Video: Illegals injured in SoCal wildfires cost hospitals mucho dinero
posted at 11:35 am on November 1, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
One of the many reasons that US health care is so expensive is that paying customers, whether they pay through insurance or their company pays through insurance or whether they’re subsidized through government programs, end up footing the bill for people who don’t pay a dime. And I’m not talking about uninsured Americans. I’m referring to illegal aliens — people who shouldn’t be here at all. Jurisdictions like Dallas County, TX have attempted to bill the Mexican government for the millions of health care dollars eaten up every year by illegal aliens. If hospitals aren’t reimbursed for these costs, and most aren’t, it ends up coming out of their budgets or it gets passed on to paying customers.
The 11 illegal aliens so far who were injured in the SoCal wildfire will end up costing Californians a great deal of money.
Democrats like Hillary Clinton (and too many Republicans like President Bush) don’t see or don’t care that their emphasis on keeping the borders open to keep labor costs down not only hurts low-income American workers by depressing wages. It drives up the cost of all sorts of indirectly related things like health care. If they truly want to bring health care costs down, they ought to start by fixing the border and recouping the costs of treating illegal aliens rather than taking over and socializing a huge chunk of the US economy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Illegals
injuredin SoCalwildfirescost hospitals mucho dinero.The Race Card on November 1, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Why would you believe that the elites care about low income American workers? It’s all about power, dude. They can fool the low income Americans into voting for them by employing class warfare. They’ll set up all these illegals as voters by promising not to deport them and they’ll all happily vote to keep themselves in slavery as long as Uncle Sam throws them the occassional bone.
pistolero on November 1, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Ai Carumba !
sonnyspats1 on November 1, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Illegals
injuredin SoCalwildfirescosthospitalstaxpayers mucho dinero.JiangxiDad on November 1, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Burns are the most expensive injury to treat. That’s why many burn wards go bankrupt. One of their most common customers are meth cookers whose lab blows up in their face while making small batches of meth. Of course, they have no health insurance because they’re too wacked out on their own product. They can’t be turned away by the hospital. So the end result is the hospital shuts down their burn ward so it doesn’t bankrupt the hospital. So if you get burned in an auto accident and have to fly to another state to get treated for third degree burns, thank a meth addict! And thank all those lefties who claim illegal drug use is a victimless crime.
Tantor on November 1, 2007 at 12:09 PM
¡Excelente! Su repuesta es mas mejor.
The Race Card on November 1, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Not to mention the uninsured illegal alien motorist that T-bone’s you with his/her car on the way to the ER.
RMCS_USN on November 1, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Si. La verdad, dat!
JiangxiDad on November 1, 2007 at 12:20 PM
There were plenty of people injured/killed by ’still explosions during prohibition too. Remove the prohibition on alcohol, and the need for ramshackle jerry-rigged ’stills evaporates.
Remove the prohibition on drugs…yada yada yada
Ochlan on November 1, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Should I keep assuming “the boy” who admitted to starting the fire(s) is also an illegal criminal? (I don’t think illegals’ kids should automatically be citizens. You can call me “racist” if you’d like).
SouthernGent on November 1, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Damn straight. Anchor babies should inherit their parents’ criminal status along with their DNA. Kick them all out.
I would if you were, but you’re not ;-)
Ochlan on November 1, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Well if the countys and hospitals can’t get countries to pay the bill for their citizens here illegally we should ask the Federal Government to take it out of investments that country has in our country…wait a second what am I thinking!? That makes way too much sense for our government to understand! Never mind.
uchoosier on November 1, 2007 at 12:44 PM
HA HA HA HA ! Lots of luck.
oldelpasoan on November 1, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Medivac them to the nearest Mexican hospital. Then bill the Mexican corruptocracy for the transportation charges.
Valiant on November 1, 2007 at 12:45 PM
SouthernGent…
I’m thinking he is as well. From news reports I’ve heard (FNC) his family lives on a trailer on a ranch. Now I don’t mean to disparage ranch hands or those who live in trailers, I’ve lived in one myself a long time ago, but the combination makes me think illegal. If I am wrong (and I don’t think we will find out the kid’s name as he is a minor) then I will gladly give my mea culpa, but I don’t think I am.
Pulchritudinous Patriot on November 1, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Bingo. And not just the transportation charges. The Mexicans can also pay for the medical care needed to stabilize the patients, as well as the 15% illegal alien surcharge.
I’m sure Banco de Mexico has a US branch where sufficient assets could be frozen and seized if there’s any recalcitrance from our good neighbors about settling this debt.
morganfrost on November 1, 2007 at 12:52 PM
How successful is reimbursement from Mexico?
