Byron York notes that Obama started talking about 30 million uninsured citizens tonight, rather than 47 million "people in this country". The question is, why? Politicians don't usually underplay their most dramatic statistic.
I can explain most of it with this table. There were 45,657,000 people without insurance in the 2007 Census estimate. 12,388,000 of those were foreign born, and 9,737,000 were not citizens, leaving 33,269,000. I assume Obama is leaving room to ensure that no one can claim that he is going to cover illegal immigrants (or for that matter, legal ones). But that still leaves 3 million people unaccounted for.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Well, did you really expect him to say 33,269,000? Of course he used approximate numbers - all politicians do. And what you have is only a census estimate, by the way. Sensible people underplay their hand slightly. Better not to be accused of exaggerating the case.
Megan bait: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The quote from the preview is "There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
Maybe that explains it? (I don't think so, but I dunno.)
Just thought I'd point out that I discussed the same table over a year ago. The title ends with "watch out for liars", and that was (do I even need to say it!) quite prescient.
For instance, that same day, Obama lied about those statistics, and he and others have done so repeatedly until just recently. In fact, I pointed out in my discussion of the speech that he had (for this time) decided not to lie.
Or perhaps he was not including the ones which are already elligible for Medicaid (which I believe is about 9-10 million) since they're already covered for all intents and purposes.
Or maybe he just realized that there are actually 50 rather than 57 States and revised the numbers down accordingly . . .
The AP has explained where this number comes from:
He's acknowledging that millions in the previous number actually choose not to get health insurance because they are young and healthy and don't think they need health care. That's all.
Here's the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
I wouldn't assume Obama is doing anything other than reading from the teleprompter.
He's rounding to the nearest 10 million rather than the nearest million, and he used the "American citizens" stat because we're sick of hearing how the 47 million include a bunch of non-citizens, as though there's some good reason why legal residents shouldn't be insured.
So now he's using the stat just for American citizens, so we can have a discussion that doesn't get sidetracked by trivial objections. Or at least that's what he hoped would happen.
Yes, because objecting to paying for health insurance for 17 million people who are here illegally and don't pay any taxes into the system is such a trivial thing.
"I assume Obama is leaving room to ensure that no one can claim that he is going to cover illegal immigrants (or for that matter, legal ones). But that still leaves 3 million people unaccounted for. "
According to MSNBC and the Associated Press, Obama was just lying when he said that. His claim that he can prevent illegal aliens from receiving health care under his plan is dubious at best, and probably an outright lie the AP said.
Obama also lied to seniors when he claimed he would not cut Medicare. In fact, he wants to pay for illegals by cutting Medicare $500 million. "Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage," the Associated Press analysis said.
Joe Wilson was the only Congressman with the courage to denounce the President's comments. Looks like he was right, according to the Associated Press, which said Obama used "iffy math" during much of his speech.
Obama also broke a major campaign promise during the speech by forcing poor people to buy expensive health insurance. The AP noted that during the campaign, Obama "rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage."
All-in-all, the AP paints a picture of repeated deceit by Obama. If he can't fool the press, I'm not sure how he's going to be able to fool the people, or the Congress.
This would be the completely liberal press you continually bemoan, yes?
Yes ... the liberal press is unpersuaded by Obama's rhetoric. I think that's surprising.
Bemoaning a biased press isn't exactly a bad thing, is it?
MSNBC and the Associated Press?
Like...we are to assume these people have any idea how Medicare even works?
Right!
Note also that the "many experts" cited are not even NAMED. That's be quite a credibility enhancer, no?
The best thing anyone who really care about health reform can do is educate him/herself about it, to begin with.
Here's a treat to chew on: it's a good starter.
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/08/does-medicare-underpay-hospitals-.html
This is an astro-turfed faux blog, created by partisans.
It's hardly fooling anybody.
Please sell your books somewhere else. Posting links to your site pushing your books and DVD's is the epitome of gauche.
Megan made a commentary that left me scratching my head in disbelief:
"I assume Obama is leaving room to ensure that no one can claim that he is going to cover illegal immigrants (or for that matter, legal ones)."
Come again? Legal immigrants should not be covered? WTF?
The great majority of legal immigrants come here to work. For those who do not believe me, just check the wait times for the legal immigrants coming to this country as family members; the average wait time is 12 years! With such a lengthy period, you don't have an invasion anytime soon.
If one works, taxes are paid, right? Disposable income is spent here for the most part.
And it would be legitimate to refuse them coverage? I can't wait to see this this playing out in court. Massachusetts will be a testing ground pretty soon if they stick to their proposal of denying coverage for the legal immigrants with less than 5 years of continuous residency in the State.
I apologize in advance to all readers who may experience discomfort by having their prejudices challenged, but the following must be noted: not covering illegal immigrants is beyond stupid from a strictly financial point of view. I know, I know, it is politically very convenient to talk tough, but the cold and hard reality (a rare commodity in the political discourse nowadays) says otherwise.
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/07/health-care-for-immigrantswhen-insured-they-help-all-of-us-.html
The cold hard reality is that it's both politically palatable and more practical to not cover immigrants under a public plan. It's always cheaper to spend nothing than something. They come here because American jobs pay more. They can either go back to their own countries for treatment (where it's cheaper but lower quality) or buy insurance and enjoy the best health care in the world.
