Feds to NY: Cut Off Chemo for Undocumented Residents

Compassionate conservatism at work again. The Bush Administration is telling New York health officials not to approve chemotherapy for undocumented residents because it's not a medical emergency.

The change comes amid a fierce national debate on providing medical care to immigrants, with New York State officials and critics saying this latest move is one more indication of the Bush administration’s efforts to exclude the uninsured from public health services.

Under a limited provision of Medicaid, the national health program for the poor, the federal government permits emergency coverage for illegal immigrants and other noncitizens. But the Bush administration has been more closely scrutinizing and increasingly denying state claims for federal payment for some emergency services, Medicaid experts said.

While states differ on what is or is not a medical emergency, it should be obvious that the states that define it as "any condition that could become an emergency or lead to death without treatment" is the proper one.


New York intends to challenge the directive. And thankfully, hospitals are unlikely to go along with it.

New York City public hospitals, which serve 400,000 uninsured patients a year, among them illegal immigrants, would continue to provide the cancer treatment no matter what, said officials from the Health and Hospitals Corporation. But if there is no reimbursement from Medicaid, they said, they will have to look elsewhere for financial support.

Rand Researchers issued a report earlier this month with suggestions for improving immigrant health care. It also contains this statistic:

Currently, approximately a third of immigrants are naturalized citizens, a third are legal permanent residents and a third are undocumented.

Check out the Center for Immigrant Health Care Justice:

We believe that every person possesses a right to healthcare, regardless of his or her status in society. We further promote that society has a duty to provide access to affordable and equitable healthcare for all.

NYU School of Medicine's Center for Immigrant Health is also doing its part.

Keeping with our commitment to eliminate ethnic and racial disparities in health care, the Center for Immigrant Health’s Immigrant Cancer Portal Project is implementing a model to improve the New York metropolitan area’s diverse, underserved immigrant communities’ access to cancer care services, particularly cancer treatment and support services, at local health care facilities.

...If you or anybody you know is an immigrant with cancer and is in need of assistance,please contact us.

As this report, Unequal Access: Immigrants and U.S. Health Care (pdf), concludes:

Policies that restrict immigrants' access to some health care services lead to the inefficient and costly use of other services (such as emergency room care) and negatively impact public health. The future economic success of the United States depends on a healthy workforce. Therefore, policies must be devised that improve, rather than restrict, immigrants' access to quality health care.

Another organization doing the right thing: GCIR ( Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees.) Their resource page on immigrant health is here.

< Spitzer: DMV is Not the INS | Senate Approves $1 Billion for "Gang Fear and Pandering Act" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why stop (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    at chemo? Why not cut off oxygen, water, and food as well? We can make the whole country as inhospitable as the tortured entry so many are forced to make into the country.
     We can but that would make us barbarians. As Jacques Derrida writes in "On Cosmopolitanism": "Hospitality is culture itself and not simply one ethic among others."
    Glad to hear the hospitals know what their responsibility is, as they struggle to meet its cost. Pathetic to see how morally bankrupt the Bush Administration is and how irresponsible with other's lives they are.

    Since you are an open borders (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    kinda guy, I understand your position.

    Mine is simple.

    If you have entered my home/country without my position, why does Jacques think I owe anyone "hospitality?" But since that's your belief...

    Do you have his address? I need a vacation, so I will just drop by and stay with him.

    Better yet, what's your's?? the Bay area is beautiful in September.

    BTW - I like my eggs over easy, coffee black and toast with no butter.... and lots of orange juice.


    grrrr --- without my permission (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    I know you're a (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:06:24 AM EST
    Fortress America type, the sort that confuses a house with a nation. That can't be helped apparently.

    It's charming that you compare having breakfast and a vacation with someone having chemo, but that's about right for the moral imagination coming out of supporters of the Bush Administration these days.

    As for the role of hospitality in culture, it's first given shape in the Book of Numbers, but more imortantly for contemporary thinking by Immaneul Kant during the European Enlightenment, that time period that Republican enablers would like to pretend never existed. So, compassionate conservatism of the sort you embrace is in fact a fundamental assault on the core of our culture, but I'm sure you knew that. That's what makes a conservative conservative these days.


