Insurance mandate opens door for solutions to other problems

[GreNME]

70% of the babies born in Parkland Hospital, Dallas last year were from illegal Mexicans.

I got news for you, the illegals are not going to pay the fine, and they are not going to pay insurance. They're going to keep right on going to EM rooms and getting service for free.

To get tracked down on a fine, you have to be working with a valid SSN. Someone in the cash economy, no can find. (or fine)

You're not just a liar, you're a prejudiced liar. The correct quote is that 70-80% of women who gave birth at Parkland Hospital in Dallas had Hispanic last names. Neither the hospital nor anyone else involved with the hospital even tracks citizenship status. Stop making things up out of whole cloth.

 

[mhaze]

I notice you made no attempt whatsoever to back up your claim that 70% of newborns in a particular hospital were born to "illegal" Mexicans.

Right, generally I like to sucker ignorant savages with their spears and jungle chants in way closer before showing what I've got.

(Plain English Translation for those with the commonly seen disorder of witlag: Obeyme drones reading talking points from latest Huffypost and Moveon meme).

(Definition of witlag for those further challenged by simplicity: Witlag is in politically correct speak, "wit challenged").

So, again, what is your source for the claim that 70% of the babies born in Parkland Hospital, Dallas last year were from illegal Mexicans?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

Even asking about a question like this indicates some level of ignorance, but to some extent in a conversation like this we should try to clear up ignorance and present facts.

I picked Parkland at Dallas as an example, the situation is way way worse as you go down closer to the border.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Right, generally I like to sucker ignorant savages with their spears and jungle chants in way closer before showing what I've got.

(Plain English Translation for those with the commonly seen disorder of witlag: Obeyme drones reading talking points from latest Huffypost and Moveon meme).

(Definition of witlag for those further challenged by simplicity: Witlag is in politically correct speak, "wit challenged").

Not merely poising the well here; I think it's been drained and the water replaced with acid ...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

Even asking about a question like this indicates some level of ignorance, but to some extent in a conversation like this we should try to clear up ignorance and present facts.

Oh, I'm sorry that we're on a skeptics' board here. If you make claims, you're going to be asked to back them up.

I note the article is three years old. The hospital is in a county where a neighbouring county is demanding immigration documents before treating patients. So of course people without papers are going to go to a hospital that doesn't ask questions. Don't you think that might skew the numbers a bit?

I picked Parkland at Dallas as an example, the situation is way way worse as you go down closer to the border.

Interesting. Can you back up that claim?

 

[mhaze]

Not merely poising the well here; I think it's been drained and the water replaced with acid ...


Oh, I'm sorry that we're on a skeptics' board here. If you make claims, you're going to be asked to back them up......

Oh? Be advised that the honored JREF liberal controller tactic of asking the other person to go do some work by backing up claims is in today's world, filtered by the presence of Google.

In other words, Google is your friend. And thanks for noting the nice job done on my cleaning out the poisoned well.

....I note the article is three years old. The hospital is in a county where a neighbouring county is demanding immigration documents before treating patients. So of course people without papers are going to go to a hospital that doesn't ask questions. Don't you think that might skew the numbers a bit?

Interesting. Can you back up that claim?

You can speculate on the effect of neighborning hospitals all you want. But that was not the question that you asked for an answer to, was it?

I'm curious, do you have a point? The search phrase is "anchor babies" and the problem, including it's extent with numerous statistics, is well documented.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Oh? Be advised that the honored JREF liberal controller tactic of asking the other person to go do some work by backing up claims is in today's world, filtered by the presence of Google.

In other words, Google is your friend.

You threw out a statistic that appeared preposterous. Us liberals know from much past experience (especially in the health care debate) that ideological people love their out-of-context quotes As you should know, simply saying something does not make it true. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If you make a claim, you are the one expected to back it up.

And thanks for noting the nice job done on my cleaning out the poisoned well.

If you think UHC is poison, you are ignorant of the experience in Canada, the UK, most countries in the British Commonwealth, and Europe.

You can speculate on the effect of neighborning hospitals all you want. But that was not the question that you asked for an answer to, was it?

You made a claim that I found difficult to believe and asked you for your source. You did, but only after much condescension and insult. Good tactics when playing to a crowd, but a lousy way to conduct a public policy debate.

