BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Anti Immigrant Crowd Full Of Shit On The Medical Front

FRIDAY DECEMBER 14 2007 9:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: Illegal Immigration, Health Care

Ah, the dirty illegal immigrant. They are responsible for all of the horrible problems facing our nation today and will soon become the Republicans talking point for the �08 elections. Never mind that the issue usually polls fifth or lower on American�s most important issues, they are brown and most importantly, they can�t defend themselves. The perfect target. What illegal immigrant will be appearing on "Larry King Live" or "20/20" to make their case? Turns out, none. Unfortunately, these pesky things called facts keep getting in the way of the immigrant hating kids arguments. The biggest fallacy is that illegal immigrants are the biggest problem facing our health care system.

The costs of medical care for immigrants are staggering.

Well, that is a load of bullshit. Just take a look at this UCLA study released last month.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are 50% less likely than U.S.-born Latinos to use hospital emergency rooms in California, according to a study published Monday in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

But�but�they are brown and bad. Turns out illegal immigrants don�t like to go to hospitals or doctors because�they are illegal immigrants. Seems they don�t being asked for ID cards, Social Security numbers and their employment history. How any retard could not have figured that out is beyond me. They live in fear, the last place they want to go is to a hospital and answer questions.

"The current policy discourse that undocumented immigrants are a burden on the public because they overuse public resources is not borne out with data, for either primary care or emergency department care," said Alexander N. Ortega, an associate professor at UCLA's School of Public Health and the study's lead author. "In fact, they seem to be underutilizing the system, given their health needs."

Last year RAND also published a study that indicated illegal immigrants are not as costly as everyone seems to think they are.

A Rand Corp. study published last year in the journal Health Affairs put the cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants nationwide at $1.1 billion a year, excluding care for those younger than 18 and older than 64.

That�s about 11 bucks per household. Now, how much money do you think you save from their cheap labor?

Another 2005 study came to the same conclusion.

Immigrants in the U.S. receive surprisingly little health care - 55% less than native-born Americans -according to a Harvard/Columbia University study that appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health. Immigrant children received particularly low levels of care, 74% less overall than other children.

Another reason we don�t spend very much on illegal immigrants is because we only give them bare minimum care. Due to 1986 Medicaid reforms, illegal immigrants can only receive emergency care that is� necessary to stabilize a patient.� After that, they have to pay. So, basically, we pick up the tab for care that keeps them alive and nothing else.

Oh, and illegal immigrants also pay taxes. What? Yeah, you heard me, you unread donkey. They pay taxes. According to a new Congressional Budget Office report on health care and immigration, illegal immigrants also get hit by the tax man.

The CBO reports that in 2004, undocumented immigrants in Iowa paid between $45.5 million and $70.9 million in state income and sales taxes and New Mexico collected $69 million in income, property, and sales taxes from undocumented immigrants in 2006. Immigrant payment of sales tax is especially important, because it reimburses state and local governments.

They also kick some serious pesos into Social Security and Medicare � and they won�t see a fucking dime of that money.

The estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

In 2004, illegal immigrants contributions came to 10 percent of that year�s surplus. But you keep crying about the brown people, while they work so you can sit your fat ass down at the age of 65. The CBO concluded that between 50 and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes, which means 25 to 50 percent do not. Not exactly what we are led to believe by the anti-immigrant lunatics, is it? Meanwhile,

16.3 percent of Americans are taking a pass on paying taxes. I wonder how many of them complain about illegal immigrants?

You�re going to hear a lot from the Republicans about how horrible illegal immigrants are over the next few months. They are the new gay marriage. They are going to be portrayed as evil, little, welfare queens who are overwhelming our system. But as far as medical care goes, know they are pretty full of shit.

Take a look at who is really skyrocketing the cost of our health care:

A record 47 million Americans did not have health insurance last year, while the percentage of children without insurance rose for a second consecutive year, according to US Census Bureau data released yesterday

Yeah, 47 million Americans is a tad bit more than 10 million illegal immigrants, especially when you factor in the above study claiming illegal immigrants are 50% less likely to seek out care. So, shut your fucking clown holes and fix the real problem first. Then you get to go after the smaller problems.

