Kitty Pilgrim baselessly suggested that nearly all undocumented immigrants are uninsured, study found otherwise
SUMMARY: On CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week, Kitty Pilgrim baselessly suggested that nearly all undocumented immigrants in the United States are uninsured, asserting that "there are an estimated 47 million people in this country who don't have health insurance," and that "illegal aliens likely make up 40 percent of the uninsured in this country." For Pilgrim's assertion to be true, 18.8 million undocumented immigrants would have to be uninsured, but the National Institute for Health Care Management has estimated that there are 5.6 million uninsured undocumented immigrants.
During the July 27 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week, host Kitty Pilgrim baselessly suggested that all or nearly all undocumented immigrants in the United States are uninsured. Pilgrim asserted, "[T]here are an estimated 47 million people in this country who don't have health insurance. And as we have reported here for years, there are an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, and that means illegal aliens likely make up 40 percent of the uninsured in this country." Pilgrim did not cite any evidence for her assertion; for it to be true, 18.8 million undocumented immigrants would have to be uninsured. However, as the blog Progress Illinois noted, the National Institute for Health Care Management has estimated that there are 5.6 million undocumented immigrants in this country who are uninsured, not 18.8 million. That number is equal to approximately 12 percent of the uninsured in this country, not 40 percent.
In estimating the number of undocumented immigrants without health insurance, the National Institute for Health Care Management, which describes itself as "a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that conducts research on health care issues," stated:
As explained in more detail in the Methods Overview at the back of this paper, the estimates presented throughout this paper rely on data as reported by the Census Bureau. These reported data indicate that there are 10 million non-citizens among the 46.5 non-elderly uninsured. Because the CPS [Current Population Survey] does not collect information on legal status among non-citizens, both legal and undocumented immigrants are included in the 10 million.
Earlier research has incorporated data from numerous government sources to develop a model for assigning legal status to each immigrant found in the CPS data. Legal immigrants include refugees, legal permanent residents (e.g., green card holders), and legal temporary residents (i.e., those in the country legally for a specified period and purpose). This model was subsequently applied to 2004 data from the CPS to estimate legal status among uninsured non-citizens. Applying this analysis to the 2007 CPS, we estimate that 5.6 million of the 10 million uninsured non-citizens are undocumented immigrants, whereas 4.4 million are legal residents.
From the July 27 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week:
PILGRIM: As Lisa [Sylvester, CNN correspondent] reported, there are an estimated 47 million people in this country who don't have health insurance. And as we have reported here for years, there are 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, and that means illegal aliens likely make up 40 percent of the uninsured in this country.
Come on, out of 46 million, your animosity goes to the 5 million illegals?
Also, this thread is about the blatant misinformation "Kitty Pilgrim" (if that is her real name, Dobbs would apprently only hire someone DIRECTLY related to those off the Mayflower) decided to spew. No topic switchies!
These cons have no solutions for immigration or healthcare so their best bet is to get their corporate media parrots to divide and distract us with resentment politics.
tommy, this is an issue where we agree. and the term "immigration reform" makes it look like you're some kind of crazy to actually oppose "reform". but reform was the exact same term used in 1986 for the "one time" amnesty of that year. i don't think i need to tell you that arnold ordered the wages of california state workers cut to the federal minimum wage because of your state's 15 billion dollar deficit.
http://www.answers.com/topic/immigration-reform-and-control-act-of-1986
"I don't really know anyone who is saying that"
But Mary, nor do I know anyone saying what you said.
Illegal Aliens shouldn't even be here.
And how do we even know just how many illegal aliens are here? Did somebody count them? And if they could find them to count them, shouldn't they be arrested & thrown out for being here ILLEGALLY?
And why should they have insurance if they aren't even here legally?
Ah I'm soooo sick of this topic.
Deport. Close off the borders. End of story.
This building up of scapegoats and fear is standard fare on CNN.
People are scared, they're upset, the world isn't working, the country isn't working, and they don't like the way things are. You don't want people to look at the actual source of power, that's much too dangerous, so, therefore, you need to have them blame or be frightened of someone else. Illegal aliens fill that role nicely.
