- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 18,233
- Reaction score
- 15,861
- Location
- veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There is no program EVER initiated that is 100% fraud-proof. With that said, finding flaws does not mean that the program should be scrapped just because flaws are found. Now, if the flaws are never fixed, that is another story.
An illegal immigrant can get insurance through the exchange, have the government pay for the cost of the policy, and then get the value of the coverage by using the same fraudulent identification used to get the policy, to use the policy to get health care at a reduced cost.
Good
Do you feel it is okay for non-citizens and non-legal residents to get federal tax payer subsidies for benefits meant for citizens and legal residents? Is that what you meant by your one word quip?
The money for subsidies comes primarily comes from insurers and people with more than $250k/yr in unearned income
And yes, I think it's great if those people pay for health care for immigrants.
I don't think your statement on income source is accurate - however, that aside for now, because I don't feel like spending hours researching it (again), so... I'll just dismiss that charge without prejudice, as they say in the courts.
I'm not talking about immigrants, which is why I added the term "legal resident" which are immigrants that have not been granted full citizenship yet, and should be (are) eligible for the program.
Are you saying illegal immigrants should be granted these benefits at tax payer expense?
Here's another aspect of Obamacare that democrats should be proud of... This thing just needs to be scrapped.
Investigators obtain ObamaCare coverage, subsidies using fake identities | Fox News
Obamacare
I think our health care system should provide care to everyone with a health issue regardless of status
Obamacare
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413023-Redistribution-Under-the-ACA-is-Modest-in-Scope.pdf
I think our health care system should provide care to everyone with a health issue regardless of status
Our health care system does provide that now.
My question is direct and limited. You stated "Good" as a response where I specifically discussed tax payer revenue potentially being used to provide subsidies to illegal immigrants for insurance.
Do you feel it is okay for non-citizens and non-legal residents to get federal tax payer subsidies for benefits meant for citizens and legal residents? Is that what you meant by your one word quip?
.
Are you saying illegal immigrants should be granted these benefits at tax payer expense?
Yes. It does. It doesn't provide it for free, but it does provide care for everyone in the US with a health care issue. There's a law that requires Hospitals to provide care to anyone that shows up, regardless of status, regardless of ability to pay, and regardless of anything else anyone can think of as a reason to not do so, including providing preventive care, prenatal care and so on. So, again. Yes. It does.No, it doesn't
The post you just responded to answers your question in full.
"I think our health care system should provide care to everyone with a health issue regardless of status"
Yes. It does. It doesn't provide it for free, but it does provide care for everyone in the US with a health care
issue. There's a law that requires Hospitals to provide care to anyone that shows up, regardless of status, regardless of ability to pay, and regardless of anything ealse anyone can think of as a reason to not do so. So, again. Yes. It does.
Of course not. We have a law in place that requires hospitals to provide care, of whatever level, to anyone that shows up. And yes, I agree with that law.I'm wondering.... do you think hospitals should refuse care to illegal immigrants who come in via the ER? Do you think they should discharge them on the street without treating their immediate life threatening issues?
First of all, tax payer money is not used for that, or at least it wasn't prior to the PPACA. The same law that I refer to above required such tests to be performed if they are deemed necessary by the doctor to diagnose a medical issue. The cost was shared by all of us that actually had to pay for our own health care. I had no major problem with that, because I felt as though it was similar to me donating money to a charity, but in this case it was shared across the those that had to pay.Or do you think we should spend taxpayer money on, for example, expensive CT scans for everybody who may have a stroke or head injury, regardless of legal status?
And this from the DP King of word games? I've asked you a very specific question and you have failed to answer it.You're playing word games, and you're fooling no one.
Not true. A good line to enrage the ignorant to gain their support of your side, but still not true.If you can't pay, in this country the health care system does not provide the care you need.
No, you are mischaraterizing the law. It does not say that hospitals have to provide care to anyone that shows up.
EMTALA requires that hospitals provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, regardless of citizenship, legal status (i.e. illegal immigrants), or ability to pay. Technically speaking, EMTALA only requires this of hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid insurance. But since Medicare and Medicaid represent more than half of all health expenditures in the United States, very few hospitals are equipped to function without government funding, and therefore, nearly every hospital in the United States is covered by EMTALA.
EMTALA is, indeed, the central factor in the “free-rider” phenomenon. The government forces hospitals to care for these individuals, without financially compensating hospitals for the cost of doing so. It is one of the largest and most coercive unfunded mandates in the United States.
