If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Right Wing News)   Five reasons the Rubio/McCain amnesty bill is the next Obamacare   (rightwingnews.com) divider line 52
    More: Interesting, obamacare, John McCain, Mark Krikorian, Secretary of Homeland Security, Center for Immigration Studies, Kelly Ayotte, immigration reform, green cards  
•       •       •

739 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2013 at 8:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-12 08:21:31 AM
You could work for a lot less per hour yourself if you didn't have car insurance or health insurance and could cheat on your taxes with impunity.

I am fairly certain that most minimum wage workers don't have car insurance, health insurance, and don't make enough to pay taxes.


/Ok, many may have car insurance
 
2013-06-12 08:50:36 AM
And what happens when you don't have insurance and something bad happens?  $$$
 
2013-06-12 08:55:09 AM
See? If we destroy all your benefits and cut your pay, you really are the real winner.
 
2013-06-12 08:58:57 AM
6. It will cause Teabaggy Republicans to go apoplectic, say stupid things and alienate even more voters?
 
2013-06-12 09:00:18 AM
The suffering are the lucky ones, because they get help!
 
2013-06-12 09:01:35 AM
7) "Neither will cure my state of constant flatulence."
 
2013-06-12 09:01:55 AM
So the Rubio/McCain bill is a Heritage Foundation idea also?
 
2013-06-12 09:02:48 AM
It's going to be the law?
 
2013-06-12 09:03:26 AM
3) This bill allows illegal immigrants to have American citizenship:

Uh, yeah. That's the point.
 
2013-06-12 09:05:05 AM

skykid: So the Rubio/McCain bill is a Heritage Foundation idea also?


HEYoooooo!
 
2013-06-12 09:07:45 AM
RHHAAAAAAAAAAMNEY!

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-12 09:09:02 AM
Because it's over 1100 pages long?

/dnrtfa
 
2013-06-12 09:09:57 AM
1) The bill legalizes illegal aliens before security measures are put in place

Security measure will never be put in place so making a process for citizenship dependant on the security measures effectively ends the process.

2) Most of the key security measures in the bill are left up to the discretion of the Obama Administration

Then amend the bill to specify what measures are to be taken, when, and how they are funded then it won't be up to the administration.

3) This bill allows illegal immigrants to have American citizenship

This is the point for creating a path to citizenship.

4) Illegal immigrants won't be forced to pay back taxes

Neither will the companies that are illegally employing them.

5) Provisions in the bill could add as many as 30 million new immigrants

Yes and they will be legal immigrants.  This objection along with #3 clearly sums up the authors feels, he hates brown people.
 
2013-06-12 09:12:05 AM
'Secure the border first'?

Fine, I'll go along with that, just as soon as whoever wants it says exactly how they would do so, what would be required, and pinky-swears to not move the goalposts when it doesn't work.
 
2013-06-12 09:14:40 AM
This guy again with his stupid lists?

www.rightwingnews.com
 
2013-06-12 09:17:22 AM

Karac: pinky-swears to not move the goalposts when it doesn't work.


They don't need to move the goalposts, they are demanding security measure to work before people are allowed to try to become citizens.
 
2013-06-12 09:19:50 AM
I feel dumber for clicking that. Even dumber for reading it.

It was plainly obvious how he felt when he compared it to "Obamacare" in the farking title, but still I trudged on. I know it's not politically correct to come right out and say "I hate brown people," but damnit if they're not trying to bring it back.
 
2013-06-12 09:40:30 AM

EvilEgg: You could work for a lot less per hour yourself if you didn't have car insurance or health insurance and could cheat on your taxes with impunity.

I am fairly certain that most minimum wage workers don't have car insurance, health insurance, and don't make enough to pay taxes.


/Ok, many may have car insurance


It's really cheap on a 1983 Pontiac.
 
2013-06-12 09:41:16 AM
So controversial at first but doing so many positive things that people will wind up liking it.
 
2013-06-12 09:41:31 AM
Five reasons the Rubio/McCain amnesty bill is the next Obamacare

1) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
2) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
3) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
4) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
5) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
 
2013-06-12 09:45:08 AM

lilbjorn: Five reasons the Rubio/McCain amnesty bill is the next Obamacare

1) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
2) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
3) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
4) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
5) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want


But isn't "100% of what the Republicans want" for all the brown people who don't belong here to go home?
 
