There has been much ado and speculation about the proposed healthcare reform bill and how it addresses the issue of coverage for immigrants of different statuses.
The New York Times has written
an article describing the scenarios covered under the proposed bill. The article shows that, despite the widespread right-wing propaganda stating the contrary, the bill does
not intend to cover illegal immigrants, and that there is a lot of talk among congressmen and women as well as between them and their constituents on the question of immigrants and healthcare. A great number of them are seeking citizenship status as a qualification for state-subsidized health insurance or enrollment in a public health insurance option.
As this article states, however, procedures verifying citizenship for applicants end up costing disproportionately more when considering the number of people they end up disqualifying. Furthermore, I must add that excluding legal, tax-paying, non-citizen residents from the possibility of state-subsidized or public healthcare is not a fair option and should not be entertained by any congressmen or women. In addition, there is something to be said even about illegal immigrants (or, for that matter, tourists or visitors) being turned away at hospitals' doors simply because they do not pay taxes. As an American, I would not like to see that happen. Emergency care—which is all that would reasonably be required by illegal immigrants/visitors/tourists before immigration and deportation agencies move in to act—is, by definition, a question of life or death, and I would not like to see anybody turned away or die because of our xenophobic attitude on healthcare.
As far as the U.S. being turned into a haven for foreigners seeking good healthcare, one must simply consider the current and possible future cost of healthcare and medication in this country. Even if those costs were halved, they would still be unaffordable to our neighbors in the south (because, let's face it, we only think of them when we say 'immigrants').
What we need to do is look at the example of other countries who have been dealing successfully with healthcare for decades and have, indubitably, dealt with measures for immigrants. Or, lest we start spreading fears of following the example of 'socialist' countries, we could look further than
the example of Massachusetts, which has just limited certain covered services for recent, legal immigrants, and learn from its mistakes about how to avoid such limiting measures on the national level.
