“Wait a Second. Why Shouldn’t We Insure Illegals?”
As if on cue, Newsweek’s Andrew Romano asks that question: why shouldn’t we insure illegals?
He’s arguing from an economic standpoint, rather than the compassion standpoint. See, providing free care for one of the poorest segments of society will lower costs for the rest of us. Or something.
No, really. Just go ask Arizona, and New Mexico, and southern California if you don’t believe it.
Via Memeorandum.
More: Matthew Yglesias says checking citizenship status is “a policy based on pure spite” that will make insurance even more expensive.
Buck up, there, Matt! You want insurance to be more expensive, so fewer people can afford it, so public demand for government health care will grow! Didn’t you get the talking points?
Comments are closed.
“See, providing free care for one of the poorest segments of society will lower costs for the rest of us.”
Congratulations, you’re finally beginning to understand the basics of the health care debate. Universal coverage systems are just more efficient than the status quo, by almost any measure.
So when people complain about possible coverage of illegal immigrants, not only are they wrong on the facts (as any review of the bill would show), they are also demonstrating a basic ignorance of reasons for health care reform in the first place.
No, Leo: having society pay for health care for everyone doesn’t lower costs. It never has. Not once. At no time in history has any attempt to spread the cost of health care to a larger population whether or not they use it had the effect of lowering costs.
NEVER.
Lance: Of course it has. That is the experience of every other advanced nation. They pay between 1/2 and 2/3 as much for comparable or better care.