Grassley Amendment to Require Photo ID for Healthcare Voted Down
This is good news:
Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.
Grassley’s amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.
The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. In addition, legal immigrants would have to wait five years, as under current law, after obtaining citizenship or legal residency to access federal healthcare benefits such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program or receive tax credits or purchase insurance through the exchange created by the legislation.
But the [bill] would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a [driver's] license. Without that requirement, the bill “remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification,” Grassley said. “Frankly, I’m very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment,” he said.
But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon. “The way I see the amendment, it’s a solution without a problem,” Bingaman said.
Someone should tell Grassley that photo IDs can be forged, too. If a non-citizen was so determined to commit fraud that s/he would falsify a birth certificate or a social security card, then why would they hesitate to forge a photo ID to go with the rest of their false identity.
Of course, the answer is that Chuck Grassley is not really interested in preventing fraud. His real interest lies in putting one roadblock after another in the way of healthcare reform. This time, he failed.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
50 Responses to “Grassley Amendment to Require Photo ID for Healthcare Voted Down”
Too bad, Some want to subsidize illegal alien healthcare….
The law would still require that illegal aliens get treatment in emergency rooms, the Grassley amendment just would have made them pay for it instead of the taxpayer.
Unless President Obama vetos any health bill that does not require verification to receive any tax supported health care, Rep. Wilson will be shown to be correct and President Obama will be shown to have been a liar.
However, Democrats lying and misrepresentation never seems to worry the left . I guess keeping America on the road to a third world standard of living one party state rules.
So, Kathy, your position is that no effort, no matter how minimal, to prevent illegal immigrants from falsely getting benefits is justifiable?
Hopefully, this will get some wide coverage.
The Dems are definitely playing to a strength on this one…….
Do you think the United States is or is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into this country?”
.
Doing
Enough Not Doing
Enough Unsure
% % %
23 74 3
Kathy
Documentation is a fundamental problem if Obama's promise that undocumented workers are not to benefit from health care reform. Any attempts to guarantee that promise is a reasonable idea. I know some on the Left wish to let illegals access health care, but that is strictly a different issue.
Anybody can show up at an ER and get emergency treatment under current law, so it's not like the idea of enforced verification will change that. If reform is the goal, that reform must also include verification. Backdoor help for illegals by way of non-enforceable certification only demonstrates the kind of misdirection the Left has criticized in past Republican Administrations.
Reform must be cleanly written, fairly enforced, and deal with health care only. If the line between illegal immigration and health care is smudged, neither issue will be served.
Backdoor help for illegals by way of non-enforceable certification only demonstrates the kind of misdirection the Left has criticized in past Republican Administrations.
Excellent comment, this sums it up very well.
I cannot for the life of me understand why this is seen as “good news”. There's a valid concern by many folks about illegal immigrants and government-funded programs.
Joe Wilson's crude manners notwithstanding, this is precisely the issue he shouted out about — and there was significant agreement with him, in essence if not in form. The Grassley Amendment cost Democrats nothing, and would have gone a long way toward allaying concerns.
For supporters of health care reform, I think this would be very bad news.
Progressives, the bottom line is we don't believe you. We don't believe that your proposals (demands!) will do any good, and we think they will make things worse. Maneuvers like this just help convince us that you don't believe it, either.
Regards,
Ric
Actually, no, it isn't my position. From the article I quoted:
There's your “minimal effort,” AustinRoth.
Yep, at least we agree on that. It IS minimal.
Leonidas, the amendment had nothing to do with emergency rooms; existing law states that anyone who comes into an ER needing emergency care has to be given it. And everyone gets billed for the care. They just can't be refused medical attention if it's an emergency.
The amendment that was voted down would have required all applicants for federal health care programs to show photo id, in addition to the requirement that already is in the Baucus bill to show legal proof of identity, residence, and social security status.
The Baucus bill DOES require verification, superdestroyer.
I'm surprised at you, HemmD. Read my above replies to the conservatives on this board making the same complaint that I would have thought you were well-informed enough to have already known was based on a falsehood.
It's good news, Polimom, because the Baucus bill already contains strict and very clearly stated identity verification requirements to prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining federal health care.
Kathy, what's the wording already in the Baucus bill? I'm searching all over the place, looking for it, but there's WAY too much info now on this subject to sift through. Do you have a link?
