Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Healthcare Reform coverage for illegals and penalties for parents
Share:
by TiredDem | October 30, 2009 at 10:53 am
492 views | 16 Recommendations | 9 comments
Please help me with this. I have, so far, found what looks to me to be two very big problems with this new Health care Reform bill (found at: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf ). The first is that it appears to cover children born to illegal immigrants. Look at:
pg 188
20 (d) COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN NEWBORNS UNDER
21 MEDICAID.—
22 (1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a child born
23 in the United States who at the time of birth is not
24 otherwise covered under acceptable coverage, for the
25 period of time beginning on the date of birth and
pg 189
1 ending on the date the child otherwise is covered
2 under acceptable coverage (or, if earlier, the end of
3 the month in which the 60-day period, beginning on
4 the date of birth, ends), the child shall be deemed—
5 (A) to be a Medicaid eligible individual for
6 purposes of this division and Medicaid; and
7 (B) to be automatically enrolled in Med
8 icaid as a traditional Medicaid eligible indi
9 vidual (as defined in section 1943(c) of the So
10 cial Security Act).
I see no provision that excludes children born to people who are not citizens or legal immigrants of the United States.
Second, it appears to me that the penalties for people without adequate health insurance will include a person who does not carry Family Rate coverage to insure a "child" that is under the age of 27 and otherwise uninsured. This means that you will be penalized (I believe it says up to 2.5% of your income) if you have a deadbeat 25 year old son or daughter and do not provide health insurance coverage for them. The bill also requires that health insurers make children under the age of 27 without other insurance to be eligible for coverage under their parent's policy. So, most of the millions of uninsured (who are generally young adults that often "choose" not to carry health coverage) will get healthcare by making their parents pay for it.
pg 298
4 ‘‘(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE
5 FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.—In the
6 case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the
7 requirements of subsection (d) with respect
8 to more than one individual during the tax
9 able year, clause (i) shall be applied by
10 substituting ‘family coverage’ for ‘self-only
11 coverage’.
Please read these sections and help me figure out if I am misunderstanding the proposed law or if someone is trying to pull a "fast one" on all of taxpayers.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Related Stories
Recommendations (16)
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
politisite
Columbia, South Carolina, United States
a211423
Clearlake, California, United States
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (9)
at 14:01 on October 30th, 2009
I'm sorry, but I really have trouble with a clause titled "Eligible Child" that has the provision: "who is under the age of 27". I think five or more years before a person's 27th birthday they should be supporting themselves.
at 14:27 on October 30th, 2009
The first is that it appears to cover children born to illegal immigrants.
The law is clear anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen and entitled to the guarantees in the 14th Amendment. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional.
The fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Childen who are in college have been covered by parents' health insurance for years, this is not a new policy. The trend as you can see below is to extend coverage, not decrease or eliminate it.
http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=14497
State policymakers are proposing and enacting legislation that extends dependent benefits to young adults not enrolled in college full-time. In 1994, Utah become the first state to enact legislation allowing coverage for unmarried dependents to continue up to age 26, regardless of school enrollment status. A 2006 New Jersey law provides coverage for unmarried dependents up to age 31, as long as they do not have any dependents of their own. At least 30 states have now enacted similar legislation to extend dependent coverage regardless of enrollment in school.
at 14:52 on October 30th, 2009
a211423: It IS, however, the first time that the parents of a 26 year old child can be "taxed" if they do not provide healthcare coverage for that "child". I have no issue with parents providing healthcare insurance, auto insurance, rent, food, whatever to their children as long as they CHOOSE to do so. Having the government force you to provide for a 26 year old is ridiculous, though!
And, on the first point, have children of illegal aliens born in the US always been automatically enrolled in Medicaid and allowed to remain on Medicaid until they are provided with adequate health coverage by some other source? I do not think that is the way the current system works.
Thank you for your comments, a211423.
at 15:44 on October 30th, 2009
Children born in the U.S. are entitled to any and all services provided to children born of citizens. There is no distinction made.
Here is the Healthy Families Program in California.
- reply
Craig Lucas (not verified)at 14:33 on October 30th, 2009
This reform is just plain wrong and should not be allowed. It is for everyone except the legal tax paying citizen of this country, who which by the way will be penalized if they dont cover thier ADULT children when illegals kids get covered by taxpayers money. How wrong is that!!!
at 14:43 on October 30th, 2009
A child born in the United States is a citizen despite the status of the parents. The USA does not turn away illegals from a hospital in emergencies. Hospitals are required to treat a patient until they are stable. That is the American way. No matter what a bill says illegals will get treatment in America.
at 15:01 on October 30th, 2009
politisite: I agree, however, this provision for automatic enrollment into Medicaid, and continuing coverage under Medicaid (the next provision--not cited here) seems to be fast-tracking people for our welfare programs, making life easier for people illegally in the country, and, to some extent, legitimizing the presence of the childrens' parents.
Thank you for your comments, politisite.
at 15:50 on October 30th, 2009
Tired Dem
So, your real questions are not about children, but about services that might be extended to their parents? Is that correct? I don't think anyone should be denied health care whether they are a citizen or not.
at 16:28 on October 30th, 2009
I do not favor automatic enrollment in Medicaid for the children of illegal immigrants in the United States. I agree that medical care should not be denied when needed by anyone, however, I feel that they should be assisted with returning to their country of origin upon recovery if in the country illegally. The provision that the children are to remain enrolled in Medicaid until another source of health coverage is provided nearly ensures that they will be a welfare recipient into adulthood; their parents will not be providing coverage under an employee health policy, that's for certain.
Assuredly this is a difficult situation. But in the end the United States can not afford to to make it any easier for people willing to enter and remain in the country illegally.