scrubbedexpat099

It does seem to have combined the worst aspects of the NHS with the worst aspects of the US system.

Michael

That is hard to say. I don't think there is anything in the bill that indicates anything about restricting those services to anyone that is legally working in the US but it does mention that illegal immigrants are not allowed to take advantage of any of the subsidized health benefits.

I think the biggest issue is with green card holders of less than 5 years. Currently green card holders are not eligible for medicaid but the subsidies occur at 150%-400% above the poverty level. The summary indicates that a credit will be given to people in that income range with the largest at the lower end of the range. Since resident aliens (green card holders as well as any other legal resident) are supposed to be treated the same as US citizens as far as taxes are concerned, does that mean that if the green card holders family income is at the low end of the range they will get a tax credit that covers most of the cost of health insurance just like any USC?

If they did allow the tax credit to green card holders, then it doesn't make sense that green card holders would not be eligible for medicaid.

Michael

It's a mess but congress has to work with the system that is already in place. Congress could never get rid of medicare, medicaid, employer sponsored health care, and union guaranteed health care and replace it with something totally different and then expect to get reelected again.

Even though the republicans are scaring people about the cost, this program only costs the government about 4% of the total health care costs in the US and increases the coverage to 96% of the population (an additional 33 million people covered). It's a pretty good start at a fairly low cost considering that the government already pays about 40% of the total cost of health care in the US (that figure is expected to get near 60% of the health care costs in the next 15 years as the baby boomers retire).

cranston

From what I have heard, that will be swiftly challenged in the courts and probably found to be unconstitutional.

ian-mstm

I wonder what the basis would be for such a challenge? There's no Constitutional right to health care.

Ian

cranston

I will get back to you on the reasoning behind that.

Many believe the General Welfare clause gives such a right. I dont know enough to argue either way.

The only thing I am sure about is a quote from Maggie Thatcher "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money".

scrubbedexpat099

I do not think there is a constitutional right to education either.

The House had plenty of opportunities to actually deny benefit to those without documentation, all were voted down.

As I understand it, new immigrants are automatically allowed to benefit. This is more important, with CIR likely to happen before the effects of this bill are enforced then there will not be any people undocumented anyway so all moot.

Personally I think they could at least have got the Chinese to approve, they are paying for it after all.

ian-mstm

I'm guessing you're talking about the tax/spending clause, and not the Preamble. Of course, the Preamble is an introduction only and suggests the intent of the authors. By itself, it confers no rights either to the people or the government.

However, by taxing the population and directing money to programs that enhance the general welfare of the people, it could be interpreted that only legal residents of the US benefit from such taxation and such spending. At least, I hope it would be interpreted this way.

But, like you, I'm not a Constitutional scholar - so there's no way to know how the words might get twisted.


Magic!

Ian

fatbrit

The courts have ruled otherwise. Nice primer @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preambl...s_Constitution

Giantaxe

I've never had coverage that didn't require children over 18 to be full time students.

Bluegrass Lass

I was kicked off my mother's insurance when I was 23, even though I was still in Grad school. I had to help my mom pay the $700/mo it took for me to remain on COBRA for next year until I graduated. I think children should still be covered until they are out of school. It puts way too much stress/strain on young adults to pay for the health coverage and be able to maintain their studies. If I hadn't had to work to pay for this kind of crap, I likely would have done much better in school.

Zonie

Likewise.

mekadag

hi,

yes my twin daughters will be kicked off my insurance when they reach 23 years old so if this changes to 27 years old this will be great does anyone have any information on this change in the bill. My twin daughters are 19 and sophmores as i worry about jobs when they finish and sometimes think they would be better off in 3 years time back in england. but just listened to bbc news and the high rate of unemployment among young people in the UK. Hope it improves going forward.

Julia
in LA California.

scrubbedexpat099

If they do not have insurance it is a $250,000 fine and/or jail time.

I thought all Uni's had schemes?

Giantaxe

They typically do, but they usually only cover a limited amount of services. And sometmes only those provided by a university medical clinic. In my experience, they really aren't much of a substitute for health insurance and of course they don't help the underemployed recent graduate.