3 ms·

> H1-B needs emergency treatment, hospitals won't turn them away because of their H1-B status. I am not sure what you are saying here. H1-Bs and their employer

> H1-B needs emergency treatment, hospitals won't turn them away because of their H1-B status. I am not sure what you are saying here. H1-Bs and their employers pay for medical insurance (this is at market rate - not subsidized by the taxpayer or anything like that) - I and dozens other I know did. That covers their medical emergencies. H1-Bs pay premiums for children and spouse too btw. If they lose their job - they have one week (that too is grey area) to leave the country. Why do you think H1-B emergency treatments are a) significant and routine and b) at a cost to citizens/permanent residents? I can tell you one thing though - your assumptions about H1Bs being a burden on society is far from truth. If your theory is that they don't stay long enough to be able to buy a house and pay property taxes - that's hardly their fault. Plus not every citizen born here buys a house - many rent.

rayiner 14y ago
H1-B's are not required to have insurance plans nor are any employer insurance plans required to cover their dependents. Nor is their any guarantee that insurance will cover all the expenses. I don't think H1-B treatments are a significant cost to citizens/permanent residents. That's not my point. My point is that our hospitals are required by law to treat anyone that comes in, regardless of status. That's an obligation our society has to every person within its borders. There are many other obligations like it. We as a community cannot be forced to take on those obligations, we must do so voluntarily.
- blinkingled 14y ago
  Is there a law for residents/citizens that requires employers to have insurance plans that cover all expenses? Emergency treatments are not exactly free or paid for by tax payers. If a H1-B loses his job or doesn't pay for med insurance and goes to healthcare institution (are there any publicly funded ones here?) - they will treat him/her but slap a collection for the full costs. As far as I know that is a potential loss for the healthcare provider not the general public as they did not fund the private organization.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    What's the relevance of such a law? The point isn't whether H1-B's contribute more or less than residents/citizens. The point is that letting something in the country creates a set of reciprocal obligations. The people in a community are entitled to exercise control over incurring these obligations.
    - blinkingled 14y ago
      You keep referring to obligations but I see no obligations society or community has to incur cost or resources for admitting a H1-B. If there were publicly funded hospitals that cared for H1-Bs, if there were publicly funded accommodations for H1-B offered for free or subsidized costs, if the government charged you in taxes for fulfilling their obligations towards the H1B - then what you are saying would be right. None of those are true - I paid for everything just like every other legal resident/citizen. You cannot make up corner cases that apply equally to H1-B and Citizens and claim that as an obligation - for the majority of H1Bs those are simply not relevant. You cannot also assume each H1-Bs children go to public school - mine didn't for a long time and when they did my wife volunteered there. In fact think about this - the H1-Bs are degree holders educated by their own country at its expense - no American money was spent on their entire education.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        First, I'm talking about immigration generally, not just H1-B. Second, you seem to be conflating the term "obligation" with "burden." I'm not saying that H1-B's are somehow particularly a drain on public resources or they benefit from common public expenditures in some special way that citizens don't. That's not what "obligation" means. You point out that you "paid for everything just like every other legal resident/citizen" and I'm sure that's true. But would you say our community has no obligations to every other legal resident/citizen? Of course not. The society has obligations to everyone within its borders. You say I'm making up "corner cases that apply equally to H1-B and Citizens" but nothing in my argument requires the community's obligations to extend to H1-B's specially. The community is obligated to everyone who lives here. For example, every single hospital in the US is publicly subsidized in some way. It's either a public hospital, a non-profit hospital, attached to a public university, etc. They all benefit from $30 billion in NIH grants, etc. H1-B's and Citizens benefit equally from that public subsidy. But that's an obligation of our society to both H-1Bs and citizens. We consider ourselves obligated to have a quality healthcare system for people who live here, including H1-B's. We don't turn away people from these hospitals just because they're H1-B's. The same thing with public education. It doesn't need to be the case that every H1-B goes to public school. That's not relevant. What's important is that our society makes a commitment--if you have a kid and need to send him to school, you will have a public school accessible. That's a commitment we make to everyone who lives here. We also commit to extend citizenship to your children born here. Again, that's something we commit to everyone who lives here, whether they take advantage of it or not. That commitment is the obligation. Just because these obligations are extended uniformly does not make them not obligations. My point is not that we should have fewer H1-B's because they suck up American resources. It's not an argument about the number of H1-B's or immigrants we take. My comments were originally a response to someone questioning the validity of our exercise of any controls on immigration. That's what I'm replying to. I'm asserting that because our society extends obligations to everyone who lives here, we validly get to control who gets to live here.

