Health insurance

Progressives Abandon Universal Coverage Forever

Understanding the Senate's plan to ban undocumented aliens from buying health coverage

|

No one can accuse the health care legislation currently in the works of being perfect. But whether the flaws in the final sausage after the House and Senate bills are reconciled are acceptable to self-respecting progressives ought to depend on this: Do they help—or hinder—the ultimate objective of universal coverage?

By this measure, if the provisions in the current Senate bill concerning undocumented aliens make it into the final bill, progressives, who put principle above politics, should bid adios to the whole effort. The bill would turn the undocumented into a permanent underclass of health care have-nots, making universal coverage unattainable.

Undocumented aliens, along with their children, constitute about 17 percent of the uninsured in America. But no one is arguing they should get taxpayer help to purchase coverage. The right has pretty much won the argument that people who break the law to enter this country don't deserve the assistance of law-abiding Americans. Both the Senate and House bills explicitly bar all direct subsidies for anyone unable to furnish proof of citizenship or legal residency—although some dispute whether the verification procedures in the House bill are stringent enough.

But the key difference between the two is that whereas the House bill would allow these aliens to use their own money to buy coverage from the new health care exchange, the Senate bill won't. The reason for the Senate ban is that this exchange—a sort-of clearinghouse where patients will be able to pool together to purchase discounted coverage from approved plans—will be established and run by the government. Letting immigrants participate would mean allowing them to get indirect taxpayer aid. People "who are here illegally cannot avail themselves of the infrastructure that we're creating," Rep. Gerald E. (D-Va.), said in November.

By this logic should we, then, post sentries on federal highways to shoo off undocumented workers? Position guards outside pharmacies to bar them from buying FDA-approved drugs? Dispatch marshals to stop electricity generated by public utilities from flowing into undocumented households? What's really driving the exchange ban is not concern for American taxpayers, since allowing people access on their own dime won't necessarily add to the nation's health care bill. Rather it is the cold "Know Nothing" calculation that making life miserable for undocumented aliens will drive them to the exit.

The bill may or may not succeed in chasing away these aliens, but it will certainly make them more miserable. Unless they get an exemption from the individual mandate, something the Senate is proposing but the House is not, it will be illegal for them to go without coverage. But with the exchange off-limits, their main option—outside of the emergency room—will be the nongroup or individual insurance market. Yet the Congressional Budget Office has calculated the premiums in these markets, already substantially higher than the one serving large employers, will rise another 13 percent—partly because the exchange will leave them with a smaller pool of customers. Many observers believe the exchange will eventually kill these markets altogether.

Undocumented aliens may therefore face the double bind of having to buy coverage but being priced out of the few legal avenues they have. This should trouble anyone not part of the Lou Dobbs fan club, but civil libertarians should find it particularly odious. At the same time the government tells Americans how they must spend their money, it will tell undocumented aliens where they can't spend theirs. Government intrusiveness combined with government discrimination is not a formula for social justice.

The Obama administration is putting tremendous pressure on the House Hispanic Caucus, which is fighting the Senate ban, to back off. It is evidently arguing that once the battle for universal coverage is won, it will make immigration reform and amnesty a top priority, eventually bringing undocumented workers into the insurance fold. But having expended so much political ammunition on health care, the White House will be in no position to pick another bruising fight. With a volatile midterm election coming up next year, there is a real risk that if this cruel policy goes forward, it will become impossible to undo.

Universal coverage advocates (a group to which I do not belong) have accepted many unpalatable compromises—including abandoning their beloved public option—because they feel that at least they will be extending coverage to two-thirds of the uninsured population. But what they have to confront is that if they accept the exchange ban, a sizable portion of the remaining one-third won't just remain unhelped, they'll be seriously harmed by being permanently locked out of the health care market.

The government hasn't claimed the authority to selectively withhold access to public facilities since the Jim Crow era. But at least then it wasn't using it for any high-minded purpose. This ban will institutionalize inequality in the name of greater equality. Is this a deal that progressives really want to cut?

Poor Dr. King. He must be spinning in his grave.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a columnist at Forbes, where this column originally appeared. Harris Kenny, a student at Pepperdine University, provided valuable research assistance for this column.

NEXT: Naomi Klein, Mostly Right

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And what did “progressive” massachusetts do with its healthcare plan when it broke the bank? The cut out tens of thousands of LEGAL immigrants from the program to save money because they can’t vote.

    1. “New at Reason: Shikha Dalmia on Banning Undocumented Immigrants from Buying Health Insurance”

      What if the immigrants are light-skinned negroes with no trace of a negro dialect (unless they need to use it)?

  2. Pet peeve:

    Still don’t like the neologism “undocumented” aliens. They are illegal, like it or not.

    Carry on.

      1. OK WTF?
        Did the whole Reason Staff took off at noon? Tomorrow I expect to get one post from everyone on how they personally advanced the socioeconomic status of black America in an afternoon.

        Halfassed Beltwaytarians.

        1. White people. (shakes head)

        2. Warren, please point out the part of the Constitution which gives government the power/authority/ability to advance the socioeconomic status of anyone.

          We’ll wait while you look that up.

          1. Holy crap, everybody at reason works for the government??

            1. Uh yeah catfish. That’s a head scratcher there. I’m pissed cause the entire Reason staff ain’t nutt’n but a bunch of slackers (subgeniuses all), using the plight of black people as excuse for liquid lunch and extended nooners.

              1. They may be celebrating the birt of Robert E. Lee, like the state of Alabama does on the third Monday of January.

              2. I’m sure they are pulling trapped Haitians from the rubble, and sharing their cocaine with them

              3. Don’t blame this on me!

    1. Same here. But don’t let that little detail prevent them from voting.

    2. They can’t help being illegal, damn it, because they immigrated here illegally!

      Duh.

    3. They are not illegal. They committed an illegal act in entering the country. A small distinction, but a pet peeve of mine. They are also, in fact, undocumented. Being undocumented and being “illegal” (whatever that means) are not mutually exclusive conditions.

      1. -1

      2. Not to put too fine a point on it

        But the vast majority of so called “illegal immigrants” in this nation entered legally…and then overstayed their visas. The scaredy cat collectivists amongst us would have you believe that most of them swarmed across an undefended border to collect benefits and fuck white chicks. But that’s not really how it works.

        1. They’re here to fuck all chicks. Because they aren’t racist.

          1. With our stringent laws against marihuana, that lust will die out soon enough.

            1. Guess I should have inhaled.

      3. They are “illegal aliens”, aliens (foriegn nationals) whose visiting or residency status has not been approved. It is silly thing for you to get peeved over as it seems you are deliberately misconstruing the usage of “illegal”.

