TPMDC

Immigrant Rights Group: Baucus and Conrad 'Caved', Made Health Care Bill More Expensive


Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

I just got off the phone with Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the immigrant rights group America's Voice, who's not exactly pleased that Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Max Baucus (D-MT) are responding to the Joe Wilson scream incident by writing immigrant restrictions into health care legislation.

"Baucus and Conrad are caving on a fake issue that is trumped up by Republicans not to better the bill but to trump up opposition to reform," Sharry declared. "I just find it stunning that they would validate what Joe Wilson did."

Sharry also points out that the changes to the bill are likely to be extremely inefficient.
Under Medicaid, he says, "there is currently a verification system in place called the SAVE program, which works pretty well."

But under President George W. Bush, Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which implemented a checkpoint system resembling the plan Baucus and Conrad have adopted. In 2007, a Government Accountability Office report (PDF) found that "the DRA documentation requirements have led to widespread declines in Medicaid enrollment and increased administrative costs [and] have cost significantly more to implement than they have saved in expenditures by excluding undocumented immigrants from Medicaid coverage. For every $100 spent by federal taxpayers to implement the new requirements in six states, only 14 cents in Medicaid savings can be documented."

So not only is this particular method of avoiding systemic abuse by low-wage, undocumented residents ineffective and politically dubious. It's also extremely wasteful. Thankfully, though, Congressmen like Joe Wilson will no longer be tempted to scream "you lie!" at President Obama. Or maybe it won't even accomplish that.

Join the Conversation!

22 comments

Recommend Recommend (1)

September 11, 2009 1:25 PM   

Unless the healthcare legislation has language that explicitly says that we will a) erect a 100 hundred foot wall surrounded by 100 yards of minefields across our entire Southern border b) round up every illegal immigrant - especially the brown ones - in this country, put them on a fleet of box trucks and ship them back to where they came from, the wingnuts will insist that whatever legislation the Dems draft and Obama signs will give trillions of dollars in healthcare subsidies to dirty wetbacks. There is no compromising with these folks so why even try - it ain't going to win you points and the legislation already said that subsidies would NOT go to illegal aliens.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 1:43 PM   

It took the Dems all of 1 day to lose the momentum provided by the President's speech. They even managed to turn the shameful spectacle of Joe Wilson into a win for the GOP.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 2:29 PM    in reply to Dorn76

i agree, but I hope they haven't lost all momentum.

They certainly undermined the President, for no reason whatsoever!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:08 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Maybe not all, but Conrad and Baucus out there slashing tires is not helping one bit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 1:46 PM   

To paraphrase CT on another blog: Hey dumbass Dems, you won the election!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 1:48 PM   

"It took the Dems all of 1 day to lose the momentum provided by the President's speech. They even managed to turn the shameful spectacle of Joe Wilson into a win for the GOP."

I can't really add anything more to that statement. So true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 2:17 PM   

With dems like these who needs Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 2:50 PM   

But if we didn't do this, all those Canadians dissatisfierd with their health care would sneak into Montana and North Dakota and overrun the locals looking foir cheap care!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:11 PM   

Pussies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:13 PM   

Baucus and Conrad are losers who can easily be bullied around because they're afraid of Republicans. They'll do anything not to get picked on by the big bad bullies. They have self-image problems as democrats (probably see themselves as losers for being democrats). They fear the Republicans more than they are loyal to the Democrats.

Why do they even have chairmanships? Take away their power!

Wingnuts say jump, they say how high.
Wingnuts say die, they say how deep.

They don't stand for anything. GET THEM OUT!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:20 PM    in reply to rommelo

Why do they even have chairmanships? Take away their power!

Because of Democrats all over the country. Not that they would ever show a sliver of gratitude. They probably think they did it all themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:16 PM   

People all over the country work and donate and otherwise contribute for years to put Democrats in the majority.

Then they put clowns like these two in charge of key legislation. Baucus and Conrad scorn the Democratic Party by their actions.

So what will the pusillanimous Senate Dems do next? Why put Baucus in charge of the climate bill!

Please join me in diverting campaign contributions away from Democratic Party organizations and toward independent and progressive committees like MoveOn, ActBlue, etc.

