• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Family has money for international travel, but not healthcare

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,175
423
126
Yes, exactly, because it's very easy for an illegal citizen to fly in and out of the US on an annual basis.
:rolleyes:
Show me where it says that she FLIES in and out of the US. Go ahead.

That's just something you and everyone else assumed.

Newsflash shut-in: there are plenty of people here not exactly legally that travel in and out of the US all the time. I know several people not here legally who go back and forth to Mexico and Central America.

Do I know her legal status for sure? Of course not, but then neither do you. And her husband WAS deported (that detail is actually in the article).
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,465
4,202
126
Good, your starting to grasp it. Its not our job to take care of her, she can take care of herself. If that means moving to a state that will let her get Medicaid, then bully for her.
She can get welfare and Medicaid in Texas if her kids move there.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Yes often the poor make bad decisions. In many cases that is why they are poor. They certainly have differing priorities than I.

I was in line at Walamrt behind a women with her EBT card. She had two carts full of groceries, filled with tons of frozen pizzas, and tv dinners etc, but no produce and no ingrediants for making meals, like flour and chicken breast. What got me though was that she had half a cart full of bottled sparkling flavored waters and I assume capri-suns for the kids. I felt like telling her, "You know tap water is so cheap its almost free. Drop the expensive water and you can afford some healthy produce for the kids." But of course I said nothing, I doubt she would appreciate my two cents.
True, but it's not just the poor. Had a guy tell me how he couldn't afford health insurance immediately after telling me about his new Harley Davidson. If you just dropped $28k on a motorcycle, you ain't poor.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Again,what you're saying is that it's so terrible here that someone chooses to stay in the US w/o health insurance rather than migrate back to their country of origin and live together with their family.
Well sure, if you say it like that it sounds stupid . . . :D
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Or she could just go through legal means to get her husband her legally. Which she can do and has a fairly high chance of doing so by either waiting out his 10 bar, or filing for a wavier after gaining US citizenship.

If you leave the US for more than a few months as LPR, your lose you LPR status. Said status takes a long time to get, so why should she sacrifice her LPR status and her families chance at a better life in the US?

Of course you are a xenophobe and don't like immigrants so you just want her to leave.
Opposing illegal immigration isn't xenophobic. It is not the duty of the US to make special accommodations for people who make poor choices.

True, but it's not just the poor. Had a guy tell me how he couldn't afford health insurance immediately after telling me about his new Harley Davidson. If you just dropped $28k on a motorcycle, you ain't poor.
Maybe not before you buy it. But certainly after ;)
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,465
4,202
126
True, but it's not just the poor. Had a guy tell me how he couldn't afford health insurance immediately after telling me about his new Harley Davidson. If you just dropped $28k on a motorcycle, you ain't poor.
Exactly why we need the individual mandate. So that guys like this buy insurance before buying a motorcycle.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Texas is still on the hook for federal taxes to pay for Medicaid expansion in other states.
On top of that, they are still on the hook for unreimbursed health costs for the poor who they are blocking from getting Medicaid. That's extra taxes and higher hospital bills and insurance rates for employers. So Texas employers and taxpayers are subsidizing those in other states, because Rick Perry wants to score some political points off the backs of the poor. If you want to cut off your nose to spite the poor, you can. When your local hospital goes out of business, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you screwed some poor people out of Medicaid.
Most of our state politicians are selling it as standing up against a tyrannical federal government attempting to force their hand. Federal control of state business, basically.

I don't think any hospitals in Texas will be going out of business because of it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,202
136
Most of our state politicians are selling it as standing up against a tyrannical federal government attempting to force their hand. Federal control of state business, basically.

I don't think any hospitals in Texas will be going out of business because of it.
No probably not, it just makes Texas poorer than it would be and denies Texas constituents services that they could otherwise receive.

If Texas thinks that harming the welfare of their citizens and costing their state economy billions of dollars is an acceptable price to pay for making a political statement that's their business. Texas has the freedom to do stupid things in this case.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
18,713
1,686
126
If our high schools taught basic financial literacy, and our high schools in the poorest areas weren't also therefore the worst-funded, he might have a point.
Unfortunately its a lot more complicated than that:

A new paper by three business school professors — Daniel Fernandes of Erasmus University in the Netherlands and the Catholic University of Portugal, John G. Lynch Jr. of the University of Colorado and Richard Netemeyer of the University of Virginia — presents a discouraging assessment of attempts to teach people how to deal with money. Their article uses a technique called meta-analysis, looking at results from 168 scientific studies of efforts to teach people to be financially astute, or at least less clueless.

The authors’ conclusions are clear: over all, financial education is laudable, but not particularly helpful. Those who receive it do not perform noticeably better when it comes to saving more, for example, or avoiding ruinous debt. Even more depressing, the results of efforts aimed at low-income people are particularly weak. Those who need the help most seem to benefit the least.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/financial-literacy-beyond-the-classroom.html?pagewanted=all

No, it probably won't fix things completely or immediately, but it will surely at least point them in a better direction.
Or not...

