Cost of healthcare for illegal aliens

LilOlLady

Gold Member
Apr 20, 2009
10,015
1,311
190
Reno, NV
COST OF HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS

Nothing in the HC bill address the cost of illegal aliens using ER as their primary healthcare and county clinics where they get discounts paid for by the tax payers. To cut the cost healthcare for illegal aliens, they should be deported. I do not hear right wing nuts or village idiots complaining about that cost that they pay for. And Obama do not address it either.

Illegal aliens will be able to buy into “Exchanges” without any government assistances. The “Exchanges” will be private healthcare providers, not government owned or run but government regulated. But illegal aliens will not use it because it is not “free.” They can buy into private healthcare now and they don’t, so why do they think they will now? They can very well afford it because they drive up to ER in new expensive cars with designer wheels. They will continue to use ER and not pay and county medical and dental clinics because they get a discount as the expense of the taxpayer via of taxes and government grants.
 
Why do both parties support the idea of Amnesty?

Who does that benefit?

Well, the right claims dems want it for votes, but that is so beyond silly and lacks logic.

once all of these people go in to amnesty, they have to register as NON CITIZENS and work towards acquiring their citizenship which is a 5-10 year process depending on whose amnesty plan you go by....I think McCain's was just 5 years....but anyway, all this time....those 5-10 years, THEY CAN NOT VOTE because they are not citizens....so amnesty per say, DOES NOT help the dems with votes so that myth can hit the trash right now....imho.
 
Why do both parties support the idea of Amnesty?

Who does that benefit?

Well, the right claims dems want it for votes, but that is so beyond silly and lacks logic.

once all of these people go in to amnesty, they have to register as NON CITIZENS and work towards acquiring their citizenship which is a 5-10 year process depending on whose amnesty plan you go by....I think McCain's was just 5 years....but anyway, all this time....those 5-10 years, THEY CAN NOT VOTE because they are not citizens....so amnesty per say, DOES NOT help the dems with votes so that myth can hit the trash right now....imho.

the dems do want it for votes, and for more union members.
 
Why do both parties support the idea of Amnesty?

Who does that benefit?

Well, the right claims dems want it for votes, but that is so beyond silly and lacks logic.

once all of these people go in to amnesty, they have to register as NON CITIZENS and work towards acquiring their citizenship which is a 5-10 year process depending on whose amnesty plan you go by....I think McCain's was just 5 years....but anyway, all this time....those 5-10 years, THEY CAN NOT VOTE because they are not citizens....so amnesty per say, DOES NOT help the dems with votes so that myth can hit the trash right now....imho.

the dems do want it for votes, and for more union members.

so what do the republican politicians want it for willow? I suppose mccain wants to institute an amnesty program so that all of them can vote for Democrats???:eusa_whistle:

:lol:
 
Cheap labor - both parties want it for same. Do you think those 20M are educated people?? They are the imported, uneducated poor - whether imported legally or illegally.
 
Why do both parties support the idea of Amnesty?

Who does that benefit?

I belive you're correct.

However I'd really like to find a timely (during the past year), difinitive (non partisan) definition that confirms it.

To get on EITHER party's websites, you gotta give your name and email, blah, blah, blah...

However, even the Libertarians define thier Trade/Migration plank in a rather vauge way:

Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
 
COST OF HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS

Nothing in the HC bill address the cost of illegal aliens using ER as their primary healthcare and county clinics where they get discounts paid for by the tax payers. To cut the cost healthcare for illegal aliens, they should be deported. I do not hear right wing nuts or village idiots complaining about that cost that they pay for. And Obama do not address it either.

Illegal aliens will be able to buy into “Exchanges” without any government assistant. The “Exchanges” will be private healthcare providers, not government owned or run but government regulated. But illegal aliens will not use it because it is not “free.” They can buy into private healthcare now and they don’t, so why do they think they will now? They can very well afford it because they drive up to ER in new expensive cars with designer wheels. They will continue to use ER and not pay and county medical and dental clinics because they get a discount as the expense of the taxpayer via of taxes and government grants.