Watershed, It isn't about any of that. It's about respecting our laws, it's about importing cheap labor that drives down wages of the poorest citizens among us, it's about rewarding business owners who break the law by hiring illegals, it's about the costs and burdens on our emergency rooms, our schools, it's about thumbing our noses at those who have labored through our immigration process legally.
It isn't about scapegoats or fear mongering, it isn't about being scared of brown people, it isn't about xenophobic racists.
Debate the issue honestly and fairly, that is all I ask.
I am talking specifically about Dobbs/CNN here, not the illegal issue in general, or your take or my take on it, just to be clear.
No scapegoating? I dont believe it when Dobbs and "Kitty Pilgrim" (if that is her real name) constantly have to use lies and conflated issues to get any point across.
Like now. It's not 40% percent of all the uninsured, its far FAR less. So why lie? Because their point doesnt carry the same visceral imapact when you use the real numbers. Their goal is to "incite".
Perhaps you are right about their particular motivation, to sensationalize it......as I said, it's all a guess anyway, so who really knows, and that is and of itself a major problem, don't you agree?
I prefer to focus on the larger picture of illegal immigration and it's effects on our country. This Pilgrim chick is basically irrelevant to me, so if she erred in her numbers, then she should apologize. The issue doesn't need amplification, it's real enough for me.
Cool.
My main point being, THEY should debate the issue fairly, to use your words.
Just asking because I don't know -- how difficult is it to become legal? Does a guy working 16-hour days to keep his family alive need three years of English/citizenship classes? That ain't gonna happen.
When millions of people choose to become and remain illegal, I'm betting it's a rational decision. We need to change the situation somehow to make it an irrational decision.
Deport. Close off the borders. End of story.
String barbed wire all along the border. Make the country look like a gulag.
Remember, Jeter - walls to keep people OUT can also be used to keep people IN.....
Only in this country can people hate it so much that they still refuse to leave.
I like-a the crazy talk, Science! Can I get that on a wall plaque?
Without knowing you, I still know that you were frothing at the mouth throughout the Clinton years, and you're still here.
Only in this country can people hate it so much that they still refuse to leave.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
If my logic worked like that I'd have a tag on it warning,"Use with caution at times apears intelligent."
In a continuing series:
Saudi citizens perform terrorist acts, lets attack Iraq.
Oil is getting expensive, lets say we need to drill, without having the infrastucture to drill.
We need to spy on our citizens, we'll say the terrorists are using our phone lines.
Lets make sure our citizens are well informed, lets erect the most secretive administration in our history.
Natives forced to try for a future outside their native land, lets build a fence.
If we take them into custody because they might have violated a minor law. Lets treat them worse than if they were convicted of armed robbery.
Anybody feeling satisfyed with these concepts and solutions, please don't vote.
Very unhappy with their treatment, but that really wasn't the point.
The point was that the same people identified the problems and the solutions. The sucess in any of these is their sucess,not yours or mine.
You might agree on many of them with me, but you accept their call on the imigrant issue. Why would you grant them credibility in this area when they've screwed up anything else they've touched?
People "here" don't have much of an idea what life is like for Mexican citizens or for those in central and South America. I think most of us would do almost anything to help our families, including trying to work wherever we could.
Sure we would. But that doesnt mean we are obligated to sacrifice our personal wealth and standard of living to benefit the Mexicans or people from S. American countries.
True, and Mexico has been run for years by a corrupt oligarchy who has kept the wealth for the elites with no consideration for lifting the majority out of poverty.
NAFTA has only made things worse.
You're asking desperately poor people to change the policies!? You do know how well that works, don't you? They actually tried to elect a better presidente, but political corruption is also rampant there.
The plant that moved to Mexico is probably in China by now. Yes, the plants moved to Mexico first, but then many of them abandoned Mexico.
also the idea of putting pressure on the government of mexico is exactly counterproductive. all that will do is allow them to appeal to the nationalistic feelings of the mexican people and portray this country as the aggressor trying to impose it's will. fortunately we learned our lesson with hugo chavez. he's overplayed his hand at home and abroad and he's paid a price for it.
NAFTA has only made things worse.
Psshht. Cmon Mary, you know better than that. NAFTA hasn't made things worse for Mexicans. We've been in this same situation well before NAFTA was even created.
The only thing NAFTA is doing in the private sector there is slightly creating the ability for more people to be successful in Mexico, however, in order to do so you need to have something to invest in the first place.
