#52022 and Emergency Health Care

[vorpal blade]

Sauron,

You write well, and you make convincing sounding arguments. Furthermore, I suspect that most of the people who will read your words and mine will side with you, as it more nearly corresponds to their experiences and values in life. I disagree with nearly everything you say, but I have little hope that my ideas will be given a fair chance to take root here. I’m in an uphill battle. I have problems making myself understood. If I sound discouraged, I am.

But, I don’t give up easily, when I truly believe in what I say, and it is important to me.

Minor point. Allow me to explain my comment about something being “nearly swept under the rug.” The article by NPR business correspondent Adam Davidson, presented in a question and answer format, is 930 words long. Only 32 words are given to bring up the serious issue of government expenditures on illegal aliens. No facts, figures, or informed opinions are brought forward on that topic. Instead, Davidson spends a few of the remaining 898 words to bring up the non-issue that if the illegal aliens would leave then U.S. wages would go up. He spends the preponderance of his words citing experts and facts to shoot down his strawman argument. I consider Davidson’s “cost” of lowering wages as a benefit and not a cost. I find this kind of reporting typical of NPR.

In 1997 Dr. Donald Huddle, a Rice University economics professor published a study of direct government outlays for illegal immigrants. See this site for a summary. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p ... entersf134

1996 Costs Table from the Huddle Study 1
Programs (billions)
Public Education K-12 $5.85
Public Higher Education $0.71
ESL and Bilingual Education $1.22
Food Stamps $0.85
AFDC $0.50
Housing $0.61
Social Security $3.61
Earned Income Tax Credit $0.68
Medicaid $3.12
Medicare A and B $0.58
Criminal Justice and Corrections $0.76
Local Government $5.00
Other Programs $9.25
Total Costs $32.74
Less Taxes Paid $12.59
Net Costs of Direct Services $20.16
Displacement Costs $4.28
All Net Costs $24.44


When this estimate was made the illegal population was 5 million. Since a conservative estimate of the illegal population is now around 12.5 million, the costs today would be at least 12.5/5 = 2.5 times the amounts shown, not accounting for inflation. That would mean that today we are spending 2.5 x $24.44 = $61 billion, in 1996 dollars, even after subtracting out an estimated $31 billion in taxes paid, including sales taxes. So $61 billion is the minimum net loss in tax revenue each year because of illegal aliens.

The largest expense is for public education, $5.85 billion (now at $15 billion). You can argue that this is money invested in the future, and I don’t disagree with that. Nevertheless it is a cost, and we need to ask the question of who should bear that cost.

One could argue that every person murdered by an illegal alien helps our economy. Think of the funeral expenses the family will pay. That will support funeral parlors and flower shops and the like, and these folks will go out and spend the money they earn at grocery stores and so forth, stimulating our economy. But I think there is something wrong with this thinking. It is not that the death created wealth; it just diverted it from being spent in other segments of the economy.

The way I see it you get a number of people coming into our country, some of whom work and others do not. The working ones take the jobs that Americans would have taken. For every illegal immigrant who gets a job, an American goes into unemployment. Sure, the unemployed will receive government assistance, which they will spend in the local economy, which gives the impression of contributing to the economy. However, the unemployed are being paid for doing nothing. They are paid with money that would have been given to others who actually contribute something to building up our society and doing something useful. The same money is spent, but when given to workers it buys something useful.

Look at it another way. Suppose we take in 12.5 million foreigners who do absolutely nothing to earn money. This is a thought experiment, and not designed to be taken literally. We give them money, which they spend on medical services, food, clothing, and so forth. We increase the population of consumers. Are they contributing to the economy? Well, on the surface they are spending money so it appears they are contributing by supporting the people who provide the goods and services they consume. But how much better could the money have been spent if given instead to people who earn it, and return something useful in exchange? Whether you look at all 12.5 million of the illegal immigrants as unemployed, or consider 7 million of them employed and an additional 7 million Americans unemployed, the principle is the same. You increase the number of unemployed, who contribute nothing, by 12.5 million.

