This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
I received my Social Security statement in the mail yesterday. In 18 glorious years as a member of the workforce, I've kicked in $3,346 toward Medicare. I paid more than that just last year for a crappy health insurance policy with a $7500 family deductible and a billing office that made a mistake every other time it sent us a notice. My initial reaction: my family would save money and get better coverage if the government let us buy into Medicare.
Now here are some completely speculative Saturday-morning calculations, corrections to which I welcome from better-educated policy wonks:
Consider that, according to an OECD survey I've cited earlier, government spending (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) already makes up 44.7% of health care expenditures. HHS tells me that the Medicaid budget is about 44% that of Medicare. Also note that my employers have matched my contributions to Medicare. So (with lots of rounding to zero decimal places):
- Total contribution of my employers and me to Medicare (over 18 years): $3,346 x 2 = $6,692
- Proportional contribution necessary to support Medicaid (18 years): $6,692 x 44% = $2,944
- Total proportional contribution from my labor to existing gov't health care (18 years): $9,636
- Contribution per year: $9636 / 18 = $535
- Assuming this contribution represents my share of 45% of US health care expenditures, additional proportional amount my employers and I would have had to contribute over the last 18 years to cover the remaining 55% of US health care expenditures: ($9,636 / 45%) - $9,636 = $11,921
- Total proportional contribution from my employers and me that would have been necessary to sustain a universal health care program over the past 18 years: $21,557
- Contribution per year: $21,557 / 18 = $1,197
- Amount I'm paying per year now for a private family health insurance plan (slightly better than the one we had last year, but still a $7500 family deductible): $2,700
- Amount my family could save each year if the US switched to universal, single-payer health care: $2700 - $1197 = $1,503 (that's two monthly mortgage payments, a month of groceries, and a couple extra pizzas!).
Why is it cheaper? Two reasons. First, because Medicare deductions aren't based on your need for health care, but your declared income as a (former) low-wage South Dakota high school teacher. Rich people therefore pay more for the same level of service... and the government has no grounds (or right) for doing that. Government should never, ever, be thought of as a Robin Hood or a charity. All citizens should be equal in the eyes of the government. If I buy a government bond it should have the same interest rate as the one Bill Gates buys.
ReplyDeleteSecond reason: because the government tells docs if and how much they are going to pay.
But this advantage can be obtained by my much more modest universal reimbursement schedule proposal. Treat health care as a utility allows everyone to have affordable access to it, but also lets individuals decide the coverage level, deductible, and premium they feel is best for their personal situation.
I can't help thinking that when someone brings up universal health care, they are trying to use the government as a weapon... by getting enough voters, they are going to leverage the threat of law to insist that some successful businessman is going to pay for all their medical bills. Health care should be affordable, yes. And the government makes electricity and water affordable... but doesn't rob the rich people to pay for my water sprinklers. The decision on how much water, electricity, and health care I pay for should be up to my personal responsibility.
If I understand your logic, David, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, Pell grants, student loans, state subsidies for first-time home buyers, tax breaks for businesses, police and fire protection, public schools, state universities -- all wrong. Government should not collect any taxes from any citizen beyond a precisely determined payment for services rendered. And those many individuals who cannot afford the state services -- blue-collar workers, small farmers, students, children -- get none. Just how does that "society" differ from the state of nature whose difficulties we form social contracts to avoid?
ReplyDeleteIf Hillary gets in, she intends to raise taxes on those who work and make money, in order to redistribute their "excess" income to those who make little. She has said as much, and this is the Dem strategy generally - to make people dependent on the gov't and essentially buy their votes, to take from those they consider "wealthy" and give to those who "aren't." Nevermind that the "aren't" have many times
ReplyDeleteprobably not made the effort to better their lot in life. For those who thru no fault of their own (illness, accidents, etc) there should be a safety net. For those who simply don't work, won't work, or just have a bunch of kids they can't afford, or come here illegally, it's time to say enough.
Canada's health care system is not the utopia some say. Aren't there a lot who want to scrap it altogether?
The gov't should collect taxes to provide services that benefit the general good of all, including roads, fire and police protection, etc. No one disputes that.