        1. It’s not murder…it’s undocumented life-extinguishing!

      4. An activity may be illegal, so it maybe wrong to use that adjective for a person. So I suppose, you’re right.

        The proper term is ‘criminal aliens’.

    4. But the problem is that badly designed immigration laws make it very difficult for immigrants to get proper documentation. Furthermore this policy would restrict insurers from doing business and as such is a restriction on the freedom of Americans.

    5. So are illegal aliens like a copyright violation or what?

    6. People who possess marijuana, resist eminent domain seizures, download music without paying, and fail to cut their grass according to local standards also violate the law. Ought we to refer to these ne’erdowells as criminals?

      1. download music without paying

        Yes.

      2. As long as all the above are legal American citizens they are entitled to the protective powers of the US Constitution. Anyone who is withing the boundries of this country illegally/undocumented does not have the same protections.

        Given that a good portion of our illegal/undocumented population is from the country of Mexico, it leaves us with two distinct causes of the problem. 1) Mexico (and other countries) and their corrupt centrist governments are to blame for not improving economic and education in their own countries allowing those born into poverty to excel and improve their standard of living.

        2) The US Government has two problems a) we make it too easy to get into the country illegally (or stay illegally) and b) we make it too difficult and beauracratic to fully immagrate and stay here. When you put a) plus b) combined with 1) you have a recipe for an illegal population.

        One of my main points of contention is that we absolutly need to drive these people out. There is no reason all thre issues should continue to be unresolved. It is immoral of the Mexican government to simply ignore its own people and export all it’s problems. It is also immoral for people in the US to want to keep these individuals who are already in a sub-class right where they are. If they wish to be here, they need to do it in a legal fashion. The whole immigration system needs an overhaul as does the border protection system. Not becasue we are reacist but simply put we need to know who comes here, criminal, gang member, drug runner, terrorist, or good guy trying to help his family.

        THAT is the difference.

        1. It is immoral of the Mexican government to simply ignore its own people and export all it’s problems. It is also immoral for people in the US to want to keep these individuals who are already in a sub-class right where they are.

          I concur. It is immoral for people in the US to want to keep these individuals (Mexicans) in a sub-class right where they are (Mexico).

          That is, it is immoral to prohibit free migration — a pretty obvious conclusion.

          As for your pragmatic points, you are correct. The US should open the border to all migrants who pose no threat for the very reason that it can then identify and track them, and that anyone who evades such open immigration likely is a bad guy.

  3. The fine fellow in the picture is up for re-election and he may be in serious risk of losing his seat. The locals ain’t happy with him and his healthcare among other things. If the Reps run an opponent with a pulse and an ounce of charisma, Reid is done.

    Sorry for the threadjack but once again, I’m not seeing a morning open links.

    1. If there were one, more than half of the stories would be about Haiti…

      Im sick and tired of Haiti. Nuke the fucking place and be done with it.

      Now back to your regularly scheduled day.

      1. If God couldn’t get rid of it why do you think we can?

        1. Because America doesn’t work in mysterious ways. We’ll just bomb the fuck out of them.

          1. Dude, if we are going to be so insane as to just nuke some country, and kill millions of innocents in the process, can we just have a little bit of rationality and drop the bomb directly on the over sized and hideously ugly skull of Hugo Chavez? There is no way we could miss the target. You can see his fat head on Google Earth. How someone has a head that big with no brain in it, I don’t know. If we do that, I can at least have a little bit of joy about us doing something so enormously stupid.

            1. That works too. I’m just gettin’ the itch to nuke something.

              It comes and goes.

              1. Are the cycles getting closer together? MY experience was that after it becomes continual, you do get used to it and infact, find other ways for it to manifest itself.

                1. The nuking lust? No. Not continual now.

                  The wanting to strangle idiots? Yeah, that’s constant.

                  BTW, the strangling bit was not directed at you.

                  1. “The wanting to strangle idiots? Yeah, that’s constant.”

                    You have my permission to start with Nancy Pelosi.

                    1. “Just the thought of caressing that leathery hide makes the tapioca rise in my gullet.” Professor Farnsworth.

            2. Can we practice on Cuba first? The crews haven’t dropped any atomic bo9mbs in a few decades.

              1. Only after we’ve gotten all the old cars out.

                We’ll need them after somebody nukes us in order to motor around the wasteland in style. Fuck that walking bullshit.

                1. Don’t forget the good cigars, good baseball players, and hot Cuban chicks. We have to get those out along with the old cars. Then you can drive around the wasteland in style in your old car with a hot Cuban chick while smoking a good cigar.

  4. After tomorrow – moot.

  5. Wai, I’m confused. Now Reason is for Universal Coverage and “social justice” (whatever that is)?

  6. By this logic should we, then, post sentries on federal highways to shoo off undocumented workers? Position guards outside pharmacies to bar them from buying FDA-approved drugs? Dispatch marshals to stop electricity generated by public utilities from flowing into undocumented households?

    Sounds good to me. 🙂

      1. that’s an affirmative

    1. +1

      1. Cop fellater.

    2. And IRS agents to reject their taxes

    1. As a man who really appreciates a good trainwreck, I see that as a submarine just breaching the surface.

      1. As a man who really appreciates a good trainwreck, I see that as a submarine just breaching the surface.

        When I served on subs everyone said broach – not breach. Not sure why the difference.

        1. Because Submairiners are into blingie jewelry?

        2. I thought that’s how they described whales coming up out of the water. “Broaching”. Back when we killed whales. Okay, back when people other than the Japanese, and select Inuit tribes, killed whales.

        3. In the navy! You can sail the seven seas! In the navy!…..

          1. the navy separates the men from the boys…it takes them a crowbar to do it. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    2. Michael Graham today on the Coakley campaign: “It wasn’t the Hindenburg or the Titanic. It was the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic.”

      1. Wow. I didn’t realize why she was tanking…it’s almost like she didn’t want the job after all.

        1. I think she wanted it, but overconfidence and being out of touch can easily destroy campaigns.

          1. Are you sure – Teddy won every election with that formula.

      2. I am woman, hear me roar…

  7. This ban will institutionalize inequality in the name of greater equality. Is this a deal that progressives really want to cut?

    Yes. That was an easy one. It’s never been about helping the neediest have a very Merry Christmas, and this is a perfect way to point out the Team Blue hypocrisy. Not that Team Red will pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize it.

    1. “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”

      -Thomas Jefferson

    2. If anyone was serious about healthcare they’d provide it on a global basis. The amount charged for a single MRI image could be used feed a busload of ethopians for a year. Most such images don’t effect medical outcomes.

      1. Feeding the hungry, housing the poor.

        I knew that would soon be in this thread.