Now, it can be argued, as you seem to be doing, that increasing by 12.5 million the number of unemployed non-productive users of resources, that jobs will be increased to provide for them. It reminds me of a science fiction story I once read about a society run by computers. Everyone was forced to support a humanlike robot whose only purpose was to increase consumption. One robot wore out 24 pairs of shoes before leaving the shoe store. These robots contributed nothing, but it made the economic planners happy to increase production of goods and services to meet the increased needs. The economy was supposedly improved by increasing waste and inefficiency. I think there is a flaw in this line of reasoning.

All the “contributions” that the illegal aliens supposedly bring to our economy or their employers by working here, would be provided by Americans if we didn’t have the illegal aliens, without the associated increase of costs that the illegals bring. We don’t need consumer robots.

I’d like to disagree with a certain characterization people have of illegal immigrants. I don’t believe they are here because they can’t have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their home countries. They aren’t here because they lack rights, except in a very few special cases. They usually had jobs in their home countries. What they wanted was an opportunity to earn a lot more money. Not that I blame them for that.

American rights are different from human rights. I have the right to vote. This is not a human right. I have the right to the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Many of those protections are not human rights. It would be nice if the entire world had American rights, but they don’t, and many of the rights we have come with responsibilities, duties, and obligations that others in the world don’t have. It’s important to make the distinction between human rights and American rights.

Now, I agree that God is not a respecter of persons. He wants what is best for each of us, not just Americans. But this does not mean that we should let the world loot from us whatever they feel like taking. There is a lot more to the problem then just the universal goodness and worth of mankind, and a concept of human equality and hoped for rights.

I’ll tell you the main reason I argue about illegal immigration is because I think no one should benefit from illegal activity. I think it is harmful to the character of our nation. I think when we tolerate illegal activity we contribute to a breakdown to law and order in our country. It diminishes our respect for law. Law enforcement officials have found that when people live in neighborhoods with broken windows all kinds of crime increases. When the little laws are enforced, there are fewer offenses in the bigger laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows That’s my opinion, anyway.

Furthermore, I object to the government taking my money and spending it on social programs. I feel like everyday I go to school and the bully beats me up and takes my lunch money. I can’t complain to the authorities, because the authorities are the bullies. My tax money goes to help illegal aliens. There is nothing I can do about it. I write to my congressmen and nothing changes. I vote, and nothing changes except they take even more of my money and spend it where I don’t want it spent. I realize that we have responsibilities to support our government, but I don’t believe that in the social program cases the government is operating within the Constitution. If I don’t pay my taxes, the government will take away my property and put me in jail. I don’t mind if you contribute your own money for causes you find worthy, but it infuriates me to be forced to pay for your charitable causes against my will.

I disagree that most of our resources are imported. You seem to have a radical view that a person doesn’t have a right to his own legally acquired wealth, if it is more wealth than someone else. I strongly disagree with that. I believe in property rights as fundamental to all other rights. I object to people just helping themselves to my property. It is one thing to share it because I feel I should, it is another to have it stolen from me. Africa’s problem is not that their resources are taken by others; it is because their culture limits them in taking advantage of what they have. Foreign interests have raised the economic level of Africans, not lowered it. Mexico has more natural resources than we have, it isn’t their right to take our stuff because their country is so screwed up they can’t create wealth out of their own resources. We have a right to wealth that we create, and those that don’t create it have no right to it.

What I was talking about in overrunning our resources was the problem of integrating people into our culture and way of life. A sudden large influx of Mexicans into California is turning California into a Mexican settlement, which is bringing down California. A limited influx brings the immigrants up to our standard of living. It’s not physical resources of food and fuel that we lack, but social resources to assimilate.

[wired]

When you say "their parents probably aren't paying taxes," if you mean their parents probably aren't paying income tax, you're probably right. But ALL illegal immigrants provide tax revenue. No immigrant is exempt from sales tax, and many pay payroll taxes, including social security taxes which they don't see the benefit of (here's another cursory public radio interview, here's a blogpost, here's a NYT article entitled "Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions"... sorry I don't have time to do deep research). Furthermore, when immigrants create wealth at their job, they are also creating income for their higher-ups. My wealthy grandfather says that a person's worth—what they should be payed—is 1/10 the value that they bring to their employer. I don't know if that's a general rule for the low-paying job sector immigrants usually inhabit, but certainly these immigrants make a great deal of income for their employers, which is then taxed income. Certainly, the government would make MORE money if all illegal immigrants payed income taxes, but the idea that they contribute nothing to tax revenue is fallacious, because without them, we would certainly see much less tax revenue.