I'd say yes, this amendment is redundant, whatever regulations Grassley thinks are lax are not going to be solved by asking to show a document that is easily falsified. All you need to get a fake driver's license is a name, birthdate and SS#. So what's the difference?
This does undue burden to the (albeit small) number of people who are legal immigrants/citizens and do not have drivers licenses.
People like my grandmother or my cousin.
What do your grandmother / cousin do now on those occasions when photo id is called for?
They haven't had this problem…poor people don't travel much
So they're never required to show id at… say… their bank? When picking a child up from school? Picking up a regulated medication from the pharmacy?
Trying again – couldn't get posted.
As a starting point, I oppose the Baucus Bill and the House Bill. But, it appears that some conglomerated mess of a bill will pass notwithstanding my lowly objection. That being the case, the fall back is to try to get the best possible out of an unwelcome eventuality.
On the undocumented issue, that fall back causes me to ask two (maybe three) questions:
1. For undocumenteds who can afford it, why not let them purchase health insurance through the exchanges? If they can pay the premiums it will expand the pool, spread the risk and potentially reduce premiums for all.
2. Why would we deny (or limit to ER care) health access to the children of undocumenteds? That the parents arrived illegally is their “sin”, the punishment for which should not be visited upon innocent children. Remember that these children go to school with, play with and associate with “our” children.
3. Admittedly, I'm still thinking this one through. For those undocumenteds who cannot afford to purchase health insurance, are we really better off restricting them to subsidized ER care as opposed to providing, or subsidizing, preventive care. What got me thinking about this was the potential lack of immunization for 10 -12 million living in our society and the potential spread of communicable disease. A resulting epidemic would not be “their” problem. It would be “our” problem, both from a health perspective and a financial, taxpayer, perspective.
Finally, there is a moral/ethical issue that is often overlooked. The vast majority of undocumenteds are here because we enticed them to come in order to provide cheap labor. Having enticed them into our society, we thereby assume a moral/ethical obligation of fair treatment once they arrive.
Kathy
“I'm surprised at you, HemmD. Read my above replies to the conservatives on this board making the same complaint that I would have thought you were well-informed enough to have already known was based on a falsehood.”
Kathy- I'm surprised that you think any of our existing immigration verification laws are currently effective. Flashing a photo id card if requested is no more onerous that showing a cop your license.
I've re-read your article, and I find that the only change he asked for is a picture id. All the other elements of identification are already required under current law. So are you saying not havig to produce a photo id is good? Why exactly.
and btw, I believe I am well-informed. I just happen to disagree with you on this one point. Being erudite is not a moment to moment state of mind based upon mutual consensus.
NRafter530 [Moderator]
I don't know where your relatives live, but I believe most states will provide a photo id free of charge. It's not a burden, it's lawful identification prior to receiving lawful benefits. Give em a ride to the local DMV, at least here in Missouri, a photo ID takes about ten minutes.
So then why did you ask me if it was my position that “no effort, no matter how minimal, to prevent illegal immigrants from falsely getting benefits is justifiable?” if you agree there is minimal protection already in the Baucus bill?
I don't have a link to the exact language, Polimom. I'm relying on that third quoted paragraph from TheHill.com. The Hill is a reputable source, so I'm trusting that that assertion is accurate.
Nope
If only it was that easy in New York
I refer you to HemmD's comment.
“I don't know where your relatives live, but I believe most states will provide a photo id free of charge. It's not a burden, it's lawful identification prior to receiving lawful benefits. Give em a ride to the local DMV, at least here in Missouri, a photo ID takes about ten minutes.”
I think it's good because requiring everyone who applies for federal health care coverage to show photo id on top of proof that the name they're giving is their legal name, on top of proving that they reside in the United States and their address is what they say it is, and on top of having a social security card, is onerous and obtrusive, in my view, for no good reason. It adds an extra level of difficulty for all Americans, especially poor ones, of whom there are plenty, without providing any real added protection against fraud. It's harassment motivated by anti-immigrant nativist hysteria and opposition to health care reform. It's not sound policy. It's offensive.
Also, to the extent it adds another level of administrative paper-pushing, it increases the overall cost of health care reform to no good purpose.
Kathy, I agree that there's a far amount of “anti-immigrant nativist hysteria” in the country. I have to tell you, though, that in border states, the pressure on society is enormous due to the sheer numbers of people who are not here legally. The desire to minimize their presence is certainly leading to some ugliness, but the problem is very very real.