rayiner 14y ago

H1-B's are not required to have insurance plans nor are any employer insurance plans required to cover their dependents. Nor is their any guarantee that insurance will cover all the expenses. I don't think H1-B treatments are a significant cost to citizens/permanent residents. That's not my point. My point is that our hospitals are required by law to treat anyone that comes in, regardless of status. That's an obligation our society has to every person within its borders. There are many other obligations like it. We as a community cannot be forced to take on those obligations, we must do so voluntarily.

blinkingled 14y ago
Is there a law for residents/citizens that requires employers to have insurance plans that cover all expenses? Emergency treatments are not exactly free or paid for by tax payers. If a H1-B loses his job or doesn't pay for med insurance and goes to healthcare institution (are there any publicly funded ones here?) - they will treat him/her but slap a collection for the full costs. As far as I know that is a potential loss for the healthcare provider not the general public as they did not fund the private organization.
- rayiner 14y ago
  What's the relevance of such a law? The point isn't whether H1-B's contribute more or less than residents/citizens. The point is that letting something in the country creates a set of reciprocal obligations. The people in a community are entitled to exercise control over incurring these obligations.
  - blinkingled 14y ago
    You keep referring to obligations but I see no obligations society or community has to incur cost or resources for admitting a H1-B. If there were publicly funded hospitals that cared for H1-Bs, if there were publicly funded accommodations for H1-B offered for free or subsidized costs, if the government charged you in taxes for fulfilling their obligations towards the H1B - then what you are saying would be right. None of those are true - I paid for everything just like every other legal resident/citizen. You cannot make up corner cases that apply equally to H1-B and Citizens and claim that as an obligation - for the majority of H1Bs those are simply not relevant. You cannot also assume each H1-Bs children go to public school - mine didn't for a long time and when they did my wife volunteered there. In fact think about this - the H1-Bs are degree holders educated by their own country at its expense - no American money was spent on their entire education.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      First, I'm talking about immigration generally, not just H1-B. Second, you seem to be conflating the term "obligation" with "burden." I'm not saying that H1-B's are somehow particularly a drain on public resources or they benefit from common public expenditures in some special way that citizens don't. That's not what "obligation" means. You point out that you "paid for everything just like every other legal resident/citizen" and I'm sure that's true. But would you say our community has no obligations to every other legal resident/citizen? Of course not. The society has obligations to everyone within its borders. You say I'm making up "corner cases that apply equally to H1-B and Citizens" but nothing in my argument requires the community's obligations to extend to H1-B's specially. The community is obligated to everyone who lives here. For example, every single hospital in the US is publicly subsidized in some way. It's either a public hospital, a non-profit hospital, attached to a public university, etc. They all benefit from $30 billion in NIH grants, etc. H1-B's and Citizens benefit equally from that public subsidy. But that's an obligation of our society to both H-1Bs and citizens. We consider ourselves obligated to have a quality healthcare system for people who live here, including H1-B's. We don't turn away people from these hospitals just because they're H1-B's. The same thing with public education. It doesn't need to be the case that every H1-B goes to public school. That's not relevant. What's important is that our society makes a commitment--if you have a kid and need to send him to school, you will have a public school accessible. That's a commitment we make to everyone who lives here. We also commit to extend citizenship to your children born here. Again, that's something we commit to everyone who lives here, whether they take advantage of it or not. That commitment is the obligation. Just because these obligations are extended uniformly does not make them not obligations. My point is not that we should have fewer H1-B's because they suck up American resources. It's not an argument about the number of H1-B's or immigrants we take. My comments were originally a response to someone questioning the validity of our exercise of any controls on immigration. That's what I'm replying to. I'm asserting that because our society extends obligations to everyone who lives here, we validly get to control who gets to live here.