2013-06-12 09:49:23 AM

Dog Welder: lilbjorn: Five reasons the Rubio/McCain amnesty bill is the next Obamacare

1) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
2) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
3) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
4) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want
5) Because it isn't 100% of what the Republicans want

But isn't "100% of what the Republicans want" for all the brown people who don't belong here to go home?


Oh good lord no.  Don't be silly.  They want to keep a class of people they can screw over who have no legal recourse.  They just want to make sure they know they can't go to the authorities under any circumstances.
 
2013-06-12 09:56:48 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Uh, yeah. That's the point.


Why would that be the point?
 
2013-06-12 09:59:14 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Why would that be the point?


A path to citizenship is not some gratuitous, tangential provision -- for the White House, it's the point of the bill. Link
 
2013-06-12 10:31:14 AM

KushanMadman: So controversial at first but doing so many positive things that people will wind up liking it.


I expect that the immigration bill will do lots of good things that greatly benefit the country, and it will be hugely unpopular and get blamed for all kinds of real or imagined problems.

I expect that the ACA will mostly degrade health care quality while increasing costs. And it will be very popular and Republicans will fully embrace it within 10 years.
 
2013-06-12 10:50:41 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: This guy again with his stupid lists?

[www.rightwingnews.com image 79x80]


I know!

If you were to take a simple Expository Composition 101 at your local JuCo and EVERYTHING YOU SUBMITTED WAS IN THE FORM OF A FARKING LIST, you would fail that course.

Then again, does anyone expect anything but laziness out of this guy?
 
2013-06-12 11:12:00 AM
It will drive conservatives into a frothing butthurt for the next decade?
 
2013-06-12 11:20:02 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: A path to citizenship is not some gratuitous, tangential provision -- for the White House, it's the point of the bill.


I get that many people, predominantly Democrats are advocating that we fast track currently illegal aliens to American citizens, but I've not heard it clearly articulated as to WHY, exactly, they need to be citizens quickly.

I'm all in favor of making them legal, but that does not require citizenship. I'm all in favor of legal immigrants being able to become citizens if they so choose, but I don't see a compelling reason to fast-track currently illegal aliens.

Can you explain the thinking?
 
2013-06-12 11:23:20 AM

EvilEgg: I am fairly certain that most minimum wage workers don't have car insurance, health insurance, and don't make enough to pay taxes.



Lol, wut?
Full time minimum wage: $17,400
Income tax (single): 15% on the amount over $8700.  Tax $1305
Social Security: 6.2%.  Tax 1078.8
Medicare: 2.9%  Tax 504.60
Total taxes:  2888.40
Effective tax rate: 16.6%
Tax rate on billion dollar gains from the stock market: 15%
So your minimum wage worker pays a federal tax rate HIGHER than billionaire investors.
 
2013-06-12 11:25:24 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Dusk-You-n-Me: A path to citizenship is not some gratuitous, tangential provision -- for the White House, it's the point of the bill.

I get that many people, predominantly Democrats are advocating that we fast track currently illegal aliens to American citizens, but I've not heard it clearly articulated as to WHY, exactly, they need to be citizens quickly.

I'm all in favor of making them legal, but that does not require citizenship. I'm all in favor of legal immigrants being able to become citizens if they so choose, but I don't see a compelling reason to fast-track currently illegal aliens.

Can you explain the thinking?


In what specific ways is the path to citizenship a "fast track?"

Seems like you're begging the question here.
 
2013-06-12 11:27:37 AM

BojanglesPaladin: I get that many people, predominantly Democrats are advocating that we fast track currently illegal aliens to American citizens, but I've not heard it clearly articulated as to WHY, exactly, they need to be citizens quickly.


I haven't seen the text of the proposal but I don't think 10 or 15 years of waiting equals "fast track".
 
2013-06-12 11:36:38 AM

Muta: Karac: pinky-swears to not move the goalposts when it doesn't work.

They don't need to move the goalposts, they are demanding security measure to work before people are allowed to try to become citizens.


... and, in their minds, the security measures will never work to their satisfaction.
 
2013-06-12 11:39:58 AM
So, like Obamacare... the Republicans will fight it tooth-and-nail, it will get passed and implemented, and it will work?