    Did the big boys pick on you during (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    dodge ball??? I mean you sure can dodge.

    A culture cannot be drastically different that the people that make it up. And if you think that people should just be allowed to show up and given "hospitality" that's fine.

    So when can I come?? Got any Raider or Giant tickets?? I prefer between the 40 yard lines.

    BTW - You should remember that I am a strong supporter of National Health Care. But I am also the ONLY person on this blog that actually has said it needs to be paid for by EVERYONE. A national sales tax.

    And I am sure you oppose that.

    What you want is a freebee.

    Like in, somebody else pays.


    A national sales tax (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    is regressive, like so much of what you post.

    tnthorpe (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    Not all.

    It is fair. What YOU don't like is that YOU would have to pay YOUR fair share.

    If you want to argue that a greater percentage of the poor's income goes to substance, we can exempt:

    Unprepared food.
    Certain services, saying electrical and plumbing repair.
    A lower tax on gasoline.
    Certain low end cars.
    Public transportation
    A higher tax on expensive resturants...etc.


    YOU (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    continually make assertions about me based on nothing more than your overheated fantasy. That's your business, but it surely isn't an argument.

    Progressive income tax is fair. Taxing corporations and making them support the society on which they depend is fair. Taxing capital gains is fair. Taxing vast inheritances is fair. Taxing the poor is typically unfair, but I've never seen a Bush enabler who has felt that fairness was something that obligated them to do anything.

    As for your previous post, you still confuse a house with a nation and your own privileged existence with someone receiving life saving health care at public expense. In  short, you demonstrate with neon brilliance the profound lack of moral imagination that being a Bush enabler demands. Further, you turn your back on the oldest traditions in the culture, proving that a conservative is no longer someone who preserves the best of what has gone before, but is now simply a golden lifeboater who likes taking aim at the less fortunate. If that's your idea of culture, you're welcome to it.


    Pandering (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    My, my. Speaking of confusing things.

    You confuse a social liberal who wants NHC for a conservative. Hold on a minute while I call Sean Hannity and tell him I didn't know NHC was on his agenda.

    BTW - The argument is not about progressive taxation, the argument is about how to pay for an additional social service.

    A sales tax, as I have shown, can offer fairness by flexibility in the amount of the tax on various items. This removes the so-called "fairness" issue.

    It would also include unreported income such as from drug dealers, and illegal aliens, as it is collected at the POS, requiring nothing from the person.

    Of course if you want fairness, then we should removed the deduction for children, and/or the joint filing.. while we are at it we should drop the mortgage interest payment deduction...

    In the meantime, I also like my steaks rare, so if you decide to treat me by cooking one I expect it to not be overdone. You being big on hospitality and all.... And pour a good cabernet.. and don't forget to decant and let it breath..

    And repeat after me:

    Giving people things who have entered your home illegally, or your country illegaly, is not hospitality. It is pandering to a thief.


    s.o.s. (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 03:51:21 PM EST

    You have a ship? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:35:55 PM EST
    Great. I'd like a cruise....

    Don't forget the sun screen! Some wine and cheese, maybe a few grapes (Call your uncle)....


    Let me make (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:10:40 PM EST
    this really simple for you.

    1. Your equation of your desire for consumer goods you can't afford with life saving health care others desperately need is morally grotesque.

    2. Instead of mocking the idea of hospitality, which you clearly don't understand, you might want to research its distinguished philosophical history. Begin with Kant's great essays "Perpetual Peace" and "Notes for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View." Then move into the current discussions in the field by reading Hannah Arendt, Seyla Benhabib, Paul Gilroy, Martha Nussbaum, Kwame Appiah, among others. Then you might have something of value to contribute to a discussion.

    3. Your sad and pathetic notion that the US, the richest, most powerful nation ever to exist, is somehow victimized by undocumented immigrants is laughable. Our international financial policies alone have driven more than 2 million Mexican farmers off of their land, but I guess they're not posting facts like that on JihadWatch. But conservatives like you love to play the victim. It gives them a reason to go online.

