Is it ironic that govt which insists its citizens are insured don't require proof of citizenship/id?
The law require citizens to be insured has just been enacted. The rules and regulations that will have to be adopted by the appropriate agencies could very well cover the situation you are talking about.
Currently, there is a federal program requiring hospitals to provide emergency care to people without insurance. There are also public health clinics that do not require any proof of citizenship.
Proving citizenship is difficult. All states do not require showing a birth certificate to get a driver's license. Once you get a license in one state, it is easier to get one in another state.
The only real proof of citizenship is your passport and everyone does not have one. If everyone was forced to have one, even for domestic air plane flights, it might speed the boarding process up a little. Just a thought that is not really an answer to your question, but just came to mind.
In answer to your question; yes, it is quite ironic. Illegals can go and vote on election day, but I have to show id to make a deposit at my bank or to buy beer. Now the IRS will have access to every American's health insurance information so that they can decide who to penalize for not having it. But, illegals still won't need id and won't be penalized for not having insurance because they are off the IRS radar. Nice system.
Due to the political wrangling right now, I believe there are many issues demanding more and a righting attention. Perhaps when the circus of the season is over and people return to a more sober state of mind, something really positive may be done to right some wrongs.
Yes, it is quite ironic. I suppose that the days of not having to prove citizenship harkens back to when there was more of a quasi-national identity, a national culture if you will, in your country. A time when there might have been distinct regional differences, even large in-flows of immigrants, but there was always a national ideal in which to aspire to. There was a commonly accepted notion of what it meant to be American. There was no shame, no compulsion to have to apologize for being American.
In recent years, this has changed. Multiculturalism has taken on a level of acceptance. Once proud ideals are now scorned at and rebuffed. Where it was once intuitive to discern who was American or not, it is now rather complex.
The greatest irony is that most of the same people that quested for the Affordable Care Act are also the ones that will likely voice the greatest opposition over any attempt at standardizing a system for proof of citizenship. The irony intensifies when, in order to implement the revenue collection and compliance measures, the by then larger bureaucratic machine will result in mandating it.
Sadly, the present day is a far cry from when the U.S. was underpinned by the ideal of individualism, of personal responsibility and a common identity.
Yes, things have changed because so many rely on govt for their every need. We can barely support all the freeloading citizens, why should be support non citizens too? We do provide them health care for free already, along with schooling and food.
I'll answer the question that, properly constructed, does not assume unproven facts, or *overtly* asks a genuine question as to said items "requires all citizens to..." and "(they, ie the gov't) don't require proof..." rather then planting them within the question as givens (the question itself alleges an opinion which, articulated where the subtext implies standard occurance), inquires as to irony between *normally* requiring an insured citizenry, and on those rare occasions where the matter of citizenship happens to or does *normally*require formal verification. The allegation of a laissez faire attitude by the government toward citizenship/immigration is, if not an outright falsehood, a very questionable opinion.
So, to your question, which is hypothetical and/or hyperbolic: is there an irony?
No irony when money is considered. No one makes a profit off of requiring a voter id, for example. However, consider the profit in requiring all to be on government health insurance. "Follow the money," as they say, and consider who will profit from health care. In addition, consider who will profit politically from it. There is no clear political 'profit' in requiring a proof of citizenship; nor financial profit, either.
by Judy Specht4 years ago
The question should not be who's to blame for AHCA, the question should be, "Is it working." Is there anyone out there who has signed up, had a good experience, received much cheaper healthcare than...
by American View15 months ago
If all the I illegal Aliens said tomorrow they are voting Republican, would the Dems desire Voter ID cards, would they want the voter rolls updated, would they have backed Obama's amnesty for the young illegals?
by My Esoteric3 years ago
By the time the dust settles, there will be more than 7 million paying enrollments into the Obamacare program through the Federal, State, and off exchanges. It also appears that the mix of young and old, while not...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
The controversy over birthright citizenship, (aka `Anchor babies`), seems to one of interpretation.Specifically, the 2nd hurdle to citizenship the 14th Amendment included; that the mother must be; "...subject to...
by alexandriaruthk4 years ago
Do you think illegal immigrants should be given amnesty and be eligible for citizenship?After some time and paying fees? What should be the requirements?
by glmclendon5 years ago
If you became angry with the government, would you surrender your citizenship? why/ why not
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.