On a conference call with reporters, US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reiterated the President’s support for a controversial measure in the Senate health care bill that would ban undocumented immigrants from purchasing insurance coverage on the exchanges with their own money.
Sebelius was asked if she thought undocumented workers should be allowed on the exchange, and she replied, “The President has made it clear that he feels undocumented immigrants should be able to purchase health insurance in the private market, not on the exchange.”
The language in question in the Senate bill is on page 160:
(3) ACCESS LIMITED TO LAWFUL RESIDENTS. — If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.
It’s unlikely that there will be a separate private market for individual plans after the exchange gets implemented. With the subsidies only available for the exchanges, and the millions of people eligible for them likely to take advantage of that, only a small sliver of the country would be in that private market, making it supremely cost-ineffective for insurers to keep serving it.
Back in September the White House admitted that the non-exchange private market would “shrink” because of the exchanges, though they maintained it would still exist. That would only be true if the exchanges were not working properly to lower costs and increase choice. Sebelius and the White House appears to be hoping for some kind of black market insurance to sprout up to serve the undocumented.
This continued insistence on banning immigrants from purchasing health insurance with their own money will be a flashpoint in the House if it is included in the final bill. House members in the Tri-Caucus, representing African-Americans, Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders, have consistently opposed this approach and backed the House leadership down from including it in their bill. The Tri-Caucus cited public health concerns from creating a two-tiered system where the undocumented become the uninsured, as well as the fiscal irresponsibility of making emergency rooms the primary caregivers to that community. We will unquestionably hear about threats to vote against the entire bill if the harsh immigrant restrictions are included.
Sebelius convened the conference call to tout a series of state-by-state reports that look at the consequences for health care if the Senate bill passed, contrasted with what would happen if the status quo remained.
…I should note that Open Congress has created an online HTML version of the Senate health care bill, where you can create permalinks to and even comment on any section. It’s a great resource.





26 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
If the WH is going to punish immigrants, they ought to stop the farm subsidies, repeal NAFTA and CAFTA, signed by Clinton.
This is the shameful legislation that destroyed the small farms in Mexico and South America, forcing farmers to come here and work as serfs. The Democrats have nothing on Republicans for heartlessness in this regard.
Obama’s aversion to controversy is certainly winning him lots of friends on the right…
Maybe we should cut him some slack, he JUST wants to be LOVED.
He’s already won the Mr. Congeniality award – what more does he want? s/
This thing just gets worse and worse and worse and WORSE. Worst of all is the idiotic shilling for these bills going on in the progressive blogosphere. There’s no health, no care, and no reform in either of them. Nothing goes into effect for years, and there won’t be any cost reductions. What a terrible, terrible tragedy and deception.
I’m so far left you can’t even see me, and I want these bills killed.
First place in the swimsuit competition?
Well, he is pretty buff but I think Boner will take that prize because of his great tan.
soon to be convicted felon Mark Sanford is pretty spry and fit too, I think. He hikes, afterall.
Then there’s always Bible Spice the Wolf Hunter.
in restaurants an estimated 20 percent of cooks and 23 percent of dishwashers are [undocumented]
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003265139_imprices19.html
Bible Spice is all embarrassed about her picture on the magazine in shorts. Why she never would have posed for that for a magazine -rriiiiiiiight. She does have experience in beauty contests though.
OK. This is going to sound coldblooded, but I’m going to say it anyway. I believe that these rethug pet causes like immigration and abortion are intentional diversions, designed to undermine healthcare reform. They are bright shiny things intended to drive us off course, by forcing us to spend time on shooting them down, debating them instead of the main issue. This was precisely the rethug tactic with the Clinton bill, and it worked then. We cannot allow it to work this time.
Our job – our only job – needs to be to keep the attention of our legislators on the one issue that matters – structuring a workable, fiscally responsible, accessible and affordable public option that expands coverage and gives us a shot at containing runaway costs and gives us a path toward longterm affordability and the survival of the American healthcare system. At this point, the ONLY way to do this is to facilitate amendments introduced by Wyden and others to “fix” the deficient PO in the Senate and House bills, by expanding access to it.
I am not saying that these issues aren’t worth fighting over – they are. But they cannot be our emphasis. This may mean that some people get scr*wed by whatever passes, but better that it passes with the important pieces intact. In the end, a bill without a workable public option needs to be killed.. and, at the very least, should be a bill that we cannot support. We have no interest in such a bill passing at all. On the other hand, a bill with absurd abortion or immigration provisions can be fixed through subsequent legislation or perhaps even through a presidential signing statement, if necessary.
Of course they are distractions. But that is why they have to be attacked up front and de-bunked as soon as possible to keep them from gaining extra traction.
We can multi-task for the most part.
And sorry, but I’m not quite willing to see 50 plus per cent of the population screwed just to get something passed. Nor am I willing to see folks whose only crime is wanting (for some unfathomable reason) a better life in the US to get screwed either.
I’m with you Bulb @ 10…
Smile-fuck these Talibangelical obstructionists to get HCR with a strong PO.
It’s easier to get it passed then after the fact fix the moronic stuff and loop holes.
Besides, it’ll give us progressives some real ammo to use that will get more dems elected in red states like AZ, TX and SC.
