I think a more logical argument to the concerns about illegals using the system is that many of them wouldn't be willing to risk exposure by applying for benefits- but that still doesn't explain why the amendments were thrown out.

Sorry
Additional link discussing what programs are required to use SAVE.

http://www.eeoguidance.com/eeoguidance/federalc…

http://www.ailc.com/services/SAVE.htm

Here's what I used.

What I'm wondering is why the Congressional Research Service would have determined that SAVE doesn't automatically apply to the bill as written, if your information is correct. Something isn't adding up there.

Aside from who is right or wrong and whether or not it's redundant, don't you think there's something odd about voting down an amendment that would provide extra assurance even if it is redundant? I mean come on, what, the Dems are worried about making the bill 1021 pages instead of 1019 or something? I'm pretty sure that redundancies like that are used all the time in legislation, just for legal clarification and to help prevent legal challenges or loopholes.

Yes, I know doctors must treat patients. That's my point. My original comment, which you took part of out of context was in response to this comment of yours:

“Why should taxpayers be paying for them getting medical services at all? I know it sounds harsh, but if they couldn't get treatment they might not want to come into our country illegally in the the first place. Why should the tax money of citizens be used at all for the benefit of these lawbreakers? Why reward criminal behavior?”

My point is why should doctors also be police (as you want) and determine who is worthy enough for medical treatment? If I'm dying I don't want my doctor to verify my citizenship or insurance status. But I guess that's the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives and people like you want doctors to act as police and deny medical attention to someone unless they can prove the actions are not as a result of being here illegally or of some other criminal behavior.

If you are dying I'm sure you'd be more than happy to wait for treatment while the hospital verified your insurance and citizenship status. That's exactly what you're proposing in your statement.

You (and everyone else who believes this) ought to be ashamed for wanting to deny patients medical treatment. There is very little room in this world for people with a lack of compassion, and there's absolutely no place in this world for people like you who actually want to control what doctors do and make them deny medical treatment to the sick and dying simply because you do not think these people are deserving of treatment, people you've never even met.

I am sick to death of compassionate conservatives who are anything but compassionate. From the Merriam Webster online dictionary the definition of compassion (and take note, all you conservatives) is: “sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.”

Today's compassionate conservatives have only created stress in others and support the killing of people, even if the people who are killed or tortured are innocent. This somehow seems fine as long as they are not citizens of this country. And people like you don't even want to provide medical services to the ill unless you deem them worthy to receive such treatment, in this case they have to be in this country legally and have insurance.

The mighty Roman Empire may have fallen for many reasons, including decadence but our country is declining because of this utter disregard for other humans. No wonder the country is in this state when pastors actually preach hate from the pulpit.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
EMTALA applies to “participating hospitals”, i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[1] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.

No problem. Also, don't be surprised by what may conceivably happen sometime soon. Just as Obama made an address to Congress and the nation under special circumstances (health care damage control and recovery-related appeals), so it could be with a “working vacation” (unlike the kind of vacation Bush was scolded for having, say, either in Crawford or in Washington) at Camp David sometime soon. Why not? Bring Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Nanci Pelosi, Barney Frank, and other prominent House and Senate Democrats and craft legislation or most of it over a weekend or a week's time. Maybe invite “acceptable” Republicans like Olympia Snowe, but otherwise, there would not be any Republicans allowed.

The ER cost load is there and it is partially shifted to provider overhead rates and partially absorb by the federal subsidy passed in '05. However, it is already accounted for in the system and I for one do not believe you will achieve an overall decline in total costs with an attempt to swap illegal's severity costs (ER costs) for an increase in frequency costs (normal wellcare) for that population. Illegals won't conduct themselves that way.

I don't share your philosophy that one person's life is uncontrollably controlled by another…..I came back from Vietnam with $68, a shattered kneecap and two year's of college under my belt. Everything I have since came via W2 or K-1 earnings. If I can do it, I expect everyone else to do the same.

Yeah, but that's what the GOP amendments said which the Dems voted down. I think I saw (skimming through threads, haven't had much time to read all today) a discussion about that where you may have been saying that was unnecessary because it's redundant, since all federal benefits default to that requirement. The thing is though that when the Congressional Research Service evaluated the bill they said that the bill explicitly authorizes the Health Services Commissioner (I think that's what the post is titled) to decide on how verification would be done- so it's not actually going to automatically fall under the SAFE guidelines. Thus the need for an amendment if we're to really know that SAFE will be followed for this.

It's like GD said earlier about an illegal who presents at the ER, treat them and send them back home.
Sure, if that were really how it happens- but isn't that the point of sanctuary cities, that they refuse to check status because they don't want to discourage people from coming in for treatment if they need it?

There are no easy answers, really. We need immigration reform, and then enforcement. Let a reasonable number of law abiding people who want to stay become citizens, and deport the rest and police the border.

“Town hall” (or “town hell”) “theme”

Clarified.

That Republicans might be listened to, nominally, was a mere formality to appear “bi-partisan.”

The purpose for the question I originally asked was to question an assumption, something I believe to be a valuable exercise in any discussion, though I will admit to being more than a little disturbed that we entice undocumented workers to come here and the treat them to assumed vilification when they take us up on the offer.

No problem, I was just making sure I understood your stats. Wouldn't insistence that employers verify worker status via SAFE solve a majority of this issue?

Couple that with strong penalties for employer fraud, and the twelve million would either be out of work or verified? It seems this is the only realistic way to address this.

Health care is as good a place to start to resolve this problem of an undocumented workforce. It's like GD said earlier about an illegal who presents at the ER, treat them and send them back home.

And yes, he did say sell insurance policies, but this entire reform plan is about selling policies but also subsidizing them- and obviously the reason that Obama had to address the issue at all is that most people do not support taxpayer subsidies for health insurance for those who aren't American citizens.