ReplyDeleteWhere the problem lies is in thinking that the more wealthy of us (and it doesn't have to be very affluent anymore to be "wealthy" according to Hillary's standards) should pick up the tab for everyone else's retirement, health care, social services etc. I agree that we need to provide a safety net for the truly needy or disabled in our society, but when we try to make the gov't responsible for things that should be an individual's own responsibility, we are creeping closer to a socialistic type society. That isn't working very well in Germany and didn't work in Russia. There will always be differing abilities in people and differing abilities to earn a living; it is not the govt's job to level that playing field completely. It is up to an individual to work hard and provide for him and his family to the best of his ability. When the gov't starts too many handouts and people start to rely on them and think of them as their right, this is where the danger lies. This will destroy incentive and self-esteem; look no further than SD's own Indian reservations to see this has happened.
Bush tried to get people to accept some degree of responsibility for their retirement by privatizing part of Social Security. My hubby retired from a federal job, had a private retirement account there as part of his civil service pension. He has now been retired three years, takes a monthly withdrawal from his private account, and the private account is still worth more than when he retired. This is what Bush wanted for the rest of us, but sadly this didn't come to pass. This is just one way people could take partial responsibility for their own retirement and come out ahead. Still don't understand why the hullaballoo over this except that it was a Republican idea.
But I guess I digress. I agree that medical expenses are high and people need to be able to afford their own insurance. But putting it all in gov't hands, with govt's proven bureaucratic snafus and inefficiencies, is not the way to go. Canada is not happy with their system BTW.
Scrap it altogether? No. A quick Google search this morning brings up a 2002 Canadian study that says that, even as Canadians recognize problems with their system, they would prefer to fix the system they have rather than pitch it and privatize the whole thing. Among other numbers, 8% in that study expressed the belief that the American system is better than the Canadian system. I welcome more updated information!
ReplyDeleteOn Hillary -- sure, she just wants power. (That opinion may just be part of the lingering effects of GOP withdrawal, but I still can't embrace either Clinton.) Instead, vote for Dennis Kucinich and his health care plan. Kucinich is about principle, not power. He's the only candidate offering a real universal not-for-profit health care plan. He makes the same point I make above: universal health care might raise your taxes, but it would leave more money in your pocket because you wouldn't be paying exorbitant insurance premiums and deductibles. You want waste and bureaucracy? Stick with private, for-profit health care:
ReplyDelete"We spend about 50% more than the next most expensive nation and nearly twice per person what the Canadians do. On May 1, 2006 Paul Krugman explained in Death by Insurance how incredibly wasteful the current system is. The doctor he referenced has two full-time staff members for billing, and two secretaries spend half their time collecting insurance information on the 301 different private plans they deal with. This type of waste is easily 20%. Also consider that 98% of Medicare funds are spent on medical care." [Kucinich, "Universal Health Care," Kucinich 2008 Presidential campaign website, http://kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php.]
Sure, universal health care will help people, and yes, some freeloaders will probably take advantage of it. But I'd rather be "taken advantage of" by a poor immigrant getting a free doctor's appointment for his kids than by rich insurance executives who lobby Congress to maintain a bloated private system and get to buy big swimming pools and yachts.
But the big reason I advocate universal health care is that it uses resources more efficiently. As a nation, we'd spend less on health care (though the amount would still increase yearly due to our aging population, a problem posing challenges to both Canada and the US) and have more money to pump into other sectors of the economy, thus creating more jobs and wealth for everyone.
Says Anonymous above: "For those who thru no fault of their own (illness, accidents, etc) there should be a safety net. For those who simply don't work, won't work, or just have a bunch of kids they can't afford, or come here illegally, it's time to say enough."
ReplyDeleteEnough of what? Acting on our Christian values to take care of the poor? According to the Old Testament, Israel's failure to take care of the poor was one of the main reasons God judged them and sent them into exile. [My wife is skipping church today, so the Madville Times is handling today's sermon.]
Nonnie says, " The gov't should collect taxes to provide services that benefit the general good of all."
