Question for "Medicare for all" supporters... Does that include illegal aliens?

"Medicare for all" is the latest buzzword among the collectivist left. Even Dianne Slimestein has been stung by this one as she has been booed (literally) for suggesting a complete government takeover of the healthcare system is not a great idea. Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

But I'd like to hear from forum members who support this latest proposed tyranny if this "all" includes the millions of illegal aliens who are not even supposed to be present in the country or if "all" refers to just citizens, legal permanent residents, and others duly authorized to be residing in the United States.

Obviously I am opposed to the idea, but am doubly opposed to including the illegals in this taxpayer-funded largesse.

 

Since no one is illegal, of course it will

 

Right now anyone collecting Medicare has paid into it and continues to do so while being eligible to use it.Every Social Security recipient has Medicare taken out of their monthly check.I for example have paid into Medicare continuously since it's inception under LBJ.

 

Noted you didn't answer the question.

 

Those are the kind of answers I'm expecting from AOC/Pocohantas/Bernie.

 

I don't think you will get them to answer this question because they want to say yes but they know that is unpopular so they just hope no one brings it up.

 

But at the present time 61falcon's statement is still true.

It's not Venezuela yet.

 

Lol, I’m busted! Kinda why I started tgis thread. Let me state plainly in no uncertain terms all public benefits should be reserved for citizens and individuals lawfully present in the country and duly eligible to receive them.

 

Yet oddly the question remains unanswered.

 

Still waiting...

 

Yes everyone. Of course

 

We certainly don't do that now

Police. Fire, public education .....etc

 

First off Senator Feinstein was talking about something OTHER than Single Payer Medicare for All when she was booed.

Secondly the CURRENT Medicare Parts A and B are FULLY FUNDED by Payroll Taxes and Premiums therefore there is NO TAXPAYER "LARGESSE" involved.

Currently ER's do NOT determine the immigration status of those who arrive and need medical care.

Since we do NOT currently discriminate on the basis of immigration status then why would be an issue for Single Payer Medicare for ALL?

If Single Payer Medicare for ALL was FULLY FUNDED by Payroll Taxes and Premiums then everyone who paid those taxes and premiums would be entitled to coverage.

 

Because it's effectively a lump sum payment to illegally enter the country.

 

Fallacious assumption lacking any substantiation whatsoever.

 

As I see it, the problem is that people without money or coverage will go to hospital emergency rooms so we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

Bit defensive? Did I strike a chord?

If you live in Burkina Faso free medical care is absolutely an inducement to migrate. A moral hazard.

Of course, good jobs are too - but that's the sort of inducement that attracts Burkina Faso's best and brightest and leaves them without their top 10% citizens which is good for everyone except Burkina Faso.

 

Continued failure to substantiate your bogus allegation only harms your own credibility.

 

You've got to have the nuts sometimes if you're going to constantly bluff nonsense. Everyone here sees through what you're doing.

 

YOU made this utterly BOGUS allegation!

You have been called out to provide substantiation for this IMAGINARY "lump sum payment to illegally enter the country" and instead you have deflected because you are INCAPABLE of backing it up.

That effectively DOWNGRADES what little is left of your dwindling credibility.

 

As a matter of housekeeping, a couple of points. First, if it gives you comfort to assign the discussion of a "Medicare for all" health insurance model to the "collectivist left," so be it. But let's recognize the system we have is not working in respect to the goals of universal coverage, better health outcomes (comparable to those of other industrialized countries), and spending a lower % of GDP for healthcare. The real question then becomes why isn't everyone talking about an alternative?
Second, though the Right loves to use the fear mongering phrase "government takeover of healthcare" you should really try to get over it. I realize one of the results of the Reagan years (one of the most corrupt admins in history for which much hyperbolic, unwarranted glorification exists) is the demonization of government. But the current Medicare system (which is not tyranny, you sure do like using all the trigger words) we have is arguably a government controlled one and people love it. Beyond that, the country must come to grips with the fact escalating costs in healthcare overall must begin to be controlled or the country will bankrupt itself and Medicare achieves the cost control end.
As for the central question, I would apply to same means test to "Medicare for all" that applies to unemployment insurance, eligibility for the ACA, SS, and virtually all social safety net programs........US citizenship or legal resident status. At the same time it should be acknowledged that many illegal aliens who are employed in the US subsidize taxpayer funded programs like SS and Medicare by paying those payroll taxes but not receiving the benefit.

 

We don't have universal healthcare yet, but presumably tourists and visitors would also be treated.

If someone is hit by a car, would you determine their status before you scrape them off the pavement?

 

By matter of law and policy, no one is denied medical treatment in the United States.

 

Yet we know there are millions of people with untreated conditions due to a lack of affordable access to healthcare.

 

Yet, by matter of law and policy, no one is denied medical treatment in the United States.