    4. Any knucklehead knows that taxing income is regressive if wealth is untaxed no matter how you in your febrile mind slice and dice it. Read the late Jefferson and Adams letters on the necessity for taxing wealth. They're basic reading, and most conservatives know them backward and forward, so I'm frankly surprised you don't.

    5. Rather than do any of the above, you will continue to post your empty rants, your increasingly shrill and repetitive demands for luxuries you can't attain on your own. ("Repeat after me you," posted above. Why? You do nothing but repeat yourself over and over and over.)

    #4 (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:18:56 PM EST
    should have read "taxes directed at income such as a sales tax" instead of "taxing income."

    Pretty simple... (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:31:51 AM EST
    Let me see. I can't get free health care for my family or myself, yet I am supposed to be a bad person because I said close the borders? Keep the illegals out and we won't have the problem??

    I mean like crime, if the illegal isn't here, he can't demand health care.

    Pretty simple, eh??

    And you are the one who brought up hospitality, and when I noted that I would like to test your hospitality you start quoting books.

    You are either hospitable, or you're not. It appears you are not.

    Pretty simple, eh?

    Our international financial policies alone have driven more than 2 million Mexican farmers off of their land,

    Wow. Sounds pretty bad. Why don't we close the borders and make the illegals turn back and correct the problems in their government that let's their government allow such.

    You know, let them pick the beam out of their eye.

    Pretty simple, eh?

    Why you keep wanting to argue about a progressive tax system with me I have no idea. I think it is a fine idea.

    I also think national health care is a fine idea.

    I just know that it is not going to be enacted if you try and finance it with a higher FIT. Joe and Jane won't buy it because they see it as unfair. That's just facts and has nothing to do with whatever whoever wrote whenever.

    BTW - Do you actually pay any taxes? I mean besides use and sales taxes??

    Do you oppose sales taxes??

    A sales tax, as I have shown, can be made as least as fair as our current FIT, and taps new sources of income. Illegal FIT avoidance. That would be dope dealers, illegal aliens, ordinary citizens who just didn't file, etc.....

    Pretty simple, eh?

    That would remove one objection to NHC from the Repubs list. We can then start discussing how to deliver the service. To do that we would need a National ID or valid pass port and/or visa...

    Pretty simple, eh?

    BTW - Repetitive? I didn't repeat a single request.


    You obviously (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    didn't read my post while you continue to repeat yourself. It's ike a conservative article of faith, you keep repeating the same tired points over and over as if it makes them so.

    But just be caught in your moral grotesquery, comparing breakfast and football to live saving health care. Just be caught in that profound ethical ugliness. You need to own what you write.

    Know also that in the time that our silly exchange has been going on that hundreds, possibly thousands, of undocumented children, women, and men have been treated by hard working health care professionals across the nation. All at public expense. And know also that all of that money is the merest fraction of the $720 million a day we spend on the failed occupation of Iraq. Of course, I know which you think is a crime.

    Now it's time for you to crack the books.


    You keep trying to dodge and change (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    the subject..

    comparing breakfast and football to live saving health care.

    Nope. You are the one who decided that providing free health care to illegal aliens was a matter of hospitality:

    As Jacques Derrida writes in "On Cosmopolitanism": "Hospitality is culture itself and not simply one ethic among others."

    I simply pointed out that since you are for hospitality, then I am ready to accept yours. Now, are you being hypocritical? It sure looks that way.

    Shorter. You want the "country" to be hospitable.
    The problem is that the "country" is made up of real people who also need things. As in any real world situation, resources are limited. In my view those resources should be used to take care of US citizens and people who are in the country legally. Close the borders and the problem goes back to the country that produced it.

    All at public expense.

    This, of course, is your mantra. But again we have the problem that the "public" is real live people paying real money in taxes.

    If Congress decides that we should provide free health services for illegal aliens, it should pass  a law saying so. It has not. So it appears that you are encouraging illegal actions.

    As for the cost of the war, without a country we have nothing to disagree about. Iraq is just one of many battles, the majority still to come.


    Still (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    haven't understood a word I've written, still haven't cracked a book, pity.

    Just be caught in your moral myopia. It's ok, folk like Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich revel in theirs. You can too.