ReplyDeleteBenefits of Universal Health Care for the general good of all:
--employers don't have to spend money providing private plans (cost savings more than offset tax increases to fund universal plan)
--US business can compete globally against foreign firms whose governments' universal health care plans relieve them of the burden of financing private health care plans for their employees (that's why GM wants national health care... and I don't think the GM execs are socialists. Read also Jonathan Tasini, "The Best Corporate Health Plan," TomPaine.com, 2005.06.30)
--employers make more money as employees get better access to health care, stay healthier, have fewer sick days, and increase productivity
--free market improves as workers can more easily switch jobs to suit market demands and personal skills and desires as they are no longer tied to employer-based health care plans
--less GDP expended on private insurance means more GDP for other goods, services, and maybe even public projects (education! bigger gyms! :-) )
--more money stays in local economies instead of being shipped off to big insurance companies
--people spend less time worrying about losing their coverage, orsuffering an accident or an unexpected illness, and thus are happier (like folks in those darn socialistic-type countries -- Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Canada -- who all rank higher than the US in happiness, according to this 2006 British study)
--bankruptcies drop by half, reducing crime, hunger, and family problems
--we prevent 18,000 deaths among people age 18-64 a year, reduce overuse of expensive emergency room care by uninsured people, and achieve better health outcomes whose economic impact outweighs cost of expanding coverage to the uninsured ["Uninsurance Facts and Figures: The Uninsured Are Sicker and Die Sooner," Institute of Medicine of the National Academies]
How's that for general welfare?
"Enough of what? Acting on our Christian values to take care of the poor? According to the Old Testament, Israel's failure to take care of the poor was one of the main reasons God judged them and sent them into exile."
ReplyDeleteThis is a total cheap shot. You know full well the difference between a religious call to individual charity work and a government's obligation to treat its citizens equally.
Cheap shot, David? I reject the charge. I heard no hint of charity in the words of the anonymous commenter to whom I was responding. I heard the tired, xenophobic, and baseless claim that the world is filled with no-good lazy bums who don't deserve Christian love. I heard an attitude that fits the Neil Boortz call-in show but not the Gospels. Anonymous did not specify what (s)he has had "enough" of, so I asked for clarification. [I still welcome clarification and/or correction from the original commenter.]
ReplyDeleteHi Cory,
ReplyDelete"Just how does that "society" differ from the state of nature whose difficulties we form social contracts to avoid?"
Well, let's try a little anecdote. Suppose about 75% of Lake Herman residents wanted to pool their money together for group health-related costs, and the other 25% preferred to pay for their health care on their own.
First question, how much should each Lake Herman resident pay for their participation? Should it be based on each house's annual income, or based on the likelihood that they will use the service?
Second, would you raise a group of warriors to crash into the houses of the nay-sayers and force them to pay into your health-care pool, or should they have the liberty to decide how to take care of their own bodies and finances?
Third, which is closer to the Hobbesian state of nature: One group forcing its will on another group by armed force, or both groups respecting one another's free choices?
Fourth, how is it wrong for the athletic supporters to force the cost of a gym project on you and your family, but not wrong for you to force the cost of your family's health care on them?
Interested, as always, to hear your answers.
Kind regards,
David
Your questions are always thought-provoking, David.
ReplyDelete1. If the residents of Lake Herman were to form a shared-risk pool for health coverage, we'd go broke. Heck, we can't even afford a central sewer system, let alone a group health plan.
But ignoring that niggling practicality, if we could create Lake Herman Health Care, we'd base premiums on income, not need or likelihood of usage. Need/usage-based plan is what we have now, driving lots of working folks to bankruptcy or death. Income-based is fairest, spreads the impacts most bearably to all involved.
2. The state regularly raises groups of warriors -- county cops, HP, FBI, DEA -- to enforce its laws. My health care plan ceates no new police powers. The IRS can bust you for not paying your taxes now. Your apparent position that government cannot justifiably claim on one penny of your income advocates the complete disintegration of government.
3. Hobbes's Leviathan imposes the will of the sovereign on citizens all the time. Hobbes preferred a state sufficiently monstrous and powerful to scare its subjects into submission to the anarchic state of nature. Better to have one clear ruler with all the power than random thugs who might crash into your house at any time for any purpose.
More realistically, universal health care makes life less solitary (people can get help when they're sick), poor (health care is less expensive, takes less GDP, allows other economic sectors to grow), nasty (health care not dictated by profit motive), brutish (children are viewed as children deserving our care, not collateral victims of parents' financial misfortunes or bad decisions) and short (people get better care, live longer). Universal health care protects us as a society instead of leaving every individual to fend for himself against the caprices of nature.