The Mexican government though is really the only entity there that can afford american imported goods. But we cannot control what they do with them after shipment - outside of refusing to take their goods, which would only drive MORE illegals to the US in search of work.
Actually, NAFTA has made it easier for employers to exploit workers. Reforming NAFTA to put people first, not profits, is the first step in curtailing the rush across our border.
Reforming NAFTA to put people first, not profits,
Well seeing as how corporations are the ones who do the trading, and a goal of free trade is to boost your own domestic GDP, it revolves around profits.
But I'd like to see you successfully implement ANY trade agreement that curtails corporate profit.
And allowing subsidized and unfairly traded products to flood our markets is not free trade, we need to promote fair trade. So what it comes down to is whether we will center our trade strategy to benefit global corporations or to secure a broad middle class.
Personally, id rather NOT have a free trade agreement with Mexico. They can keep their tainted food and non-english speaking people who intend on taking US dollars back to the mother land. Oh, and they can keep their drugs too.
Lets just continue to buy their oil and be done with it.
Purely negative emotional response.
I point out the problems that need to be fixed with our trade policies and the only counterpoint offered is disdain for a country that carries out it's business in accordance with existing trade laws.
The answer is to tightly regulate trade. We need to implement trade rules that lift safety, environmental and labor standards abroad, rather than driving them down here.
Well, lets be real here. There is really only one country that doesnt like NAFTA - the US.
The bottom line agenda of NAFTA is really to get Mexico, US, and Canada on an level trading playing field, so that the three countries can be solely dependant upon each other and minimally dependant on any other country.
In theory, it would work. But the problem is that it would take so entirely long because all three countries would need to achieve a similar standard of living before it starts working. US and Canada are somewhat close in that respect, but both countries would have to sit back and and go into an economic downturn and lower standards of living to wait for Mexico to catch up.
You'll only be a peon if you're lazy, don't take your education seriously, and refuse to work hard to get ahead in life.
Oh wait, thats everywhere.
What was so great about the depression? Grandma and grandpa lived through the depression. They told me there was nothing great about it.
If only it was that simple. You do realize that our government has had a huge impact on the policies that have shaped latin america?
If we take them into custody because they might have violated a minor law. Lets treat them worse than if they were convicted of armed robbery.
I don't want to accuse you of saying something that you're not trying to. But I would strongly urge you to define "them".
I hope you are not encompassing the terrorists in Gitmo under that word though.
How many convictions you got on them terrorists?
Your attitudes about anyone but upright(stiff) white neocons has over time been extremly evident. Where do you figure you have any relevence in this area.
You can demand things of me? Given your level of fake arguments. How in the world do you figure you have any call to demand things of me?
Err, it was more of a question to elaborate on your line. But since you can't, or won't, and came off on the defensive, I clearly see its the terrorists your speaking of.
Bottom line, we shouldn't need court convictions on terrorists. Prisoners of war should not have any legal US rights.
More along the lines of beating a mule over the head to get his attention.
The issue of policies is difficult, if the real solution to the problem. The same people who brought you the quagmire of Iraq, $4.00 gas, a financial meltdown or two, a crumbling national infrastructure, A Justice Department that isn't. Also bring you a wall as THE solution to the Brown Wave. How they might suddenly be comptent here is something you'll have to explain to me, but given the track record so far on explanation by one of you, I'll continue respirating.
Just as the concerns about problems in Iraq becomes hating the troops. Complaints about evangelicalism becomes an attack on Christianity. So identifying root causes of the rush of people from the south becomes america hating. Step out from behind the inocent bystanders. What your doing is the same type of terrorist tactic used when they hide in a crowd.
here's a vote by a majority of democrats in 2006 supporting a fence or wall. including both california senators, hillary and obama. so save the insults.
http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar10202006.html
Eweston, BRAVO!
But I'll answer the question for you. I think any politician, or citizen, who votes for walls does not do so in the vein of American values and our rich immigrant tradition. I think support for a wall ignores the bigger aspects of the broken immigration system.
I think it is possible to tighten border security with smart, targeted border monitoring instead of an expensive, environmentally unfriendly wall.
environmentally unfriendly wall.
Please. Now you're way off the deep end. Yes that 10ft (or however) high wall is so environmentally unfriendly.
