E.J. Dionne on Health Care and Illegal Immigrants
Or:
Losing Touch With Reality
Ugh.
Look. I'm basically a liberal. I'm basically, though not vocally, in favor of health care reform, and basically, though not vocally, in favor of a public option. Needless to say, I recognize that Joe Wilson is an idiot.
I'm in favor of helping out those less fortunate than myself, and that includes being in favor of substantial foreign aid to countries that need it.
I'm not in favor of draconian anti-illegal-immigration measures. I wouldn't want to say, round up all illegal immigrants and kick them out even if we could. But I absolutely can't understand people who think that eight to eleven million illegal immigrants, 500,000 new ones per year, and illegal immigration outpacing legal immigration is not a problem.
And, basically liberal thought I am, even I would have a big problem with the idea of my tax dollars going to pay for health care for people here illegally. (Children are, of course, a special case, as are emergencies.)
Note to Mr. Dionne: that does not make me mean-spirited.
Rather, it makes me someone who recognizes that (a) semi-open borders + (b) a really permissive public health-care system = a disasterous, unsustainable and unfair system.
Now: I'm not under the delusion that Obama is trying to sneak care for illegals into the health care bill. However, unlike Dionne, I don't think one has to be mean-spirited to think that it would be a bad idea.
When it comes right down to it, people like me--roughly middle-class people who already have very good health insurance--are likely to have to pay at least something to help those less fortunate than ourselves get insurance. And I am absolutely down with that. As for there being illegals here, it's not something that would even be on my radar unless it had gotten out of control. However, even I--someone who would support higher taxes if they would get us universal health care, someone who would support higher taxes if they'd go for more foreign aid to places like Mexico, someone who's every bit as in favor of people immigrating here legally as any American should be, and someone who doesn't have inordinate problems with moderate levels of illegal immigration--would have to put my foot down at the idea of free medical care for those here illegally.
And that is the sensible position, not a mean-spirited one.
And it's the position of middle America, and that will never, ever change. If you think otherwise, then you are simply out of touch with ordinary Americans, many of whom, believe it or not, are not mean-spirited. But they work hard for their money, and nothing burns them up like the thought of it being taken away and given to somebody who doesn't play by the rules.
Dionne's article is more evidence of what I've called "a rather casual attitude" concerning illegal immigration on the part of some liberals. But to be concerned about this problem doesn't make you "mean," doesn't make you conservative, and doesn't make you crazy. It's a real problem, and a problem that complicates other policy problems, e.g. health care.
6 Comments:
Ezra Klein, here summarizes a Newsweek article by Andrew Romano that makes a pretty good case that we ought to insure illegal immigrants, not on fluffy, liberal, "they're people too, and we should snuggle them," grounds, but on the grounds that not insuring them will cost American jobs, and make Americans sicker.
In any case, the whole point may be moot, since Mexico is gearing up to offer universal health care to their citizens, even those living illegally in other nations.
---Myca
Yes, yes...certain liberals will continue to poke around looking for some excuse for such things until they find one.
Me, I think you should bloody well come into the country legally, or not at all.
Do we want more permissive immigration laws? Well, then either (a) up the quotas or (b)just open the borders and give up on immigration laws and regulating immigration entirely or whatever it is that's supposed to be the endgame here.
I'm one of those unreconstructed, paleo-environmentalists who thinks you can worry about overpopulation without being a racist...so I wouldn't really be happy with either (a) or (b)...but at least we'd have a consistent policy...
LOL: "we should snuggle them"
So true.
I just think it's important not to commit a sort of counter-emotional fallacy. If the standard liberal fallacy is "we feel bad for them, and therefore offering them healthcare is good," then the standard conservative one is "you should bloody well come into the country legally, or not at all ... and therefore offering them healthcare is bad."
My point is just that neither of these make a lick of sense as arguments. We ought to base our decisions here on the likely outcomes, and Andrew Romano's argument is based in what insuring illegal immigrants would likely mean and what not insuring them would likely mean in terms of outcome.
---Myca
That's perfectly sensible, of course. Though allowing legal immigrants but not illegal ones to buy in would also give people incentives to come in legally.
But, also, dollars aren't the only issue. If we think it's important on other grounds to have people come in legally rather than illegally, we might be willing to eat a certain amount of financial cost.
Of course another way to look at this is: border, schmorder, people come and go as they have for most of human history, national borders are overrated, it's really not a big deal as long as they obey the law and aren't a financial burden.
I'm willing to consider that position, but I think someone ought to at least be forced to make the case for it rather than just assuming it.
WS.
Reading Dionne, I think he goes too far at the end, with his closing paragraph:
How mean-spirited will we allow ourselves to become? How coarsened has our political culture made us? We like to see ourselves as a generous, caring and welcoming nation. Are we losing that part of our character?
He is attributing a motive here (mean-spiritedness), yet he has provided no evidence to support this alleged motive.
However, I think Dionne has a valid point when he states:
"[I]t should bother us a lot ... that alleged plans to kill off seniors and promote abortion are spoken of in almost the same breath as the matter of delivering health care to fellow human beings, however they arrived on our shores."
Euthanizing the elderly simply to save money is intrinsically evil. To subsidize health care for illegal immigrants may be an unwise policy, but it is not intrinsically evil. Dionne is (IMHO) right to make the distinction between the two.
Dionne also states:
"I am not in any way dismissing those concerned about illegal immigration as racists or reactionaries. There are legitimate disagreements as to what we should do about it and problems with extending government programs to those who violate the law to get here."
Dionne expressly recognizes that there are "problems with extending government programs to those who violate the law to get here," and he considers these problems legitimate.
In the article, there are only two cases in which Dionne advocates health coverage for illegals.
1) Providing emergency health care to illegal immigrants, and
2) Treating illegal immigrants with communicable diseases to reduce the chance of epidemic.
You and Dionne are in agreement on 1).
It strikes me that 2) is a substantive argument -- it is not simply "poking around for some excuse."
Would you address Dionne's second point, that treating illegal immigrants with communicable diseases can save the lives of citizens and legal immigrants? This benefit may not outweigh the disadvantages you have cited, but that trade-off is not clear to me.
Best,
Jim Bales
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home