One has to bear in mind that while the original New Deal of 1933 contained a solid kernel of new programs, key parts of the original plan were shot down and were not enacted until the Wagner Act (1935 – WPA, Labor Union support, Social Security) and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
What was important is that the New Deal was strong enough to contain the basic framework for the future programs – not that it was perfect in all details. Had we said, we want to shoot down the New Deal because it didn’t contain the Wagner Act or FLSA, then where we be today?
I believe that we have one shot to get it right on the core program – which at a minimum means a strong public option is a pathway to universal coverage. Without that, we don’t have the core kernal we need to lay the groundwork for further reform. But with it, we can introduce additional fixes, later. We cannot let them weight us down with these bright shiny things.
I forgot to add that the swine flu does not check citizenship papers. If 20% of cooks are undocumented and unable to get healthcare, even Real AmericansTM will get sick.
You would think that Dems could at least use self interest as an argument. But I guess that would get in the way of caving to Republicans.
It is repugnant that our political establishment (the plutocracy) to deny access to health care payment mechanisms to an exploited, impoverished underclass of workers our business interests (the plutocracy) happily encourage to come work here. I will be particularly offended by the Obama administration and the Congressional democrats pander to the xenophobic right by allowing this profoundly hypocritical and cruel barring of undocumented workers from getting affordable insurance to pass into law.
True, but you also have to remember that FDR was dealing with at least a few Republicans who would actually place country over party and who had already been more than 4 years into the Great Depression at the time of this legislation.
Those people do not exist in today’s Republican Party and we can see that even some of the Democrats are worthless on this topic.
I’m sorry but to believe there is any more than one bite of this apple as the current political environment is structured is not something supported by the available evidence.
This isn’t just divide and conquer as bulb @10 has pointed out. This is the Administration kicking entire voting blocks to the curb by carrying on with absurd right-wing memes to mollify voters who will never, ever support them (tell me, just when will Lou Dobbs endorse President Obama ?!?).
Just looking at the proposed language there are frightening implications for lawful immigrants. For instance, the language barring anyone: “not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought [...] lawfully present in the United States” means that if you are:
- a student adjusting from F-1 to permanent or other status;
- family (K visa or petition) adjusting to permanent status;
- an H1-B temporary worker;
- NAFTA treaty workers;
- refugees;
- other lawfully admitted immigrants awaiting adjustment of status;
an insurance company can deny your individual coverage beacuse you cannot “reasonably” be expected to be in lawful status (even though you are lawfully present) due to the fact that USCIS could, just maybe, deny your status. Does the Senate really want to tell tens of millions of legal immigrants (and potential Citizen voters) no more healthcare for you? Bad, bad move.
If there are a) penalties and b) a requirement to have insurance…then how can they then deny insurance coverage to those needing to obtain it? These people will still show up at the emergency rooms if the private insurance market dries up. Denying them coverage simply perpetuates the system.
Furthermore, how does one compel an undocumented worker into a compulsory system? You can’t dun their taxes…they are either paid in cash or already pay taxes via a false id. They would never intend to collect a subsidy.
The only manner one can institute compulsory insurance is working through the employers, but these are already violating the laws. Only if the workers could receive health care through their insurance without penalty would you attract them into the system.
on the core program design, I believe that there is only one bite at this apple and we have to get it right. This is what they’re trying to distract us from. The smaller points (abortion, illegal immigrants, etc) can be fixed later.
Foreign students are lawfully resident in the United States…and I’m unsure how many people fall into the ambivalent transitional statuses for very long. Few students come in on a Tourist visa and then become students…usually they are required to leave and then obtain a student visa. I suspect that those coming in on H-1 visas would be expected to have health care coverage provided through their employer. There will likely be a big stink in farming states in the South if the H-1 visa program terminates. Similarly tourists better be able to obtain coverage, it’s too big of a market (as is the foreign student system…which finances many small private and public schools nowadays).
I suspect that these areas will not “dry up” anymore than travellers insurance would dry up. It’s too lucrative of a market.
But that’s MY point. With this political environment, those “smaller points” will not get fixed later.
Because later, we will be fighting all the attempts by the Insurance lobbyists and PhRMA and Chamber of Commerce et al to weaken whatever weak a** bill eventually passes.
And you know they will be doing everything they can to do this.
Oh boy, this solidifies it. I’ve been thinking for months now that Obama is really a closet Republican. No more closet to it.
Hope you enjoyed receiving my vote last November O. Cause you won’t be getting it in 2012. GUARANTEED.
You are correct. Abortion, immigration, medicare, all of it….BS. Truth is we will not see health reform worth talking about under this WH and under Democratic Congressional control.
We’ve been told that Social Security numbers were never going to be used for identification (1930s), the Patriot Act would not be used for domestic eavesdropping (2001) and credit card reform would lower interest rates (2009). To quote Krugman, “how’s the weather on your planet?” Hate to snark, but basing present legislation on suspicions or promises of future market viability has been disastrous.
The real issue is that all the waffling is just making things worse. Americans are not stupid and if the public option isn’t really public, doesn’t really exist, or won’t cover all lawful health procedures including family planning, there is a real danger that the Democrats will lose more legitimacy in two years than the Republicans have in the past eight.
So can undocumented parents of US citizen kids buy insurance for their kids? How does that work? Or are they punished because their parents are undocumented?