So when you at last supplied the reference that I asked for, I read through it and found an obvious reason why one hospital had a very high rate of births to apparently illegal immigrants. I also noted it may have been a statistical anomaly, as it covered a three month period in 2006. It's not indicative of all hospitals in the region, and may have been highly skewed due to the presence of a county next door that scared off the illegals.

I'm curious, do you have a point? The search phrase is "anchor babies" and the problem, including it's extent with numerous statistics, is well documented.

Yes, I made the point earlier, but I'll make it again. If you make a claim, you are the one to back it up. Don't expect us to do your work for you. Witness Beerina's spamming of the the healthcare threads with his statement that universal healthcare kills innovation. He's been asked to back it up many times and never has.

 

[mhaze]

You threw out a statistic that appeared preposterous. Us liberals know from much past experience (especially in the health care debate) that ideological people love their out-of-context quotes As you should know, simply saying something does not make it true. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If you make a claim, you are the one expected to back it up.


If you think UHC is poison, you are ignorant of the experience in Canada, the UK, most countries in the British Commonwealth, and Europe.


You made a claim that I found difficult to believe and asked you for your source. You did, but only after much condescension and insult. Good tactics when playing to a crowd, but a lousy way to conduct a public policy debate.

So when you at last supplied the reference that I asked for, I read through it and found an obvious reason why one hospital had a very high rate of births to apparently illegal immigrants. I also noted it may have been a statistical anomaly, as it covered a three month period in 2006. It's not indicative of all hospitals in the region, and may have been highly skewed due to the presence of a county next door that scared off the illegals.


Yes, I made the point earlier, but I'll make it again. If you make a claim, you are the one to back it up. Don't expect us to do your work for you. Witness Beerina's spamming of the the healthcare threads with his statement that universal healthcare kills innovation. He's been asked to back it up many times and never has.

BWHQHAHAHAHA!

Now, you've done us the favor of telling us your point of view, I'll tell you mine.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If you make a claim, you are the one expected to back it up.

It's not an extraordinary claim that I made. It was only such in the view of you, who were ignorant of the issues.And I don't use ignorant in any critical sense, but just factual. Like I said, Google is your friend. Given that, either of us can and likely has looked at the facts of the matter concerning illegal aliens crossing the border to have babies.

I couldn't care less about your prejudices or beliefs, or what you may think is preposterous. What I think is reasonable in 2009 is for anytime anyone says anything on an internet forum, to have carefully researched their facts. That includes whoever blurts out that something sounds preposterous, you see.

You raised an issue about Parkland, you got your answer. You were wrong, and no extraordinary claim was made. You've ducted and dodged into a corner with a wild claim about differentials in the major hospitals in the areas generating a skew in Parkland. But a simple check on google invalides that theory, as I mentioned.

The better way to generate responses, in my opinion, is to offer insights or questions which are provocative, or at the least, thought provoking. My personal response to someone saying "Can you back up your claim" more often than not is just snicker-snicker-snicker.

 

[Blue Mountain]

BWHQHAHAHAHA!

Now, you've done us the favor of telling us your point of view, I'll tell you mine.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If you make a claim, you are the one expected to back it up.

It's not an extraordinary claim that I made. It was only such in the view of you, who were ignorant of the issues.And I don't use ignorant in any critical sense, but just factual. Like I said, Google is your friend. Given that, either of us can and likely has looked at the facts of the matter concerning illegal aliens crossing the border to have babies.

The 70% number seemed way out of line, and that's what changed it from an ordinary claim into an extraordinary one. I can believe that the percentage of babies born to illegals would be on a rate similar to the percentage of illegals in the overall population, and I had difficulty believing that 70% of the people living in Dallas are illegal Mexicans.

What's ordinary to you may not be ordinary to me. Suppose I made a claim that we regularly get outside temperatures of -35 degrees in winter, and the city continues running with very few problems. That's not extraordinary. to someone living in Alberta, for they see those temperatures, too. But to someone living in Texas it could well be, and it would not be out of line for such a person to ask me to back up my claim. I could get all huffy and just tell them to "Google 'winter temperatures in Winnipeg already'!" But I made the claim, so I should be prepared to back it up. Why should I expect any less of you?

 

[Blue Mountain]

You raised an issue about Parkland, you got your answer. You were wrong, and no extraordinary claim was made. You've ducted and dodged into a corner with a wild claim about differentials in the major hospitals in the areas generating a skew in Parkland. But a simple check on google invalides that theory, as I mentioned.