    You keep trying to change the subject (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:19:05 PM EST
    You equate "hospitality" with the rule of law, placing yourself morally above everyone else. There is a word for that and it is "arrogant."

    You forget that after you have destroyed the rule of law, there is nothing left to defend you.

    Get out more often.


    And dont forget to elect (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:43:23 PM EST
    a moron who is above the rule of law because he IS the rule of law.

    WWJD (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    Certainly Jesus, the pinnacle religious figure of our Judeo-Christian nation, the figure the right wing trots out freely whenever they feel the need to play the Godless liberal card, of course Jesus would turn these wetbacks out on the street.  He was all about the laws of man, after all.  He wasn't about the Kingdom of God being all around us.

    With Bush vetoing Child Health care, too, we're on a good roll with the Savior.

    Nope. wrong. nada (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    Bush is vetoing expanding the coverage level to families making $80,000 a year, with the plan paid for out of general funds.

    I'm for NHC, with coverage for everyone, paid for by everyone. Repeat after me. National sales tax. Let's get this done.


    For those who may not know the issue, (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    Bush did not veto "Child Health care."

    We have an existing gvt funded child health care service for children of poor families, Bush veoted a proposal to expand that service to include the children of non-poor families. As well he should have.


    The problem is the definition of poor.... (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:03:29 AM EST
    a family of four in NYC making 50k a year isn't "legally" poor, but they can't afford an insurance plan for their family if their employer doesn't have a plan.  Not with the cost of living what it is.

    I wouldn't exactly call them non-poor.  I'd say not "legally" poor, but struggling to make ends meet none the less.


    You don't have to live in NYC (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    for that to be true...

    That's why we need National Health Care paid for by a national sales tax adjusted to make it fair.


    A family of four in NYC making 50k (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    is already covered under the existing plan. They'd pay $45/Month under the existing NYCHIP program.

    You up early this AM (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:06:12 AM EST
    If they would close the borders the problem would not exist.

    Tons of laundry to be done... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    Immigration or health care?

    Closing the borders doesn't make chemo more available or affordable to the uninsured, documented or not.

    Closing the borders won't keep immigrants out either, for that matter.  The problem there lies with the law.


    Yes it does (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:45:56 AM EST
    If the money isn't spent on illegals it is available for actual citizens.

    Close the borders. Let the home countries worry about their own problems.


    close the borders (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jen M on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    and that man needing chemo today will be instantly cured

    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    But he won't be replaced with another.

    Tell me, Jen. Why do you think we should take care of the world?

    Shouldn't our citizens be cared for first?

    That "man" has a country. That country has a government. That country has a culture.

    If the government and the culture is so bad that people are leaving in droves, why shouldn't we turn them around and say:

    Fix your own problems. We have enough without you.


    hmmm (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Jen M on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    taking care of people here = taking care of the world.  USA = the world?

    Making a statement that some draconian measure will solve the problem in the future means that you don't have to give a sh*t about the dying people. Not that you ever did. It certainly never shows up in your posts. You only attack those who care about whether or not people die.

    Its a morality thing. You wouldn't understand.


    The day we can provide free health (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by dkmich on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:23:09 PM EST
    care to all Americans is the day we should provide free health care to all people who are here.

    Draconian measure? (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:30:10 PM EST
    Closing the border is draconian?? Who knew?

    besides (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Jen M on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    I'm a missionary's kid.

    What the heck do you expect?


    Logic?? (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:30:29 PM EST
    after you (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jen M on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:36:20 PM EST
    No. Ladies first. (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    Why should we take care of the world (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    when we've got all we can handle "bringing freedom and democracy" (and all things pure, wholesome, good and trickle-down) to the Middle East?

    No, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Pancho on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:26:28 AM EST
    but the Mexican government will be forced to provide their own health care plan, and there will be one more round available to an American.

    Of all the ways.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:00:49 AM EST
    our tax dollars are stolen and wasted, the feds are worried about an undocumented cancer patient getting free chemo?

    Are they serious?

