Posted on 09/25/2011 12:37:10 AM PDT by newzjunkey
Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s endorsement of a “binational health insurance” program with Mexico has drawn increasing attention this week. Most of it points to a 2001 plan, where Perry lauded an “an important study that will look at the feasibility of binational health insurance” that could “treat maladies unique to this region.”
“Binational health insurance” with the United States and Mexico doesn’t exactly make for a great sound bite in the Republican primaries. But the policy Perry discussed in that speech was actually a really good, conservative one that Texas would have been smart to implement.
To clarify, what Perry referenced was not a merging of Mexico and the United States’ public health systems. It was not, as Wonkette put it, “U.S.-Mexico Obamacare.” Rather, he pointed to a newly passed Texas law, which directed the state to explore allowing private health plans to cover services in Texas and Mexico. Those plans would then be available to any Mexican national or American citizen working within 62 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. ...
Last, binational health plans probably would cut into reliance on public programs, particularly the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the same report concluded. “Proponents saw binational health plans as a new, affordable private health insurance that could replace the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),” the report says. “Savings in tax dollars would be generated with a decreased number of children on SCHIP and revenues from health care would increase (due to reduction in uncompensated care).” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Based on the cost for dispersed and un-coordinated state DHS staff to provide the services currently provided by COBBH, the potential loss of federal funds currently generated by COBBH for the border region, and the increased costs that local health departments would incur to continue COBBH’s prevention efforts in California’s border and binational communities, the Governor’s budget proposal would not save money but, instead, may end up costing California many millions of dollars every year, and significantly diminish the public health and safety protection of all Californians.
http://sandiegohealth.org/border/factsheet_officeofbinatlborderhealth.pdf
Well, not always
The fact of all Texas state universities practicing racial preferences highlights something else about Perry’s instate tuition for illegals: it means that illegals get preference for a $100K subsidy over white and Asian legal Texas residents.
I guess it was “Anglo on Anglo” crime.
I guess it was “Anglo on Anglo” crime.
I wonder if ObamaCare covers that
The article stated that 26% of Texas citizens don’t have insurance. Are you saying that illegals aren’t included in that mix?
Nice find. I’m not surprised it’s losing money in California. The Texas study indicated it would. That’s why Texas never implemented it. This whole issue stems from the time that Texas passed a bill which established a commission to study this issue. Texas ended up rejecting it because it didn’t appear to save any money.
It seems that they came to the right decision.
Only with a Sebillius waiver.
No. I’m saying that the study of binational insurance would have only applied to legal residents of Mexico and Texas. The illegals are a completely 100% seperate issue.
Here's some more recent disturbing news from the Peoples' Republic of California.
The California legislature is quietly pushing forward with a sweeping proposal to mandate that Gardasil — the vaccine marketed as a shield against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) — can be dispensed by the state to children as young as 12 without the permission of their parents.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/29/californias-gardasil-mandate-moves-forward/
This must be a joke. Mexicans don’t PAY for insurance, not health, not car, or life. I worked with a lot of them and not one of them would PAY for insurance even if was $20 a week.
They all know they get FREE care at the hospital. They jump and run in car accidents, and their relatives sue us if they die!
But aren’t the Mexicans living in Texas illegally still legal residents of Mexico? The article said the plans would be available to any Mexican national or American citizen living within 62 miles of the border.
Yeah, without permission. That’s the California way. I left there in 1968. Funny thing. I worked for a bank in Seattle in 1984. A bigger bank in California bought us so we all found new jobs and left Washington. In January of 1985, I got an income tax bill from California for my Washington wages. I sent them back a note that said I never worked in your state and don’t owe you a dime. When I left Seattle I went through LA and got a ticket for 80 in a 55. I told the CHiP I thought the speed limit was 65. He said even if it was, I’d still be getting a ticket. I took a left in LA and didn’t stop until I was out of California. They weren’t getting another penny from me. Ended up driving 1500 miles that day.
Because everytime the illegal crosses, he runs the risk of getting caught. If he is insured on this side of the border he/she has one LESS REASON TO GO AND STAY IN MEXICO.
Let’s see the illegal alien apologists explain that.
But Rick Santorum goes for the alarmist “sound bite” lie.
It doesn’t have anything to do with insurance. Here’s a link to Texas’ website for the same type of organization and was implemented in 1993.
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/borderhealth/default.shtm
I was raised in Florida and Texas then came to California in 1975 to attend UCSD. I planted roots and am here still today. I am now retired so I plan to soon be living on my rural lakefront property in Northern Idaho. California was once a great place to live -- but that time was long ago.
The original plan was to let Mexicans who live in Mexico and Texans who live in Texas buy insurance that would be good in either place. Moere than 100,000 people a day cross that border to eat, drink, work and visit.
Now once an illegal crosses it, they move farther inland for the most part. Really, why be an illegal just inside the border? You can cross it every day and be legal. I used to commute more than 40 miles a day to get to work. They can too.
No, really. This plan was not intended to cover illegals. I think you are just reading more into Sarahs single line of discription than it really means.
Oh, that’s a different thing. There’s one of those in every state that borders Mexico. Since they all have the same name, I think they’re federally mandated. I don’t think there’s any insurance involved with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.