  8. They are unlaful occupants of the country, entilted to no rights or services, its that simple, or should be. I am all for legal immigration, the more the merrier, but illeagles are criminals and deserve a deportation and thats it.

    1. Just as people who illegally got married to members of other races were alsoo breaking the law and should have their marriages annulled.

      Just like men who wished to allow their daughters to inherit land in the 17th century weere criminally breaking laws against women owning land.

      And those guys who did business with jews in violation of the Nuremberg laws? to the camps with them!

      1. But see…those laws changed. These people are still here illegally! Unless someone passed a law. Can you provide a link to the one?

        1. I Think you missed something important there.

          It is OK to break bad laws.

          1. No, it’s not Zeb.

            1. Yes, it is Zeb.

              1. OK Zeb, it apparently is.

            2. Yeah, let’s listen to the cop fellater.

              1. LM

                Who you talkin’ too?

                1. The cop fellater. You know the type of guy who would post something like, “cop hater” after some of my posts.

                  This here is a libertarina place where those who feed at the public trough and those who delight in wearing the impramutur of Caesar on their chests are rightly held in contempt for the spiritually bankrupt pieces of trash that they are.

                  1. Ah, the person that hates people based on their occupation. What is your occupation, LM?

                    1. Jimmy-

                      I do not hate.

                      I do hold those who feed at the public trough in contempt, yes.

                    2. What private trough do you feed at LM?

                    3. A government one.

          2. And everybody gets to decide which laws he thinks are the bad ones he shouldn’t obey, right?

            Personally, I think laws which prohibit my kicking idiots square in the nuts are bad laws – what say you?

            1. If a law were passed requiring men to slap women in the face, would you comply or be a criminal?

              I’d break that law in a heartbeat.

              1. If we can just pass a few more laws… we can ALL be criminals!

                1. Workin’ on it…

            2. Its called civilization. The principle of non-agression. The right to be free from two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for lunch.

              1. The right to be free from democracy?

                The two wolves and a sheep isn’t about non-aggression. Is about the aggression necessary to keep the tyrany of the majority at bay. Which is why the second part of the quote defines liberty as a well armed sheep.

          3. Except that it’s not a bad law

      2. Great strawman’s ghost!

      3. All valid examples of people disobeying laws they felt were morally wrong. I generally would support behaviors such as those, provided they had the right to protest laws they felt were a violation of their natural rights.

        However, if it isn’t your country you have no contract with it. Although you may morally disagree with its laws, you have no right to use force against them.(at least no right from the perspective of that country) Entering the country as an illegal alien certainly counts as just that. So although I abhor our current immigration policies, I’m forced to admit an alien is not in the same class as your examples. He isn’t a citizen and the government has no responsibility to him. Deportation is absolutely benign compared to what we could do.

        1. phryxian

          My brother married a wonderful woman. He wants to live with her here in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, some people are threatening to kidnap his wife and send her to Mexico, unless my brother jumps through certain hoops to please them.

          Buying a plane ticket, renting an appartment and getting a job aren’t acts of agression, no matter how much government officials would like to claim otherwise. Kidnapping people born on the worng side of an imaginary line, roughing them up, and tossing them over to the other side of the line against their will, most certainly is.

          1. Stop stealing the fruit of my lifespan to give to those criminal aliens and I’ll be right behind you. I’ll help tear down the border fences myself.

            Until then, pound sand.

            1. The fruit of your lifespan?

              WTF is that?

              Is it like unicorn rainbows? Or faery dust?

              And why do you think people are stealing it?

              HAve you ever thought of talking to someone about his lifespan fruit?

              1. The fruit of your lifespan?

                Nothing makes ignorance more amusing than belligerence.

                You have a limited lifespan. That is all you have, you life and some freedom of how to utilize your life.

                A sizable portion of that is taken from you.

                Your life is being taken. You can never get it back.

                I often wonder why people think it’s wrong to take 100% of someone’s life and work but 90% or 50% is fine.

                And why do you think people are stealing it?

                Because they have guns and they can.

    2. I will refrain from commenting on whether differently legal persons, or anyone for that matter, are entitled to benefits from the Gov’t.

      What I will say (once again) is that the Constitution makes no mention of citizenship in its protection of rights. It’s function is to limit Congress, not proffer perks.

      1. THIS. Rights have nothing to do with citizenship. There are no rights of American citizens as rights are unalienable and are endowed from our creator (or from nature or whatever atheists believe).

        1. Sez who?

      2. It doesn’t matter where rights originate, nor whether they are inalienable. What matters in the context of the rights of nonAmerican-Americans is that the Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws that abrogate anyone’s rights, whether they are citizens or no, or whether they are within the boundaries of the United States or no.

    3. Nobody is entitled to rights. Rights are unalienable ( Not to be separated, given away, or taken away) and endowed by our Creator, not just to US citizens, but to all men.

      Please make a note of it.

      Thanks

      1. So…who decides what is a right? Do they originate on this whim or that? Or is there someplace to look these up? There is no such thing as a right to anothers time or property but that still leaves a lot of room for debate, doesn’t it?

    4. You realize there’s a middle ground between “entitled to” and “banned from”, right?

  9. By this measure, if the provisions in the current Senate bill concerning undocumented aliens make it into the final bill, progressives, who put principle above politics, should bid adios to the whole effort. The bill would turn the undocumented into a permanent underclass of health care have-nots, making universal coverage unattainable.

    No problem – immigration reform is on the works. Whether it will help LEGAL immigrants is anothre matter, because such legislation tends to favor the undocumented migrants.

  10. illeagles are criminals and deserve a deportation and thats it.

    Pot smokers are criminals and deserve incarceration and that’s it. Huh?

    Dalmia isn’t saying that undocumented immigrants should get lots of taxpayer funded goodies. But their exclusion from the individual mandate is shows very clearly that the bill will not only not achieve its stated goal, but will be actively detrimental. It’s an argument against universal health care, not for it.

    1. Since when do we worry about deporting sick birds. After they get over being ill, the eagles will just fly back anyway.

      1. Your lack of concern over our national bird shocks me. Won’t somebody think of the ill eagles?

        Rock Flag and Eagle.

        1. What? We deport ill eagles so they can get better health care in Cuba? Is that your point?

        2. How ironic that a Canadian would Get American All Over Everyone’s Ass.

  11. I, for one, would be perfectly happy if NOBODY was required (at gunpoint, or otherwise) to buy insurance.

    I hope that helps.

    1. That’s the Libertarian, principled position.

    2. I, for one, would be perfectly happy if NOBODY was required or prohibited (at gunpoint, or otherwise) to buy insurance.

      Mo’ libertarian.