If there is a guest worker program, will medcare be apart of the program, funded by Mexico?
Kini on November 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Illegals
injured in SoCal wildfirescosthospitalsAmerican taxpayers mucho dinero.Mojack420 on November 1, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Wow, talk about fascism…
Darth Executor on November 1, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Mucho dinero= very money
dinero grande= large money
The average citizen goes to the grocery store and buys cheaper lettuce then goes home and pays taxes that pays for social services for illegal aliens who picked the lettuce.
Perhaps McCain was right, maybe we are paying lettuce pickers fifty bucks an hour with just a small government service fee in the middle.
This same logic applies to legal trade, ie: the pacific rim.
There is no cheaper foreign products, pay on the front end or pay on the back end.
We pay on the front end, Americans benefit, pay on the back end American Corp. and foreign hate our guts, love our money entities benefit.
Speakup on November 1, 2007 at 1:48 PM
This is why so many hospitals have slammed their doors shut in California. They just can’t keep up with the costs they are supposed to absorb. A local doctor told me she isn’t getting reimbursed for even valid Medicare claims and now she can’t pay rent at her practice.
NTWR on November 1, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Go stand in the corner until you understand what fascism is.
What I’m saying is that the child of illegal aliens is also an illegal alien. The child should not get to benefit from the criminal acts of its parents. Yes, the child is essentially ‘innocent’ as only a newborn can be, but it is the criminal parents that have tarred their progeny with their crimes.
Ochlan on November 1, 2007 at 1:59 PM
The treatment of those illegal aliens is but a recent reminder of the crisis California’s healthcare system has been enduring for decades. It’s a losing battle too, as both the cost of living goes up and the flood of illegal aliens into the state.
The legislature and liberal Gov Schwarzenegger both are just going to raise taxes to accommodate the flood of poor, undereducated illegal aliens while those same taxes and burdens on the infrastructure are just going to continue to convince businesses to move out of state. The wealth is moving out of the state while the poor flood in.
California used to be 3rd place in the world economy, now it’s down to 5th (or lower by this point). Given enough time, the liberals that run this state will turn their grand social experiment into an economic disaster and we’ll end up like the economic state of Michigan. Weak, stagnant, over-regulated, and over-taxed will be common adjectives to describe our dismal state performance.
Weebork on November 1, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Many, many Cal. hospitals have closed, the rest of the nation needs to know what’s coming.
Eighty three in just ten years (unless I miss counted), many more before that.
http://www.calhospital.org/public/ER/cat1.asp
Speakup on November 1, 2007 at 2:07 PM
I don’t actually think you’re fascist, I just found your post extremely ironic considering all the Constitution thumping you do around here. While I’m sitting in a corner maybe you’d like to familiarize yourself with the 14th amendment. This part in particular:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Not only is your suggestion unconstitutional but also sets an extremely dangerous precendent: allowing the legislature to decide who is and isn’t an American citizen. Do you really want that around if moonbats take control of both congress and the presidency? Because I sure as hell don’t.
Darth Executor on November 1, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Here’s a fun game: name the presidential candidates who are proposing a sane, capitalistic solution to this problem (without espousing racist/nativist views). i.e. someone who supports eliminating the minimum wage, eliminating the welfare state and protecting our borders.
Hint: there’s only one. He’s a doctor who refused to accept Medicare and would instead treat patients pro bono. Yeah, him.
Something to think about when you’re in the voting booth pinching your nose and pulling the lever for the least objectionable pro-war pseudo-Republican.
Mark Jaquith on November 1, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I’m late to the discussion but wouldn’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be the loophole? These parents are not here legally, so they would not be under the US’ jurisdiction.
Would they? It would appear that this statement is referring back to the person born rather than where the person was born. The English majors could help with that.
Rose on November 1, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Parkland Hospital is the best example of the true cost of illegal
immigrationinvasion.From the Dallas News:
THEIR surplus. TAXPAYERS loss.
That’s 75.3 MILLION dollars to subsidize anchor babies in ONE hospital in ONE YEAR.
S-CHIP is small potatoes. Why aren’t Congress and Bush talking about this abortion of a policy??
fred5678 on November 1, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Do you know what jurisdiction means? It means the US (or a state) has the power to, among other things, enforce the law in a particular territory. By saying they are not under US jurisdiction you just gave every illegal alien the right to do as they please (including, but not limited to live here, work here, murder, rob, rape, etc.). If they are not under US jurisdiction you can’t legally prosecute them for anything. If they are under US jurisdiction AND born here then they are US citizens and you can’t just kick them out because their parents did something wrong. Either way, illegal aliens’ child born in the US is an American citizen (and I like it that way, the alternative is a lot more dangerous).
