Comments on Bush Admin: No Medicaid Coverage for Undocumented Immigrant Children

Link no worky.

This is frightening, I seriously don't see any hospital turning away a woman in labor from recieving care though. What are they gonna do? Have her deliver it in the lobby?

On second though... maybe this is where republicans support abortion comes in, but only for the children of illegals and only in the 9th through 21st months since conception.

The empirical evidence seems to conclude that there is no more "basic human decency" in this country. I guess we ran out.

So, considering equal rights and due process and the 14th and 15th amendments, I really don't see how this could fly, given the point made that the newborns are citizens, pure and simple.

Further, a rational-basis of saving the government money seems to be overruled by the government's life interest (that is, healthcare keeps babies alive overrides not spending money on citizens because of who their parents are).

Any legal minds want to opine on this? I don't see how it could stand up to review.

There is absolutely no legal way this is gonna fly. Discrimination based on race, national origin, family status... no way, no way.

Unless one of those Bush-appointed judges is on the bench...

Anyone surprised? If I hear one more conservative talk about sanctity of life, fiscal responsibility, and support of the war in Iraq; I think I will just snap...

Apparently the Bush plan to prevent Mexicans from coming to the US is to make the US more regressive and backward than Mexico. Give us 50 more years of Bush, and there'll be an illegal-immigrant problem going the other way.

Do not that these children being denied care are full US citizens, whatever the status of their parents.

I'm not so fond of the Democratic strategy of "voting as conservatively as possible." Let's not forget that Democrats have been nearly as rabidly anti-immigrant as Republicans.

Our failure to protect the rights of our fellow citizens doesn't end at childbirth, either. There's a new class action lawsuit filed by some of these American children to halt the deportation of their parents. Read about it here:

http://www.indypressny.org/article.php3?ArticleID=2963

First off, this whole "won't give birth in hospitals" bit is rubbish becasue it is illegal for a hospital to deny emergency care. Hospitals already lose money on these things every day and no law like this will change it, unless they stop requiring hospitals to admit anyone in their emergency rooms.
So that baby argument is rubbish! Come up with one that actually makes sense and stop acting like reactionaries.
Jesus Christ, even as a card-carrying democrat, there's nothing worse than a self-righteous liberal.

Andrew: you're using "reactionaries" incorrectly.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
Look up EMTALA and then delete this post because it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Andrew: So you're saying the Hospitals will be stuck between following the law (helping everyone) and following the law (refusing immigrants)... and you don't think this will lead to any problems for immigrants once the government starts cracking down on "activist hospitals?"

I think you're "everything will be fine, stop giving so much of a shit" attitude is very typical of the Democratic party.

I picked that word on purpose because 1) this post is a "knee-jerk" reaction (literally reactionary), not based on anything in reality, 2) because this post was written with some sort of opposition to change and return to a "previous condition" (the common definition of reactionary). I choose the word on purpose knowing what it means.

I picked that word on purpose because 1) this post is a "knee-jerk" reaction (literally reactionary), not based on anything in reality, 2) because this post was written with some sort of opposition to change and return to a "previous condition" (the common definition of reactionary). I choose the word on purpose knowing what it means.

I picked that word on purpose because 1) this post is a "knee-jerk" reaction (literally reactionary), not based on anything in reality, 2) because this post was written with some sort of opposition to change and return to a "previous condition" (the common definition of reactionary). I choose the word on purpose knowing what it means.

Hey Andrew,
You're absolutely right -- thankfully, the gov't does require hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay or citizenship status in emergency situations. Childbirth qualifies as an emergency situation, but the woman and kid will have had no access to any sort of care right up until the baby's popping out. No prenatal care means a much higher risk of death for both mother and child.


Regardless of the fact that the hospital is required to pick up the tab for emergency care, policies like this have the effect of dissuading undocumented immigrants from using hospitals at all. Knowing that they'll be asked to provide proof of citizenship will be enough to keep some pregnant women from checking in when the time comes. That means more unsafe births.


And after the kid is born, it will be denied health care until (and if) the parents can obtain a birth certificate. They'll have no access to health care for non-emergency problems and with babies, what seems to be small coughs and colds can turn out to be major maladies. Obviously there's no hard data on this yet, but I think we're going to see a lot more immigrant infants dying tragic and preventable deaths.


No preventive care in general for undocumented workers also creates a higher price tag for their health care overall, since only are treated in the case of a crisis, running up expensive costs in the emergency room.


And there are some issues, Andrew -- such as denying basic medical care to INFANT CHILDREN -- that it's completely okay to get self-righteous about.

Again, I would like to point out that there is another Andrew posting on this board and he is not me. I do disagree with his comments.

Andrew II: Please find another moniker.

Sorry, I am being a little trolly trying to stir up trouble because I am bored at work and it's Friday. But some of what I say stands, in particular that emergency room service is essentially free and thus the last line in the post is patently false.
I want to know, cracker-ass Andrew, what do you disagree with in what I said?
If you can articlate it I won't use Andrew anymore. Otherwise, how about you pick a different handle? I've been using this one for quite a while and I like it.

Andrew II:

Emergency room care is essentially free? Yeah right-someone needs to pay for it. Yes, it is true that hospitals don't turn anyone away for inability to pay. EMTALA requires this. However, that cost is passed along to all of us in the form of higher health care costs, for one.

I am a social worker at a hospital, so I see firsthand the effects of the Federal government's crackdown on Medicaid benefits. We see more and more people every day that would have been covered in the past, but no longer are.

The problem is not inpatient stays in hospitals. It is outpatient care. After baby is born, and he or she doesn't qualify for Medicaid, how is the baby going to see a pediatrician? We have every reason to be concerned. Do a little more research before you post.