4. Universal health care offers many more benefits, direct and indirect, to every member of society. The provision of heart surgery and pre-natal check-ups ought to compel social/governmental action much sooner than the provision of more seats for watching basketball games.
The way you phrase the question also misses the point: I'm not passing legislation saying "Rich people have to pay for the Heidelbergers' medical bills." Universal health care requires everyone to pay for everyone's medical bills. Dennis Kucinich might get this plan passed in the first 100 days of his glorious administration, and then my wife, my daughter, and I might never have a sick day again in our lives. I'll get stinking rich with my doctorate in info systems, and then I'll be paying exorbitant amounts of taxes to pay for all those poor teachers and their babies. Bring it on. When I'm rich, I'll be happy to contribute to universal health care, even if I never use it (and if I have any say in it, I never will use it -- I hate hospitals, no matter who's paying for my visit!).
I hope I have sufficiently responded to your questions. Now, let us return to my question, to which I seem to have missed your answer. I pose the question again: how does your society, in which government has no right to tax its citizenry and thus no real power, differ from the state of nature we supposedly form a social contract to avoid?
While I await Anonymous's response to my question on Christian values, I submit the following:
ReplyDelete"And what do we mean by 'religious'? If we're talking about rhetoric, volume and public display, it has been a very religious time indeed. If we mean behavior that creates peace, extends compassion to the less fortunate and reaches out to strangers outside our borders, we have a way to go. If we are a Christian nation, shouldn't we more consistently behave like one?" [Tom Krattenmaker, "A Pious Nation?" USA Today online, 2007.06.11]
I said,"For those who thru no fault of their own (illness, accidents, etc) there should be a safety net. For those who simply don't work, won't work, or just have a bunch of kids they can't afford, or come here illegally, it's time to say enough."
ReplyDeleteCory, when I said I have had "enough," I meant enough of people taking advantage of the system and not trying to pay their way but instead relying on someone else to pay their bills. The illegals who come here and get free education, free medical care, pay no income taxes by claiming the maximum exemptions, and sending money back to Mexico is one example; they have no interest in contributing to the society that is supporting them.
People who aren't willing to work hard but have kids they can't afford, while knowing that they will then get Medicaid, subsidized housing, food stamps, earned income credit is another example.
And yes, I do have Christian charity and do give to the poor and to the humane society and various other charities. I do care.
But I have had enough of people thinking they are entitled to gov't support in lieu of working hard to support themselves. I have had enough of illegals coming here with no intention to become citizens but simply to live here without contributing or supporting themselves.
Not doing a good job of explaining myself, but it's late and I'm tired. Maybe I can say it better in the morning! Goodnight!
Now you want a comment on what I mean by Christian values? OK, here goes.
ReplyDeleteI agree they are compassion, love, desire for peace, etc etc. Contrary to your opinion, I think our nation does pretty well in this regard.
No one wants war; also no one wants to be attacked by another nation or another religion, and there comes a time even a Christian nation must protect itself or face attacks by those who want to destroy us. Unfortuantely there are truly bad people in this world, and to appease them in the name of peace will not create peace.
Our nation contributes much, much to the good of humanity around the world. Who does the world look to when disaster strikes? It's the US. Think recent sunami, floods, AIDS, support of the UN, drought, starvation - we are called and we go. And for that we still are despised, sometimes by the very ones we help.
We aren't perfect, but we are pretty good at practicing Christian values IMO.
Thank you, Anonymous! Don't worry -- you're doing a good job of explaining yourself, regardless of the hour.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you say. America does a lot of great things, helps a lot of people, and stands up against a lot of evil. I even agree tha there are some truly bad people in the world, not merely lazy folks on welfare, but true threats to civilization like Kim Jong Il and Osama bin Laden. I still struggle to find a consistent position that allows me to advocate the value of life yet also support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power (not to mention his execution).
Now the discussion of illegal immigration is another issue. Certainly, there are immigrants who take advantage of our health care system and probably Medicaid. That situation wouldn't be any different under a universal health care system. I disagree with your premise that all those immigrants are bad for America and contribute nothing to society. The big businesses who hire them certainly appreciate the cheap labor the immigrants contribute (in jobs many Americans are too lazy or snooty to take). We consumers certainly appreciate the cheap tomatoes and other produce they harvest for us.
