies to be run on a non-profit basis? It seems to me that at least that might widen the umbrella for greater willingness to cover less healthy people since the current system pushes them to only cover the healthiest and most capable while denying coverage to those who might need healthcare the most? I just don't want something that is "gubment owned and operated."

absolutely, i think that could be part of the solution. The problem is we have huge insurance companies that are for-profit currently. Moving to a non-profit system would be politically difficult. The government probably needs to set up a not for profit org that farms out the administration of the health care system to the insurance companies so they could earn something in the deal. Otherwise, it's an enormous no go with the insurance companies. There's no movement without some support from the industry.

At this point I don't think the US is ready or even necessarily needs a full-fledged single-payer completely socialized system. I think three changes would drastically help the current situation:

1. A national electronic medical records system
2. Modifying profit structure in both health insurance and pharmaceutical industries
3. Insuring all minors in this country with health care

The bottom line though is that there is no perfect system. You have go give up something, whether it be cost, availability or new and expensive treatment technologies. The US can definitely make things better, but just like all the other systems out there, we're never going to make things perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono 2. Modifying profit structure in both health insurance and pharmaceutical industries

forcing this on industry is perhaps even more 'anticapitalist' than nationalizing health care. At least with a national healthcare system private enterprises would still be able to operate their businesses without much government interference (that is except those companies whose business was eliminated because of the nationalization). In fact, it would give certain businesses more freedom to operate because an enormous liability potentially could be eliminated from their balance sheets (depending on whether companies would be required to contribute to a national healthcare plan or maintain existing plans).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 forcing this on industry is perhaps even more 'anticapitalist' than nationalizing health care. At least with a national healthcare system private enterprises would still be able to operate their businesses without much government interference (that is except those companies whose business was eliminated because of the nationalization). In fact, it would give certain businesses more freedom to operate because an enormous liability potentially could be eliminated from their balance sheets (depending on whether companies would be required to contribute to a national healthcare plan or maintain existing plans).

Not exactly. For instance, making health insurance companies non-profit would move the primary goal in money-making from cost reduction to market share. I'd rather have a health insurance company fight to make more money by looking for ways to increase market share than by looking for ways to deny claims. Non-profits, just like any industry, have a goal of running and establishing a surplus. However, when that money is dedicated to customers instead of share holders or executive boards, there is much less (in my opinion) conflict of interest. Executives and those working in a non-profit health insurance company could still be fairly well compensated, but to a limit and also without the burden of paying shareholders.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Not exactly. For instance, making health insurance companies non-profit would move the primary goal in money-making from cost reduction to market share. I'd rather have a health insurance company fight to make more money by looking for ways to increase market share than by looking for ways to deny claims. Non-profits, just like any industry, have a goal of running and establishing a surplus. However, when that money is dedicated to customers instead of share holders or executive boards, there is much less (in my opinion) conflict of interest. Executives and those working in a non-profit health insurance company could still be fairly well compensated, but to a limit and also without the burden of paying shareholders.

how would the government force insurance companies to become not-for-profit enterprises? The government could possibly influence companies to do so, but i don't see how they could require it - especially not from a political standpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 how would the government force insurance companies to become not-for-profit enterprises? The government could possibly influence companies to do so, but i don't see how they could require it - especially not from a political standpoint.

They'd say, "we require that all companies in the business of providing health insurance become not-for-profit as already defined by the US government."

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono They'd say, "we require that all companies in the business of providing health insurance become not-for-profit as already defined by the US government."

and that's when companies providing health insurance become companies that USED TO provide health insurance. Shareholders would demand either the liquidation of the company or the shifting of resources to other business lines. No company would continue to provide health insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 and that's when companies providing health insurance become companies that USED TO provide health insurance. Shareholders would demand either the liquidation of the company or the shifting of resources to other business lines. No company would continue to provide health insurance.

Why? Even if every current health insurance company decided to "pack it in," there'd be a huge market vacuum that would be filled. That is the essence of capitalism. Just because you remove the incentive of ridiculous profit margins doesn't mean a capitalist venture to make money by providing an in-demand service wouldn't occur. The Germans did exactly this to their previously for-profit health insurance sector and so far, the results have been pretty amazing (in my opinion).