I understand that. I don't disagree with the sense of what you're saying. I just think that requiring an extra level of essentially unnecessary personal identification to get health care benefits on top of the already sturdy ones that are in the Baucus bill (and will be in the final bill, too, I'm sure) is bad policy. And even more so if it's being done largely to placate people in border states. There are a lot more states that aren't border states than there are states that are border states. (Lovely sentence, I know.)
Evidently it's not free in New York. It costs somewhere between $6.50 and $14.00.
http://www.nysdmv.com/broch/c-33.htm
Personally, I think NYS is too restrictive w/ its reduced fees. Should be free, imo, for people under certain income levels.
Doesn't sound to me, though, as if your family will need it anyway, since they're likely already covered under existing programs for which they don't have to show any identification already.
I misspoke. I was referring to the photo ID requirement. That is always, it seems to me, a major objection by Democrats – picture proof of identification. Never understood it, except in the context that it makes fraud harder, so ipso facto Democrats want to encourage fraud.
Kathy
“It's harassment motivated by anti-immigrant nativist hysteria and opposition to health care reform. It's not sound policy. It's offensive.”
So those who think this idea makes sense are only interested in harassing immigrants? Really? I'm not anti-immigrant, so your reasoning why I would support this idea must be wrong.
It sounds to me like you should be happy to back a national identity card. I can't get a driver's licence without a birth certificate, why not roll all the verifications into a one time deal. Personal identity cards don't expire like a driver's licence, so it's a small price to pay for the benefits.
I'll be the first to agree that I don't like where this idea comes from, the guy is a hypocrite, but the idea is a valid way to verify identity.
And even more so if it's being done largely to placate people in border states. There are a lot more states that aren't border states than there are states that are border states.
Kathy, that's very dangerous thinking, imo.
Why?
Kathy, what is it about a photo ID that seems so much more onerous to you than the other requirements such as SS number? The photo is the one element that prevents fraud because SS numbers can be lifted and another person's identity stolen. Not so if your picture doesn't match. I've never understood the general Dem opposition to photo ID requirements, and like AR I can't help but feel that it might be motivated by a desire to block fraud prevention (because the objections related to the difficulty of obtaining a photo ID are generally overblown and can easily be remedied even to the extent that it might pose some difficulty or expense.)
For those who seem to be under the impression that illegals are turned away from life saving treatments look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_…
The Grassley amendment would not have changed this. I see absolutely nothing wrong with requiring a photo ID when people apply for taxpayer funded benefits. If you need to show a photo ID at a grocery store for buying a beer, how can this be seen as anything drastic. Lets get real people.
Leonidas -
Don't know who said emergency care is not available. If anyone did that is incorrect as you point out. But, trauma care is not sufficient care for general health.
To the point of the post, I admit I don't undertand the hue and cry for photo ID.
If the photo ID is more than a year old, does it still look like the person? I don't recognize myself in my photo ID driver's license, and nobody would recognize my wife from her four year old driver's license (ours are good for 8 years). What does having a photo ID prove? Certainly not citizenship. Some states give photo ID's to anyone without questioning citizenship. It might create a lucrative black market in fake photo ID's in some states.
What I find ironic is that for decades it was conservatives and libertarians who railed against excessive ID requirements while liberals demanded them. Now conservatives want increased ID requirements and liberals are waving the flag of objection. I used to think I was siding with conservatives in opposing excess ID, now I'm on the other side…even though position has never changed. Go figure.
Not so if your picture doesn't match.
Not so if your picture doesn't match what? Your face? Because if the actual identifying information on the card is fraudulent, then what difference does it make that you got a photograph of yourself laminated onto the card with the fraudulent information?
I've never understood the general Dem opposition to photo ID requirements, and like AR I can't help but feel that it might be motivated by a desire to block fraud prevention.
I can't speak for anyone else, but that isn't the motivation for me. I just don't like the concept of going beyond what's necessary to solve a problem. I don't like the concept of creating a solution where there is no problem, or where the problem has already been addressed.
When I applied for Social Security Disability, I did not have to show photo ID to anyone. I didn't even have to apply anywhere in person. I filled out an application on the Internet, received a call from Social Security to set up an intake interview, which was conducted on the phone; and then received in the mail instructions for what information I needed to send them.