Can you guys find anything that you dont like without linking it to the environment and/or global warming? lol
I wouldn't like being addressed the way he addressed you. I wouldn't enjoy it any more than I enjoy the way you wrote that I have no problem offensive rhetoric.
I think it is possible to tighten border security with smart, targeted border monitoring instead of an expensive, environmentally unfriendly wall.
It? What is It? Immigration? The wall?
The problem, as I personally see it, would be that people on the left tend to put the planet above human life and our standard of living. I prefer to allow the planet to adapt to human life and standard of living. The planet is resilient, as we've seen throughout millions upon millions of years.
Anyway, as to the "broken immigration" system - I'll agree. It's broken because we have way too many people supporting those who break the immigration laws.
Considering that I just wrote, "And allowing subsidized and unfairly traded products to flood our markets is not free trade, we need to promote fair trade. So what it comes down to is whether we will center our trade strategy to benefit global corporations or to secure a broad middle class." I have no idea where that notion of lower living standards fits into any critique of left-leaning American values.
The notion that the earth will adapt to our way of living is not supported by the history of the planet. The planet did not adapt to dinosaurs. We have to adapt to the planet and find a way to live in a a continuous harmony.
The immigration system is broken, we agree on that. It's not broken because too many people hold humanitarian views of our fellow humans, but because the system is not practical or fair.
The notion that the earth will adapt to our way of living is not supported by the history of the planet.
Sure it is. The ecology has so far adapted, and so have animals, to human life and modern day industrial expansion.
The planet did not adapt to dinosaurs. We have to adapt to the planet and find a way to live in a a continuous harmony.
What a cop out argument. The dinosaurs lived for millions of years until the planet went through a natural climate change. But what you're telling me is, that now in modern day, that we may be going through another natural climate change, so we have to change our entire ways of living even though there isnt proof that we are to blame for it? Cmon.
The immigration system is broken, we agree on that. It's not broken because too many people hold humanitarian views of our fellow humans, but because the system is not practical or fair.
The only thing not fair is well behaved citizens who pay enourmous amounts of federal income taxes and social security moneys that are being distributed to people who have broken our laws and are not paying into the federal system.
The US was established as a country to take care of its own - not to take care of everyone else. That's why we have borders and laws, that effect our citizens. That's who comes first, and should come first. This is the land of the people who are citizens here. And if majority of them don't want to pay for and support people from other countries who are breaking our laws, I don't see that as anything negative.
As a country, we have the right to allow certain people into the country and the right to keep certain people out. We are exercising that right, but you dont like it.
I can see you are starting to get silly with that final paragraph of yours, especially the very last sentence: "As a country, we have the right to allow certain people into the country and the right to keep certain people out. We are exercising that right, but you dont like it."
I have said nothing of the sort that would lead one to that conclusion. You are fighting an argument I never made.
I've made my point quite well, you can have the last word on this.
Your personal opinions if followed lead to an earth bustling along. The standard of living problem disappears nicely, in a struggle just to survive. I don't see much of life surviving this.
Supporting the planet that supports you, a thing of no consequence?
Your standard of living disappears without sustaining ecologies. Planets do not respond and adapt to idieologies. Even if you talk to it slowly.
Resilient? Yah its been arround for a while. How many of those billions of years of exsistence was it supportable to human life? The oil didn't appear till the Atlantic/Tethy's seas were young.
I look forward to your unexplanation of the tactics and numbers of people involved with supporting lawbreaking by imigrants, that damaged a well working system.
As noted in the piece to keep from being accused of being soft on those dastarly illegal immigrants. The GOP is still driving the issue.
Insults? I just wanted to know why you'll believe the government on this issue. The problem solution circle in place panders to fears, and relieves nothing. The root problem grows, belief in the walls utility, is an easy out.
Thank you Pearlene and Roundhouse, I know I'm not alone on this.
Me, I didn't read Eweston's post as you did.
I thought his point was why think for one minute that the solution to the problem of illegal immigration will be solved with a fence from the same people who gave us the Iraq war, $4 gas and a politicized Justice Department. NOTHING they've done has turned out right so why think "the fence" will solve the problem.