    That is a true and sad fact. n/t (none / 0) (#34)
    by dkmich on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:23:36 PM EST
    Why are you surprised? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:27:42 AM EST
    When you have a health care system where a third party - either a private insurance firm or the government - pays for everything, then eventually they start to worry about escalating costs.  When everything looks free to consumers, they demand more of it.  This in turn leads to cost cutting efforts on the part of the payer, and some of those efforts end up looking strange - but it's an all too predictable occurence.  You want third parties paying for health care, then this is the kind of situation you'll see more of.

    Yeah..... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    there is a line around the block of people mooching chemo.  It's free so they want more.  Are you joking?  I'm not sure if I'd want it if I had cancer.

    Half the people I know, with or without insurance...you couldn't drag them to a doctor unless they are seriously hurting.


    Kdog (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:47:20 AM EST
    Tell them when they turn 50 to have a Doctor test them for colon and prostrate cancer...

    Or call Sen Craig and (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:01:58 PM EST
    have it done for free.

    Ya gotta love these "close our borders/protect our daughters" types that dont mind pouring tens of billions a month into perpetuating a grotestque, decidedly unpopular, foreign policy nightmare that will reverberate for decades yet go into conniptions about the undocumented.


    I will.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:08:15 AM EST
    if they can afford it:)

    As for me, I don't go unless I know something is broken.  Doing my part to not over-consume health-care....if we are denying it to people there must be a shortage:)


    Why do the (none / 0) (#10)
    by Pancho on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    illegals get all their health care free while it costs me thousands per year just for my premiums?


    Pancho (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:01:55 AM EST
    If they go to an ER, most likely its free.

    If they go to a Walk-In they pay up front, or provide proof of insurance...


    Correct, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Pancho on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:17:09 AM EST
    and go to the emergency room is what they do, whether it is an emergency or not. The hospitals don't even try to get them to pay.

    Why would (none / 0) (#47)
    by Pancho on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:21:36 AM EST
    Dark Avenger rate your comment a "1"?; it is merely a simple statement of fact.

    He's not into inconvenient truth.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    You really (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Pancho on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    are an arrogant prick. I see what the illegals do, because I live along side them in the city that they have invaded. There are tens of thousands of them in my small city and they DO NOT pay for health care, but they DO put expensive customizations on their autos, and they DO send money back to Mexico.

    Emergency Health Care (none / 0) (#63)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:36:44 AM EST
    Like all health care, is a lot more expensive than putting trimmings on the car or sending a check back home.

    The hysterics over ER amuse me.  


    I just paid (none / 0) (#64)
    by Pancho on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:04:03 AM EST
    $1,400 for two staples in my daughter's head. An illegal would have paid ZERO for the same treatment. Why can't they pay a little bit also, so that I don't have to subsidize their frivoulous expenses?

    Speaking of subsidization (none / 0) (#65)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    I just paid $1,400 for two staples in my daughter's head

    What did you pay for lettuce and corn last time you were at the grocery store?

    Just kidding.

    Sort of.  ;-)


    For that matter (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    What did you pay for just about anything you've ever bought at Wal-Mart or any other mass distributor?  Have you ever bought a pair of those Air Jordans you like to invoke?

    Where do you think those prices came from, hmmmmmm?

    Sorry, the truth of economic exploitation runs far, far deeper than you, my friend, working really, really, really hard and only to be unconcsionably fosucceeding on the strength of nothing other than your own bootstrap work ethic only tragically to be forced into subsidizing an immigrant's emergency care.


    drat (none / 0) (#67)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    the confusing part ought to have read:

    and only to be unconcsionably bilked by .....

    Sigh.  There are times when one tires of the age old myth of the plight of the broad faced, honest, innocent, hard-working white American whose only rewards are his own effort and the earned smiles of Providence.


    So, (none / 0) (#71)
    by Pancho on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    is your answer that I should just suck it up while the illegal skates by and sends money to Mexico while ignoring his obligations to this country?

    Is cheap lettuce my reward?


    Well, are you really interested in my answer? (none / 0) (#72)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    Here it is.    

    My answer is that before your chest puffs out to the point of no return, remember the extent to which we in the United States rely upon economic exploitation for the standard of living that we enjoy.