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (Click on the "full text" pdf link.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...orld/countries/

A good synopsis of Germany as well as a few other major health care systems.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Why? Even if every current health insurance company decided to "pack it in," there'd be a huge market vacuum that would be filled. That is the essence of capitalism. Just because you remove the incentive of ridiculous profit margins doesn't mean a capitalist venture to make money by providing an in-demand service wouldn't occur. The Germans did exactly this to their previously for-profit health insurance sector and so far, the results have been pretty amazing (in my opinion). http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (Click on the "full text" pdf link.) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...orld/countries/ A good synopsis of Germany as well as a few other major health care systems.

Because executives have to answer to shareholders, and shareholders would not be willing to allow the value of their investment to be eliminated. The very nature of a not for profit means that the owners can not profit (it is a requirement under IRC section 501). Thus, any shareholder value would be eliminated. This is not something a hedge fund, mutual fund, public pension fund, or other large institutional investor will allow to happen to its significant investment in an insurance company providing health insurance.

You're right that there would be vacuum, but it would be filled by newly formed not-for-profits, and the big boys currently in the game would take no part; although i suspect a large number of their executives would happily make the transition to not-for-profit land. During the time these newly formed organizations are being funded (which is another issue, who will fund these not-for-profits) and ramping up operations, there will certainly be inefficiencies and some sort of shock to the system. I don't think it would be a very smooth transition (unless it was long and drawn out).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Because executives have to answer to shareholders, and shareholders would not be willing to allow the value of their investment to be eliminated. The very nature of a not for profit means that the owners can not profit (it is a requirement under IRC section 501). Thus, any shareholder value would be eliminated. This is not something a hedge fund, mutual fund, public pension fund, or other large institutional investor will allow to happen to its significant investment in an insurance company providing health insurance. You're right that there would be vacuum, but it would be filled by newly formed not-for-profits, and the big boys currently in the game would take no part; although i suspect a large number of their executives would happily make the transition to not-for-profit land. During the time these newly formed organizations are being funded (which is another issue, who will fund these not-for-profits) and ramping up operations, there will certainly be inefficiencies and some sort of shock to the system. I don't think it would be a very smooth transition (unless it was long and drawn out).

I agree. It's not an easy or a quick fix, and regardless of what is done, there will be people left upset. That's why politicians are complacent to shift blame or simply talk big with no real action. The need for change has been known for the better part of two decades with next to nothing being done with much of that inaction based on fear from voter retaliation by politicians. There's a horrendous nirvana fallacy surrounding health care reform and it's basically meant we'd rather do nothing than make a change that might not be perfect, but be better than our current system.

I do think that more subtle changes, which I consider to include shifting the profit structure of health insurance companies, rather than major changes, such as completely socializing medicine, will be much more palatable to politicians and the US people. However, in order for these changes to have any real impact, there are going to be growing pains and there are going to be pissed off people.

gi

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I agree. It's not an easy or a quick fix, and regardless of what is done, there will be people left upset. That's why politicians are complacent to shift blame or simply talk big with no real action. The need for change has been known for the better part of two decades with next to nothing being done with much of that inaction based on fear from voter retaliation by politicians. There's a horrendous nirvana fallacy surrounding health care reform and it's basically meant we'd rather do nothing than make a change that might not be perfect, but be better than our current system. I do think that more subtle changes, which I consider to include shifting the profit structure of health insurance companies, rather than major changes, such as completely socializing medicine, will be much more palatable to politicians and the US people. However, in order for these changes to have any real impact, there are going to be growing pains and there are going to be pissed off people.

Very true. I agree with much of what you said. Unfortunately, complacency is the most prevalent attribute of most congressmen and it is also the worst attribute for congressmen. They are too afraid to take any action that might harm some of their constituents even though it is in the better interests of the people in the aggregate. In general, I think everyone wants something better for everyone, that is, unless they have to feel pain to get to that point.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.