590 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 40

videoeye

Dallas, TX

July 2005

DEC 15, 2007 08:29 AM

inkonnu said:

Zarth said:
No. The biggest problem that Americans have with immigrants of any kind is that they speak languages other than English. That's what they complain about most.

Actually, yes, you're quite right there, that is another reason, but, that in itself is not a racially-based issue, but one of common sense, and again, good manners. If moving to another country, it would make sense (and be polite) to at least have a basic grasp of the primary language.

So this country should learn the native languages as primary language... some times is easier to kill them, in that case UK have large experience.

ooops

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

DEC 15, 2007 08:29 AM

inkonnu said:

Zarth said:
No. The biggest problem that Americans have with immigrants of any kind is that they speak languages other than English. That's what they complain about most.

Actually, historically and currently, living among people with different languages and cultures is one of the best things about America. I couldn't care less that someone next to me is speaking Russian, Swahili, or Spanish. I don't know why anyone would. But, I'm sure that you're one of those people who believes that those Italian and German immigrants who came to America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries spoke English immediately or assimilated immediately. (Hell, i have friends with Italian grandmothers who STILL never speak English, and they seem to do just okay. But they're not Mexican, so I guess it's different)

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

DEC 15, 2007 08:39 AM

inkonnu said:

Zarth said:
I contest that it's based off common sense.

Sorry, but you contest what, precicely? You quoted a rather large chunk of my post and have made no clarification precicely what part you are disagreeing with...

Surprisingly enough, the part where you said you thought immigrant-baiting was based off common sense. I should have that would be clear. As in,

inkonnu said:

Zarth said:
No. The biggest problem that Americans have with immigrants of any kind is that they speak languages other than English. That's what they complain about most.

Actually, yes, you're quite right there, that is another reason, but, that in itself is not a racially-based issue, but one of common sense

As I said,

Zarth said:
People here hate seeing storefront signs in Spanish. They feel personally affronted.

A storefront sign in an ethnic enclave has no particular reason to be in English, and hence there is no legitimate to take offense. You can pretend that it's about "courtesy" or "respect," but I can't buy that. That's like advocating the deportation of jaywalkers, or people who spit on the sidewalk. It's an opinion, sure, but I'm not going to call it rational no matter how you try to prettify it, as you attempt below.

inkonnu said:
Yes, there is a perfectly rational explanation for that. It goes back to what I talked about as respect being a two-way street, and an immigrant
requiring (by US Law) the ability to read, write and speak English as a condition of emmigration. When someone emigrates to another country, common courtessy means assimilating and integrating into that new society. The primary language of the US (and UK) is English. It is reasonable to expect immigrants (to either country) to be have a sufficient grasp of the language to function within that society. There are places in the UK where steet signs are 'doubled up' and written in Arabic. Things like that do absolutely nothing to encourage people to assimilate or learn English, but only serve to reinforce 'minority communities', and give reasons for not learning English, which, as mentioned before, is a legal requirement in both countries (One moreso than the other) People find that an affront, for the simple reason that it gives the impression that the immigrants do not want to actually assimilate and participate in the overall community of the country. As for persuasion, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, and you are free to disagree with my opinion as you wish. However, not everything which I am saying, is purely 'opinion', but factual, and facts are not as open to debate as opinions. Facts are either right or wrong.

Was there supposed to be a pint in there somewhere? Oh, yeah. People who don't learn English are "rude." Bad, bad people! Send the fuckers back home! And that's a fact!

Can you really do no better than that?

inkonnu said:
People directly unaffected by immigration (ie people who have not lost jobs to migrant workers) could 'care' because they feel the hospitality of their home nation is being abused or insulted (by lack of assimilation, which is expected of legal immigrants) However, people who it does affect (like the girl who couldn't get the job at a factory because she couldn't speak Polish) are going to feel very strongly about it.