Uh, the claim I made about differentials in the way hospitals treat people coming in for care was in the Snopes article you linked to. I concluded that was a good reason for the 70% number, because expecting mothers will go there knowing they won't be hassled about their immigration status. I suspect the number of illegal Mexicans giving birth to babies in Tarrant County is zero, because they will refuse to provide services for her. Average out the two counties and you end up with an overall number of 35%.

The 70% number you quoted is accurate, but only for that hospital and only for the first three months of 2006. You have decidedly not shown that number is accurate for all hospitals in Texas, as you imply when say the Parkland numbers are not skewed by outside influences.

Do you believe that 70% of all babies born in Texas are to illegal immigrants? My contention is it's lower.

Questions about anchor babies in general are:

• What percentage of overall births in the US are anchor babies?
• Do they create an unsustainable drain on the US health care system?
• Do they contribute to the US economy when in a few years, they claim their right of return as US citizens, get education and jobs, and start working to contribute to the US economy? (They could also return to the US, join gangs, and terrorize good law abiding citizens. Which of the two scenarios is more common?)
• Do they indirectly contribute to the Mexican economy by sending money home to their mothers, raising their standard of living?
• Have there even been any studies done on this issue?

 

[mhaze]

Uh, the claim I made about differentials in the way hospitals treat people coming in for care was in the Snopes article you linked to. I concluded that was a good reason for the 70% number, because expecting mothers will go there knowing they won't be hassled about their immigration status. I suspect the number of illegal Mexicans giving birth to babies in Tarrant County is zero, because they will refuse to provide services for her. Average out the two counties and you end up with an overall number of 35%.

The 70% number you quoted is accurate, but only for that hospital and only for the first three months of 2006. You have decidedly not shown that number is accurate for all hospitals in Texas, as you imply when say the Parkland numbers are not skewed by outside influences.

Do you believe that 70% of all babies born in Texas are to illegal immigrants? My contention is it's lower.

Questions about anchor babies in general are:

• What percentage of overall births in the US are anchor babies?
• Do they create an unsustainable drain on the US health care system?
• Do they contribute to the US economy when in a few years, they claim their right of return as US citizens, get education and jobs, and start working to contribute to the US economy? (They could also return to the US, join gangs, and terrorize good law abiding citizens. Which of the two scenarios is more common?)
• Do they indirectly contribute to the Mexican economy by sending money home to their mothers, raising their standard of living?
• Have there even been any studies done on this issue?

I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about -35 in Canada. I've been familiar with the US Mexican border for most of my life, living at various places close to it. Basically, this issue is a big joke anywhere within about 75 miles of the border. To that point, you have Mexicans going over to have a baby who actually live in Mexico. Farther out such as in Parkland it is more the illegals that have been here some time - sometimes decades. In my view there is a giant difference between these two situations.

That's not a complete answer, but more a directional comment. EG, there are serious problems along the border which most of the USA is totally clueless about. It's not really a political thing. If you or I lived in Mexico we also would be going across and taking family members to have their babies in the US. It is to one's advantage.

The phrase "anchor babies" is more generic and refers to the total population of babies born to illegals of all types, but for practical purposes that can be limited to Mexican or Mexican long or medium term residing in the US. Numerous other hospitals show a number such as 70%. I'm sure many do not, for a wide variety of reasons. Differences in local population, etc.

 

[FlamingMoe]

And did you read the very first one of those? It includes " to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Wrong. Read it again.

Also, the last one (which has the famous "necessary and proper" clause).

Ah yes, the cluase mentioned mostly by people who have no idea what they're talking about. The necessary and proper clause does not grant Congress blanket authority to enact any piece of legislation they feel is necessary and proper, but any law that is necessary and proper to carry into effect the powers specifically enumerated immediately before that clause.

However, if you're making a charge that the bill is unconstitutional, the burden is on you to prove a conflict. You can't shift the burden to the other side requiring them to prove there is no constitutional conflict.

In order for something to be unconcstitutional, the only requirement is that it not be authorized by the Constitution. Need proof of that? Read the tenth amendment. Want proof requiring health insurance is not a power delegated to the Congress by the Constitution? Here's the text. There's not one clause that has anything to do with health care at all.

 

[FlamingMoe]

demanding we judge modern legislation by 200-year-old perspectives is a piss-poor argument.

We can change the Constitution any time we want via the Article V amendment process. You'd think "a pretty big fan of history" wouldn't be so pathetically ignorant of that fact.

 

[mhaze]

Wrong. Read it again.


