She may not have been the only one.
Posted on 09/25/2011 12:37:10 AM PDT by newzjunkey
I did some more digging and found the study itself:
Report of The Interim Committee On Binational Health Benefit Plan Coverage - 138 pages (Acrobat PDF) - the bulk of the report is taken up by a copy of Mexico's health regulations.
Essentially, the idea was abandoned as a regulatory nightmare.
Skimming through, I confirmed that health care is guaranteed by the Mexican constitution.
Of course, the report warns what you get with that is old equipment, drugs of uncertain quality, any doctor able to offer specialist services without regard for training, etc.
OK, found it. Those state border health programs are mandated by the Dept of Health and Human Services
Border Health
The Border Health initiative advises the HRSA Administrator on public health planning and policy development within the context of a HRSA-wide planning framework, which promotes and protects the health care of the American people living along the U.S.-Mexico Border area. This is accomplished by emphasizing six themes: primary health care, collaboration/integration of existing programs, health promotion/disease prevention, systems development, human resources development and health systems financing.
It’s an unfortunately similar named program.
Thank you, will read that. It’s really good to see folks like you posting all this info.
I’m off to church. Bye.
So any Mexican living within 62 miles of Texas could buy health insurance that would give them access to US doctors and hospitals? When already we have shortages here in the US?
And the “benefit” to us is that it would thus make it easier for Mexicans to thus come and work in the US? Sure, I see why insurance companies would want to have their market expanded. And of course any industry that shifts costs to taxpayers by hiring illegals would be in favor of it too. But the answer is to get illegals out of the country and thus away from free access to our hospitals, not to increase the problem!
Hopefully, because this is nothing. I finally found the study itself and added it to this thread so if anyone is desperately curious they can read it for themselves.
I cannot overlook Santorum trying to make this an issue in the debate saying even Obama wouldn't propose bi-national healthcare. It was crass and childish.
If Perry were a quick wit, like Reagan, he might've found a way use to this against Obama and Romney both because Texas studied a healthcare option, saw it that wouldn't work and moved on. After the quip, he could've explained in a few words what it was about and put it to bed.
Gee I don't know. I guess I could go ask the hundreds of thousands of them that live in National City, San Diego and El Centro.
The link KKC gave you to that California program isn’t going to tell you anything. Texas has a program just like it. There no insurance involved. Basically their job is to keep track of and try to prevent communicable diseases from becoming rampant from immigration....illegal or otherwise.
She may not have been the only one.
My first reaction is: How are the people in mexico going to afford to pay for insurance? This might start out as reasonable plan but in six months the American taxpayer will be footing the bill for the whole thing.
The report cited is outright falsifying the “potential cost savings” by goal seeking their data sources or testing criteria:
“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).” .”
Extraneous information. Contributes absolutely nothing to the topic.
Yep - too many Freepers have gone bonkers and are seeing Mexican Conspiracies everywhere Perry goes. They seem to read the misleading/lieing articles really well and discount the actual facts.
Yes, she is a true lefty and supports a lefty act and a lefty supports another lefty. And this is news!
Ignore the widespread corruption from top to bottom in Mexico.
Ignore the truckloads of bodies dumped into the Mexican streets and heads on pikes down there.
Mexico is just the picture of business enterprise.
Let's do some bidness !
The bidness we should do with them should be focused upon attacks of our Predator, unmanned aircraft against their professional murderers killing U.S. citizens and U.S. Border Patrol agents.
The only health insurance we should be concentrating on in Mexico is insuring every member of the Mexican drug cartels remains constantly fearful for his own health.
In other words, she’s a liberal.
I don’t think W. Bush was ever as explicitly “open borders” as Perry. And we know what comes after such coded language.
Perry will be W. on steroids, when it comes to Hispandering.
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10688/
“Today we begin a new dialogue about our shared future, a future of promising potential if we work together to solve the challenges we both face. It is fitting that we convene this summit where the great, meandering river known as the Rio Grande – or the Rio Bravo – forms the long border between Texas and Mexico. In years past, that famed body of water has been seen by many as a dividing point, If you were to walk along its banks and look to the other side, based on the stereotypes of the past, you would think you were seeing things a million miles away, instead of a stone’s throw away. But I am here today to say that while we have honest differences, there is more that unites us than divides us. The Rio Grande does not separate two nations, it joins two peoples. Mexico and the United States have a shared history, and a common future. And it is along this border where we will either fail or succeed in addressing the education, health care and transportation needs of our two peoples.”
If insurance was feasible in Mexico now, with enough income to pay premiums, then why is this necessary? If it is not feasible, then the premiums paid from the us will be paid to providers out of the country, and the drain continues, drip by drip, by drip. If that is a good idea, why not do it with Rwanda, or South Africa? It is only because of the people living and working on two sides of the border illegally that this has come up.
claiming it will take people of public sector benefits merely says to me that those illegals should not be receiving these benefits in the first place.
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.