      1. I would add: …or provide coverage at no cost.

        1. No cost to whom?

    3. I’ve had this conversation with a particular pea-brained denizen of these comment sections before. The argument on the mandate boils down to:

      a. you are not allowed to go without insurance, because
      b. you may not forego medical attention, should its cost exceed your resources, so
      c. your money must be pre-emptively expropriated to prevent you getting a free ride

      I’ve said over and over, I am self-insured by choice and by calculation; should it end up that my calculation has been incorrect and I come up short when it comes time to pay for some expensive procedure, I am fully prepared to go without treatment, whatever the consequence.

      I only ask for an explicit individual waiver; they are not willing to allow this, and that fact undercuts their core claim of being worried about my possibly becoming a liability to the system. As such, all that remains is this: they don’t want to help me or anyone else; they just want my money. Of course it doesn’t take an Einstein to see that, given who is at the table in this corporocrat government feeding frenzy.

      If they think they’re going to get it though, they’ve got another thing coming.

      1. I’ve said over and over, I am self-insured by choice and by calculation; should it end up that my calculation has been incorrect and I come up short when it comes time to pay for some expensive procedure, I am fully prepared to go without treatment, whatever the consequence.

        All else aside, you are claiming to be immune from human nature. It’s not the greatest of rebuttals.

        1. Don’t you have anything more intelligent to say than that? This is a serious topic.

          I am a creature of will, not an animal ruled by emotion and instinct, and my deliberate decision is that come the worst, I’d rather die than steal from you to stay alive. That’s my stand, and your apparent inability to accept it at face value speaks volumes about your own thought process, or lack thereof.

          1. Josey, by not buying insurance, you are creating a market failure called adverse selection. It is the simple process of people like you, who are healthy, dropping out. This raises costs for everyone else, causing more to drop out, which again raises costs. In theory, this proceeds until only one person is left. In practice, the government stops it somehow, either by insuring everyone or requiring them to be insured (every other rich nation), or by tying insurance to your job, as done here in the US. Our system is clearly a failure, but it is better than what you are suggesting.

            1. Don’t try to school me on market dynamics, punk; put down the textbook and try for once to engage your brain. By your myopic logic, everyone ought to be required by law to purchase some minimum level of everything offered on the market, on the strength that if they don’t, the availability of all goods and services will inexorably trend toward zero.

              Now I say: give me a waiver to sign; if not, I’ll make it my business to ensure that it costs you a hell of alot more than it would have if you’d just let me opt out of your system like I asked you to. You can bet on that.

            2. Josey, by not buying insurance, you are creating a market failure called adverse selection. It is the simple process of people like you, who are healthy, dropping out. This raises costs for everyone else, causing more to drop out, which again raises costs.

              You have it exactly backwards. His choice not to purchase a product puts downwards pressure on prices.

              It’s one of the few remaining mechanisms to do so.

              1. The funny thing about people like Chad is that they don’t realize or understand that underneath their argument lies an arbitrary contention: that there exists some just and pre-ordained price for [whatever – in this case, insurance]. He doesn’t want me to go uninsured because, however tortured his conception of market mechanics, he believes that my choice will cause the real price of insurance to deviate from his idea of its ‘correct’ price.

                He is a perfect fundamentalist – a mystic – and he doesn’t even know it; ironically, he sees himself as a rational thinker.

    4. I said the same thing to the cop about car insurance, he wouldn’t listen..

  12. How will the bill affect the dependents of work-visa holders (non-US born wives and/or non-US born children)? Most don’t have Social Security Numbers (rather they will have the ITIN for tax purposes) yet they are in the US legally.

    If the US Gov relies on the SSN to determine who can buy insurance or even be covered by insurance, it will create a new cadre of uninsured, except these will be individuals that reside legally in the US.

  13. The “progressives” have never been about anything other than a massive redistribution of wealth to their targeted constituency groups to buy their votes and make them even more dependent on government. It is all about concentrating ever more politicla and economic power in their own hands.

    Any other nominal reason they espouse for anything they do is a flat out lie.

  14. If I were as morally misguided as the average so called progressive Democrat, I would favor including the following in the legislation:

    We immediately start rounding up everyone standing outside of Home Depot and check their immigration status. If they are illegal, we put them in a holding facility. Then we immediately start working on reopening closed manufacturing facilities that closed down and moved to China because of some screwed up green legislation. Then we take the illegals that we are holding and put them to work in these newly opened plants. They will receive minimum wage, but part of their pay will be withheld to pay for the health care of the working middle class. The illegals get a job, don’t have to worry about being deported, and I get free fucking health care. Problem solved.

    Problem is I can’t support this because unlike so called progressives, I have a little bit of sanity and decency left. So instead, I am in favor of no unconstitutional mandates to buy health insurance and no amnesty for illegals.

    1. Yeah, I was beginning to lose the color in my skin when I was reading your “let’s enslave them” idea… Fortunately, I read all the way to the end.

  15. They are unlaful occupants of the country, entilted to no rights or services, its that simple

    Wrong.

    I am all for legal immigration, the more the merrier, but illeagles are criminals and deserve a deportation and thats it.

    Fine – then make all immigration, barring virulent illnesses and duly-convicted felons, legal. Problem solved – no more made-up criminals.

    1. I’m up for that. Please, not it on my perminant record.

      1. I’m up for that. Please, note it on my perminant record.

        1. Permanent even.

    2. Yes, anybody that can sneak into this country, from anywhere in the world, should have a right to be a legal immigrant. Give them free health care at the emergency rooms, free schooling, and possible a state of their own. California? Massachusettes? Indiana?

      1. If they can legally enter when they show up at the border, why would they sneak in?

  16. I don’t think I’m the first to suspect the Dems are actually quietly hoping Scott Brown wins tomorrow. With all the hyperbole they’ve been spewing about how important this health care “reform” bill is, they dare not back down in full public view now, but they also know it’s so offensive to a great many of their core constituencies that it’s likely to cost a great many of them their seats if they pass it.

    If Scott Brown gets the seat, they can save face by claiming the end-run negotiations they were planning fell through (which might even be true), let the bill quietly die, and if anyone asks them what happened, “blame” everything on the Republicans. (Republicans will be all too happy to take the credit–er, “blame” for killing this unpopular monstrosity.)

    The bill dies, everybody saves face, and then they can all vote themselves another big pay raise from our tax dollars the way they always do and then go on vacation for a while. As for the rest of us, though we’ll grumble about the pay raise, most of us will consider it cheap at the price compared to the astronomical amounts they get to spending when they’re at work.

    1. I would like to be that optimistic, but I am not. I do believe that Scott Brown can pull this off, despite any last minute efforts by the Ds. But, as far as the Ds dropping the push for this bill, I have absolutely no hope that will happen. I have come to be 100% convinced that they are totally insane tyrants and they cannot stop themselves even if they really wanted to. If Brown wins, they will do anything to push this through, no matter how corrupt or even illegal it is. They are going to pass this. They will not stop there, they will push amnesty for illegals next, and then cap and trade. The backlash caused by their irrational behavior is going to be unprecedented, but they will not stop until they have completely destroyed themselves and the D party or they succeed in putting themselves in power on a permanent basis with no fear of losing an election. I do not believe this to be politics as usual. We have people in control on our federal government with an extreme left wing agenda, and they will not stop, they will have to be stopped. That is the way I see it anyways.

  17. Yeah, I lied. But it worked.

  18. “because they feel that at least they will be extending coverage to two-thirds of the uninsured population.” No, it is because we know that it will be the beginning of the end for health insurance monopolies.

    1. “health insurance monopolies”

      No such animal.

      poo – tee – weet

      1. Dream on.

    2. @put up or shut up

      “it will be the beginning of the end for health insurance monopolies.”

      It would be the beginning of the government monopoly in the health insurance industry.

      1. BO, the end effect is that healthcare will be delivered in another way. I don’t understand why people can’t see that the way we do things can change for the better. I know you libertarians love your flying car example but we will never get there because profit trumps innovation.

  19. Of Plundering and Men.

    (PEOPLE.com) — Nicolas Cage is determined to get his financial house in order and to pay the IRS all that he owes in back taxes.

    While the government recently placed a tax lien on his real-estate holdings, including an additional $6.7 million from 2008, “over the course of my career I have paid at least $70 million in taxes, unfortunately, due to a recent legal situation, another approximate $14 million is owed to the IRS,” Cage told PEOPLE in an exclusive statement.

    However, I am under new business management and am happy to say that I am current for 2009, all taxes will be paid including any to be determined state taxes.

    Cage will next be seen in the thriller “Season of the Witch” in March.

    What services did he get back from the gun-vermin-int that were worth $84 million USD?

    Next time, Nick, get your contract to stipulate to be paid in US Gold Eagles and then report your income sorely on the stamped value of the coins.

    1. “What services did he get back from the gun-vermin-int that were worth $84 million USD”

      By my estimates, he had the right to keep approximately $168M that he made after taxes. All for being a fairly poor actor in the good old US of A. Imageine what he would have made, and got to keep, in any other country in the world. It’s still a Federal limit of ~35% on income.

      1. So the answer is “He did NOT get services worth 84 million. None.”

        Right?

        1. The purpose of progressive taxation is to strip wealth from the underserving and redistribute to the deserving. Rendering services equally to all is a side effect.

          1. Off your feed today, Tony?

            Even you can do better than that.

            1. But he’s not an elitist, bear that in mind…

          2. Re: Tony,

            The purpose of progressive taxation is to strip wealth from the underserving and redistribute to the deserving. Rendering services equally to all is a side effect.

            You know, I had a very heated argument with MNG because of his loose concept of “deserving”, which lead to question-begging arguments just as yours.

            Basically the fallacy is: The purpose of the policy is to take from A to give it to B because A is undeserving of what it was taken.

            That’s called “begging the question”.

            1. No one needs a hundred million dollars. It is quite easy to find many people that are deserving of sharing in this bounty.

              1. I do! I do! (x a billion)

              2. I do. How else could I even attempt to by the Cincinnati Reds?

              3. Define “need”. Define “deserving”.

              4. No one “needs” $100 million?

                Now you’ve switched from “underserved” to doesn’t need.

                Be a good little troll and stick to one fallacious concept at a time.

                1. One could argue that Mr. Cage doesn’t deserve any of the money people have paid him to make crappy movies.

                  1. From now on, when I go to the movies, I will insist that the theater give the money I paid for the ticket goes to the poor.

                  2. And one would be wrong. Look at each $1 as a ‘Certificate of Appreciation.”
                    Mr. Cage was awarded 168 million such certificates through free will offerings of those who held these certificates. But Tony doesn’t agree; he has his own standards of appreciation which he wishes to impose on us at the point of a gun.

                    1. But who created a system that funnels so much money to so few, for so little in return?

                      We did. Mr. Cage can pay us back now.

                    2. Okay. Then, can I have some of your earnings for being such a fucking leech on society?

                      No one forced theater goers to purchase tickets to Cage’s movies, you idiot. They CHOSE to. Which means, even if the movies were shitty, they still paid for goods and services, which in this case were Nicolas Cage movies.

                      The larger the number of people who pay to see a particular movie, the greater financial success it is (with respect to budget, of course), and thus profit participants get to share in that wealth. No one else is entitled to that $. Not you. Not me. Not anyone but those involved and who negotiated such deals. It’s really that simple.

                    3. But who created a system that funnels so much money to so few, for so little in return?

                      We did.

                      Then why do you progressives keep pushing for more?

                  3. Tony, your constant and willful ignorance about matters economic, political and ethical are one thing. You’re a self-satisfied, mouthbreathing lefty troll. No one could expect any better of you.

                    But when you start badmouthing Nicolas Cage, it belies a lack of artistic refinement so mindboggling that I scarcely have words. Mr Cage deserves every dollar he has made from his movies, and a rebate of all monies paid to state, local and federal governments as a matter of course.

              5. Re: Tony,

                No one needs a hundred million dollars.

                How do you know this?

                It is quite easy to find many people that are deserving of sharing in this bounty.

                Yup – they are called “thieves.”

              6. “No one needs a hundred million dollars.”

                And so the liberal doublespeak begins. Apparently not needing something means you don’t deserve it.

                Tony, you don’t need that house, you could live on the street and allow people who actually need a home to live in yours. You don’t need that shirt, lots of people need it more than you. You don’t need that money you just made, some other people deserve that money more than you do.

                Why does Nicholas Cage not “deserve” the millions of dollars that he earned? Did he steal the money from others? Did he commit crimes in order to get the money? Oh I know, let’s let some politicians decide who deserves what and who doesn’t deserve what. That’s the best way to go about distribution of wealth.

                1. You’re expecting a coherent, pro-free market answer from Tony?? Howls of derisive laughter shall ensue!

                  1. We’ve been had, this Tony is an charlatan!

                    Only the real thing makes you giggle, don’t trust fakes!

          3. Do tell us, Tony, how a tax system distinguishes between those who deserve to be better off than others, and those who don’t.

            For extra credit, tell us how a welfare system separates the deserving from the undeserving poor.

            1. No one deserves to be better off than others. The purpose of a progressive state is to drive people towards equity and fairness.

              1. Tony leaps off his perch on top of stupid right down into insanity.

                Either that, or someone is trolling him.

