It’s because their beliefs are just bullshit. Their religion conviction exists only when it’s convenient.
If it’s a private hospital, they can and do sometimes turn you away. If it is a public hospital, they have to treat you.
No one pays it. The hospital eats the cost, and it gets reflected in hospital rates, which in turn gets reflected in insurance premiums. But insurance premium payments are domestic production, just as original payment for treatment to the hospital would have been domestic production, so the effect on the overall economy is negligible.
I work in a clinic and not the hospital, but let me look it up.
There’s two ways an undocumented person can get coverage.* (Stuff changes I may not be super accurate). This is New York btw, everything differs state by state…
The hospital is merely required to stabilize you to cover their ass. They will not fix any problems. If you think you have a heart attack, they will give you an EKG and discharge you with instructions to seek care. I said this earlier. They won’t make money off you so they kick you off asap.
Unless you do some tricks (like the Mount Sinai thing) you can’t get care for expensive conditions. My aunt is a foreigner, she was required to leave around a 20k deposit for a pacemaker. See, they don’t charge you in advance, they call it a deposit.
As for reducing costs via expanded community care, this actually started in NYS right after 9/11 in 2001. The big hospitals were pushing for “community care” to prevent expensive ER visits. These programs are pretty big in New York. They give money to Healthfirst, VNS choice, Wellcare, all these private HMOs that take medicaid money. I don’t know if it’s a net cost increase, a quick google suggests no. They are not very generous programs. What the effect is, is that poor people get healthcare at cheaper doctors. Not that many of the fancy doctors on 5th avenue will take those plans.
This answer needs one more thing, what the exact eligibility criteria for medicaid is. IIRC, the emergency expansion after 9/11… reduced the paperwork required to verify the patient’s identity… yes, in other words almost anyone could get it. I believe this could mean you didn’t need to be a citizen, for example. I’ll have to look this up: Okay, the law allowed “temporary lawful residents” to apply for medicaid. This includes people on a student / visiting visa it seems. I know it helped a lot of people get access because cash patients are less common now, but it is still not like a guaranteed free ticket. You still have to meet the income requirements. IIRC this includes total assets of $1500/$4000 or less.
The GOP paints illegal immigrants as Mexican versions of Reagan’s welfare queens – unemployed grifters eating steak every night while scamming ‘the system.’ In truth, they’re more like a modern-day slave labor force. They do the hardest jobs for the least wages, without access to most of the social safety net benefits their tax dollars help pay for.
This is pure scapegoating and misdirection.
But it increased overall healthcare cost domestically, How much did the CBO say we spend in Health care?
MEDICARE (Net of Offsetting Receipts)
583 Billion
MEDICAID
383 Billion
HEALTH INSURANCE SUBSIDIES AND RELATED SPENDING
$58 Billion
CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
$16 Billion
One of the biggest piece of pies in our national budget, besides the insane military spending
And mandatory spending
In purely the context of education for now: to go with your analogy, it’s like you move in with someone, and you object to the household budget being spent on a car for them to get to work, when the alternative is them not having a job.
In purely the context of education: the net costs of educating children is positive. Maybe once you sum all the other things up, like healthcare and food-stamps or whatever else, it’s not. But purely the cost of education? Trivially a positive.
Last week, I went to the church which does my daughter’s pre school. It’s a bit larger than the church I regularly go to, a bit younger, and the minister is about my age. We went because the church had done a free bible camp over the summer and she wanted to sing with her friends during the sunday service, which was about the Armor of God, or the idea that you have to stand up for your beliefs. It was a bit more aggressive then I’m used to, but it centered around helping and protecting others.
Anyways, the part of the sermon that was important was that the Armor of God should not be like the Armor worn by nobility in the middle age, which was in pristine condition, all shiny and new, because that was a sign that the armor was never used in combat and was only for show. The Armor of God should be beaten and battered from use, that people should live with the Armor of God all the time, not just on Sundays.
Anyway, I think the point was that being a Christian shouldn’t be about parading your beliefs once in a while, but living them all the time. I think that’s were most on the Christian Right fail.
They want to wear the Armor of God because they believe it looks mighty and righteous, but they fail to see that it should be used, that it calls to people to make sacrifices and it’s hard. That after a while, it’s not all that shiny or nice.
At least that is my interpretation.
If we only cared about outgoing costs every state would shut down every school tomorrow.
They don’t because the value of education far exceeds the cost.
There is no difference in the results of this calculation based on whether or not the person is a citizen, only whether or not they stay a productive member of your society when they are finished being educated. It’s a pretty good argument for making the undocumented kids into citizens, actually.
Ok using your analogy, you come home and your wife’s brother awol from the service is in your house apparently staying. Now your wife is making the case you need to spend from the budget, so he can buy a car and find a job, because he doesn’t want to go back because of PTSD.
I have sympathy for his situation, and consider helping him out but he needs to deal with the AWOL thing before I want to consider throwing money at a situation.
If all you care about is your household income, it’s trivially correct for my brother in law to move in and get a job.
Maybe you care about more things than that. Fine! Okay! Maybe you don’t have enough bedrooms or he smells or whatever.
But in the specific context of education, it’s trivially correct to educate children. Hell, it’s trivially correct to kidnap as many foreign children as possible and put them into school. If you want to make arguments against that (and there are plenty, good ones, that I agree with!) they cannot come from the net cost of their education.
You know most of that healthcare is to old people right? In fact, most of Medicaid costs, for poor people, also goes for Medicare patients. That’s because Medicaid covers the 20% coinsurance Medicare has. The truth is that young people just don’t get very sick. It is old people that get very sick, expensive care.
