California Offers Healthcare Benefits To Illegal Immigrants

[Novus America]

Why do rural roads not get paved? Why do rural assistance programs not get funding? Why do rural schools not have enough busses?

You have to think about what will happen after implimentation. Once the government has the the burden of this budget, they have to prioritise where to put hospitals, and inevitably rural communities will be made less of a priority. This is also why I am concerned, the elederly who we told we would take care of, now have less support, while we are providing health coverage to young illegal immigrants. The old person needs it more than the immigrant, and this is even more so since the coverage of the immigrants is until 25, which is peak physical health.

Well any system in the US would have to be implemented largely at the state level, even if the federal government could provide funding and some standards and coordination.
But yes we should only be insuring care for our own residents and citizens. Others are the responsibility of their government, not ours.

[Novus America]

In size, population and economic size the US is much closer to the EU than say the UK.
The EU does not have a single healthcare system.

A system in the a US could have the federal government coordinating funding and minimum standards but actually implementing should be decentralized.

The EU is also 28 different countries.

And in many ways the US is 50(+).
The US is a union of sovereign states as well.

[Kowani]

The EU is also 28 different countries.

And in many ways the US is 50(+).
The US is a union of sovereign states as well.

The idea that the states are sovereign entities died with Slavery.

[Thermodolia]

Low wait times and quick turn around. You can get in and out of a doctors office in the US in half the time it takes to even get seen in Canada.

I do aggree with most of those advocating for reform, but not in the way that would effectively change the system entirely. UHS would effectively get rid of all competition, and that would close a lot hospitals that serve rural communities.

No it wouldn’t. Universal healthcare doesn’t mean single payer. They aren’t one in the same.

Guess what, then we end up with what happens in California where the health care we were told we Americans pay for that is our right, ends up going to anyone who wants to cross into the border. That is also why I am opposed, with the way the party promising this plan has been going, I am not sure that the right they keep ensuring to fight for, will be for me.

That’s not exactly what’s happening though.

[Thermodolia]

Low wait times and quick turn around. You can get in and out of a doctors office in the US in half the time it takes to even get seen in Canada.

Doesn't that depend on the type of appointment? Basically, what is your source.

I’ll have to TG it to ya when I find it. Saw it on a wiki awhile back and I forgot where I saw it

[The Emerald Legion]

And in many ways the US is 50(+).
The US is a union of sovereign states as well.

The idea that the states are sovereign entities died with Slavery.

Which is why state governments openly defy the federal government constantly and have different laws.

[Novus America]

And in many ways the US is 50(+).
The US is a union of sovereign states as well.

The idea that the states are sovereign entities died with Slavery.

No. States still have sovereign rights the federal government cannot infringe on.
Obviously the states do not have absolute sovereignty, but neither do EU members.

Medicaid is managed at the state level as well.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Rather a waste of time when California could just be offering universal healthcare to every citizen in its state instead.

Then have the rest of the US follow.

[Kowani]

The idea that the states are sovereign entities died with Slavery.

Which is why state governments openly defy the federal government constantly and have different laws.

Having different laws does not make one sovereign. Otherwise, each city would be.

The idea that the states are sovereign entities died with Slavery.

No. States still have sovereign rights the federal government cannot infringe on.
Obviously the states do not have absolute sovereignty, but neither do EU members.

Medicaid is managed at the state level as well.

What rights do the states actually have that the federal government could not touch?

EU members have a far greater amount of sovereignty than the individual stated do, however.

[Fartsniffage]

Doesn't that depend on the type of appointment? Basically, what is your source.

I’ll have to TG it to ya when I find it. Saw it on a wiki awhile back and I forgot where I saw it

My point is that efficient is a really difficult concept. For example -

https://fr.april-international.com/en/h ... re-systems

[Thermodolia]

You have to think about what will happen after implimentation. Once the government has the the burden of this budget, they have to prioritise where to put hospitals, and inevitably rural communities will be made less of a priority. This is also why I am concerned, the elederly who we told we would take care of, now have less support, while we are providing health coverage to young illegal immigrants. The old person needs it more than the immigrant, and this is even more so since the coverage of the immigrants is until 25, which is peak physical health.

Well any system in the US would have to be implemented largely at the state level, even if the federal government could provide funding and some standards and coordination.
But yes we should only be insuring care for our own residents and citizens. Others are the responsibility of their government, not ours.

Hence why we should have a system like Germany where the government pays out a base amount of healthcare costs, let’s say 60% and then private insurance, out of pocket, or other federal or state programs pick up the rest.

We could also do what France and Russia do which is tie the healthcare to the job. Those with a job in France and Russia get free care, free at the point of use they already had the money taken out of their paystub, however those who don’t have a job don’t really get free care

[Fartsniffage]

The idea that the states are sovereign entities died with Slavery.

No. States still have sovereign rights the federal government cannot infringe on.
Obviously the states do not have absolute sovereignty, but neither do EU members.

Medicaid is managed at the state level as well.

States don't have rights. States have powers. A state isn't a person.

[Thermodolia]

No. States still have sovereign rights the federal government cannot infringe on.
Obviously the states do not have absolute sovereignty, but neither do EU members.

Medicaid is managed at the state level as well.

States don't have rights. States have powers. A state isn't a person.

In a legal sense a state is a person. If we want to get technical

[Kowani]

Rather a waste of time when California could just be offering universal healthcare to every citizen in its state instead.

Then have the rest of the US follow.

God damnit people, do some research.

[Fartsniffage]

States don't have rights. States have powers. A state isn't a person.

In a legal sense a state is a person. If we want to get technical

If you can find the bit of the US Constitution that says States have rights then I'll buy you a beer.

[Novus America]

Which is why state governments openly defy the federal government constantly and have different laws.

Having different laws does not make one sovereign. Otherwise, each city would be.

No. States still have sovereign rights the federal government cannot infringe on.
Obviously the states do not have absolute sovereignty, but neither do EU members.

Medicaid is managed at the state level as well.

What rights do the states actually have that the federal government could not touch?

EU members have a far greater amount of sovereignty than the individual stated do, however.

The US Constitution lays out rights reserved to the states, and every right not explicitly given to the feds belong to the states.
For example the US government cannot criminalize behavior not involving interstate commerce (an I few specific areas).
Most crimes and law enforcement is a state matter.

Sure the EU has less centralization but regardless the US Constitution limits federal powers.

[Fartsniffage]

Having different laws does not make one sovereign. Otherwise, each city would be.


What rights do the states actually have that the federal government could not touch?

EU members have a far greater amount of sovereignty than the individual stated do, however.

The US Constitution lays out rights reserved to the states, and every right not explicitly given to the feds belong to the states.
For example the US government cannot criminalize behavior not involving interstate commerce (an I few specific areas).
Most crimes and law enforcement is a state matter.

Sure the EU has less centralization but regardless the US Constitution limits federal powers.

Powers reserved to the States. Not rights.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Rather a waste of time when California could just be offering universal healthcare to every citizen in its state instead.

Then have the rest of the US follow.

God damnit people, do some research.

The California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal or MediCal) is California's Medicaid program serving low-income individuals, including families, seniors, persons with disabilities, children in foster care, pregnant women, and childless adults with incomes below 138% of federal poverty level.

If it's only being offered to people below a poverty line, it isn't universal healthcare.

[Telconi]

The US Constitution lays out rights reserved to the states, and every right not explicitly given to the feds belong to the states.
For example the US government cannot criminalize behavior not involving interstate commerce (an I few specific areas).
Most crimes and law enforcement is a state matter.

Sure the EU has less centralization but regardless the US Constitution limits federal powers.

Powers reserved to the States. Not rights.

Is there a functional difference?

[Novus America]

The US Constitution lays out rights reserved to the states, and every right not explicitly given to the feds belong to the states.
For example the US government cannot criminalize behavior not involving interstate commerce (an I few specific areas).
Most crimes and law enforcement is a state matter.

Sure the EU has less centralization but regardless the US Constitution limits federal powers.

Powers reserved to the States. Not rights.

That is really just semantics. The fact the states can sue the federal government and often win, means they can protect their powers which sounds like rights.

[Telconi]

God damnit people, do some research.

The California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal or MediCal) is California's Medicaid program serving low-income individuals, including families, seniors, persons with disabilities, children in foster care, pregnant women, and childless adults with incomes below 138% of federal poverty level.

If it's only being offered to people below a poverty line, it isn't universal healthcare.

Yes, we know.

[Novus America]

Well any system in the US would have to be implemented largely at the state level, even if the federal government could provide funding and some standards and coordination.
But yes we should only be insuring care for our own residents and citizens. Others are the responsibility of their government, not ours.

Hence why we should have a system like Germany where the government pays out a base amount of healthcare costs, let’s say 60% and then private insurance, out of pocket, or other federal or state programs pick up the rest.

We could also do what France and Russia do which is tie the healthcare to the job. Those with a job in France and Russia get free care, free at the point of use they already had the money taken out of their paystub, however those who don’t have a job don’t really get free care

I think the German model sounds good. We could look into that. I am a supporter of ensuring everyone has access to basic healthcare but it should not be on sized fits all top down stuff.
France we could look at too, though Germany is a federal state as well.

Russian healthcare is pretty bad though.

[Fartsniffage]

Powers reserved to the States. Not rights.

Is there a functional difference?

Yes. People have rights, states have powers. When you confuse the two it becomes impossible for a person to challenge a state since they would be exercising their right, and not a power.

[Thermodolia]

In a legal sense a state is a person. If we want to get technical

If you can find the bit of the US Constitution that says States have rights then I'll buy you a beer.

What I’m saying is that in law a state is technically a corporate person. So technically a state is a person just not the kind we normally think of

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

If it's only being offered to people below a poverty line, it isn't universal healthcare.

Yes, we know.

Ok.

Rather a waste of time when California could just be offering universal healthcare to every citizen in its state instead.

Then have the rest of the US follow.

God damnit people, do some research.

If the difference was known then why did Kowani post this at all?