Do you think that was inexcusably lax on Social Security's part and I should have been required to physically go to a Social Security office and show them my driver's license with the photo of me that looks like a police line-up mugshot, and nothing like the photo I use as my avatar?
If the photo ID is more than a year old, does it still look like the person? I don't recognize myself in my photo ID driver's license, and nobody would recognize my wife from her four year old driver's license (ours are good for 8 years). What does having a photo ID prove? Certainly not citizenship. Some states give photo ID's to anyone without questioning citizenship. It might create a lucrative black market in fake photo ID's in some states.
Oh my god, tidbits, THANK YOU!
Don't know who said emergency care is not available. If anyone did that is incorrect as you point out. But, trauma care is not sufficient care for general health.
Nobody said that, tidbits. Leonidas said near the top of this thread that the Grassley amendment that was voted down would have prevented illegal immigrants from using emergency rooms at taxpayer expense. I pointed out to him that the amendment would have done no such thing, since the law requiring everyone to be treated for emergencies is quite separate from Grassley's amendment. And taxpayers do not pay (at least not directly) for emergency room care. Americans who carry health insurance pay for other people's emergency room care (for people who go to the ER because they have no health insurance, of course), through higher premiums and deductibles.
Yes. Just like you need to show identification and proof of insuranceto get a drivers license.
Not exactly. I said that the Grassley amendment would have made illegal aliens responsible for repaying those expenses for using emergency rooms at taxpayer expense. They would still be treated, they would just have to pay back the costs. While you are technically correct your response leaves it in the air about them being able to access the emergency rooms, something that is not in question as EMTALA would still be in effect. Sorry if I'm anal about this, but I've seen too many people trying to pass off the untrue talking point that illegals would not receive emergency care.
While you are technically correct your response leaves it in the air about them being able to access the emergency rooms, something that is not in question as EMTALA would still be in effect. Sorry if I'm anal about this, but I've seen too many people trying to pass off the untrue talking point that illegals would not receive emergency care.
Well, except that I did explicitly say that illegal immigrants will be able to get emergency room care because the law establishing that is separate from the Grassley amendment. I would be interested to see the exact language in Grassley's amendment to which you refer when you say that the amendment would have required illegal immigrants to “repay taxpayers.” First of all, to my knowledge taxpayers do not pay directly for emergency room care for illegal immigrants, or for any uninsured Americans who use ERs. We all pay in other ways, in increased health care costs, but I know of no tax item directly tied to illegal immigrants' care in emergency rooms. I also pointed out that people who use hospital ERs because they don't have health insurance DO pay for the care — just not at point of service. I was billed for thousands of dollars associated with ER care I received after falling on an icy sidewalk while walking a dog I had at the time.
This was a private hospital, though. So it's possible that at public hospitals people w/o health insurance are not billed for ER use.
Kathy – You're welcome. I apologize for agreeing with you; didn't mean to shock you. Oh, and happy birthday to your daughter.
Oh, no! You misunderstood me, I think. I didn't mean that you shocked me by agreeing with me. I just meant I was really glad that someone else agreed with me, not that it was you in particular. You and I agree on most things, I think.
Kathy -
Thanks. But, let's not get too warm and fuzzy. My guess is we could have a pretty good donnybrook over the health care proposals coming through Congress right now, with or without public option, and a few other issues. I only “go liberal” when it falls within the parameters of the principles I use to assess issues, and that's far from all the time. Still, whatever differences we may have had, or may have going forward, they have always been addressed with mutual respect, and I appreciate that.
It's a problem in non-border states as well…..
In North Carolina, illegal immigrants are a huge problem.
But I agree with your emphasis on ID.
Kathy says it's another level of burden. I do not agree.
If it's such a hurdle, how is it that so many illegals have been dipping into our healthcare before?
Illegals can get food stamps, SSI payments, and welfare now. How will the government run healthcare be any different.
It won't be.
Liberals just want us to believe it will.
“I know we have never done it in the past….But THIS time will be different”.
“I've never understood the general Dem opposition to photo ID”
That's EASY!
Liberal democrats are against a photo ID because that would not only force legal participation in the system. That would likely lead to ID laws verifying you identity when you vote. Since the graveyard vote is so solidly stacked in the Dems favor, ID would hurt them on election day.
LOL