But immigration, as I said, is a whole nother issue. (I have to fight really hard to stay on toic here, since the immigration debate also has many sides with lots of interesting evidence.)
Back to the issue: given your comments on Christian values, let me ask, is it un-Christian to seek to create a universal health care system whereby the government -- we as a society -- would take care of the sick and the poor?
My wife is passionately Christian (Lutheran, even!) and answers "No!" to that question. I am genuinely interested in your responses, Anonymous. I ask not simply so I can write a rebuttal, but so I can learn where other people stand and make more sense of my own position (it may not seem likely, but you might even change my mind!).
Or, consider the question from this perspective: why do ostensibly more secular societies, like Canada, Sweden, et al, seem to take further steps toward helping the sick and poor than the US, arguably the most religious of the industrialized nations? Surely those secular societies have similar numbers of freeloaders, yet those societies seem more willing to turn the other cheek to that offense and maintain their universal health care systems. What gives?
ReplyDelete"...is it un-Christian to seek to create a universal health care system whereby the government -- we as a society -- would take care of the sick and the poor?"
ReplyDeleteI would also answer no, it is not un-Christian.
But you have to consider how it would be funded. If the gov't does it, it will by nature be a huge bureacracy with more and more rules passed with each year,that's just the way gov't run things operate. The poor will contribute nothing but reap the same benefits as me. I have two different feelings about that. A person who has little education but works hard for little wages while trying his best to support himself, who really does not want to ask for help, is the type of person I would be willing to pay some for as regards unviersal health care.
The person who is poor because of very stupid choices in life, who has a bunch of kids he/she know they can't afford, who refuses to work hard or look for a better job, or an illegal who comes here intending to live off the system as long as he can - those people I have no interest in helping. They have the capacity to help themselves but refuse to do so, and if universal health care were available, they would have even less reason to try to support themselves.
It might sound callous, but IMO it's really not. There has to be an element of personal responsibililty in this. If you have the ability to take care of yourself and your family, you also have an obligation to do so. Too many people think it's fine and dandy for the gov't to do it and relieve themselves of any reponsibility.
You only have to look at the Indian reservations to see where relying too much on gov't handout gets people. Gov't handouts have destroyed a once proud people's self-esteem, pride, and willingness to take personal responsibility for their lives. And the result is the lifestyle of the reservations.
If we want a socialist society, you need just look at Russia and China to see that doesn't work. Give people a chance to better themselves and be rewarded according to how much they try is the way to have a successful society.
I'd better get back to work. This is more fun but doesn't pay the bills!
Two questions and a comment.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be saying what we pay for health care should be income-based. But why do you think my family(which works long, hard hours for our income) should pay more than a family that refuses to work.
Would you be this willing to turn the entire education system over to the federal government, and insist that all children be educated by that system?
As a Christian, I do not believe the government is responsible to take care of the poor and needy. When I read the Bible, I see commands for Christ's followers to do that.
dj
“ . . . or an illegal who comes here intending to live off the system as long as he can - those people I have no interest in helping.”
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:38, I have to take issue with your characterization of illegal immigrants. You imply that illegals are simply mooches. I would argue that the majority of illegals in the U.S. are extremely hard-working people who are just trying to provide for their families, something they have found impossible to do in their homelands for a variety of reasons that are completely beyond their control. In fact, we have U.S. policy to blame for much of this illegal immigration. NAFTA and our high crop subsidies have allowed U.S. farmers to flood Mexican grain markets over recent years, resulting in Mexican farmers not being able to compete with U.S. farmers for selling grain. When these people are forced from their land, they have few to no options for work in Mexico. With families to provide for, they are willing to take the risks of illegally crossing our borders, to work long hours at grueling jobs, and to earn far less than they deserve for the work they do. There but for the grace of God go I.
I have personally visited a migrant camp in Washington state, where many of the illegal immigrants are employed harvesting fruit and vegetables that we eat here in South Dakota (yes, you have hard-working illegals to thank for being able to buy cheap tomatoes). The conditions in which they and their families live are deplorable. I assure you, they are not mooching off any system in the U.S.