Darth Executor on November 1, 2007 at 4:51 PM
But illegal aliens are doing whatever they want, they are getting away with it.
Rose on November 1, 2007 at 4:52 PM
If an American citizen is caught driving without a license they have to appear in court and pay a fine. Illegals do not. If an American citizen uses someone else’s social security number they are prosecuted, illegals are not. They have been given special rights.
Rose on November 1, 2007 at 4:53 PM
It still appears that the jurisdiction statement refers to the person born not the territory, otherwise it would be a redundant statement. Of course the United States would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but it appears that the person may not be.
Rose on November 1, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Sorry, I should have formed my thoughts more completely, but even regarding murder, if the murderer is illegal he only has to flee to Mexico who will not send him back because of the death penalty so he even gets away with murder. So these people appear not to be under our jurisdiction.
Rose on November 1, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Dude, can you just post everything you want to say in one post? It’s kinda annoying to answer four of them.
Even if this was true, it has no bearing on the issue (whether the children of illegals born in the US are American Citizens).
Again, even if true, not relevant to the issue. And are these special rights inscribed in law somewhere, or is it just a lack of willingness to enforce the law? Because the latter isn’t a legislative or constitutional problem.
It’s not redundant. It is possible for someone to be born in America yet not be under the jurisdiction of the United States (an American who moves to Britain, for example). That portion is meant to ensure that anyone either born or naturalized to the US AND is under US jurisdiction is ensured citizenship. This doesn’t mean citizenship can’t be expanded, but it does mean you can’t strip citizenship away from anybody who meets those two conditions.
Again, not relevant to the topic, but you’re only partially right. If they flee to Mexico yeah, they’re no longer under US jurisdiction (unless the US forcefully hunts them down somehow). However, until they get to Mexico they can still be punished. I should also note that it’s not just illegals who can do this. An American born criminal can kill someone and run to Mexico where US authorities can’t catch him (although I’d imagine Mexico is more likely to extradite such a criminal).
Darth Executor on November 1, 2007 at 5:17 PM
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
For a great analysis read the full article.
Speakup on November 1, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Sorry about the four posts, but I’m not a dude. You still haven’t made a convincing case that people here illegally are under our jurisdiction. Diplomats are not, so just the fact that they are physically here doesn’t mean they are under our jurisdiction. They should be removed. And if they are not here legally and are not under our laws than why would they be entitled to give birth to US citizens when they themselves are not here legally?
Rose on November 1, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Speakup, Thank you for the link. It explains it more clearly.
Rose on November 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM
What is the original source for Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard’s quotes in that article? I tried to find it but google gives me a limited number of blogs that simply quote it without any source.
Darth Executor on November 1, 2007 at 5:43 PM
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Speakup on November 1, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Yes I have. Jurisdiction gives you the right to enforce the law. Just because a lot of the idiots that run the US run a blind eye to it doesn’t change that.
Yes they are. They get special privileges and immunities, both of which require jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction they would be meaningless.
1. People don’t ask for permission before giving birth.
2. It’s not relevant. People born under US jurisdiction have citizenship granted to them by the constitution. Period. Even if the above poster’s article is correct and the framers didn’t intend it, they used the word “jurisdiction” when they should’ve been more specific. Blame them if you don’t like it.
Darth Executor on November 1, 2007 at 5:48 PM
that should be *turn a blind eye
Darth Executor on November 1, 2007 at 5:52 PM
On the second post at the bottom are some great links, this is one, P.A. Madison is a Constitutional scholar and is a great starting point.
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Children born to illegal aliens are not citizens.
I’m at work right now, when I get home as soon as I can I will post some more links.
Speakup on November 1, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I’m afraid I don’t see the original source of the comments, just more unsourced comments. Anyway I have to go to work, I’ll probably be back later if I don’t forget about this.
Darth Executor on November 1, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I don’t like it, so I will blame them and the liberals who have interpreted it wrongly. And, even though people don’t seek permission to give birth, many of these women are coming here illegally with that purpose in mind just so they can have an “anchor baby.” The children of diplomats born here are not given citizenship. So why should babies born here to people here illegally?
Rose on November 1, 2007 at 5:59 PM
There is considerable difference between lawful jurisdiction and complete jurisdiction.
Our fourteenth amendment has been horribly perverted and abused.
The SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in the Wong Van Ark case and the finding for the minority has left the ruling as unsettled law for one hundred years.
The fourteenth urgently needs to be clarified by the SCOTUS and would more than likely be put in reserve, shown to be untenable or settled as not inclusive of children born the people who have no right to be here and have no allegiance or loyalty to America.
Speakup on November 1, 2007 at 6:06 PM
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Speakup on November 1, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Comment pages: