Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
ETA: So I read it. And the final statement in it - “give providers more money to care for undocumented” (subsidize their care) - is exactly my prescription.
Nothing you’ve cited demonstrates any significant portion of HC coverage can be afforded by the average undocumented immigrant. And the math, even some of the facts in that article, suggest undocumenteds don’t have the ability to pay for any substantial portion of such coverage. So really, where we’re at is you disagreeing with my assessment such HC coverage would be “almost entirely” subsidized. But given what we know now, there exists a huge and credible basis for use of that measurement. The standard of contrary proof is yours, and you’ve got a job on your hands.
|
On an individual basis, *anyone* who has any significant healthcare expenses is being subsidized by others who don't. That's what private insurance is, and that's what the ACA does. The number of people who can afford to pay for their coverage without being "subsidized" by their coverage is vanishingly small. So everyone, or almost everyone, is "subsidized." (When rich people are covered by their insurance, we acknowledge that their wealth gives them a moral claim to whatever they want, so we don't dwell on that.) The whole point of health insurance is to make this subsidy happen.
Undocumented immigrants work. That's why they want to be here. They make less money than most people, but they also use less healthcare.
Now, I understand that you have a standing objection to universal healthcare on the ground that 'we can't afford it' (not quoting you there, but I also don't think I'm misrepresenting your views). We actually can afford it, objectively, much as we can afford military spending in excess of the next several militaries cumulatively, or to put men on the moon, or to be fighting wars on mainland Asia for decades. 'We can't afford it' is not a statement of accounting fact, but a euphemism for 'that's not important to me.'
Saying that healthcare for immigrants will be "almost entirely subsidized" is the same sort of rhetorical. "Subsidized" is a great word because it rests on baseline assumptions about who deserves want. Immigrants are here, working. If your view is, they can pay taxes directly and drive economic activity that generates more taxes indirectly, and they don't deserve any benefit from government spending, then, yes, it follows that letting them participate in health insurance is a form of subsidy.
Maybe that's not what you meant. But you're still assuming that if the government spends money on immigrants, it's a subsidy, which is too say that immigrants pay taxes but shouldn't expect to get anything back. Would you ever say that Mississipians are subsidized by defense spending because they pay less in taxes but receive the same (or more) per capita benefits? The framing of the basec complaint -- "poor people are getting something they don't deserve" -- is fundamentally conservative.
Threaded Mode