Health Policy

“Public Charge” is a Public Health Disaster in the Making

By PHUOC LE MD 

I was born in a rural village outside of Hue, Vietnam in 1976, a year after Saigon fell and the war ended. My family of four struggled to survive in the post-war shambles, and in 1981, my mother had no choice but to flee Vietnam by boat with my older sister and myself. Through the support of the refugee resettlement program, we began our lives in the United States in 1982, wearing all of our belongings on our backs and not knowing a word of English.

Though we struggled for years to make ends meet, we sustained ourselves through public benefit programs: food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 Housing, and cash aid. These programs were lifelines that enabled me to focus on my education, and they allowed me to be the physician and public health expert that I am today. Looking back, I firmly believe that the more we invest in the lives and livelihoods of immigrants, the more we invest in the United States, its ideals, and its future.

So, when I first learned of the current administration’s plan to make it harder for immigrants with lower socioeconomic statuses to gain permanent U.S. residence, the so-called changes to the “Public Charge” rule, I felt outraged and baffled by its short-sightedness.

U.S. Refugee Totals by Year. Courtesy of www.cgdev.org

If this proposal comes into effect, government officials would be forced to consider whether an applicant has used, or is deemed likely to use, public benefit programs like Section 8 Housing, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Additionally, applicants with pre-existing health conditions could be rejected purely on these bases.

The implications of this rule are not hard to predict (and have already been observed throughout the country): noncitizen parents who are hoping to get green cards will not enroll their citizen children in government healthcare, which they have a legal right to obtain, out of fear that harnessing public benefits will prevent them from gaining legal permanent residence. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, President Trump’s proposal could lead to a decrease in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment by a minimum of 15% and as much as 35%. Any proposal that decreases the number of insured American citizens, as this measure surely would, would increase the financial strain on taxpayers who will be forced to compensate for unpaid coverage. Furthermore, Forbes estimates that Trump’s proposal would decrease legal immigration to the United States by more than 200,000 people a year and therefore “would have a negative impact on the Social Security System”- a deficit that American taxpayers would have to help cover.

If the moral argument that every human being deserves the pursuit of a better life doesn’t work for you, then let the economic one suffice. A 2016 study by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded “immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the United States” and “immigration is integral to the nation’s economic growth.”

Whether you are an immigrant or were born in the US, we all have a responsibility to vocalize dissent against the Department of Homeland Security’s morally and fiscally-flawed anti-immigrant proposal. Vote, attend town-hall meetings, write to your representatives, conduct personal research, engage in constructive dialogue, and comment below to get the conversation started. Remember, the Statue of Liberty reads: “Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.” If we match xenophobia and ignorance with empathy and facts, we can ensure that America remains a beacon of hope for future immigrants, just as it was for me in 1982.

Internist, Pediatrician, and Associate Professor at UCSF, Dr. Le is also the co-founder of two health equity organizations, the HEAL Initiative and Arc Health. This article originally appeared on Arc Health here

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

5
Leave a Reply

5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Johann OdermannPeterpjnelsonBarry CarolWilliam Palmer MD Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Johann Odermann
Guest
Johann Odermann

Thank you for posting Dr. Le. I appreciate your perspective and the sacrifices you and your family made along the way. The one comment I would make about “public charge” is that things have changed over the years as government and entitlements and support systems have grown. At the end of WWII my grandfather signed for a family friend and his wife and family – his signature being necessary for the family to leave the US POW camp they were in and begin the process of becoming US citizens. Despite being a member of Austrian royalty, a noted pianist (as… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

Anything that comes from Trump’s mouth first comes from his ass. He said he wants immigrants from Norway – why would they want to come to the U.S. https://nordic.businessinsider.com/norway-has-the-best-welfare-system-in-the-nordics-2016-6/ Immigrants pick our fruits and vegetables, build our houses, clean our homes and businesses, work in our slaughterhouses and all sorts of other hard labor crap workplaces. Yes, we can invest in helping people be successful with government support – especially immigrants who want to succeed more than many U.S. residents. Trump had daddy to help him and the rich in the U.S. have socialism, while they say the rest of… Read more »

pjnelson
Guest
pjnelson

The deeply unfortunate, underlying logic for considering the “public charge” concept for emigration is totally unrelated to emigration. Our nation’s entitlement spending by the Federal government continues to increase at a rate that now accounts for a large portion of our nation’s deficit spending. It is possible to estimate that the Federal government’s “excess obligation” to national health spending represents nearly 50% of our nation’s Federal deficit annually. The “excess obligation” assumes the following: our nation’s health spending now represents nearly 18% of our national economy (Gross Domestic Product), and the health spending by the other 34 OECD (Organisation for… Read more »

Barry Carol
Guest
Barry Carol

Suppose we had completely open borders. Suppose we told people that if you want to come to America in search of a better life, get yourself a passport, pass a background check and you can come here. In all likelihood, more people would want to come here than already live here. It would overwhelm the society and the culture, especially if most of them needed the benefit programs that you referred to, at least for a period of time. We have a legal immigration process for a reason and there is a limit to how many immigrants we can absorb… Read more »

William Palmer MD
Guest
William Palmer MD

We want to have legal entry. We want to be altruistic and kind. It’s just that we don’t want to always admit folks who are going to vote liberal all the time. Admit folks from Cuba. Admit folks from Russia or Poland. Or from Vietnam. These folks probably see both sides a little. We can be altruistic and not act against conservatism all the time.