California Moves Toward Extending Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants

[Bill the Cat]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cal...fcL&ocid=edgsp



During a 2009 address to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama told the country that his plans for health care reform would not extend to people who are in the country illegally.

"You lie!" South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson notoriously shouted. Obama replied, "That's not true."

But only two years after the largest coverage provisions in the Affordable Care Act took effect, the country's most populous state has passed a bill that, in fact, seeks to extend Obamacare to people regardless of their immigration status.

The bill, now before California Gov. Jerry Brown, aims to allow people who are in the country illegally to buy private health insurance on the state's exchange. Its author, Democratic state Sen. Ricardo Lara estimates that 390,000 such immigrants could receive health insurance, but officials who operate the exchange place that number closer to 50,000.

[Jaecp]

Oh no, people who might otherwise wait until they need to use the emergency room and then not pay their bills are going to give us money, up front, while making it easier to deport them?

It's the end of the world!

[eider]

[..................The bill, now before California Gov. Jerry Brown, aims to allow people who are in the country illegally to buy private health insurance on the state's exchange...................

How dreadful!
Folks being allowed to buy insurance......

[lilpixieofterror]

I see the usual people fail to notice that this insurance is going to be provided on their dime. That's right, people who are not paying their federal or state taxes, are going to be getting benefits from the federal and state government. Meanwhile, several American citizens (including thousands of vets) remain homeless while the government hands out benefits to non citizens. How lovely to watch the usual idiots ignore these little details about how our government is ignoring it's duty to our citizens and trying to buy votes instead. All, of course, on the tax payer's dime.

[Bill the Cat]

Oh no, people who might otherwise wait until they need to use the emergency room and then not pay their bills are going to give us money, up front, while making it easier to deport them?

It's the end of the world!

They are here illegally. They deserve to be deported! But Cali will not deport them, and they will give them financial assistance. That is plain wrong.

[Bill the Cat]

How dreadful!
Folks being allowed to buy insurance......

0518fa240e3ca33567075a3322391122a9d700-wm.jpg

[Juvenal]

They are here illegally. They deserve to be deported! But Cali will not deport them, and they will give them financial assistance. That is plain wrong.

Your article says otherwise.

[Bill the Cat]

Your article says otherwise.

California will give them financial assistance. I am making a prediction there. I never mentioned the Federal subsidies, just ones from Cali.

[Juvenal]

California will give them financial assistance. I am making a prediction there. I never mentioned the Federal subsidies, just ones from Cali.

Fair enough.

I hesitantly predict the opposite, based on California's continued financial strain and a matchbook calculation on the costs of subsidies for 2.5 million undocumented immigrants, or even the 390,000 suggested by the article. I'd like to see figures detailing current subsidies assumed by covering emergency room care for this population before making a firm prediction.

There are a couple of things that trouble me about the MSN article. First, of course, is the rationale behind identifying Obamacare with a waiver from the provisions of Obamacare, and second, the inclusion of slant from FAIR without including what many would consider important context: FAIR has been named a hate group by the SPLC, which has over the years extensively documented FAIR's links to white nationalists.

[Bill the Cat]

Fair enough.

I hesitantly predict the opposite, based on California's continued financial strain and a matchbook calculation on the costs of subsidies for 2.5 million undocumented immigrants, or even the 390,000 suggested by the article. I'd like to see figures detailing current subsidies assumed by covering emergency room care for this population before making a firm prediction.

There are a couple of things that trouble me about the MSN article. First, of course, is the rationale behind identifying Obamacare with a waiver from the provisions of Obamacare, and second, the inclusion of slant from FAIR without including what many would consider important context: FAIR has been named a hate group by the SPLC, which has over the years extensively documented FAIR's links to white nationalists.

I don't trust a single thing SPLC says. IMHO, They are the real hate group.

[rogue06]

I don't trust a single thing SPLC says. IMHO, They are the real hate group.

What do you have against Squirrels Partying Like Crazy? They are a fun group and not ... a hater ... among them.


Oooooh. You meant a different SPLC. My bad. I shoulda realized. Never mind. Carry on.

[rogue06]

I don't trust a single thing SPLC says. IMHO, They are the real hate group.

On a more serious note, the SPLC does have a rather unfortunate history of throwing around accusations of being a hate group often only because they disagree with them.

It was just that sort of behavior that led to a shooting at the Washington D.C. offices of the Family Research Council (FRC) in 2012. The gunman, who was wrestled to the ground after only shooting one person, admitted to police that he targeted the FRC because the SPLC listed them as a hate group and told the shooting victim that he didn't like their politics, which was because they are opposed to same sex marriages.

Dana Milbank, a columnist for the Washington Post -- an unabashedly progressive (liberal) writer^[1] -- charged the SPLC and Human Rights Campaign with "recklessness" for labeling FRC as a hate group and scoffed at the excuses they later offered for doing so.











1. After winning the 2000 election George Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor Karl Rove asked the Washington Post to not assign him to cover the White House due to what they perceived as his overtly partisan reporting

[Juvenal]

1. After winning the 2000 election George Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor Karl Rove asked the Washington Post to not assign him to cover the White House due to what they perceived as his overtly partisan reporting

Karl Rove, accusing someone else of excessive partisanship. The mind boggles.

[rogue06]

Karl Rove, accusing someone else of excessive partisanship. The mind boggles.

I was a bit amused with that myself. But in the case of Rove his job is to be partisan. Milbank, at that time, was a reporter. A journalist. They're not supposed to pass off opinion pieces as journalism. It is a good thing he has moved on to being a columnist where he doesn't have to pretend to be unbiased any longer.

[Juvenal]

I was a bit amused with that myself. But in the case of Rove his job is to be partisan. Milbank, at that time, was a reporter. A journalist. They're not supposed to pass off opinion pieces as journalism. It is a good thing he has moved on to being a columnist where he doesn't have to pretend to be unbiased any longer.

For obvious reasons, I don't find Rove's accusation credible, and I'm not otherwise familiar with Milbank's reporting on the 2000 campaign. Not that I discount it entirely. In general, I find WaPo reporting excessively breathless, for want of a better term. I'm a subscriber, so I get their daily emails. They remind me of the Guardian, relying on far too much hype.

I am familiar with the FRC's designation, as it showed up in a separate thread. They actually do use debunked, highly antagonistic materials in their campaigns against gays, marking them as reckless at best, and in effect, a hate group. I remain ambivalent about the SPLC because they don't link their original sources. On the one hand, the SPLC declined to respond to my request for original documentation. On the other, Adrift was able to locate it independently. It did check out.

The shooting incident at the FRC is a meaningless indictment of the SPLC. The SPLC lists hundreds of hate groups. Where are the other shootings? Unlike the FRC, the SPLC has not been documented using false information. The further claim, that labeling others as hate groups is itself the act of a hate group deserves nothing but scorn, a prima facie example of reasoning from paradox, simply incoherent.