    You appear to need to be reminded of this, being as how you indulge the Horatio Alger myth, representing yourself as participating in a fair, thoroughly transparent contract that depends only on your own work ethic and imagination.    

    Now by the way, if I come across here as a bit cavalier, it is because I cannot but enjoy, just a little bit, the central dillemma this poses for the Republican Party. Really it is their biggest weakness, because it occasionally transcends their virtuosic ability to lie in a way that no other phenomenon can even approach.  

    The "values voter" base remains solidly on board with the spectacularly immoral Iraq War.  This base appears not at all to be bothered by war profiteering, even when the fact of it is rubbed in their faces, a la Halliburton, Blackwater, and the scores of contractors who prowl that territory making exponentially more money, of course. than the soldiers being sacrificed in vain.  The moral values base, too, appears thoroughly unphased by the fact that 43 Million American citizens have no health insurance, no doctor, etc.

    The immigration debate, in short, abjures the illusory bridge between the infinite space dividing the GOP's fire-eating hypocritical base, and the green blooded corporate elite who will always control that Party, no matter how much red meat they appear to throw.

    Anyway.  To be serious.  If you or I are really interested in righting economic explotiation then we are all of us gonna have to make some changes sufficiently drastic to make mass deportation look smooth and easy.  


    I know that you like to (none / 0) (#73)
    by Pancho on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    deal in caracitures, but I'm just a guy with a family and a job and some bills. I went to a liberal college, did my share of drugs, and I have friends of all races and many nationalities,but I just don't like subsidizing the mufflers that wake me up in the midle of the night. If people are truly coming here for work, then they can pay their own way, and they certainly don't need my assistance after they can afford to buy expensive auto accesories.

    You totally (none / 0) (#74)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:36:38 PM EST
    Ignored my post. It hurt my feelings a little I confess.  Out some real effort into that one.
    Oh well, still it orgnaizes one's thoughts, comedic and serious alike.  I encourage you to engage a single thing I said about the GOP in that last post, show me where the caricature is.

    Although, in ways you also illustrate what arguing.

    You say, "I'm just a guy with a family and a job and some bills."  But that, Pancho, however right it feels to say it, is nevertheless untrue.  You, like me, are likely a guy who shops for the best deals he can get.  And then if you have a small child like I do, you were probably alarmed when the story about Lead in the Toys broke.  Yet we are complicit in the tragedies.  Let the companies make their toys here, tax the bejeezuz out of them if they manufacture abroad.  Pay American workers high wages and charge concordanmtly high prices for the toys.

    You write off lettuce as though it were only lettuce.  But Lettuce in the context of what we are arguing here is a figurative word.  Yea, even a poetic word.  Think about it before you go cairicaturing me.  After all, for all you know I might be someone you once did drugs with.  

    Often you post here lamenting the illegal immigration issue.  I can only assume you are among those who would favor deportations and closing down the employers who use illegal Mexican labor.  But have you really considered, are you really willing to adopt to the changes that would lie in store?  Pay top dollar for lettuce, for toys, etc?  

    And BTW do you really think for a single second that the economic power running this nation would ever permit such a thing to happen?  Good luck with that one.

    And at the same time there is the moral question, the realization that what of the children who have been born here.


    When you leave out the (none / 0) (#78)
    by Pancho on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:54:24 PM EST
    over the top evil Republican rhetoric, I am happy to respond. I agree completely with what you say above. I understand that we need people to pick lettuce and I am willing to pay more for lettuce and/or allow imported workers. I also would like to slow down our dependence on China for manufacturing. That is a whole other issue that I would be happy to discuss in an appropriate forum or by E-mail (JT3151@Gmail.com).

    My issues with illegal immigrants are very simple: I want them to follow our rules and pay towards their healthcare and school fees etc. to the extent that they are capable. I strongly believe, with very solid firsthand evidence, that this is not happening.

