Misrepresenting the HIV Ban Repeal
PoliGazette’s Michael Merrit explains why conservatives are wrong to oppose the HIV ban repeal.
By now most people probably know about the passage about the PEPFAR reauthorization by the Senate, including the removal of restrictions on travel and immigration by those infected with HIV. However, some conservatives are…unhappy about the removal, mostly citing the costs related to new HIV infected immigrants.
Count Michelle Malkin, and some other conservatives as some of those people. In a post on her blog, she brings up a couple points. She starts off deploring the huge $48 billion cost of the bill; I think the arguments have some merit, and I’ll get to them in a bit.
Then the subject of the repeal comes up. In short, she’s against it. It’s not about bigotry, she argues, but cost. She first cites a quote by Sen. Jeff Sessions (who was against the repeal by introducing an amendment with a very non-economic argument) from this article from Time Magazine for proof:
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., may offer an amendment to eliminate the Kerry-Smith provision from the Senate bill. Sessions cited Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new immigrants coming in under the relaxed policy could cost the government more than $80 million over a 10-year period. “Most people just don’t want to talk about that.”
The next article cited, by Hans Bader of Openmarket.org, breaks the costs down a bit more:
Health care costs associated with AIDS often exceed $100,000 per person per year. Permanent residents, like citizens, can be eligible for Medicaid, as well as the many taxpayer-subsidized health-care programs aimed specifically at people with AIDS. (We wrote earlier about the counterproductive effects of some taxpayer-funded AIDS programs overseas).
Here’s my problem with the citations. They’re based on a huge amount of speculation. For example, Sessions’ “could cost the government more than $80 million” line, and Bader’s citing of what the costs per patient may cost, and the idea that AIDS patients may go on government-funded healthcare programs once permanent residents. The articles cited say nothing about the pros of new immigrants, even if they are infected with HIV.
The pro arguments have already been made at length by Andrew Sullivan, himself an HIV infectee who’s been in the U.S. for many years (very much legally I might add). So, I’ll let him speak:
Would treating HIV like any other medical condition cost the United States if such visitors or immigrants at some point became public dependents? It’s possible — but all legal immigrants and their sponsors are required to prove that they can provide their own health insurance for at least 10 years after being admitted. Making private health insurance a condition of visiting or immigrating with HIV prevents any serious government costs, and the tax dollars that would be contributed by many of the otherwise qualified immigrants would be a net gain for the government — by some estimates, in the tens of millions of dollars.
Well, there you go. You must have your own medical insurance to immigrate to the U.S., anyway. I’ll admit that there may be problems with this argument (e.g. losing one’s job), but immigration enforcement is another issue entirely. It’s not the same as having to cover the costs of HIV treatment immediately after entering. As to the issue of being eligible for Medicare/aid: yea? So what? Generally, legal immigrants pay a little thing called taxes. We’re not talking about illegal immigrants here. We’re talking about legal immigrants who are doing their duties as a resident of this country. If the argument were about illegal immigrants with HIV, I would agree. But I think even Sullivan wouldn’t argue against enforcement of illegal immigration laws, even if affecting HIV patients.
So, legal immigrants, even ones with HIV, usually pay taxes (which Sullivan also argues as a pro to ending this ban). Well, paying into the system generally makes you eligible for government programs. And if you’ve been here a decade, doing your duty by paying taxes and working, I don’t see why you should be ineligible for Medicare/aid if the need arises.
So, there you go. Both sides of the story. Yes, immigration by HIV infected-persons could have costs. But it could also have benefits.
Going back briefly to the high costs of the aid, $48 billion dollars is a lot, but also consider that this is for five years. Thus, it’s $10 billion a year for aid to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. I know it’s a lot, but I think it’s worth it to fight a disease that has damaged so many lives. What I do wonder if the vast gap between the actual spending. TB and malaria are still pretty big problems too in some places, yet they only get $7 billion of the total, whereas AIDS gets $41 billion. I’m not down playing the seriousness of AIDS, but other diseases are problematic as well. Perhaps the others will get more attention in other aid packages.
So, is the cost high? Yes, though definitely not higher in cost than a year in Iraq. Worth it? Definitely.
Not allowing people with communicable diseases isn’t bigotry. It is amazing that anything some leftist wants is automatically morphed into some "right" - and everything they are denied is the fault of someone they call a bigot or a hatemonger. It is tiresome and anti-intellectual. Rational people should call out such flawed thinking aggressively.