If one really really wanted to do the right thing, one should limit expensive care for everyone and do more efficient, evidence based shit. Root out corruption. Pharma, hospitals, providers, equipment makers, patients ALL WANT more money. It’s all about the money. Reps just want to limit the money to go to their Constituents. Dems want money to go to theirs. Both get bribed by equipment, pharma, insurance companies. Notice i put patients in that list. It is in the individual’s patient’s interest to have increased medical costs. For aggregate societal interests thought, it shoudl be controlled.
Yes, this means a sort of “death panel”, or a sort of the hated utilization control HMOs used draconically in the 80s. But nobody outside of a few technocrats argues for this shit… The electronic medical records people and other consultants argue for “efficiency” but all they are doing is pushing money into their own pockets. I’ll give you a quick example.
Say Medicare gives Aetna or Anthem or UnitedHealthcare $700 a month per medicare patient. Then the plan has to manage their expenses and assume any overly-high expenses. Well, the big problem with this is cherry picking patients, why would they enroll any patient that r depressed (10k more a year on avg.) So they came up with some adjustments for risks. So now what happens is all these freaking plans audit all the records and hire a nurse to look through all your shit to see if they can diagnose a patient with diabetes, or depression, etc etc. For example, they’ll see the notes say the patient complaints of “fatigue, low energy”. They’ll upcode that shit as depression. Note this does not mean the doctor gets paid more. This is so the plan gets paid more. My point is these people game every single freaking thing. And it is a lot of work to pull all the damn charts, have someone scan them, and let then put them back. This is the real reason they push for electronic medical records. Convenience for the insurance companies.
I feel like we are jumping to absolutes here, I agree education is needed. I don’t agree to paying for someone who gets in on the sly in this case. Deal with immigration, gave everyone a fair shake, and close the doors to people who exploit others, or in some cases exploit us.
It’s hard to see illegal immigrant emergency care being a significant factor in our very high per capita medical cost. If we want to bring down medical costs, there are much more obvious ways to tackle that than demonizing illegal immigrants, or curtailing illegal immigration.
But not because of any fictitious cost, I hope.
Yeah, that’s pretty much where I’m at. I don’t remember Jesus talking about legal vs. illegal status but I could be wrong. The religious right should be fully concerned with helping disadvantaged people, no matter their affiliation or cost.
Again, I’m not saying its the primary factor, but Ive consistently said I question anything in our budget that isn’t a absolute necessity. This falls in that category. There are a lot of things in our budget holistically that do, this is one among them. Its a fairly easy fix and its impacts no one likes…the immigrants don’t like being taken advantage of, citizens don’t like paying for all these small bits that’s adding up to a lot big picture and some legitimately feel they are losing opportunities because the issue is not being addressed.
We have these thread(s) in the forum recently which essentially come down to the differences between liberals and conservatives. I personally feel like this conversation is a good example of that difference right here.
Conservatives see the budget and say, “this budget total value is immutable, we need to divide it up into the most deserving slices that serve our needs the best. If we decide that something isn’t worthwhile (usually only whether or not it is economically worthwhile), then we aren’t going to pay for it.” And maybe that means people starving in the streets. It’s not that they don’t care that people are starving in the street, it’s just that they feel like they are being responsible with the budget and those people need to work on their own problems. Those are their problems, not mine/ours. Often my conservative friends will say that they want to support programs to get them back on their feet and make them more productive etc, but never explain how they are going to reconcile that with their earlier budgetary calculations and around and around we go.
Liberals see the people starving in the streets and say, “these people shouldn’t be starving in the streets. Let’s figure out what we can do to help them.” Then they look at the budget and say, “this budget isn’t immutable, let’s figure out all of our priorities and what we need. People shouldn’t be starving in the streets.” And then there is a lot of difference in what I see. Some liberals I know are very much into the economics and usually these programs are actually a net positive on the economy. Others look at it from a societal perspective, about what’s best for the whole of society. Others look at it from a moral perspective, just doing the right thing. But they all start on the people side, not the budget side.
Honestly now that I’m framing it this way in my head it’s explaining a lot of conversations I’ve had with conservative friends who I know are “good people” but suggest policies with really shitty outcomes.
Edit: Sorry, this wasn’t supposed to be a response to any particular post or even you specifically. It was more a general thought. Half way through writing it I went to respond to your other post and clicked reply on it and Discourse made the post I was halfway through writing a reply to that post. My bad.
Very well, let’s end for-profit medical care. It’s a big factor in the cost, it’s in the budget, and it’s entirely unnecessary. And it will surely have a bigger impact than stopping illegal immigration. What say you.?
Even if the money you spend on them is earned back at a greater rate?
Do you mean stop employers who don’t pay a fair wage? On that point I don’t know a single liberal who would disagree with you.
Again, immigrants are a net economic (and I would argue societal) gain. You’ve just handwaved away all of the studies we’ve presented that say it, because of your “common knowledge”.
Yes, a lot of the time it comes down to a fundamental difference in understanding about the way the world works.
For instance, many people are under the impression that there are a fixed number of jobs, and that if immigrants show up, they will compete for these scarce resources. Or, if you prefer, that they will increase the supply of labour, thus depressing its price.
This is such a common mistake of reasoning that it has its own name - the lump of labour fallacy. I think an awful lot of people end up falling for these fallacies because of confirmation bias, or figures of authority using them (knowingly or unknowingly) for their own ends.