There is even some evidence that fin-lit classes can make people worse off. One study found that soldiers who had studied fin lit ended up significantly less likely to have systematic control over their household budgets. Another showed that people who had taken a fin-lit class in high school later reported that they were less thrifty, less likely to pay their credit-card bills in full and more likely to bounce a check.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/01/financial-literacy-month-is-so-over/

Now I do think its worth the effort but it seems the best option is *gasp* parental involvement. The schools can try but the best success seems to be from repetition over years to form behavioral habits and not a simple class or two. Getting a class added that needs to be taken over a number of years is going to be next to impossible given that we are cutting every single 'unnecessary' class to make more room for cores.

http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/financial-education-what-works-and-what-doesn-t
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Unfortunately its a lot more complicated than that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/financial-literacy-beyond-the-classroom.html?pagewanted=all

Or not...

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/01/financial-literacy-month-is-so-over/

Now I do think its worth the effort but it seems the best option is *gasp* parental involvement. The schools can try but the best success seems to be from repetition over years to form behavioral habits and not a simple class or two. Getting a class added that needs to be taken over a number of years is going to be next to impossible given that we are cutting every single 'unnecessary' class to make more room for cores.

http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/financial-education-what-works-and-what-doesn-t
Fair enough - looks to me like we need to find new and more effective ways to teach financial literacy. The class I took made a huge impact on me, but then I was never a poor, completely financially illiterate person to start with.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,465
4,202
126
Most of our state politicians are selling it as standing up against a tyrannical federal government attempting to force their hand. Federal control of state business, basically.

I don't think any hospitals in Texas will be going out of business because of it.
That's wishful thinking.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-25/obamacare-cutbacks-shut-hospitals-where-medicaid-went-unexpanded.html
New Medicaid reimbursement rates assume states will be expanding Medicaid to everyone and hospitals no longer need to be reimbursed for as much unpaid care for the uninsured, so per person Medicaid rate is being reduced. Hospitals in states that don't expand are going to lose on Medicaid reimbursement without any decrease in unpaid medical care. They will either go bankrupt or have to increase prices for non Medicaid customers, and by extension, their insurers and employers. In case of rural hospitals with high populations of uninsured farm workers, likely former.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/06/study-refusing-medicaid-expansion-will-cost-states-billions-of-dollars/

Conversely, states that refuse Medicaid expansion will continue to be on the hook for billions in uncompensated care costs – as when uninsured residents visit the emergency room. By refusing to expand Medicaid, Texas will forgo $9.2 billion in federal funding in 2022, the authors said.
That $9.2B per year in forgone federal funding will have to be either sucked up or coughed up by the people and employers of Texas.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
That's wishful thinking.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-25/obamacare-cutbacks-shut-hospitals-where-medicaid-went-unexpanded.html
New Medicaid reimbursement rates assume states will be expanding Medicaid to everyone and hospitals no longer need to be reimbursed for as much unpaid care for the uninsured, so per person Medicaid rate is being reduced. Hospitals in states that don't expand are going to lose on Medicaid reimbursement without any decrease in unpaid medical care. They will either go bankrupt or have to increase prices for non Medicaid customers, and by extension, their insurers and employers. In case of rural hospitals with high populations of uninsured farm workers, likely former.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/06/study-refusing-medicaid-expansion-will-cost-states-billions-of-dollars/


That $9.2B per year in forgone federal funding will have to be either sucked up or coughed up by the people and employers of Texas.
They've equated that $9.2B to 1/4 of the yearly defense contract money that Texas gets from the federal government... and then said they still don't care. It's a partisan issue in Texas, and in Texas, the GOP rules.

The state will pay the shortfalls in Medicaid, IIRC, as they believe it to be less expensive than the long term consequences of Medicaid expansion.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
No probably not, it just makes Texas poorer than it would be and denies Texas constituents services that they could otherwise receive.

If Texas thinks that harming the welfare of their citizens and costing their state economy billions of dollars is an acceptable price to pay for making a political statement that's their business. Texas has the freedom to do stupid things in this case.
Some people don't take bullying well. It's sort of like holding your breath to get your way: You know you're going to have to breath eventually, but you might hit the floor before you give in and do it.

FWIW Texas seems to have billions to squander, so it's all good. The people that are going to shoulder that burden will be the poor, not the businesses (look at how tax burdens are distributed in Texas) and they're the ones out healthcare too, so... fuck 'em, I guess? :confused:
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Those clinics are simply not economically viable as private ventures. They should close. Everyone will still have a county hospital, though as the article says, those can be up to 100 miles away in some of the West Texas counties. It's no different from people out in the country expecting UPS\Fedex services at USPS prices; that's not economically viable for a private venture.

