Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Illegals and access to health care

Just a question for those obsessing over health care reform and illegal immigrants: Were your panties this twisted when Reagan signed The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act or when Bush signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act?

Just wondering if the outrage swings both ways.

Answer Question
 
shesajar

Asked by shesajar at 1:32 PM on Sep. 12, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 1 (0 Credits)
Answers (15)
  • I didn't have a problem with either of these bills, as they were designed to help AMERICAN CITIZENS. I have a problem with such programs helping ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!

    EMTALA is primarily but not exclusively a non-discrimination statute. One would cover most of its purpose and effect by characterizing it as providing that no patient who presents with an emergency medical condition and who is unable to pay may be treated differently than patients who are covered by health insurance. That is not the entire scope of EMTALA, however; it imposes affirmative obligations which go beyond non-discrimination.

    On December 8, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173). This landmark legislation provides seniors and individuals with disabilities with a prescription drug benefit, more choices, and better benefits under Medicare.


    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 1:42 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • I agree that they were good bills, designed to help American citizens. But so is Obama's proposed health care plan, which will *not* have a provision allowing coverage for illegal immigrants. Both of the bills I referenced in the question *do* allow for it, however.
    shesajar

    Answer by shesajar at 1:53 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • which will *not* have a provision allowing coverage for illegal immigrants.

    ***

    ONLY because of Wilson calling him a LIAR on national TV during his address. Otherwise, the language would have remained.

    The language basically said, it would not cover illegals, yet illegals wouldn't have had to prove their citizenship either....this is typical of double entondres or semantics....an art perfected by Bill Clinton. Lies and half-truths have no place in government--especially among the top leaders and lawmakers entrusted to represent the people who put them there!
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 1:58 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • Some were , some weren't. Many people thoght Bush was spending to much with the medicare D program. But Obama wants to give EVERYONE helathcare, many of them free. Why do people only want to blame someone else. When Bush did it he was wrong, now that Obama is doing it (and then some) HE is wrong. Sorry people didn't start grass roots movements when Bush was in office but thats just how it goes. Now ppeople are sick and tired of it and Obama is President. Too Bad for him. STOP SPENDING! Personally right now I say NO spending on Americans or illegals until we have a balanced budget and have retired our debt. We don't have a choice now.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 2:02 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • Whatever....I'm sure Joe Wilson is enjoying his 15 minutes.

    but the question here is would you have been opposed to EMTALA and the 2003 bills, knowing that each had provisions allowing for the coverage of illegal immigrants?
    shesajar

    Answer by shesajar at 2:05 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • **Sorry people didn't start grass roots movements when Bush was in office but thats just how it goes.**

    We weren't? Oh, that's right, we just didn't get national coverage/praise on FOX News!

    But still....neither of you have addressed the question. Would/Did you support either bill? Or would you have been equally outraged by the inclusions of illegal immigrants as.....well, people deserving of inclusion? Would you have fought for language that specifically said that illegal immigrants were not to be covered under EMTALA and to remove the provision in the 2003 law that allowed for federal reimbursements to hospitals providing health service to illegal immigrants?
    shesajar

    Answer by shesajar at 2:13 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • Of course I would have/did! I am all for helping AMERICANS (which includes LEGAL immigrants) not ILLEGALS!!!!
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 2:24 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • Fair enough. But your first answer said you didn't have a problem w/those bills as they were designed to help Americans, so I assumed that you didn't have a problem w/the inclusion of illegals in those. I guess I took that to mean that you were okay w/that as long as the bill served the greater good.
    shesajar

    Answer by shesajar at 2:42 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • AS A FORMERILLEGAL IMMIGRANT I WOULD EXPECT HEALTH CARE BUT IW OULD EXPECT TAHT IF I GO TO A HOSPITAL I WOULD GET THE SAME TREATMESN LEAGAL IMMIGRNATS OR AMERICANS GET
    piwife

    Answer by piwife at 3:30 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

  • so, piwife, if we were both hospitilized, for the same thing, you would think it fair that I would have to pay my treatment, and you, because you were in this country illegally, would get treated and go on your merry way, leaving me and others to pay for your treatment, and our own as well?
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:22 PM on Sep. 12, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN