Articles

State can't pass law, deny care to noncitizens

Opinion by Hogai Nassery
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Jan. 9, 2006

I planned to write about all of the pragmatic reasons to provide equal access to health care regardless of immigration status. The obvious reasons are that it's less expensive to provide prenatal care for an undocumented woman than to provide medical care for her premature infant and it's more economical to regulate a man's high blood pressure than to take care of him after a massive stroke. A cut in access to primary health care will simply lead to more uninsured patients in our already overburdened emergency rooms.

But those are all rational arguments, and Georgia Senate Bill 170 is not part of a rational agenda. SB 170 should be defeated because it is un-American.

I am a family physician practicing in a very diverse community in metro Atlanta that includes many immigrants. I will never forget seeing a 3-year-old girl for an ear infection. I asked her mom if she had been around any ill children, and she pointed to her 5-year-old daughter, who appeared to have a fever. I asked if she wanted me to see her as well, and her mother said that she did not register the older girl because she was born in Mexico and did not have medical coverage. The younger sister was born in the United States and qualified for Medicaid. At that moment, the moral choice was quite clear.

We are not a nation that advocates discrimination based on ethnicity, social status or nation of origin. This doesn't mean we do not engage in it, but we certainly have not codified such prejudices. Americans have grappled with these issues, and despite our checkered past, we are now far ahead of many other industrialized societies in this area.

Do we want legislation that would, in effect, make us deny care to people in need?

It has become a cliché, but I am asking it quite sincerely: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus ask that we turn away a sick farmworker because state funds should be reserved only for citizens? What does it say about our leaders that they would advocate denying care to the most marginalized among us?

I work for a health system that struggles to provide some modicum of a safety net for the Atlanta area, and much of the state. The obstacles to providing public health care are not unique to Georgia. I am privileged to care for patients who truly need our services, because we are the last option for them. I see the faces and hear the voices of the uninsured every day, both native and immigrant, documented and undocumented. They are all human beings, and their high blood pressure does not know to ask for a green card. Their fetuses do not know that they do not warrant care because their mother was born in another country.

Maybe one day, when our economy is less dependent on the undocumented labor force, the share of the pie that goes to their health care and education will diminish. For now, they are here because we hire them, and if you ask any South Georgia farmer or Atlanta contractor, they will tell you we need them.

This legislation is about feeding a movement that is in no one's best interest and simply deflects attention from issues we should be working on (such as fixing our broken health care system).

I am happy to say that because my health care system affords a sliding scale to patients, regardless of their immigration status, I was able to evaluate and treat that little girl's older sister. And I was able to sleep that night. As a state, we are running the risk of more than just insomnia if we allow SB 170 to become law.

Copyright 2006 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. For more information: www.ajc.com.

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information, visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.