These foreigners live, work, go to school, pay taxes everyday right along with 'Americans'. We include them in everything we do, but now all of a sudden they don't count when it's politically convenient.Are you seriously trying to argue that the 9.73 million uninsured "foreigners" in the census report are all legal immigrants, despite the fact that both of the studies I linked to indicate otherwise?The Census Bureau says nothing about illegals.
Because it's an out and out lie to say that there are 47 million "uninsured Americans" when a large portion of that number are not Americans. Plain and simple.The CNS article, along with many others, are using the argument that since President Obama and others use the term uninsured "Americans", rather than the term "people" - the term the census bureau uses - when describing people in the United States without insurance therefore the report breakout that shows that 9.7 million people are "not a citizen" and should be deducted from the total amount of uninsured.
My point is why are the foreign born not inclusive in the uninsured population of the United States?
Actually, I think that you'd find that most detailed reports clearly distinguish between the poverty rates of "Americans" and the poverty rates of people living in America. The fact that most reporters or people are imprecise in using the terms or describing things doesn't make that any less true.Foreign born (both naturalized and not a citizen) and nativity breakout is used by the bureau in most all studies and cited by just about everyone imaginable.
When talking about Income and earnings of Americans..."not a citizen" is used.
When talking about Americans in poverty..."not a citizen" is used.
When talking about a population of 300 million Americans..."not a citizen" is used.
Because they are not Americans. I can't believe that you're arguing that politics are the reason why I'm arguing that they shouldn't be included, when it's so clearly the other way around.Why exclude them from the ranks of uninsured? Political convenience?
Let me put it this way - Do you think Obama would ever get up at a podium and say "When you include non-citizens, there are 47 million uninsured Americans."
So now that you acknowledge that the minimum figure is 7 million, we can move from there. I would argue that Pew's figure of 11.9 million is a significant undercounting, mostly due to the fact that they're basing their growth figures on numbers from 2000, when all indicators are that immigration increased rapidly from there. Bear Stearns produced a report (PDF) that detailed all the reasons for this and which estimated that the number of illegal immigrants is close to 20 million. I would be inclined to say it's closer to 15, but that still puts us back at the 10 million figure.Of course the illegal immigration population is estimated, but since your first article gave no figures let's take the second one (Pew's). Their estimate is 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants. 59% or 64% (take your pick) of that figure falls well short of your estimate of 10-12 million.
Beyond all that, does it really make much of a difference if the number of illegal immigrants included in Obama's "47 million uninsured Americans" number is 7 million or 10 million?
And I stand by my assertion that the vast, vast majority of uninsured people earning more than $75k a year are uninsured due to their own actions. I think it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. My apologies for not including the "vast, vast majority" disclaimer in my earlier statement.In the aforementioned earlier discussion you did make a sweeping accusation without exceptions. And no it's not clear that that's the exception that proves the rule.