Expressing concerns about "the fence" does not mean I think the people who want a fence are all racist, I don't. But I do think simply putting up a fence will not solve the problem of illegal immigration. I do think that some of our policies regarding Latin America are part of the problem we now face with illegal immigration. I do think the fact that certain folks are making money and political gains off the issue of illegal immigration makes their so called "concern" suspect. It's like all of a sudden Americans realize that we have a large illegal immigration population.
Stop ranting at folks like myself, who think the issue of illegal immigration is much larger than a simple fence can solve. Realize that expressing concern does not mean I think you're a racist. I think your trying to solve a large complex problem with a fence. Like killing a bear with a slingshot.
And since I don't think Eweston's sees the fence as racist I can't answer your question about Obama.
Politics, was my answer, still is. Pearlene is correct I'm not accusing you of racism, Science101 is another story. He's probably in the GOP congaline in the House right now.
I think that its an idea that has enthusiasm for no logical reason. I can think of a dozen ways arround that fence. If I can the trafficers can and will do so. I believe there's already been one conviction of bribery of personnel on the fence. It won't be the last.
My coment on tactics stands. If your going to insist that inocent bystanders are the place to defend your position. Thats a comon terrorist tactic. NeoCon tactic as well.
My complaint is with the NeoCons and some (not all) corporation leaders and lacky's. If instead of standing out and accepting critiques and dealing ethically with them. One says instead that OHH! he's attacking Mom's Topplesss Apple pie. Come'ere quick and help defend our sacred pie.
To repeat why do you accept that its a good idea. I'm unaware of any record of sucess by the people in charge of its conception and execution.
In the middle east a terrorist will place an attack while in say a crowd of children. You attack them and you take out children, who are innocent bystanders.
In the neocon version a spokesman will say your attacking, the troops, religion, America, or some other group that is unaware, uninvolved or unconcious of the argument, the innocent bystanders. Your argument may have a specific population in mind. A neocon response is to missrepresent your target, to bring in innocent bystanders and claim your attack is on this population.
you were accusing those in favor of a fence as trying to stop a "brown wave". you had something in mind when you chose those specific words. you have also failed once again to address the point that both california senators, boxer and feinstein, and hillary, obama, and a majority of democrats voted for a fence in 2006, so this is not an exclusively "neocon" idea. i also fail to see the logic of that anyway. i look at ideas, not who spoke the words. i don't think a fence can or would stop all illegal immigration, but you insist that it would not work and i already pointed out to you that the construction of a reenforced fence along the tijuana-san diego border was begun during the clinton administration and has cut illegal crossing dramatically. there's not even an argument there. it's the border patrol who recognize that in certain areas fences do work, it gives them maximum use of their manpower by slowing border crossers. finally, your remarks equating border control with terrorists and innocent bystanders are ridiculous. they completely undermine your credibility.
Long post. Congradulation on slowing the the rate of border violation in one area. Have other areas then increased in rate? Does momentary reduction then equal cronic sucess?
Yes some dems go along with this. Their answering the fear of their constitues and not solving the problem in any sustainable way.
The innocent bystander riff wasn't directed at you. You take your chances when you stand with science 101 on an issue.
The pressure on our southerrn border will never be solved by the wall. Its merely a bandaid.
You still haven't answered why its your prefered path. Though you do throw a couple bogus accuations at me and deny that I have any credibility.
You are not a racist, but you are very fearful on population growth. I've seen you post on the subject before. I offered the only workable solution I know of. Did you catch it?
what i am is realistic on population growth. it's a big negative for the environment of this country. we can control it by reducing the rate of immigration, legal and illegal. the late liberal senator gaylord nelson sponsored the bill that created earth day in 1970 and he said the same thing. but that must make him a neocon. as far as standing with science 101, i am responsible for my statements, not his. as for your charge of "bogus accusations" that i made against you, you claim that the innocent bystanders remark wasn't directed at me. let me quote your exact words from your answer to me above, directly under my post and in answer to me:
"my coment on tactics stands. if your going to insist that inocent bystanders are the place to defend your position. that's a comon terrorist tactic. neocon tactic as well."
quote, unquote. is this another case of me putting words in your mouth that you yourself put there?
If you are determined to be insulted, vs answer any of my points, ok fine. I think I've given a good effort and failed.
Concern about population growth is all well and good. Solutions, options, paths of action, would be better.