Right. Because that happens all the time.

inkonnu said:
Prejudice is not even the issue, but one of resentment for actual hardships imposed (ie not able to get a job, or, perceived insults or abuses of one's nation's hospitality)

Inasmuch as you've provided no evidence whatsoever of any given individual in the United States actually enduring a "hardship" due to illegal immigration, I'd say this argument of yours that it's not about prejudice is pretty thin. As far I can tell, it consists entirely of you saying "it's not about prejudice" and expecting that to be taken as proof that it is, indeed, not about prejudice.

I'll just hang onto my doubts about that a little longer, thanks.

inkonnu said:
The example I mentioned was not of a factory which closed down, but one which was crewed primarily by immigrants from Poland who clearly had not the English-skills to communicate on a professional basis with a British-born English speaker, which resulted in that British-born person being turned away from a job, and that, is a totally unacceptable state of affairs, and is a prime example of how people can be affected by migrant workers, and how they can feel resentment to them, in a way entirely unmotivated by race or ethnicity. Another example, would be a few years back where a group of building contractors in Scotland had their contracts on a half-finished project terminated. Their bosses told them that there simply wasn't any more work for them, yet a week later, the site was being crewed by Polish builders, who would have been working for a fraction of the wages of the original builders. To touch back on your point, yes, it's the 'suits' who took the people's jobs away, but, the manner in which they re-staffed them makes it easy to understand why the original workers would feel unjustly dealt with, and resent the migrant workers. It's also easy to understand why any rational person hearing about such an occurence would sympathise with the original workers.

Why? Some people have jobs, and others don't. That's capitalism, which I object to for rather different issues than language, and with regards to which I have no impulse whatsoever to assign blame to anyone not in a decisionmaking capacity. In any event, your anecdotes may have some relevance in Britain (though frankly I remain dubious), but they're inapplicable to the United States. Which, after all, is the point under discussion.

inkonnu said:
I never said that they weren't discriminated against, and yes, it would be naive to pretend that race and ethnicity sadly does still play a large part in our society, that was not the point I was illustrating though. I pointed out that many people (Not White Power Radicals) have issues with illegal immigrants for economic reasons which were nothing to do with color (as the OP's comments tried to insinuate that that was the issue) You then pointed out that there are Irish illegal immigrants which do not have the same lies thrown at them, to which I pointed out, that a key difference is not skin color, but their ability to speak English, and pointed out that if you substitute 'Irish' for 'Lithuanian' or 'Latvian', you would have the exact same scenario as with the Hispanic illegal immigrants, as, skin color asside, there is the common factor of not being able to speak English, and the problems that creates.

You have ignored, however, my assertion that the issue of language is one of prejudice, inasmuch as it operates in domains where there are no problems created. I've known Americans to get upset hearing Vietnamese spoken on a public bus between two Vietnamese.

inkonnu said:
Sorry, but how can facts be ambiguous? Facts are facts, constant to themselves. Opinions, certainly, can and do change, but facts remain the same regardless of the observer's acceptance of them.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that statistics can never be misrepresented, misread, or amenable to more than possible interpretation. Silly me.

inkonnu said:
I would quite agree that illegal immigrants can bring net value to a nation's economy, by doing work which the native workers either 1) consider is beneath them and refuse to do, or 2) do jobs which native workers will do, but at a reduced salary. However, that does nothing to change the fact that, as mentioned previously, yes, they are paying taxes which they are unable to benefit from. But. The reason they are unable to benefit from those taxes is because they are in the country illegally, and nothing in the world will change that fact. Countries have immigration policies which affect everyone, and which everyone entering the country is expected to adhere to and follow. Those rules do not suddenly no longer apply just because someone cannot afford to immigrate legally, and the suggestion that they shouldn't apply, is nothing but an affront to all those immigrants who do go through the procedures and requirements and still contribute to the local economy when they do so.

I don't find this argument particularly compelling, either. Both legal and illegal immigrants face challenges. I don't see how bureaucratic conformity confers any special virtues on one at the expense of the other.