E-mail your Representatives and demand deportation. Show them its the will of the people.
 
Why do both parties support the idea of Amnesty?
The democrats have effectively made it a race issue and both parties pander for votes

Who does that benefit?
The democrats and mexicans

I wondered why it smelled like fish this morning

Its not just caddis.

editec, you (and my suspicion is WRONG)

From the 2008 Repulican Platform:

The rule of law means
1. guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay – and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult.

2. Enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry.

3. Imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S., both for their lawbreaking and for their cruel exploitation.

4. requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens.

It does not mean driver's licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits, except as provided by federal law.

We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people's rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government's past failures to enforce the law.
 
scrolled to page 45 of the 2008 Democrat Party Platform

unhappily, I couldn't cut-and-past from the PDF document (maybe someone els could), but the gist is that Democrats DO SUPPORT

"for milions living here illegally.... to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens."

To soften the blow of being sent "to the back of the line," the next sentenance adds:

"They are our neighbors, and we can help them become full tax-paying, law-abiding, members of society."

So, while the word "amnesty" never is said...........the definition of amnesty appears.
 
Why do both parties support the idea of Amnesty?
The democrats have effectively made it a race issue and both parties pander for votes

The democrats and mexicans

I wondered why it smelled like fish this morning

Its not just caddis.

editec, you (and my suspicion is WRONG)

From the 2008 Repulican Platform:

The rule of law means
1. guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay – and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult.

2. Enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry.

3. Imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S., both for their lawbreaking and for their cruel exploitation.

4. requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens.

It does not mean driver's licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits, except as provided by federal law.

We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people's rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government's past failures to enforce the law.

yah yah yah.... just words....actions are what counts and republicans had the majority in the house and senate for 12 years and what did they ever do to rectify the matter?

then you got your republican president and your presidential candidate of choice by the repubs that both supported amnesty and even had their own amnesty plans or bills in the near past....

just doublespeak samson.

While President Bush has insisted the immigration reform package he's promoting in the Senate does not provide amnesty for illegal aliens, he made an apparent slip of the tongue today that suggested otherwise, catching the attention of the bill's fervent opponents.

At a briefing today at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the president said: "You know, I've heard all the rhetoric – you've heard it, too – about how this is amnesty. Amnesty means that you've got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that."

Bush: It <i>is</i> amnesty

Sen. John McCain
Sen. John McCain's Straight Talk Express may have derailed in the New Hampshire debates.

In tonight's Fox News presidential forum, the GOP hopeful denied charges he favored an immigration-reform plan that offered amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

"I have never, ever supported amnesty, and never will," McCain asserted.

During the ABC News presidential debate on Saturday, he angrily denied it and even suggested anybody who says he did support amnesty is a "liar, is lying."

But in a May 28, 2003, press conference in Tucson, the Arizona senator said Congress should pass a guest-worker program that includes "amnesty" for illegal workers in the U.S.

"I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people," McCain said. "Amnesty has to be an important part, because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens."

"He used the word," noted GOP rival Gov. Mitt Romney during the Fox debate, referring to amnesty.

He also pointed out that McCain co-sponsored a bill to provide so-called Z visas to illegals who "earn the right," as McCain explained, to stay in the U.S. That includes paying a $5,000 fine and maintaining a job here, McCain said.

McCain called plan 'amnesty' in 2003
 
The democrats have effectively made it a race issue and both parties pander for votes

The democrats and mexicans

I wondered why it smelled like fish this morning

Its not just caddis.

editec, you (and my suspicion is WRONG)

From the 2008 Repulican Platform:

yah yah yah.... just words....actions are what counts and republicans had the majority in the house and senate for 12 years and what did they ever do to rectify the matter?

then you got your republican president and your presidential candidate of choice by the repubs that both supported amnesty and even had their own amnesty plans or bills in the near past....

just doublespeak samson.