              2. I note how the progressives want to “drive” people.

                1. Progressives want to run our lives, and so do the far-right… just in different ways. But always with the threat of gunpoint and imprisonment by the almighty state.

              3. “No one deserves to be better off than others.”

                Only if there is absolutely NO chance of anyone being better off (which is a highly subjective objective).

                That would include the ruling class, by the way… right? Or would everyone get free health care, armored limos and Secret Service protection just like a president would… right?

              4. I deserve to be better than you if I find a way to be better. If I find a better way to run, I deserve to run faster than you. If I find a way to get lots of money by acting badly in action movies, I deserve to get more money than you.

                1. I’m the King of the B-Movies! Why can’t I make eighty million??

              5. Which is why Ted Kennedy picked up weekend shifts at Wendy’s until his final days, right?

            2. Tax the rich, feed the poor / Till there are no rich no more …

              We’ll never get there, but getting 80 million from Nick Cage is a good start.

              1. Hey boner, the fact that someone can get enough money to buy a yacht gives rise to an industry that makes it possible for many people have nice jobs. There would be no yachts in your socialist world, except for the most undeserving, the drivers of the masses.

                1. No one gets enough money to buy a yacht without taking it from someone else. And the people that make yachts for rich thugs could just as well be building shelters for the homeless.

                  1. “Taking”? So no one actually earns money, it’s all stolen. Right?

                    1. No one above a line manager earns all the money they take home.

                    2. Bullshit. You’re using wealth envy to justify a maximum wage. Dangerous thinking, Tony.

                    3. Dangerous is a financial system that allows “CEOs” to run a business into the ground and collect 50 million dollars.

                      The state should absolutely step in and redistribute those ill-gotten gains to the people who really deserve it.

                    4. Under what authority, Tony? Cite the part of the Constitution granting this kind of confiscatory power.

                      We’ll wait.

                    5. The constitution doesn’t give the authority to promite the “elite” welfare.

                    6. Not a fan of corporate welfare, Tony, so you and I agree on ONE thing. But probably only the one.

                    7. I notice he didn’t answer your question, Mr. FIFY…

                    8. I wanted an answer to:

                      Cite the part of the Constitution granting this kind of confiscatory power.

                      So far, you have not provided said answer. Fail.

                    9. The constitution doesn’t give the authority to promite the “elite” welfare.

                      Then why do you protect them?

                      The bigger you’ve made government the greater the differences in income. Can you never see cause and effect?

                      You think government is on your side?

                      How’s that Obama administration workout out for you?

                    10. That’s gonna be a long wait for an answer which bastardizes the phrase “promote the general welfare”…

                  2. I used to be a rich thug with a yacht… sigh

                    1. Now I play checkers with Faust and have to attend 20 hour AA meetings.

                  3. The point is that yachts and luxury cars and lots of expensive things are beautiful. Socialism destroys beauty along with human dignity. (see the USSR)

                    1. The high-ups in the old Soviet Union had nice cars, actual meals, and real toilet paper… what Chony wants is the same thing – the leaders of our once-great nation would have all those amenities, while we serfs plod about under their thumbs.

                      Well, Chad wants one-world government, so make that “our UN masters would have all those amenities”…

                  4. I’m a rich thug with THREE jet planes!

                    1. I’m a rich thug who gets paid to tell people they’re killing the planet!

                    2. I’m a rich thug who gets paid big money to make bullshit pro-socialist “documentaries”!

                    3. I’m just a rich thug.

                    4. But you’re MY rich thug, Rahm, never forget I own your ass.

                      By the way, you need to get up to Massachusetts and start bustin’ some heads. We can’t afford to lose any more Senate seats. Do what you gotta do, but make sure my name stays out of it.

                    5. I’m a rich thug who escaped the Nazis, only to grow up and become a bitter multi-billionaire who wants to create a socialist utopia!

              2. Taking $80 million from one man won’t fix shit, Tony. You’re just envious that Cage makes more than you do, so you want him punished. End of story.

                1. That’s similar to the professional prudes who are constantly worried that someone, somewhere, is having more fun than they are, and want laws passed to “level the playing field”.

              3. Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
                And he’ll climb in the back even though nobody’s driving
                Too goddamn lazy to crawl out of the wreck
                And he’ll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
                Going to hell in a handbag, can’t you see
                I ain’t gonna eat no Government Cheese

                http://www.lyricsbox.com/rainm…..jvgx9.html

          4. Well Nick Cage isn’t my favorite actor, but to say he is utterly undeserving, well I think that’s a little harsh.

          5. And that’s working like a charm, isn’t it, Tony?

            Fucking socialists never have enough, always wanting more. Disgusting.

          6. Equality of outcome is a fools’ errand, Tony.

          7. The purpose of progressive taxation is to disincentivize productivity and protect the extant wealthy from competition for control of government and also to create a permanent dependent class.

        2. Old Mexican|1.18.10 @ 3:01PM|#
          “So the answer is “He did NOT get services worth 84 million. None.”

          Right?”

          Correct, he did not receive services worth that much.

          1. Still doesn’t justify what Tony is advocating, though…

            1. It took me a while but I finally came to the realization that there is a profound difference between my personal morality and what the constitution of the U.S. allows.

              1. Thirty years ago, I hated rich people. Absolutely loathed every one of them.

                But… I grew up. Tony and Chad haven’t. So it IS possible, but not everyone takes the leap from wealth envy to indifference.

  20. By my estimates, he had the right to keep approximately . . . .

    Is that you hiding under a new nom de plume Tony?

  21. It’s still a Federal limit of ~35% on income.

    Good to know that the Federal gummint will cease its grasping after stealing only a little more than 1/3 of the money someone has made.

    Just about the only thing more explicit than the income tax in its rejection of human self-ownership would be if the government made the purchase of some kind of good or service mandatory for all citizens… oh. Oh, crap.

  22. “because they feel that at least they will be extending coverage to two-thirds of the uninsured population.” No, it is because we know that it will be the beginning of the end for health insurance monopolies.

    Plural monopolies? Surely not at the same time and region, otherwise none of them would actually be a monopoly, now would they? Perhaps you meant “cartels”?

    But seriously, the structural problems with the current health care delivery systems can be traced to:

    1) The asymmetric federal tax treatment of health plans you buy for yourself and those that your employer buys for you
    2) The interference of the states governments in the freedom to contract for a insurance plan that doesn’t include fertility treatments or acupuncture or every other fashionable treatment of the moment
    3) The insistent and deliberate conflation of health insurance with health care plans with access to health care

    Not that solving these issues would mean that poor people weren’t poor or that getting-along-ok-if-the-car-don’t-break folk could afford Ted Kennedy levels of care, or even that serious a illness couldn’t bankrupt a middle manager, but it would reduce the level of egregious and endemic stupidity in our health delivery system by a substantial factor.