As Christians, we are called to live out God’s kingdom, which in part means that we seek to meet the needs of people on the margins of society. Illegal immigrants are some of those people, and I hope you will change your mind about helping them. If you’re ever interested in learning more about the realities of life here for illegal immigrants and a ministry that serves them (in case you’re looking for a charity to support, rather than government hand-outs!), I highly encourage you to take a look at this website: http://www.peoplesseminary.org/.
"As a Christian, I do not believe the government is responsible to take care of the poor and needy. When I read the Bible, I see commands for Christ's followers to do that."
ReplyDeleteDJ, what if Christ's followers fail to do that? Is it then acceptable for government to step in, or is it preferable for the poor and needy to be left unaided?
Anon: "As a Christian, I do not believe the government is responsible to take care of the poor and needy. When I read the Bible, I see commands for Christ's followers to do that."
ReplyDeleteBut the government is we the people. If we have a resonsibility to care for the poor, whether the basis is Biblical, philosophical, what-have-you, why can we not use the government to serve that purpose, especially when the government could provide that service much more efficiently? You speak of bloated bureaucacy, but the great jumble of profiteering insurance companies create more paperwork, inefficiency, ad waste of health care dollars than does Medicare (remember, as cited above by Kucinich, 20% of private health care dollars go for administration; 2% of Medicare dollars go that way). Single-payer systems spend much less per capita on health care in other nations and get better health outcomes than the US.
And as for those pesky freeloaders, the disadvantage under universal health care is not unique. We already have freeloaders. Universal health care won't lead to moral decline (turn to the media and capitalism itself for the real threats to family and community values -- see this Australian commentary and British thinker John Gray in False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism).
On the Biblical call for governments, not just individuals, to take responsibility for the poor, see Kent Van Til's "Biblical/Theological Case for Basic Sustenance for All":
"While the term poor does take on wider connotations, a baseline understanding certainly implies that the poor are people who suffer physical lack. Justice in Israel required advocacy for such poor. If, for example, a king would be a worthy representative of God himself, he would stand up for the poor (e.g., Ps. 72; Prov. 29:14). Josiah, for example, is presented as a good king because he defended the poor (Jer. 22:16). David, the model for Israel’s later kings, responds to Nathan’s story of a rich man who robs the poor man of his only sheep with absolute fury, condemning the culprit to death (before Nathan turns the tables on David himself). In wisdom literature, we hear that 'God … deals out justice to the oppressed. The Lord feeds the hungry and sets the prisoner free' (Ps. 146:5–6), as well as, 'The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern' (Prov. 29:7)."
Oh, and if you have qualms about letting the federal government run it, let's follow the Canadian model and let the states run it. When my wife and I were in Vancouver for a year, we wrote our checks to BC Health in Victoria, not some national outfit in Ottawa.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, in British Columbia, we paid monthly preimum of $96. Had we had our daughter there, our premium would have increased to $108. (Had we had our daughter there, we also would have paid nothing for delivery and nursery costs, compared to the $12,000 here.) That $108 premium -- the historically high exchange rate currently puts that amount at just above $100 US -- is less than half of whhat we pay now for a private plan, and it covered much more. And gee, the whole time we were in Vancouver, we never went to the hospital. Consider that anecdotal evidence that universal health care does not cause overutilization.
Erin, I simpy want people to obey our immigration laws. If they come here legally and truly want to become American citizens, learn our language, pay our taxes, etc, I am all for that. After all, that is what my own father did at age 20.
ReplyDeleteIf they come illegally, they live under the radar and, while they may work hard, they do not pay our taxes but get free medical care, free education, free access to roads and police protection and fire protection etc, while not contributing anything to pay for these. This is simply wrong and unfair.
That being said, my daughter-in-law teaches ESL (English as a second language) to mostly Mexican kids in a city in MN. She collects clothing for some of the kids if they come to school without coats, mittens, etc, and I have helped with this. I do not ignore need just because they are illegal.
Boy, this has got off track, hasn't it? Christians do need to respond to need when they do see it. But Christians also stress obeying laws, and illegals have already broken the law. I don't think US policies have caused all the troubles in Mexico. Mexico's own corrupt gov't has done that and doesn't need us to help with that. And they are more than happy to export as many people as possible to the US illegally and have those people send money back to their famiies in Mexico, thereby helping the Mexican economy and allowing Mexico to be less responsible for the welfare of their own citizens.