Your argument assumes that no one would fill the gap left by illegal immigrants and that there presence has a "nothing-else" affected status. Furthermore, this shifts the question into a useless light: do they contribute at all as opposed to the real question, do they contribute enough to make up for their use of government services? A disproportionately high number of illegal immigrants take money and send it home to support their families. While this is a noble endeavor, it reduces wealth in the economy, all else equal, than a person who is a legal citizen of the US and keeps money within our economy.

Vorpal, the main reason I argue about immigration is that I feel like anti-immigrationists (for lack of a more fair word—I know you're for limited immigration, not against it) have an underlying assumption that American rights are different than human rights. We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - for Americans, but when a mexican is unable to secure such rights without crossing the border, too bad? I feel like this assumption taints the arguments of both sides on a number of issues: why the far right's outrage at trying terrorists (and more recently, pirates) in our own courts under our own laws — do all humans have a right to a fair trial, or only americans? Why the far left's argument against the Iraq war that we were "imposing" democracy and freedom on Iraq — or do only white nations deserve democracy and basic human rights?

Do we believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone all the time? What about people who break the law? Do they have an un-hindered path to those things? Those values are not things we allow without qualification. Life and liberty are rights that can be limited as you fail to abide by the rules set by American society. Essentially, as I understanding "anti-immigrationists," they would love to grant people with those rights so long as they abide by the rules in doing so. Illegal immigrants are inherently not playing by the rules. For citizens of countries that prohibit these rights, the US has asylum programs in place to allow for them to enter the country illegally. Last time I checked, Mexico was not a dictatorship depriving people of these rights.

I believe every child deserves a good education, period, citizen or not, child of a citizen or not. I would gladly pay more taxes to make sure that happens—with the realization that if such children are well-educated, THEY will be paying the bulk of the taxes in the future instead of leeching off society when they don't have enough education to support themselves. I don't consider the education of children a burden—I consider it an opportunity.

That is great that YOU believe that, but it does not address the issue.[/quote]
I believe that too, but once again, it must have qualifications. Are you willing to educate every child at an expense that would totally destroy an economy? I highly doubt it. You are merely more willing to pay money to support others. Why do you feel that standard should be imposed on everyone else in the United States? Why not utilize private foundations that seek to educate people in other countries IN THEIR COUNTRIES as opposed to having them come to the United States?

[krebscout]

I'm not even sure that Sauron completely agrees with himself. He's a contrarian and a debater - we both are, but him moreso - and I don't agree with him on everything, either. You might be surprised to know that we both have very conservative voting records. But we're still trying to figure everything out, and the battle we've been fighting to get our son insured despite a pre-existing condition has left us with a bitter taste in our mouths toward the healthcare system and the current state of things in general. All we know is that things need to change; we use discourse to figure out how.

Not that anybody reading this particular message board has any political influence aside from our votes. Maybe we should get Superdell on board.

What I'm trying to say is: don't be discouraged. He's looking for an exchange of ideas. Thanks for giving it to him.

[vorpal blade]

Thanks Krebscout and Wired. I feel encouraged. Sometimes I come across more argumentative than I mean to. I only appear to think I have all the answers.

It is ridiculous what health care costs now, which seems to drive the cost and the difficulty of obtaining insurance. Krebscout, I wish I had a ready answer for you on how to insure your son.

[vorpal blade]

Remark deleted.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I have lots to reply to on this thread, and my time is short, but I had to jump on this one right away.

A First Presidency letter (to be read in sacrament meeting) of May 13, 2004, provides this counsel and official instruction: ". . . members of the Church [are] to never teach or pass on . . .statements without verifying that they are from approved official sources. . . . Any notes made when General Authorities, Area Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at regional and stake conferences or other meetings should not be distributed without the consent of the speaker. Personal notes are for individual use only." (See also: Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1 (2006), pg. 173.)

(Source)
I understand the underlying message (we are blessed when we pay tithing), but I think that Elder Grow's message has probably been distorted in such a way that many would find it offensive.