For the record, I have no particular opinion on illegal immigration, beyond a general disgust at the wetback-baiting I see in this country as purveyed by our mediocracy of political reactionaries and mouth-breathers. I'm not particularly in favor of an amnesty, but neither am I set against one. I have no objection to the growing importance of Spanish in this country (or Somali, or Polish, or any other language which I'm not privileged to speak). And I, unlike many immigration opponents, have actually lost a job to an illegal immigrant. I didn't complain - that job sucked. I just took it on the chin and moved on.

Because that's the grownup thing to do.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

DEC 15, 2007 09:12 AM

luxmeaveritas said:
Nearly did so and did so are two very different things.

Indeed they are. However, your comment appeared to be making the assumption that I had no idea of the costs and difficulties involved with emigrating to America in a legal manner. I merely pointed out, that although I did not emigrate, I still know the requirements which were in effect.

luxmeaveritas said:
And the effective cost of things in politics is never irrelevant. This isn't a Panerai watch, this is something inelastic. If bread was $2,000 a loaf, yeah it doesn't give someone the right to steal it, but it sure as hell explains why they did. And I never said that it was everyone's right to come here illegally in the first place.

Oh don't try that old "I never said..." routine. The statements you were making about people's family's dying was a blatant attempt to justify why people emigrate illegally. And no, it's not a Panerai watch, but the situation, is comparable. You were the one who raised the issue of cost of immigration being a reason why people may do so illegally, because they cannot afford to do so legally, and I merely pointed out, that if someone can't afford something, then just because they want it, that does not give them the right to gain it by illegal means.

luxmeaveritas said:
I didn't, that's why I put the if there. It's a small word but it's common knowledge that when you have an "if, then" statement and you fail to prove the "if," it follows that you cannot be the "then."

And given your opening question, your following comments appeared to be condescending and belittling, which was utterly unnecessary.

luxmeaveritas said:
Illegal immigrants aren't complaining? Hmm... maybe it's because they can't? Or maybe its because they're too busy trying to survive?

Or maybe they are complaining? Day Without Immigrants

And I'm not sure who you're quoting about white liberals or why that's included as somehow necessary to your argument. I don't think "legal reform" = "cutting everyone a break". Actually, I think that's a logical fallacy known as appeal to ridicule.

Okay, so it was a generalization, but, an accurate one. For the most part, it is the liberals in society who are saying that people should have X rights and Y rights, or that people shouldn't do X for fear of offending Y Minority group, when those groups they are so concerned about, aren't offended, and aren't that bothered (or certainly not as bothered as their champions are)
As for 'legal reform', sorry, but as I pointed out above, such reforms are a slap in the face of everyone who has ever legally emigrated to a country and made every effort to fit into their new surroundings.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

DEC 15, 2007 09:17 AM

videoeye said:Refer to someone as "brown" is not the same as "dirty brown illegals".

Don't be facetious. No, it's not the same thing, but it is still an unnecessary label to attach to someone, and one which is intended to cast a derogetory tone over the comment. As I pointed out, many people's objections to illegal immigrants have nothings whatsoever to do with race or ethnicity. Of course, the White Power Radicals and KKK might feel somewhat differently, but thankfully, they are a rather minority opinion.

videoeye said:
I'm not surprised about the amount of racist phrases coming from this comments on this website, but is always good to know who is the next on my ignore list.

Put me on your ignore list if you want, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me, but I would appreciate you not suggesting that I may be making racist statements or phrases, as I have done nothing of the sort, and have gone out of my way to illustrate how many people's opinion on the issue is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with issues of ethnicity or race.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

DEC 15, 2007 09:20 AM

videoeye said:So this country should learn the native languages as primary language... some times is easier to kill them, in that case UK have large experience.

ooops

Whoops yourself, I never said that. Did I.
I said, that a country's PRIMARY LANGUAGE is what immigrants should learn, and pointed out that in the US, one of the LEGAL REQUIREMENTS of immigration is that the applicant have the ability to read, write and speak English. Immigrants are also expected to undergo naturalization classes and classes in American History. That has nothing whatsoever to do with a country's NATIVE language, so please don't try and twist my words like that.