Also, it appears that the very low cost of those hospitals would make it feasible for the state the makeup the Medicaid shortfalls, as I mentioned above.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Opposing illegal immigration isn't xenophobic. It is not the duty of the US to make special accommodations for people who make poor choices.

Maybe not before you buy it. But certainly after ;)
LOL True.

Exactly why we need the individual mandate. So that guys like this buy insurance before buying a motorcycle.
Good point, though I suspect he'll get subsidized so our children will be paying back Uncle Mao for his health insurance.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,202
136
Some people don't take bullying well. It's sort of like holding your breath to get your way: You know you're going to have to breath eventually, but you might hit the floor before you give in and do it.

FWIW Texas seems to have billions to squander, so it's all good. The people that are going to shoulder that burden will be the poor, not the businesses (look at how tax burdens are distributed in Texas) and they're the ones out healthcare too, so... fuck 'em, I guess? :confused:
While the poor will take more of the hit, the businesses will be hurt as well as you're removing billions of dollars from the economy. Texas is not high in the median income category so they can probably use all the economic help they can get.

I sincerely doubt that a negative reaction to 'bullying' is what is driving this, it is tribalism. Again though, they have the freedom to make bad choices.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
This problem isnt just about the poor. A lot of the country would rather pay for cell phones, cable tv, new cars they dont need than for health insurance.
Yep. It's like watching a person with an SUV behind them at the gas station complaining about gas prices. Often people sow these seeds and then seem surprised when they sprout.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,678
4,079
126
It's a stupid question. How much is a round trip ticket to El Salvador for this woman to see her kids that she hasn't seen all year?
Did you search? $300.
How much health care would that cover? A doctor visit, maybe a basic blood test. Not enough to actually treat complications of a gallbladder surgery, by a long shot. So all this would accomplish is denying this woman the ability to see her kids once a year. Which is probably the point. You Republicans like to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. The latter seems to give you extra pleasure.
There's a whole lot that needs to be done by people who aren't Perrys or like you, who defended the bureaucracy which lead to the death of at least one I know of, then blamed others for not bankrupting themselves. And if a doctor were to treat when ignorance creates a nonsense regulation? That doctor should be punished. So please stop the righteous indignation. You and your politicians are two sides of the same coin.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Those clinics are simply not economically viable as private ventures. They should close. Everyone will still have a county hospital, though as the article says, those can be up to 100 miles away in some of the West Texas counties. It's no different from people out in the country expecting UPS\Fedex services at USPS prices; that's not economically viable for a private venture.
Perhaps, then, providing medical care should not be solely a private venture?

I'd go so far as to say that it should be a solely public venture, on a par with national defense and public education. But that's just me.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
2
0
B-b-b-buh buhda buh BUT what about a living wage????

How can these poor people not get paid enough to pay for healthcare? Doesn't matter that they have a 15% loan on a late model chrysler with dub deuces, an upside down 45 year mortgage on a house they can't afford, they DESERVE healthcare. I hate rich people, they always bringing down the poor folk.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,202
136
B-b-b-buh buhda buh BUT what about a living wage????

How can these poor people not get paid enough to pay for healthcare? Doesn't matter that they have a 15% loan on a late model chrysler with dub deuces, an upside down 45 year mortgage on a house they can't afford, they DESERVE healthcare. I hate rich people, they always bringing down the poor folk.
I always appreciate the thinly veiled racial messaging in your posts.

I'm sure that because you're totally not a racist this is all news to you, though.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
2
0
I always appreciate the thinly veiled racial messaging in your posts.

I'm sure that because you're totally not a racist this is all news to you, though.

?? And which race do you associate people who do this with?

It seems to happens across all races, as far as I can tell.

But..... of course..... you associate negative things with a certain race, then turn around and start shrieking racism. Ironic, isn't it?



You really need to work on why you continually have a need to associate specific races with certain stereotypes.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
8,822
268
126
Opposing illegal immigration isn't xenophobic. It is not the duty of the US to make special accommodations for people who make poor choices.



Maybe not before you buy it. But certainly after ;)
Umm. No. You are opposing legal immigration when you say she should just go back to El Salvador.

She is most definitely an LPR. Her husbands 10 year bar is likely to expire soon, if it hasn't already. Meaning he can legally come back to the US fairly easy since his wife is a LPR. But you want her to go back instead where she will lose her LPR status and likely never able to get it again(until her US citizen children are over 21).

Hell, if she had applied for Citizenship her husband could have LEGALLY come back a lot sooner than 10 years.

But no, you oppose all legal means available to her and her family and want her to go back.

That is completely xenophobic.
 
Last edited:
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
2
0
If you are not adding to our US society you should not be allowed to immigrate.


We have enough people who were born here that we all have to support. The system is bursting at its seams. It's not about xenophobic, it's about the reality of the fact that we can't afford to support any more handout abusers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY