California Offers Healthcare Benefits To Illegal Immigrants

[Kowani]

I’m going to ignore all the rail transport for a minute, and point out that California does have a halfway decent bus system.

Buses can only go so far when the urban freeways are jammed up with the worst traffic in the world. Rail here is not too bad, but if your destination is too far from a commuter rail station you either walk, take the bus (and sit in traffic), or ride share. There is the metro light rail which is getting expanded, but thats the very beginning when it comes to building up public transit here in LA.

There’s still a ways to go, yes.

[New Bremerton]

I say they should nurse any seriously ill, illegal migrants back to health before shipping them back to where they came from, or a safe third country if where they came from is unsafe. This should only apply to life-threatening conditions and medical emergencies. Citizens and legal immigrants should have priority except in emergencies. Illegal immigrants have a right to life, but not a right to jump the queue while legal immigrants are required to jump through all the legal hoops to get to where they are today.

[First American Empire]

California is moving a small step in the right direction, but it should really give healthcare to everyone living in its borders. California is one of the largest economies on the planet. It can easily afford to implement a first-world health care system instead of waiting decades for Congress to do it.

[-Ocelot-]

California is moving a small step in the right direction, but it should really give healthcare to everyone living in its borders. California is one of the largest economies on the planet. It can easily afford to implement a first-world health care system instead of waiting decades for Congress to do it.

Shouldn't be a state-only thing. America as a whole could easily have universal health care. Just like the rest of the developed world has.

[Vassenor]

California is moving a small step in the right direction, but it should really give healthcare to everyone living in its borders. California is one of the largest economies on the planet. It can easily afford to implement a first-world health care system instead of waiting decades for Congress to do it.

Shouldn't be a state-only thing. America as a whole could easily have universal health care. Just like the rest of the developed world has.

But that's bad because something something socialism something something Jesus.

[Salandriagado]

How are you defining most efficient?

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.

If you pay. Similarly, if you pay in Canada, you can get seen as quickly as you like.

[Salandriagado]

Why would it close rural hospitals? The whole point of a single payer system is that everyone pays in and everyone gets healthcare. Since it's not for profit funds can be transferred from wealthy areas to poor areas.

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

Mostly, because rural counties don't want to raise taxes.

[Salandriagado]

Size is not an argument: sure, the US has more pople to cover, but it also has more than proportionally more money to spend.

Also, it would save money: the US government already spends more per capita on covering emergency bills for people who can't pay than the UK government does on the NHS.

In size, population and economic size the US is much closer to the EU than say the UK.

Which, as mentioned, is irrelevant.

The EU does not have a single healthcare system.

Yet.

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

Why?

[Salandriagado]

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.

Why?

[Salandriagado]

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.

Or to the people.

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.

And healthcare is a basic right of the people, and thus the federal government is entirely justified in defending that rights against the attempts of the states to violate it.

[-Ocelot-]

Shouldn't be a state-only thing. America as a whole could easily have universal health care. Just like the rest of the developed world has.

But that's bad because something something socialism something something Jesus.

Ironically, Jesus would be for universal healthcare without exceptions.

[Salandriagado]

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

Honestly. What the fuck? Where is this written?

"Person", in legal parlance, roughly means "thing that you can sue". Since you can sue states, they're legal persons.

1. 325 million, actually, and illegal immigrants make up 11 million of the population. (Or 3% of the total population)
2. Because A. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and B. Did you not fucking read or understand my post? Or are you just ok with abusing the lower socioeconomic classes as long as you can say "Fuck you, I got mine."

1. 300 million is what I remember. Its in the ball park.

2. Health care is not a right. You pay for it.

Illegal immigrants should not be mistreated, but nor should they be rewarding for breaking the law.

No, you pay for healthcare, because your government routinely violates your rights. Those of us living in countries that actually respect our rights don't pay for it unless we want to.

Borders were drawn in pencil. You can tell because they kept getting redrawn, moving back and forth and sometimes disappearing and sometimes reappearing.

Usually because of not-so-insignificant events like war, invasion, revolution, demographic shifts, economic forces, etc. People don't redraw borders for the fun of it.

You realise that Belgium and the Netherlands literally redrew their border to make it prettier recently, right?

Politics.

The leaders telling them what to do. Politicians. We could have politicians decide to erase the pencil lines and just...not draw new ones. We could even do it without sending anyone to die.

... Not really no. Borders don't actually exist on maps. Borders exist on land. They're drawn in border guards and such.

Sure.

Then why don't we focus on making life better for the human population as a whole?

Oh wait, it's the "Fuck you, I got mine" mentality back again.

How do you that then without having a world government? We as a species have collectively decided that humans are easier to manage and improve the condition of if they are separated into disparate categories that have more in common within than without.

No, a very small minority of humans have decided that humans are easier to keep control of if you have a ready supply of people that you can designate as outsiders.

And we have decided wrong.

I present the thousands of wars and conflicts as well as those who died in said wars and conflicts as evidence to that fact.

So do you support world conquest by an authoritarian state to correct this? Because I can't see any other way in which your system could even remotely work.

UN. WTO. Montreal. Geneva. CRC. CBD. WHO. FAO. ITU. OPCW. Kyoto. ICAO. Vienna. WIPO. NPT. CEDAW. IB. IMF. UPU. ILO. Basel. Tokyo. SCND. Paris. HHC. IFC. CITES. IPPC. WFCLC. BWC. Stockholm. MIGA. PDC. ICERD. FLC. CRPD. IFAD. Berne. WCO. Protocol I. IMO. IDA. IAEA.

All of those are international bodies or agreements either ratified by literally every country on earth, or by sufficiently few that there's a short list of countries that aren't parties. Global cooperation is absolutely possible.

[The Emerald Legion]

Cooperation is possible. A one world government is not.

[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.

Or to the people.

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.

And healthcare is a basic right of the people, and thus the federal government is entirely justified in defending that rights against the attempts of the states to violate it.

To the people means not to any government, state or federal.

There are limitations on federal power.

And no, the Constitution does not work that way. The federal government cannot claim unlimited powers by making up “basic rights of the people” that are not actually enumerated in the Constitution.
There is no Constitutional right to healthcare.

[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.

Why?

Why what? Can you put in a little more effort?
Why not?
See one word responses do not invite debate.

But it is pretty obvious the US is not the world government.
The US government exists to serve the people of the US, not all the people of the world.

[Novus America]

In size, population and economic size the US is much closer to the EU than say the UK.

Which, as mentioned, is irrelevant.

The EU does not have a single healthcare system.

Yet.

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

Why?

The size and complexity of a place is absolutely relevant to administration.
And nobody in the EU is seriously proposing one centralized EU healthcare system.

In addition to Constitutional and legal issues, the size and complexity of the US means centralized top down admonition rarely works well.
Such as entire top down system would not work with each state’s legal and existing systems, and would focus on areas considered a priority by federal politicians, not the actual needs of the people.
Handling things at the level closest to the people as practicable is in general the best options.

The healthcare needs of rural Alaska are quite different than those of NYC.

[-Ocelot-]

Why?

Why what? Can you put in a little more effort?
Why not?
See one word responses do not invite debate.

But it is pretty obvious the US is not the world government.
The US government exists to serve the people of the US, not all the people of the world.

What you say is technically true but it's that kind of isolationist mindset that's making America slowly slip into irrelevancy.

[Salandriagado]

Or to the people.



And healthcare is a basic right of the people, and thus the federal government is entirely justified in defending that rights against the attempts of the states to violate it.

To the people means not to any government, state or federal.

There are limitations on federal power.

And no, the Constitution does not work that way. The federal government cannot claim unlimited powers by making up “basic rights of the people” that are not actually enumerated in the Constitution.
There is no Constitutional right to healthcare.

Incorrect: see, for example, the federal protections of marriage.

[Salandriagado]

Why?

Why what? Can you put in a little more effort?
Why not?
See one word responses do not invite debate.

But it is pretty obvious the US is not the world government.
The US government exists to serve the people of the US, not all the people of the world.

Why should I when you're just making utterly unsubstantiated claims? At any rate, I was referring to the first sentence.

[Salandriagado]

Which, as mentioned, is irrelevant.



Yet.



Why?

The size and complexity of a place is absolutely relevant to administration.

In that doing things on a large scale is generally more efficient, not less.

And nobody in the EU is seriously proposing one centralized EU healthcare system.

We don't need to: we don't have members routinely violating people's right to healthcare for profit.

In addition to Constitutional and legal issues, the size and complexity of the US means centralized top down admonition rarely works well.
Such as entire top down system would not work with each state’s legal and existing systems, and would focus on areas considered a priority by federal politicians, not the actual needs of the people.
Handling things at the level closest to the people as practicable is in general the best options.

Except that doesn't work, at all. See, for example, the utter and complete fucking disaster that is the US primary/secondary education system.

The healthcare needs of rural Alaska are quite different than those of NYC.

Not really.

[The Emerald Legion]

The size and complexity of a place is absolutely relevant to administration.

In that doing things on a large scale is generally more efficient, not less.

And nobody in the EU is seriously proposing one centralized EU healthcare system.

We don't need to: we don't have members routinely violating people's right to healthcare for profit.

Except that doesn't work, at all. See, for example, the utter and complete fucking disaster that is the US primary/secondary education system.

Not really.

Not in the US it isn't.

[Ifreann]

Some people think that their life would be better if they could see a doctor when they're sick and get medicine or whatever to stop being sick. And other people think that that first person should die in a ditch if they don't have a big wad of cash. Lot of difficult choices ahead of us as we endeavour to make the world a better place.

Indeed. Have fun trying to make all these wildly different peoples get along.

Works fine in plenty of places already.

---

I support world unity by a free and fair democratic state.

And what if people don't want to be part of this world state, regardless of how democratic it supposedly is, because they believe that they can better govern themselves alone?

What happens now when people believe they can govern themselves alone?

---

You're right, the people who benefit from the current arrangement don't even pretend that they're trying to improve our lives.

What? Tons of people who believe in borders...

Don't believe I ever referred to "people who believe in borders". Don't go trying to confuse matters by talking about different groups of people than I was talking about.

[First American Empire]

California is moving a small step in the right direction, but it should really give healthcare to everyone living in its borders. California is one of the largest economies on the planet. It can easily afford to implement a first-world health care system instead of waiting decades for Congress to do it.

Shouldn't be a state-only thing. America as a whole could easily have universal health care. Just like the rest of the developed world has.

It should, but it's politically impossible at the moment because the Republican president and senate are completely insane when it comes to healthcare policy.

[The Emerald Legion]

Shouldn't be a state-only thing. America as a whole could easily have universal health care. Just like the rest of the developed world has.

It should, but it's politically impossible at the moment because the Republican president and senate are completely insane when it comes to healthcare policy.

You say that like the USA doesn't have better healthcare than the rest of the developed world.

Which it does.

[Novus America]

To the people means not to any government, state or federal.

There are limitations on federal power.

And no, the Constitution does not work that way. The federal government cannot claim unlimited powers by making up “basic rights of the people” that are not actually enumerated in the Constitution.
There is no Constitutional right to healthcare.

Incorrect: see, for example, the federal protections of marriage.

There are none. Equal protection means the government cannot arbitrarily give things to some Americans and deny them to others.
It was an equal protection, not “right to marriage” ruling.

A state government absolutely has the right to have no marriages recognized at all.