Ah yes, the cluase mentioned mostly by people who have no idea what they're talking about. The necessary and proper clause does not grant Congress blanket authority to enact any piece of legislation they feel is necessary and proper, but any law that is necessary and proper to carry into effect the powers specifically enumerated immediately before that clause.


In order for something to be unconcstitutional, the only requirement is that it not be authorized by the Constitution. Need proof of that? Read the tenth amendment. Want proof requiring health insurance is not a power delegated to the Congress by the Constitution? Here's the text. There's not one clause that has anything to do with health care at all.

Joe said this:

However, if you're making a charge that the bill is unconstitutional, the burden is on you to prove a conflict.

But he's ducked my comments in which I stated the reality of a debate among constitutional scholars on this very issue. Now this does not even lead to taking one side or the other - it is simply a request to acknowledge part of reality.

He refuses.

This denial of reality does not bode well for intelligent debate, but good luck to you in your endeavor.

As you have stated, there is no problem with amending the Constitution, or with encouraging the states to have some sort of health care plan or services. Unfortunately, those states that have gone the farthest in this direction are blue states, and are tottering on bankrupcy. That should tell one something.

 

[GreNME]

We can change the Constitution any time we want via the Article V amendment process. You'd think "a pretty big fan of history" wouldn't be so pathetically ignorant of that fact.

Considering Constitutional Law has changed from 200 years ago, I'd say you're pathetically behind the times in your interpretation, and until you can provide some actual proof to back up your continued assertions of unconstitutionality, there's little or no reason to take your histrionics seriously.

The current POTUS is a Constitutional Law scholar. What makes you think you're more qualified to judge than he?

 

[mhaze]

Show the quality of his thought by bringing into the discussions published writings that prove he is a Constitutional Law scholar. I'm not even sure I need to restrict that to peer reviewed work. Tell you what, let's not use that restriction.

But let's ask for written work in journals, law review articles, commentary on cases on constitutional law - we I think can exclude puffy little autobiographies and the like from this question.

But if you cannot bring written evidence of the existence of a "constitutional law scholar as POTUS" into the discussion, I suggest that you have no point.

 

[INRM]

Is it true that the bill will require people to buy insurance?

 

[FlamingMoe]

Considering Constitutional Law has changed from 200 years ago,

I'd say you're correct, but I susect you're not referring to the fact that the Costitution has been amended many times in the last 200 years.

I'd say you're pathetically behind the times in your interpretation,

Newer isn't necessarily better. You can take your New Constitution and keep it. I'll stick to Constitution Classic.

and until you can provide some actual proof to back up your continued assertions of unconstitutionality,

The two links in my last post. Click them. Read.

there's little or no reason to take your histrionics seriously.

"Histrionics", okay...

The current POTUS is a Constitutional Law scholar. What makes you think you're more qualified to judge than he?

An appeal to authority is called a logical FALLACY, FYI.

 

[mhaze]

Is it true that the bill will require people to buy insurance?

Yes, and if you don't, you get fined.

Don't pay the fine, you go to jail.

That's the scheme of this bunch of people with certified Authoritarian Liberal Controller Personality Disorders.

 

[INRM]

MHaze,

Yes, and if you don't, you get fined.

Don't pay the fine, you go to jail.

Is this really a good idea?

That's the scheme of this bunch of people with certified Authoritarian Liberal Controller Personality Disorders.

I don't think that's an actual diagnosis

 

[mhaze]

MHaze,

Is this really a good idea?

I don't think that's an actual diagnosis

No, I heard the phrase somewhere and thought it made sense of a certain mindset.

Constitutionality issues aside, it is a very, very very bad idea to jail people for a lot of things (speaking here as small government advocate).

This is one of the dumbest ever achieved. They get to an idea they have to jail people by first deciding they have to cram all the people into the same one size fits all scheme. So from their point of view, well, they started out with a scheme to control people and....

whaddaya mean you don't want to be controlled?

Say, chumps. You gonna do like we tells ya to or else. Got it, chumpie-boy?

 

[Blue Mountain]

whaddaya mean you don't want to be controlled?

Say, chumps. You gonna do like we tells ya to or else. Got it, chumpie-boy?

I agree, jailing people for refusing to pay a fine for not getting health-care insurance is silly. The Swiss handle this simply by picking a provider and enrolling you with that provider's plan.


Also, who's the chumpie-boy when you refuse to get insurance and everyone else ends up having to pay your medical bills?