    In my city they have hired dozens of Spanish speaking teachers with poor English skills to teach illegal immigrants and the children of illegal immigrants. Many of these kids were born here and yet they show up to kindergarten at five years old not knowing the alphabet in Spanish or English. I was lucky enough to get my daughter into the magnet school, which is excellent, where she is taught alongside many immigrants who were prepared by their parents. The alternative was a massive 1200 kid kindergarten only school with mostly bilingual classes. The school next door was not an option, because the demands of the non-English speaking students forced them to drop kindergarten and create a massive bilingual center.

    My beefs are quite legitimate.


    You had a response, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Pancho on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    which is rare. Your resident alien sister in law is also absorbing the cost of those who CHOOSE not to pay. Those of us with REAL SS #s and credit ratings, along with a sense of responsibility have to pay our bills. An illegal can drive up to the ER in a Navigator and walk out without paying a dime and they WILL NOT even be pursued for collection.

    Can't you understand that this takes away from efforts to serve the truly needy?


    kidney dialysis (none / 0) (#14)
    by diogenes on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    There is a similar issue in the Southwest with undocumented folks and kidney dialysis.
    Sorry, but the lawyers should ask the doctors.  There is no way cancer chemotherapy is defined as "emergency care".
    If nonemergency health care weren't given away free then maybe there wouldn't be such a pull to attract people through semiporous borders.
    Hospitals are going broke in the southwest due to this issue; it's not as trivial some say.  
    If there's really a moral compulsion to treat cancer patients then maybe the Democratic congress should vote for money to pay for cancer centers to be built in Mexico City, etc.  

    Violation of Declaration of Geneva? (none / 0) (#16)
    by wprange on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    When a medical professional enters his or her profession, he or she has to take an oath. In the past this was called the Hippocratic Oath, believed to have been written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, in the 4th century BC.
    This oath turned out to have some outdated concepts and it has been updated by the Declaration of Geneva.
    That oath clearly states the following:


    Adopted by the 2nd General Assembly of the World Medical Association, Geneva, Switzerland, September 1948
    and amended by the 22nd World Medical Assembly, Sydney, Australia, August 1968
    and the 35th World Medical Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983
    and the 46th WMA General Assembly, Stockholm, Sweden, September 1994
    and editorially revised at the 170th Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2005 and
    the 173rd Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2006


    I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;

    I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;

    I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity;

    THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

    I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

    I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;

    MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;

    I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

    I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

    I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

    I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.


    What's the legal standing of this Declaration?

    Heh (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    The AMA does, and I would expect this group to also, oppose force feeding of people trying to commit suicide.

    They thus assist in the suicide.

    Square that with:

    THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

    I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

    oh my (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Jen M on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    yeah, assist suicide. Thats why they all go berserk when somebody feels suicidal.

    Have migraines for decades and they don't want to give you much, reveal the suicidal mood and suddenly they're doping you to the gills.

    Assist, yeah, right.


    Jen (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    They oppose force feeding of people are committing suicide by starving themselves.

    That is defacto assistance.

    Don't believe? Go their website and ask the question.


    Hippocratic nonsense (none / 0) (#35)
    by diogenes on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    The original Hippocratic oath also said "NO ABORTIONS".  
    A national health care system of some sort paid for by a national sales tax would at least tax the people who live here.
    Unfortunately, while presidential candidates talk about hypothetical comprehensive health care systems the Congress can't get around to passing one, spending all of it's time on Iraq instead.

    Like Hillary's solution.... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:09:17 AM EST
    make the insurance companies richer by federal mandate...brilliant!

    You OK with a sales tax to pay for it?? (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    I am..... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:35:11 AM EST
    but then again I try not to consume too much, I wouldn't be affected as much as others.

    If reefer were legalized and taxed, then I'd be throwing in a nice chunk of change.  There is a huge untapped source of funds right there.


    Cut out the Middle Man (none / 0) (#55)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    That's the best and most concise description of her "proposal" that I've seen yet.

    Paying for it is the question (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:21:38 PM EST
    And she plans to pay for through a FIT increase.

    That wouldn't fly in '93 and it won't fly now.


    Whatever (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    The current story of Hillary Clinton and Health Care:

    Since what she's trying to do is run it all through existing insurance companies liberals, myself included, aren't going to trust her.  

    She's trying to imagine ways to get people covered who cannot pay for health care themselves.  This alone upsets conservatives.