Fool me once ---- won't get fooled again!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:29 PM    in reply to AlphaLiberal

soooooo true.

it's not like we're desperate for democrats that we'd have to settle for these idiots.
great suggestion.
let's primary them.

we need to stop promoting bipartisanship and promote progressivism (sp?)
and we don't need weak senators that weaken our cause and take away the elements
that make our argument so convincing...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:16 PM   

testicular fortitude please??????

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:36 PM   

I keep wondering why they are so defensive and appease so easily...

could it be that they're on fox news so often fox news has become the "super-ego"?
they think.. hmmmm..
when i'm on fox on sunday, how can i prove myself or protect myself so they won't attack me?

maybe being on there too often makes you fear the mob.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:44 PM   

Many comments here are spot on - they have undermined President Obama by giving credence to Wilson's rude outburst. What's wrong with these two - are they that blind or just stupid?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:47 PM   

Republican strategy is clear:
1) Read the Bill to find a provision they think they can exploit.
2) Pass the Bill's language through their Truth Distorsion Language Filter, attach a short label (low in truth, high in Fear-Mongering) by which they will hereafter refer to the provision.
3) Rely on their integrity- challenged politicians and media (including e-mails) to circulate this bogus
"threat" to their masses, confident they won't do any fact-checking).
4) The Dems, surpised, frustrated and bewildered by the noise of the Big LIe (aided by the MSM by now),
(a) strike the provision - thus usually weakening the Bill or (b) add "clarifying language", thus making explicit what everyone knows is implicit in the provision (not unlike what parents and teachers regularly are foced to do with recalcitrant 5-year olds).
(5) The Merry Band of GOP Dullards (from trolls to John Boehner) then proclaim that the Republicans have saved America from this dastardly Democrat (sic) plot to harm the country (never mind they
manufactured the whole thing).

Expect to see it as the post-Bill reaction of Republicans. See, on this,this and this (cf Big LIes) we have saved the country.

Ironically, even if this has any traction,, it only underscores that since the GOP is incapable of doing any heavy lifting in respect to domestic and social issues (though they're good at throwing pebbles on the load), their BEST POSITION as a political party is that of a PERMANENT MINORITY.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 3:57 PM    in reply to dnegri

more like PERMANENT BABY.

that's a great strategy memo...

would be great if all democrats on the sunday show used this as talking point to describe how republicans approach health reform.

let use this to frame their methods...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 4:20 PM   

The extremely idiotic thing about all this is that by trying so hard to make sure they don't get the insurance, we end up paying more for them when they visit the emergency room. I agree that people who are here illegally should be prevented from getting government benefits, but we shouldn't go to the trouble of trying to prevent a given benefit if it means we are going to be paying more anyway. Nobody (well almost nobody) is going to argue that a dying, undocumented person should be denied care in an emergency room. And guess what? If they don't have insurance, we're going to pay for them anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 4:31 PM   

Baucus only stands up to nurses and doctors who Baucus had arrested for interrupting him in a lousy committee meeting.

When a Republican teabagger yells out during a Presidential address Baucus pulls down his trousers and bends over for a wupp'in, saying 'please sir can I have some more'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 11, 2009 5:02 PM   

You go get the rope...I'll go find a tree.

Heeeeeere Bauccy Bauccy Bauccy...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 12, 2009 1:52 PM   

There is enough misinformation in this debate without adding to it. The cited GAO report does not say what is quoted here. In fact, the quotation comes from a survey of 9 states conducted by the staff of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Significantly, that report properly notes that regarding the 6 states "...their systems were not designed to track the number of undocumented
immigrants denied coverage..." This is largely irrelevant anyway, since it really creates a straw man, seeming to imply that the call for verification would create something similar to DRA verification investigated by GAO and the committee staff.
The REAL point is that Dems missed their chance to defuse this entire issue. The blog mentions the SAVE program, quoting Sharry as saying it works "pretty well." It is the purported absence of the SAVE verification from HR 3200 that is providing the substance for the opposition to feed on. Reports like that from the Center for Immigration Studies base their estimates on the absence of SAVE verification for receiving credits, (while noting that Repub amendments to include it were defeated).
So, if the plan requires SAVE, say so -- and point out the specific language in the legislation. If it doesn't, don't imply that it does, and instead point out what language does provide for enforcement of verification, and indicate why Dems don't want to use SAVE.
BTW, one should note the other way in which opponents are using the illegal alien argument, also evident in the CIS report -- consider the effect of legalization of the illegals as part of immigration reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on