[imokwiththis.jpg]
 
2013-06-12 11:42:27 AM
Republicans will spend years abolishing it symbolically, to absolutely no end?
 
2013-06-12 11:44:20 AM

MisterRonbo: EvilEgg: I am fairly certain that most minimum wage workers don't have car insurance, health insurance, and don't make enough to pay taxes.

Lol, wut?
Full time minimum wage: $17,400


You realize that your first line of calculation contradicts "most minimum wage workers", right?  I mean, full-time min wage positions exist, but they're a tiny minority.
 
2013-06-12 11:46:36 AM

Muta: 1)
Security measure will never be put in place so making a process for citizenship dependant on the security measures effectively ends the process.


Security measures are a red herring. His real point is about honesty in government. It is woefully naive to pretend that this bill does not arise out of a historical context in which both political parties have repeatedly lied to the American people. Not only should we not reward people for breaking the law, we should not reward politicians for lying. In the long run that gets us PRISM and other nefarious practices. When we reward politicians for bullshiat we get more bullshiat.

2)
Then amend the bill to specify what measures are to be taken, when, and how they are funded then it won't be up to the administration.


The Democrats themselves have already described this strategy by Cornyn as a "poison pill"

3) This bill allows illegal immigrants to have American citizenship


Agreed.

4)
Neither will the companies that are illegally employing them.


True enough. But two wrongs do not make a right here. This actually illustrates why making these immigrants eligible for health care is so wrong. The entire system is based upon the idea that those who paid into the system get the benefit of the system. But these people never paid into the system, at least not directly via taxes. If immigrants get health care that should be paid for by a tax on all estate transfers worth more than 500K. The people who got rich off of cheap immigrant labor can damn well pay for their health care and retirement.


5)
 This objection along with #3 clearly sums up the authors feels, he hates brown people.


And this of course is why we can't have a rational conversation. Because at the end of the day every rational or principled objection or concern is simply a subterfuge for some other nefarious agenda. I'm a liberal. I voted for Obama this past election. I'd never vote for this bill as it stands.
 
2013-06-12 11:48:10 AM

The Homer Tax: In what specific ways is the path to citizenship a "fast track?"

Dusk-You-n-Me: I haven't seen the text of the proposal but I don't think 10 or 15 years of waiting equals "fast track".


My understanding is that there is a provision in the bill (or a stated objective of the democrat position) that would entitle currently illegal residents to be provided a special status entitling them to apply for citizenship through a special process different from those who have applied for citizenship through the normal process. Among other things, I believe this includes counting years of residency as an illegal as residency qualification, which would shorten the time frame.

(Also, the 10-15 year to citizenship is an "maximum" number, not an average. I know quite a few people who have become citizens is far less time, including a former employee who went from Green card to citizen in under two years.)

So the question is why, exactly, would we create a separate process or "path to citizenship" for illegals at all? As opposed to issuing illegal residents a legal permanent resident status and  letting those who want to apply for citizenship as per normal process.
 
2013-06-12 11:58:51 AM
Ah haha I don't even have to click the article to know who the author is. It's a shame that he remains a virgin due to his literal constant flatulence. Perhaps someday he will find a surrogate fart sex therapist to get him through his difficulties.
 
2013-06-12 12:07:32 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The Homer Tax: In what specific ways is the path to citizenship a "fast track?"
Dusk-You-n-Me: I haven't seen the text of the proposal but I don't think 10 or 15 years of waiting equals "fast track".

My understanding is that there is a provision in the bill (or a stated objective of the democrat position) that would entitle currently illegal residents to be provided a special status entitling them to apply for citizenship through a special process different from those who have applied for citizenship through the normal process. Among other things, I believe this includes counting years of residency as an illegal as residency qualification, which would shorten the time frame.

(Also, the 10-15 year to citizenship is an "maximum" number, not an average. I know quite a few people who have become citizens is far less time, including a former employee who went from Green card to citizen in under two years.)

So the question is why, exactly, would we create a separate process or "path to citizenship" for illegals at all? As opposed to issuing illegal residents a legal permanent resident status and  letting those who want to apply for citizenship as per normal process.


Do we have "legal permanent residents" as a thing today?
 
2013-06-12 12:08:32 PM

Jim_Callahan: You realize that your first line of calculation contradicts "most minimum wage workers", right? I mean, full-time min wage positions exist, but they're a tiny minority.