1983boy

Columbia, MD

July 2004

DEC 15, 2007 09:24 AM

Wow. The poster of this article put more spin on it that an O'reilly factor segment.
I worry about our country when I look at this article and some of the responses it got. Honestly.
First. What if, and this is a stretch, UCLA, put political influence behind this survey. Although it sounds nearly unbelieveable, it would probubly come out to look something like... the article above.
Second. I don't understand how anyone , of either party , could argue that Illegal immigrate workers save us money on cheap labor. Yes, absolutely they do that. which we should be ashamed of for having so many workers getting paid so little in a country with a federal minimum wage. Not to mention with that these workers are taking jobs away from legal american laborers.

What really kills me is when people turn this issue into a racial issue. This isn't a racial issue. American's of both parties are worried about unsecured borders and immigrates from any nation and any ethnic backround. Some of the biggest opponents of these illegal workers are Hispanic Americans, whose families came here through legal channels. It is an insult to us to see people coming here illegally and immorally after all the hard work our families went through.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

DEC 15, 2007 09:25 AM

PointBlank said:
Actually, historically and currently, living among people with different languages and cultures is one of the best things about America. I couldn't care less that someone next to me is speaking Russian, Swahili, or Spanish.

I couldn't care less what language someone is speaking either. I never said that I did. All I pointed out, was that migration legislature (to both the US and UK) specifies the applicant having a reasonable grasp of English, and then gave an example where a person's speaking another language was a problem in a work-related setting (where clear communications are essential)

PointBlank said:But, I'm sure that you're one of those people who believes that those Italian and German immigrants who came to America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries spoke English immediately or assimilated immediately.

Not at all, but thanks for making the assumption

PointBlank said:
But they're not Mexican, so I guess it's different)

It doesn't matter what country their from. I did mention (several times) that race or ethnicity is not an issue. I guess that wasn't made clear enough

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

DEC 15, 2007 10:27 AM

Zarth said:
Surprisingly enough, the part where you said you thought immigrant-baiting was based off common sense.

Immigrant-baiting? Sorry, you'll have to explain that phrase to me. Meaning baiting as in 'harrassing'? If that's your meaning, then don't try putting words in my mouth, as nowhere in my posts did I say anything about justifying or validating harrassing immigrants. I pointed out the rational explanations why people might be affronted by certain aspects of immigration, but I never once suggested that they should be harrassed or victimized.

Zarth said:A storefront sign in an ethnic enclave has no particular reason to be in English, and hence there is no legitimate to take offense.

If it's in an 'ethnic enclave', then absolutely. However, that still does nothing to encourage the people who reside there to integrate themselves into the society around them.

Zarth said:You can pretend that it's about "courtesy" or "respect," but I can't buy that.

Would you move to a country where you could not speak or understand the primary language? If you were to move with a limited knowledge of the language, would you make attempts to learn the language?
If not, then 'courtessy' and 'respect', are clearly not concepts you understand.

Zarth said:That's like advocating the deportation of jaywalkers, or people who spit on the sidewalk. It's an opinion, sure, but I'm not going to call it rational no matter how you try to prettify it, as you attempt below.

No, it is like neither of those things. If you're going to try and use strawmen, at least try and use ones which are comparable to the situation or ethics involved. It is not a case of prettifying anything, but stating what are the legal requirements for immigration to certain countries, and what is also good manners on the part of the immigrant themselves to integrate themselves into the country which has accepted them.

Zarth said:Can you really do no better than that?

Funny, I was thinking the same things about your own responces...

Zarth said:Right. Because that happens all the time.

The frequency of it's occurence is not the issue. The issue, is that it happens at all, when, if government-specified criteria were followed, it would not happen at all.

Zarth said:
Inasmuch as you've provided no evidence whatsoever of any given individual in the United States actually enduring a "hardship" due to illegal immigration, I'd say this argument of yours that it's not about prejudice is pretty thin. As far I can tell, it consists entirely of you saying "it's not about prejudice" and expecting that to be taken as proof that it is, indeed, not about prejudice.

I'll just hang onto my doubts about that a little longer, thanks.