Better yet, let's just make all of the illegal immigrants legal immigrants and go ahead and just let anybody come on in and be covered. Also, it's not about prejudices. It's about sovereignty and the desire to have some confidence that our government will prioritize the American people first since they are the ones supporting the government. Your need to apologize to readers because you might give them "discomfort" by speaking so bravely reveals that you are the one with foolish presumptions.
Legal immigrants tend to be poor. Depending on whether or not you include FICA, it's possible to argue that their taxes don't cover the costs of the social services provided them. This bill increases the cost of those social services, and given the representation of immigrants among the poor, could easily turn even the most glowing assessments of the net cost/benefit into a negative number (depending on what percentage of America's uninsured you believe are illegal vs. legal immigrants). Not popular.
IMHO, the people who want to exclude FICA are right--those taxes now are accruing a future liability to taxpayers. But it's possible to argue either way.
People are willing, mostly, to have people come here to work. They are not willing to have the same people come here to consume $20K or so worth of social services every year.
Actually Megan, that isn't why Obama used that number. According to the AP, he just multiplied the 47 million by 2/3 because of a Kaiser study saying 1/3 could afford insurace.
So apparently we are still counting illegals, even though he claims the plan doesn't cover them. Sheesh.
As long as the number used is more accurate, who cares how he came up with it.
Well, it matters because we're not sure on what dishonest basis the 30 million are being tabulated. Are we still counting the 12M non-Americans or the 16M wealthy enough to buy their own coverage?
The downgrade is based on the U.S. Census numbers that 17 million uninsured make over $50,000 per year.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18125
If the Dems really, really want this deal --- I think they will have to put an explicit "only legal residents" provision in it -- no matter how much it pains their uber-progressive wing.
Like several others -- I am troubled by the fact that in spite of continued assurances that "oh-no, this isnt for illegal immigrants" -- the rejections of amendments that make that point explicit seems to indicate that some signficant portion of the Dem party wants to leave that door wide open.
If the President of their own party says on national TV that isnt the intent -- put it in writing.
" . . . an explicit "only legal residents" provision in it".
Like this?
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
From FactCheck.org. And the House bill, of course. I suppose it could be written in blood if that would meet your contractual concerns.
Howeever, Democrats voted down (in a straight party line vote) amendments to include enforcement so that only citizens and legal permanent resident aliens could participate. Without enforcement, they won't even ask if you're here illegally or not. Therefore, illegals will participate.
In an evil twist, this means that illegals who participate in Obamacare will NEVER be eligible to become citizens. They will have to answer yes to question 11 on Form N-400 and that will knock them out of eligibility for naturalization.
Smooth move, Dems.
I'm baffled by the math in "There were 45,657,000 people without insurance in the 2007 Census estimate. 12,388,000 of those were foreign born, and 9,737,000 were not citizens, leaving 33,269,000.'
OK, 45,657,000 - 12,388,000 = 33,269,000, but why should that matter?
Is the implication that U.S. citizens that are foreign born do not for some reason require health insurance? As far as I know, citizens like me get almost the same rights as U.S.born citizens with the exception of eligibility for a couple of offices like president.
In between legal immigrants and illegal aliens are another important group -- people here on student visas. Some countries with national insurance schemes include foreign students, but I believe others require foreign students to either have coverage from the home countries or to buy coverage (and show the ability to pay for it before enrolling). Would people legally in the country, but not as permanent immigrants, be eligible to buy into whatever plan materialized? Would they be eligible for any kind of subsidy?
I don't know of any college in the country which doesn't offer a student health plan, which is much cheaper than what you can obtain as a non-student individual. If necessary, the cost of it should be covered by the financial aid package; therefore, people here on student visas should not need publicly funded coverage. It makes sense not to have them in the plan.
As with any plan, the devil's in the details, and we don't have enough details to argue about yet, other than the horrible bills that have already been proposed. I would have felt much better about Obama's proposals if he had also said he was submitting amendments to enact them, or even if he was submitting his own health care plan. He continues to talk about "his" health care plan, but hasn't put one forward yet.
BTW international students here on visas do not qualify for federal or state financial aid, FYI. So, not sure what financial aid package you're talking about. Unless your college is committing fraud.
Wait...a...minute. LEGAL immigrants are to be excluded? Hey, I've been in this country for 14 years, legal all the way, of which I've spent more than four years just waiting for those idiots at (what used to be) INS to process my Greencard application. They can already send me Gitmo without so much as a by your leave, please don't tell me that they can deny me health care too!
I think permanent resident aliens (legal residents with a green card) should be able to participate.
But not illegal immigrants.
TrueNorth - I am in a similar situation. I was on H1-Bs for 6 years - they were obtained through my employer, who also provided me with health benefits. I do not think it is unfair to require that companies that employ foreign workers on visas provide for their health insurance so those workers do not become a burden on the fisc. Once a person obtains a Green Card, then they probably should have access to the same benefits as everyone else (which, IMHO, should NOT include mandated or public health insurance.