  23. You gotta keep the big picture in mind. First you pass healthcare for everyone except illegal aliens. Then you point out the travesty of excluding illegal aliens and propose the only solution is to give them all citizenship.
    If your party is in control when the citizenship is granted you just bought yourself lifetime voters at a cheap price.

    1. “First you pass healthcare for everyone except illegal aliens. Then you point out the travesty of excluding illegal aliens and propose the only solution is to give them all citizenship.”

      You are absolutely correct, that is the plan.

      1. Even easier, you find some lefty to judge to rule that excluding illegals is unconstitutional. They get subsidized health care, you get the votes. No messy debates in Congress needed.

  24. Y’all gettin trolled by a fake Tony up thurr

    1. One of me is born every minute.

    2. Like Pavlov with a bell.

    3. I’m finally seeing the benefit of threaded comments.

      1. Maybe Congress should make threaded comments mandatory and publicly subsidized, eh?

    4. Is a troll trolling a troll consisered a troll squared?

  25. Re Tony:

    One could argue that Mr. Cage doesn’t deserve any of the money people have paid him to make crappy movies.

    If one did, one would be deeply and horribly wrong.

    For some unfathomable reason there are a lot of people who like movies with Mr Cage in them. Like them enough to pay ten dollars or more to see them in a cinema and twenty bucks or more to get them DVD (or god forbid, Blueray) later on.

    Fair exchange for value received.

    And, how do I know it is fair, Tony? Because they decided, of their own free will, that they wanted to exchange the money for a chance to watch Mr. Cage do his thing.

    1. Haven’t been in favor of punishing wealthy people, but Cage does need to atone for the expensive fuck-up called Ghost Rider… not monetarily, but perhaps by being publicly spanked by Andy Dick or something.

      1. Haven’t been in favor of punishing wealthy people since I was a teenager with an unhealthy fascination with communism.

        Type the whole thing before hitting “enter”, TLG! d’oh

  26. Because they decided, of their own free will, that they wanted to exchange the money for a chance to watch Mr. Cage do his thing.

    WHY they would do this is beyond the scope of the amateur psychopathologists here at Hit’n’Run.

    1. Alva, there is no one else in this entire office that I could possibly ask to share such a horrible job. You’re the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest. Do you realize that? Every other secretary here has been here longer than you, Alva. Every one. And even if there was someone here who was here even one day longer than you, I still wouldn’t ask that person to partake in such a miserable job as long as you were around. That’s right, Alva. It’s a horrible, horrible job; sifting through old contract after old contract. I couldn’t think of a more horrible job if I wanted to. And you have to do it! You have to or I’ll fire you. You understand? Do you? Good.

  27. Wild at Heart is one of my favorite movies. I wanted to name my first born Bobby Peru.

  28. Re Tony:

    No one above a line manager earns all the money they take home.

    The thing is, if this is true you’ve just discovered a wonderful way to make your fortune:

    1. go into business (in the field of your choosing, since this is a universal truth)
    2. only pay your employees above line manager what they are worth
    3. profit (feel free to give it to charity if you truly believe that wealth is obscene or something)

    You can be (just) rich (enough), famous, wildly popular, and have irrefutably proved your point. What’s there to not like?

    1. Perhaps I should expand on that a little.

      It is, of course, exceedingly hard to “prove” that some middle management paper pusher or vice president or even CEO is worth what they get paid. What they are supposed to “produce” is a lack of entropy, or clever ideas, or perhaps good morale, none of which are things that you can pin down for measurement.

      So I am sympathetic to the idea that there are a bunch of badly overpaid people out there.

      But the idea that the government, or some academic, or a people’s committee can pluck the right answer out of their ass is, well, asinine.

      And yes, letting the ownership class set their own pay scale invites abuse. But too much abuse really does invite them getting their asses whipped by a leaner competitor. Or it would if they weren’t protected by captured regulatory agencies or the notion that they are somehow “too big to fail”.

      1. That was someone trolling Tony…

        1. I’ve gone on an all hook diet.

          You wouldn’t believe how much weight I’m losing.

  29. Obama At Coakley Event: ‘I Need Leaders Like Martha By My Side’

    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpoin…..y-side.php

    …And if you do that, if you do that, if you are willing not only to cast your vote for Martha Coakley, but if you’re willing to get out the vote for Martha Coakley — (applause) — then you won’t just win this election. You will carry on the best, progressive, forward-looking values of this proud commonwealth and send a leader to Washington who is going to work tirelessly every single day to turn this economy around, to move this country forward, and to keep the American Dream alive in our time and for all time….

  30. The purpose of progressive taxation is to strip wealth from the underserving and redistribute to the deserving.

    And the mask slips off.

    1. No, that was someone trolling as Tony.

  31. I wonder if Tony has ever read Harrisn Bergeron.
    He seems to believe he would be an excellent Handicapper General.

    1. Aren’t they making a movie of Harrisn Bergeron soon?

  32. HarrisOn, dagnabbit!

  33. progressives, who put principle above politics

    When has any “progressive” ever done anything of the kind?

    -jcr

    1. Wicked burn. Ten points.

  34. that was someone trolling as Tony.

    It’s hard to tell; whoever trolls him has a pretty good handle on the shrill factor.

    1. Takes a bow.

  35. OT: I’m cautiously optimistic that Brown will beat Coakley tomorrow and commence operation gridlock.

    Over the past seven days, Intrade has been giving Brown steadily better odds, from just below 50% to currently 79%.

  36. The moment I see “undocumented aliens”, I pretty much lose all interest in the article. Cut it with stupid euphimisms. The problem is not that these people don’t have documents, it is they are NOT LEGALLY ELIGIBLE for them. The difference is two miles wide and just as deep.

    “Undocumented alien” is about as stupid a phrase as “sanitation engineer”. Please cut it out.

    1. ” “Undocumented alien” is about as stupid a phrase as “sanitation engineer”. Please cut it out.”

      +1

    2. They should really just remove that old plaque from the Statue of Liberty reading “Give us your tired, your poor your hungry … etc.” Because it obviously isn’t true anymore.

      1. That was surely a nice sentiment when there was 40 acres and a mule for everyone.

        We live in a different world now.

        1. “We live in a different world now.”

          Yes, a world in which one doesn’t NEED 40 acres and a mule to create wealth.

          1. Agreed. And the things these immigrants would need are expensive, paid for on the tax-payers dime, and have a payback time measured in generations.