Sorry, I was relaying examples as they had applied to the UK, as it is not unreasonable to assume that similar incidents occur in the US, and that, economic reasons could be behind people's concerned about immigration, rather than the standard practice of Concerned about Immigration = Racist. Sorry, but that's just not the case. Sure, there are racists out there who don't want 'the darkies' coming into their country, but it is certainly not the issue for the majority of people with concerns about illigal immigration.

Zarth said:Why? Some people have jobs, and others don't. That's capitalism, which I object to for rather different issues than language, and with regards to which I have no impulse whatsoever to assign blame to anyone not in a decisionmaking capacity. In any event, your anecdotes may have some relevance in Britain (though frankly I remain dubious), but they're inapplicable to the United States. Which, after all, is the point under discussion.

Same point as above really. Feel free to discount them if you want, I'm just showing that there are examples of immigrant workers affecting native workers, primarily because both our countries have similar requirements for English comprehension from prospective immigrants.

Zarth said:
You have ignored, however, my assertion that the issue of language is one of prejudice, inasmuch as it operates in domains where there are no problems created. I've known Americans to get upset hearing Vietnamese spoken on a public bus between two Vietnamese.

Okay, I obviously misunderstood your assertion about that issue of language. I quite agree, there are people who get upset about hearing foreign languages in public, but those people are mostly closed-minded closet-racist fucks. The point I was trying to make about language was two-fold. Firstly, our governments make requirements that immigrants have a reasonable grasp of English. Secondly, non-understanding of English in business and professional environments (which I did specify in my point about the Polish factory workers) can have impacts on the job market. Whatever language people want to speak privately is up to them and fine by me. However, when they come into the public forum of working, then they should be speaking the primary language of that country (in the US and UK, that would be English) and, as mentioned numerous times, is a governmental requirement.

Zarth said:
Oh, sorry. I forgot that statistics can never be misrepresented, misread, or amenable to more than possible interpretation. Silly me.

Misinterpretation is the issue of the observer, not the data.

Zarth said:
I don't find this argument particularly compelling, either. Both legal and illegal immigrants face challenges. I don't see how bureaucratic conformity confers any special virtues on one at the expense of the other.

Sorry if you view 'the rules' as 'bureaucratic conformity', but that's the way of the world. The rules are there, and they are applied equally and fairly to all. If people do not meet the criteria, for whatever reason, then that is unfortunate, but too bad. It does not justify illegal actions. As I said previously, Panerai watches are expensive, but that does not give someone who wants one, but can't afford one, the right to brick a window and loot one.

Zarth said:
For the record, I have no particular opinion on illegal immigration, beyond a general disgust at the wetback-baiting I see in this country as purveyed by our mediocracy of political reactionaries and mouth-breathers. I

Zarth said:
I have no objection to the growing importance of Spanish in this country (or Somali, or Polish, or any other language which I'm not privileged to speak).

Indeed, linguisting fluctuations and evolutions are just part and parcel of life. I have no beef with that at all. The only thing I would say, is that when it comes to business interactions, people should be speaking a common language. I believe, that English is the common language of the Aviation Industry world wide (happy to be proven wrong on that)

Zarth said:And I, unlike many immigration opponents, have actually lost a job to an illegal immigrant. I didn't complain - that job sucked. I just took it on the chin and moved on.

Because that's the grownup thing to do.

Sorry to hear about your experience, and I'm sure something will come up when the time is right.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

DEC 15, 2007 10:41 AM

inkonnu said:

PointBlank said:
But they're not Mexican, so I guess it's different)

It doesn't matter what country their [sic] from. I did mention (several times) that race or ethnicity is not an issue. I guess that wasn't made clear enough

Yeah, but you saying "it doesn't matter" really doesn't make it so, you realize, right?

The fact is, Mexican (and to a point, immigration from the other countries south of the US border) immigration is very different than immigration from other countries. I'm surprised that anyone could argue otherwise. How, for example, do you propose to stop illegal immigration when we share a border with a country with such a different standard of living?

Secondly, as far as the learning English issue: For literally centuries immigrants have been coming to America speaking their own languages, living in (to different degrees) their own communities (Little Italys, Cinatowns, etc). What, exactly, is wrong with that?