I agree with the above comment, at least to a degree. ‘Rights’ are all too often made up. Something is a ‘right’ when it has been legally established. You can say that something should be a right, but not that it is a right already if the law disagrees with you (and it does).
Your post title is very appropriate, but in the opposite way.
Talk about misrepresenting immigration policies on the part of Andrew Sullivan. You shouldn’t take the blog of guy who has a vested personal interest in this matter as truth, my friend. You did mention that you are 22 years old which makes you significantly younger than myself, so I’ll just say this: NOT everything you read on the web is reliable nor should you present it as such.
I myself have gone through the whole immigration process and while my sponsor had to show some financial capability and health coverage during the application process, there is no guarantee that the employer will not fire the sponsored person after this person gets the Permanent Residency. In fact, it happens. Same thing with family sponsorships: The sponsoring relative may have health coverage and may provide it to the relative at the time of application but there’s no guarantee that this financial support will continue once the person gets admitted for Permanent Residency. In fact, that happens a lot as well. Perhaps a divorce, or a sheer declaration that this legal resident is no longer a dependent of the sponsor. Also the sponsoring person could always lose the job, hence the health coverage.
Of course, I don’t remember having to show 10 years of health care capabilities when I applied for Permanent Residency and Citizenship. In fact, when I attended my Citizenship ceremony, there was a Hispanic guy who went around the room first in Spanish then in English about the "great" Health Care Plan in New York that would cover people making little money. This was Medicaid coverage done in conjunction with the State of New York. This was 2005. The year two-thousand-and-five. So unless there has been new draconian measures that prohibit Permanent Residents or new Citizens from applying for Medicaid, which I believe is not a possibility, the Michelle Malkin crowd makes a very good argument purely on the financial front. In fact, I was going to write similar things yesterday as a commentary to your earlier post, but then decided not to because it is oh-so-not moral and politically correct to point out that healthy people ARE subsidizing HIV positive people both in terms of public AND private insurance.
Let me break it to you this way: Forget about public insurance. When private insurance has to spend the exorbitant amounts of money per year on HIV positive patients, it’s a cost on business. Which gets reflected in higher insurance premiums for everyone else.
This is not even considering the health risk that HIV positive people present to society at large. So no, I don’t believe that the liberal crowd is covering this issue realistically OR objectively.
"Let me break it to you this way: Forget about public insurance. When private insurance has to spend the exorbitant amounts of money per year on HIV positive patients, it’s a cost on business. Which gets reflected in higher insurance premiums for everyone else."
<br>
QFT
Foreigners traveling into the United States must sign a waiver which states they will keep up private insurance for 10 years. In addition the US is in no way obligated to pay for the health care of these individuals.
The argument about not letting in people with communicable diseases would be more convincing if the restriction was applied across the board to those who have much more easily transmitted diseases. Which it isn’t, and never has been.
RRRocks, I understand that. But once you’re in the U.S. and IF you are being sponsored by someone (relative or through work), you become eligible for Permanent Residency. It takes about five years (maybe less maybe more) to get Permanent Residency and another five to get citizenship. Thus, the 10 year rule is a moot point for all practical purposes.
In an alarmingly pointed written statement Obama signed his named to the personal promise of greater advance against the institution of marriage of any candidate to ever run for the highest office. Pointedly so he gave his full pledge to overturn, or repeal, the federal Defense of Marriage Act. "I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."
As further evidence that the die is cast, Barak Obama and this ruling has laid the groundwork for people from all over the world to begin flooding into this nation and potentially creating an epidemic of aids. Let us not forget that those with aids are not usually some sickly, weaken person who can barely hold their heads up and if this nation turns to allowing gay marriage then many who have refused to move here in the past that are gay and MIGHT have aids have or are in the process of having ALL barriers removed.
Oh, I see. So, it exists for sure, you’re just worried about permanent residents being able to wave the requirement once they become PRs. Here I am, searching high and low, for a more official source to prove my point better. Yes, I know a blog isn’t the best source to go by. I should have verified that first.
If this is the case, don’t make becoming a PR an excuse for it, I say. I’d support that. Just like PRs can be deported for committing a crime (under certain conditions), I say amend the law that PRs must be continue being able to afford health insurance, for however long they have left. That way you don’t have people coming in and waiting until they can wave the requirement.
Then it becomes a thing of immigration enforcement, which is, like I said in my entry, an entirely different matter.