jsamuel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:31 PM
Original message |
Can someone tell me why Democrats voted against citizenship verification for subsidies? |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-10-09 04:42 PM by jsamuel
I am talking to a few friends and I don't even know why they voted against the amendments proposed by the Republicans. Can someone describe to me what they would have done that the Democrats disagreed with?
Update: Actually, come to think of it, in order to qualify for subsidies, they would have to show proof of income. The government would have to look at their IRS records to verify their income. Being illegal immigrants, they wouldn't have any and we would immediately know that they were illegal (or at the very least, that they are not citizens - raising flags). Isn't that verification?
|
DeadEyeDyck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:33 PM
Response to Original message |
Bluerthanblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:35 PM
Response to Original message |
2. it would exclude some legal citizens- not sure of |
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:35 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Im of the opinion that anyone that contributes into a risk pool (according to some rules based on their income level) should have equal access to payouts. The bottom line about insurance is simply that it generates enough to cover the expenses, plus overhead and profit.
Of course, this model doesn't work with subsidies for private insurers, unless you verify that each covered person contributed (perhaps through payroll) to a subsidy pool. But its still weak. National health insurance could use this model potentially.
Regardless....those people should have employers, and those employers will have mandates.
Visa Residents should be included regardless. Not just a Citizenship criteria.
|
jsamuel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:40 PM
Response to Original message |
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:42 PM
Response to Original message |
|
One, these requirements catch virtually no non citizens and prevent many citizens from getting benefits. Two, we really should be covering illegals as well. Their medical costs are virtually non existant as they are younger by far than most people but when they do get sick and use the emergency room it costs a fortune.
|
TreasonousBastard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:42 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Because it causes more trouble. They put... |
|
citizenship verification on Medicaid a while back and found that more citizens got screwed out of help than illegals because quite a few citizens had no proof of citizenship handy.
Besides, why should legal noncitizen residents be excluded?
|
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:54 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Perhaps it was seen as needless redundancy. At anyrate Republicans seem to use it to claim illegals |
|
will be covered. So I wonder if perhaps that was the motive for introducing it.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:56 PM
Response to Original message |
8. It's not a big deal but Repukes want to make it one |
|
Nowadays, use of the driver's license will work. If a person has one, they are legally here. The Real ID act brought this about.
repukes won't be happy until there are national ID cards.
|
jsamuel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. funny, because their base hates the idea of national ID cards |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. The libertarian types hate it |
|
But the xenophobe types would love it. It passed the Republican congress and Boosh administration to combat terra, so it can hardly be a problem for most of them. Just the survivalist types.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 02:20 AM
Response to Original message |