The percentage of working Americans earning minimum wage overall is pretty low with more than 90% of Americans earning more than minimum wage. But you are right that most people earning minimum wage are hourly; Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were more likely than full-time workers to be paid the Federal minimum wage or less (about 13 percent versus about 2 percent).

Interestingly, Only 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers make minimum wage or lower, (and that includes about half who work in hospitality or food service with income often supplemented by under reported tip income). They are also predominantly under the age of 25 and never married.
 
2013-06-12 12:14:56 PM

The Homer Tax: Do we have "legal permanent residents" as a thing today?


Are you being serious? You don't know what a LPR is?

We have had it for ages, since at least the end of WWII. Of course, I'm only saying that because my father has been one for many decades now, and it's pretty common knowledge. Perhaps you have heard of a "green card"?

This might help:
"A United States Permanent Resident Card (USCIS Form I-551), formerly Alien Registration Card or Alien Registration Receipt Card (INS Form I-151), is an identification card attesting to the permanent resident status of an alien in the United States. It is known informally as a green card because it had been green in color from 1946 until 1964, and it has reverted to that color since May 2010.Green card also refers to an immigration process of becoming a permanent resident. The green card serves as proof that its holder, a lawful permanent resident (LPR), has been officially granted immigration benefits, which include permission to reside and take employment in the United States. The holder must maintain permanent resident status, and can be removed from the United States if certain conditions of this status are not met. "

Are you sure you should be on an immigration policy thread if you don't know this?

Or did I miss some snark? Maybe I misunderstand your post, and if I have improperly concluded you were ignorant of this based on your post, I apologize.
 
2013-06-12 12:24:14 PM

Jim_Callahan: MisterRonbo: EvilEgg: I am fairly certain that most minimum wage workers don't have car insurance, health insurance, and don't make enough to pay taxes.

Lol, wut?
Full time minimum wage: $17,400

You realize that your first line of calculation contradicts "most minimum wage workers", right?  I mean, full-time min wage positions exist, but they're a tiny minority.


You do realize that the other lines of my calculation shows that anybody oh minimum wage pays 9.1% in federal taxes.

Your contention was that they pay nothing.

9.1% is a little bigger than 0%.

But nice try attempting to shift the argument, I guess you figured nobody would notice the whole "you're wrong" part.
 
2013-06-12 12:29:14 PM

worlddan: This actually illustrates why making these immigrants eligible for health care is so wrong. The entire system is based upon the idea that those who paid into the system get the benefit of the system.


Lolwut?

Its based on the idea that its cheaper for people to have insurance and treat problems early, when they're much cheaper, than to wait.  If they can afford the insurance, fine.  If they can't, fine.  Either way, the experience of every other country shows why waiting for an uninsured person with high blood pressure to have a heart attack is going to be more expensive.

Which actually illustrates why making these immigrants eligible for health care is cheaper than not doing so.

Do you somehow think letting poor citizens use the ER as their medical backstop is wildly expensive, but the same thing for immigrants somehow isn't?
 
2013-06-12 12:36:05 PM

MisterRonbo: Which actually illustrates why making these immigrants eligible for health care is cheaper than not doing so.


That's as may be, but that's not the point he was making.

Currently there is a disincentive for the 10-12 Million illegal residents to use the health care system, except in extreme emergencies. If we were to suddenly remove that disincentive, there would be a significant increase in the use of the healthcare system by large population that had not previously contributed to the generalized costs either through taxes or insurance.

To illustrate it (with completely made up numbers), 90% of 12 million people receiving regular routine and urgent healthcare is bound to cost more than 10% of 12 million people receiving occasional emergency care.

Of course, we should WANT everyone to have healthcare, but that does not make the cost issues disappear.
 
2013-06-12 12:36:28 PM
Rubio is now saying that we need to seal the borders *and* make the mutha-fuggas speak English.

/oblig pulp fiction.jpg
 
2013-06-12 12:54:46 PM

BojanglesPaladin: To illustrate it (with completely made up numbers), 90% of 12 million people receiving regular routine and urgent healthcare is bound to cost more than 10% of 12 million people receiving occasional emergency care.


Only if the cost of providing regular, routine car is more than 1/9th the cost of occasional emergency care. Which I do not believe to be the case.