[vorpal blade]

Waldorf and Sauron,

I sent your concerns to my brother and sister-in-law, who then sent that to my nephew who is serving a mission in Mexico. He sent an answer back, which my sister-in-law relayed to me. I don't think there is any distortion between my nephew and me, so if there is any it is what my missionary nephew failed to understand. Elder Grow, however, did give my nephew permission to spread the word, so here it is in his own words. First, the permission statement:

That´s a very valid question from Uncle [Vorpal]. As far as Elder Eyring´s comments, I don´t have his consent to talk about it. But, amazingly, with Elder Grow´s comments, I do! After the conference, he had a special meeting with the branch presidents (my companion was still branch president), where he said, "I commented on some very big promises today. Quote me. I´m a General Authority, and those promises were made by the Spirit and will come true. Tell the world that Mexico is coming, and it´s coming strong. Don´t hessitate to quote me." It was a very powerful meeting that motivated a lot of members!

And here is what my nephew wrote:

Sunday was a District Conference, and Elder Grow came(Seventy, and 1st counselor in the Area Presidency of Mexico). He said that there is only one reason that Mexico is a 3rd world country and the US and Canada are 1st world--the members here don´t pay tithing. He said that God has revealed to the Area Presidency that THAT is the ONLY reason that Mexico has not progressed--the members of the church in Mexico rarely pay tithing. He promised that if we start to pay our tithing, Mexico will be EQUAL or BETTER than the United States in a short amount of time. It was a very powerful talk.

[Imogen]

Waldorf and Sauron,

I sent your concerns to my brother and sister-in-law, who then sent that to my nephew who is serving a mission in Mexico. He sent an answer back, which my sister-in-law relayed to me. I don't think there is any distortion between my nephew and me, so if there is any it is what my missionary nephew failed to understand. Elder Grow, however, did give my nephew permission to spread the word, so here it is in his own words. First, the permission statement:

That´s a very valid question from Uncle [Vorpal]. As far as Elder Eyring´s comments, I don´t have his consent to talk about it. But, amazingly, with Elder Grow´s comments, I do! After the conference, he had a special meeting with the branch presidents (my companion was still branch president), where he said, "I commented on some very big promises today. Quote me. I´m a General Authority, and those promises were made by the Spirit and will come true. Tell the world that Mexico is coming, and it´s coming strong. Don´t hessitate to quote me." It was a very powerful meeting that motivated a lot of members!

And here is what my nephew wrote:

Sunday was a District Conference, and Elder Grow came(Seventy, and 1st counselor in the Area Presidency of Mexico). He said that there is only one reason that Mexico is a 3rd world country and the US and Canada are 1st world--the members here don´t pay tithing. He said that God has revealed to the Area Presidency that THAT is the ONLY reason that Mexico has not progressed--the members of the church in Mexico rarely pay tithing. He promised that if we start to pay our tithing, Mexico will be EQUAL or BETTER than the United States in a short amount of time. It was a very powerful talk.

i just don't buy it. sorry. i know plenty of people with families in mexico (because i live in almost mexico) who pay tithing to THEIR churches and mexico is still poor. and you can argue all you want that your church is the true church, but that argument doesn't fly with me. there are so many factors in why mexico is poor that have NOTHING to do with church. example: colonialism. most nations that were colonized are third world. coincidence? i think not friend.

plus, i would bet money that not every mormon in america pays tithing like they're supposed to and we're still first world. it's easy for a white outsider to say "oh if this country just does this, they'll be rich!" but we, as outsiders, have no REAL idea why a nation is poor and what to do about it.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I do believe that the lord can bless a country with prosperity, but I don't believe he always blesses the righteous or that he does so with any sort of regularity to establish a trend between righteousness and wealth. I firmly don't believe that a country's GDP is a barometer of their righteousness or tithing statistics. I don't believe that the only reason mexico is a third-world country is that the LDS in that country don't pay their tithing; it's history and politics and the fact that we live in an imperfect, unfair, fallen world. Sure, I believe Elder Grow that there's a way out through faithfulness if the Lord has thus inspired him, but I think it's your Nephew's email confused the causes of poverty and promised blessings. (And Imogen, thanks for the illustration of my claim that "many would find it offensive")