            1. Chad, I know this is hard for you to understand, but when boys and girls grow up they have to get jobs to pay for Mcdonalds Happy Meals and toys. When boys and girls grow up, their Big Brother has to stop paying for everything and allow them to create their own allowance money. There, I put that in language you should be able to understand.

    3. they are NOT LEGALLY ELIGIBLE for them.

      The statist speaking in statist-speak.

    4. On the other hand “illegal alien” makes it sound like the person is illegal, rather than the fact of their presence in the US. Trespasser or country crasher sounds more appropriate.

      1. That’s surely a distinction without a difference. It reminds me of silly freshman philosophy debates about things like love: Do you love someone, or do you love their qualities?

        Words are often amibiguous. However, most of the time context makes the the ambiguity disappear. For example, my Japanese dictionary is lying on the desk in front of me. No would would interpret this as “a dictionary with personhood and citizenship in Japan”, as this makes no sense in reality, despite making sense literally. Some might think it means “A dictionary, entirely in Japanese, for Japanese”. Most would immediately assume “A Japanese-English dictionary, written in English for translation purposes”, because I am a native speaker of English…and they would be right.

        No one confuses your literally-correct but impossible interpretation of “illegal alien” with the correct interpretation, so there is no problem with the expression. However, “undocumented alien” is deliberately trying to miss the point. It is technically true, but irrelevant to what the problem is.

        1. Zzzzzz

    5. Undocumented alien

      wetbacks is fewer syllables.

  37. Universal coverage advocates (a group to which I do not belong) have accepted many unpalatable compromises?including abandoning their beloved public option?because they feel that at least they will be extending coverage to two-thirds of the uninsured population.

    Many of whom don’t actually want to buy insurance.

  38. No one deserves to be better off than others. The purpose of a progressive state is to drive people towards equity and fairness.

    And there is only one way toeards that: DOWNWARDS.

    1. Poverty is the great equalizer.

      1. Oh come on, you can troll better than that.

        1. If they did it wouldn’t sound like you.

        2. Why are you picking on me, Chad? That is what Progressives believe. The fact is that the ONLY path towards egalitarianism can only lead downwards – or what can you expect when people have to “give back” to “society” at least 33% of their productive efforts, as you advocated?

          1. Chad thinks every man, woman, and child has to be paying ten thousand dollars a year in taxes to “earn their keep”. To boot, he also wants one-world government/one-world tax rates, which makes him an utter traitor to the cause of liberty.

            IOW, the only useful part about arguing with him is the entertainment factor.

            1. TLG, a question: The libertarian hard-core wants unrestricted movement of goods, services and people across borders. Why is a one-world government a betrayal of liberty?

      2. “Poverty is the great equalizer.”

        I thought that was Death.

  39. “The bill may or may not succeed in chasing away these aliens, but it will certainly make them more miserable. ”

    And this is a bad thing???

  40. Why bother debating around the edges of the “Health Care” bill? The whole thing should be thrown out, along with the Congress and the Administration.

    The coming Democratic defeat in Massachusetts should serve as a wake up call to Obama on just how unpopular his health care reform idea is.

    1. The coming Democratic defeat in Massachusetts should serve as a wake up call to Obama on just how unpopular his health care reform idea is.

      It won’t, mind, but it should.

      1. Raul, it makes communists more aggressive in trying to deal with their objectives. That is the next step with the President. COnfrontation and no backing down, haven’t you experienced that when you try to talk to a Liberal Democrat?
        Punch them in the face!

  41. Mrs. Dalmia, One thing that I have learn from Radical Communists is that they never know when to back down. They will go full spped ahead in trying to get inmigration reform because they don’t care about the illegal inmigrants but about Marxism. Marxism is so important to them that it blinds reason. It has all been planned(Cass Sunstein is the brain), but the execution is poor because they are so incompetent…Thank G-d for that!

  42. Mrs. Dalmia, One thing that I have learn from Radical Communists is that they never know when to back down. They will go full spped ahead in trying to get inmigration reform because they don’t care about the illegal inmigrants but about Marxism. Marxism is so important to them that it blinds reason. It has all been planned(Cass Sunstein is the brain), but the execution is poor because they are so incompetent…Thank G-d for that!

  43. Kinda funny that you would be frothing along the mouth about “Marxism” like that. If you are stridently anti immigration, you are practicing collectivism. And, if you’ve ever seen Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” you’d know where kneejerk collectivism gets us.

    It is not the fault of immigrants that so many Americans have become so fat, weak, and fearful they feel a need to go begging the government to “do something” about limiting competition.

    A collectivist using “Marxist” as an epithet. [Slaps knee]

    +1 for unintended humor.

  44. Re: “By this logic should we, then, post sentries on federal highways to shoo off undocumented workers? Position guards outside pharmacies to bar them from buying FDA-approved drugs? Dispatch marshals to stop electricity generated by public utilities from flowing into undocumented households?”
    These questions are misleading. We don’t because it would be unwieldy and inefficient, not because it would be wrong. So, of course, the fact that we don’t go to extreme measures to prevent illegal aliens from using public resources is not an argument against refusing to allow people who have no right to our services (even administrative) to use them, which would be relatively simple in the instance of a service you must register for.

  45. Illegal aliens are illegally here to begin with. Why would they care if they don’t conform to any legal requirements to buy health insurance? How would this make them “more miserable”?

  46. “The right has pretty much won the argument that people who break the law to enter this country don’t deserve the assistance of law-abiding Americans.”

    The issue is whether illegal aliens deserve the assistance of the government of the nation in which they are residing illegally. They either entered legally after agreeing to leave and haven’t done so, or they entered illegally to begin with. In either case, I don’t see why they should expect to receive the same benefits as citizens or non-citizens residing here legally. Of course, if you think of health care as some kind of inalienable right, I suppose it could make sense.

  47. Read the article.. one comment . Bull manure. Let Mr King spin and or rotate.

  48. When I buy insurance of any kind, I’m required to provide my SSN. Since illegals do not have SSN’s they have to use someone else’s. That’s identity theft and fraud which directly harms another individual.

    1. Back in the halcyon 90’s, when Social Security numbers were for Social Security and not for immigration control, there were Individual Tax ID Numbers. These ITINs could be used as personal identifiers just as SSNs are used.

      If I were you, I’d put the blame for identity theft squarely on the government for making SSN versus ITIN a means to find illegal immigrants.

      Illegal immigrants aren’t trying to steal anyone’s identity. They are only trying to fill out a form.

      1. Please, that’s like defending bank robbers by saying “They’re not trying to steal anyone’s money, they’re only trying to pay the bills.”

        1. No. It’s more like defending bank robbers by saying, “The government made it illegal for them to work. What did the government expect would be the result?”

  49. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  50. I like your point! It is of wisdom.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.