Let's say its going to cost you $600 for a policy to cover regular care. That's $7,200 a year, and for nine people, $64,800

Person number 10 has a heart attack and goes to the ER. If the cost of that is more than $64,800 then the routine care pool is cheaper.

But the real numbers are even more stark. Give him routine care, he doesn't have the heart attack: he keeps working and contributing. He doesn't end up disabled, in long term convalescent care, or dead.

Now these are all back of the envelope numbers, in the end it could go either way.  My point is that it isn't quite so obvious as you think, and there are costs either way.  It may be cheaper to insure the poor, but at the least it isn't *much* more expensive.
 
2013-06-12 01:09:53 PM

MisterRonbo: Give him routine care, he doesn't have the heart attack.


Many of the people who receive routine care will ALSO require emergency and expensive medical care. Just because he got his yearly checkup, doesn't mean he won't have a heart attack. Most Americans already had health insurance, and access to routine healthcare and yet heart attack and heart disease is still one of the most common killers and expenses. And ONE cancer patient out of your pool blows the pool.

I think his point still stands. If you add 10-12 million people to the healthcare system, it will cost more than not having them, even if you can reduce the impact by some preventative care. And these 10-12 million have presumably not paid into the system they would be utilizing, making the burden of that expense fall on taxpayers and insurance premiums, at least for the first few years.

That may be a price we are willing to pay, but we should not pretend it is not a price.
 
2013-06-12 01:26:22 PM
MisterRonbo:

Its based on the idea that its cheaper for people to have insurance and treat problems early, when they're much cheaper, than to wait.

No one disputes that but that wasn't the point I was making. The point is that health insurance like retirement works on a generational cycle. Regardless of who waits and who doesn't health care costs on average are much cheaper early in life and much more expensive later in life. In fact, 2/3 of a person's total lifetime health care expenditures are in the last six months of life. The fact is that public health insurance is a form of forced saving. We force young people to buy more health care than they need in order to subside old people who pay for less health care than they need and, at least in theory, from generation to generation the cycle continues.

With immigrants this cycle is broken. They never paid directly into the health system when they were young but they get benefits out of it when they are older. Without some alternative funding mechanism young people today are going to carry a higher tax burden than they otherwise would have if health care is denied to immigrants. Again, this is true regardless of the fact that overall systematized health care reduces cost. The issue is not one of absolute cost; it is an issue of who is going to bear that cost.
 
2013-06-12 02:13:11 PM

worlddan: The point is that health insurance like retirement works on a generational cycle. Regardless of who waits and who doesn't health care costs on average are much cheaper early in life and much more expensive later in life. In fact, 2/3 of a person's total lifetime health care expenditures are in the last six months of life. The fact is that public health insurance is a form of forced saving. We force young people to buy more health care than they need in order to subside old people who pay for less health care than they need and, at least in theory, from generation to generation the cycle continues.


Yes, its a form of forced saving, or a paygo system if you prefer.

But as you say, most of the costs come at the end. These immigrants are generally working (and thus paying in), or are children and will pay in just like everyone else. The cost shift is only to the extent that the average age of working age immigrants is greater than the age people start paying in (say, 18).  I think illegal immigrant population tends to skew younger than the average Americans.  So let's say you pay in from 18 to 65, and the average immigrant age is 32.

That means they're paying in for 33 years instead of 47 years. So, two thirds.

Plus, all of those years without health insurance means they'll die younger, and thus cost less.
 
2013-06-12 02:57:19 PM

worlddan: With immigrants this cycle is broken. They never paid directly into the health system when they were young but they get benefits out of it when they are older. Without some alternative funding mechanism young people today are going to carry a higher tax burden than they otherwise would have if health care is denied to immigrants. Again, this is true regardless of the fact that overall systematized health care reduces cost. The issue is not one of absolute cost; it is an issue of who is going to bear that cost.


i was kinda with you until this paragraph. you seem to be making the assumption that most immigrants come here to retire. while a few do, on the whole immigrants are younger than the native-born population...we need more young people in the healthcare system if we want to make the numbers work.

plus, as someone who works in immigration, i can tell you, undocumented immigrants are using the US healthcare system  right now.giving them legal status and having them pay more into the system can only help everyone.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report