Well, I went through some trouble to research what the parties ACTUALLY said in their November 2008 platforms.

Both of your sources preceed these, and are highly interpretive. Plus, who cares what John McCain said 5 years ago? Who cares what may have "slipped" from Bush? You realise Bush isn't President any more, and hasn't been for some time?

Maybe next you'd like to present a WND article quoting Dewight Eisenhower's position on Amnesty?:lol:

Obviously, I'd rather see something DONE, but compared with any other statement of intent, I'd say "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY" is pretty easy to interpret, and if someone opposes amnesty, then voting for republicans would be the obvious choice
 
Yea, they dont have to fine them, they already know where the one they have working for them are why not start by sending them back.
 
I wondered why it smelled like fish this morning

Its not just caddis.

editec, you (and my suspicion is WRONG)

From the 2008 Repulican Platform:

yah yah yah.... just words....actions are what counts and republicans had the majority in the house and senate for 12 years and what did they ever do to rectify the matter?

then you got your republican president and your presidential candidate of choice by the repubs that both supported amnesty and even had their own amnesty plans or bills in the near past....

just doublespeak samson.

Well, I went through some trouble to research what the parties ACTUALLY said in their November 2008 platforms.

Both of your sources preceed these, and are highly interpretive. Plus, who cares what John McCain said 5 years ago? Who cares what may have "slipped" from Bush? You realise Bush isn't President any more, and hasn't been for some time?

Maybe next you'd like to present a WND article quoting Dewight Eisenhower's position on Amnesty?:lol:

Obviously, I'd rather see something DONE, but compared with any other statement of intent, I'd say "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY" is pretty easy to interpret, and if someone opposes amnesty, then voting for republicans would be the obvious choice

He hasn't been president for 1 year dear, 1 year....but he was the previous 8 and the republicans were in complete power....who do you think the gop is, those not in power or in office? Who's been put in to POWER is who counts....not some phony rhetoric writen as a supposed stance or pledge....

as I said, actions speak louder than words and there has been absolutely no ACTION on the part of the GOP to even remotely take care of this problem.

You are being had by your party, Samson....imo.
 
yah yah yah.... just words....actions are what counts and republicans had the majority in the house and senate for 12 years and what did they ever do to rectify the matter?

then you got your republican president and your presidential candidate of choice by the repubs that both supported amnesty and even had their own amnesty plans or bills in the near past....

just doublespeak samson.

Well, I went through some trouble to research what the parties ACTUALLY said in their November 2008 platforms.

Both of your sources preceed these, and are highly interpretive. Plus, who cares what John McCain said 5 years ago? Who cares what may have "slipped" from Bush? You realise Bush isn't President any more, and hasn't been for some time?

Maybe next you'd like to present a WND article quoting Dewight Eisenhower's position on Amnesty?:lol:

Obviously, I'd rather see something DONE, but compared with any other statement of intent, I'd say "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY" is pretty easy to interpret, and if someone opposes amnesty, then voting for republicans would be the obvious choice

He hasn't been president for 1 year dear, 1 year....but he was the previous 8 and the republicans were in complete power....who do you think the gop is, those not in power or in office? Who's been put in to POWER is who counts....not some phony rhetoric writen as a supposed stance or pledge....

as I said, actions speak louder than words and there has been absolutely no ACTION on the part of the GOP to even remotely take care of this problem.

You are being had by your party, Samson....imo.

How? I'm no Republican.

However, I'd rather examine facts than, 2003 quotes from McCain (that he denied) and a 2007 article based on a blogger's opinion, or what you'd call "Phony Rhetoric:" like:

"republicans were in complete power" Really?

No, sweetie, no party is ever in COMPLETE power.

Don't despair: The Easter Bunny will still lay Chocolate Eggs for you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top