Personally, I think it’s a good thing that we as a country ensure that everyone, regardless of ability to pay, has access to emergency health care. (We might even call it universal health care.) As I wrote last year, ...
And this from the DP King of word games? I've asked you a very specific question and you have failed to answer it.
Not true.
No mischaracterization at all, just not complete, it all depends on the doctors determination and classification.
I don't see this as some big indictment of ObamaCare but rather the GAO conducting a thorough quality control/systems check on the overall federal health insurance application verification process. Even private corporation conduct these types of quality control test to root out flaws in their systems. Granted, the 11:1 ratio is cause for concern, but I'd rather the government (or in this case the "independent arm of President's Cabinet") take the necessary steps to shakedown the system in an attempt to determine every back door trick someone might try to use to scam the government and get free/low-cost health insurance than for the government to sit back and assume that the system is flawless.
People will always find a way to beat the system and the steps the GAO took and were successful in getting their fake applications approved only goes to illustrate how easy it could be for people to scam the system even if it means averting the frontline online application process and phoning in your application (the alternative method) instead. But I'd rather this Q/C was conducted now at a cost of a few thousand dollars than to have let it go unchecked and cost taxpayers millions!
And this from the DP King of word games? I've asked you a very specific question and you have failed to answer it.
Not true. A good line to enrage the ignorant to gain their support of your side, but still not true.
No mischaracterization at all, just not complete, it all depends on the doctors determination and classification. It is illegal for them to not provide health care based on ability to pay. In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Here's a quote from Forbes written by a person that believes in Universal Health Care, maybe you'll listen to and believe him. Oh, and by the way, the colloquial term for that law is Reagan's Health Care Mandate.
Oh. I see the problem now. You dont know anything about how healthcare is delivered in this country, and you are making generalizations about things you clearly have no knowledge of nor experience in. The EMTALA act specifically refers to those who need emergency care. If you get someone in the ER with a lump, and cancer is suspected but otherwise feel fine, you go out on the street. (see Breaking Bad for consequences)Of course not. We have a law in place that requires hospitals to provide care, of whatever level, to anyone that shows up. And yes, I agree with that law.
First of all, tax payer money is not used for that, or at least it wasn't prior to the PPACA. The same law that I refer to above required such tests to be performed if they are deemed necessary by the doctor to diagnose a medical issue. The cost was shared by all of us that actually had to pay for our own health care. I had no major problem with that, because I felt as though it was similar to me donating money to a charity, but in this case it was shared across the those that had to pay.
When you give an answer that has nothing to do with the question, then expecting extrasensory perception by the reader is a stretch. "Do you think people should pay for their meals?" "I feel that every meal should be served on china."I answered your question. You failed to understand the answer
In addition to the Reagan Health Care Mandate, there is Medicaid for citizens and legal residents that cannot pay, community clinics that provide free health care, tax payer funded free care through organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the like. So no, it isn't true. Our health care system is more encompassing than just emergency rooms and hospitals, and has been for decades. But, again, this has nothing to do with the question I asked.It's very true.
LOL I feel like I'm debating with my wife or a three year old kid from that answer. No, you were not right, and I was not wrong. But again, this has nothing to do with the question I asked.IOW, they don't have to provide care for anyone who shows up. It depends on the diagnosis and classification.
I was right, and you are wrong
You realize that you're wrong here. There is a difference between "healthcare" and "emergency care". Please become more educated.
True. I agree. I don't see it as an indictment of ObamaCare either. I see it as an indictment of the federal bureaucracies at large not providing the needed securities to ensure that limited tax payer resources are used for citizens and legal residents, and not for illegal immigrants or anyone else in the world.
If we shouldn't be the world's policeman, we're dang sure shouldn't be the world's doctor.
When you give an answer that has nothing to do with the question, then expecting extrasensory perception by the reader is a stretch. "Do you think people should pay for their meals?" "I feel that every meal should be served on china."
So, here's a simple question again. Does this mean that you do feel it is okay for non-citizens and non-legal residents to get federal tax payer subsidies for benefits meant for citizens and legal residents? Because your first answer and your continual deflections have nothing to do with the question I answered.
In addition to the Reagan Health Care Mandate, there is Medicaid for citizens and legal residents that cannot pay, community clinics that provide free health care, tax payer funded free care through organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the like. So no, it isn't true. Our health care system is more encompassing than just emergency rooms and hospitals, and has been for decades. But, again, this has nothing to do with the question I asked.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?