California Offers Healthcare Benefits To Illegal Immigrants

[Greater vakolicci haven]

lol, Vassenor, weather it saves then money or costs them money, they are illegal immigrants not legal immigrants, legal immigration is legal immigration with all their rights respected, illegal immigration is illegal immigration and should not be tolerated, it is that easy to understand.

So you're just going to keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over rather than actually attacking the point. Got it.

How does it save them money?

[Ifreann]

So you're just going to keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over rather than actually attacking the point. Got it.

How does it save them money?

You know what they say about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure? An ounce of prevention is also cheaper than a pound of cure.

[Salandriagado]

So you're just going to keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over rather than actually attacking the point. Got it.

How does it save them money?

This has been explained many times in this very thread, the last one literally one page ago.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Mind explaining how?

I've already done so several times: the government already picks up emergency bills for everybody who can't pay. There's no possibility of filtering out illegal immigrants at that point, since emergencies tend to be, well, emergencies, and don't leave time to run checks. Preventative care to stop it getting to the emergency point is orders of magnitude cheaper than the emergency bill. Thus, paying for that preventative care saves the government money.

Another situation with a really easy solution that doesn't have anything to do with free healthcare.

[Salandriagado]

I've already done so several times: the government already picks up emergency bills for everybody who can't pay. There's no possibility of filtering out illegal immigrants at that point, since emergencies tend to be, well, emergencies, and don't leave time to run checks. Preventative care to stop it getting to the emergency point is orders of magnitude cheaper than the emergency bill. Thus, paying for that preventative care saves the government money.

Another situation with a really easy solution that doesn't have anything to do with free healthcare.

Only if you're sociopathic.

More specifically, the only alternative would be for hospitals to simply not treat anybody who gets brought in unconscious until they've run insurance checks or found a relative to pay, by which time they'll be dead, insured or otherwise.

[Page]

So you're just going to keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over rather than actually attacking the point. Got it.

How does it save them money?

People can either go to the doctor to get their afflictions treated early when a few pills can solve the problem, or they can go to the ER when they're on they're halfway dead, and the treatment then is going to be a lot more than a few pills. And since those people will never be able to pay their bills, insurance companies and hospitals will offset those costs by charging everyone more.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Another situation with a really easy solution that doesn't have anything to do with free healthcare.

Only if you're sociopathic.

More specifically, the only alternative would be for hospitals to simply not treat anybody who gets brought in unconscious until they've run insurance checks or found a relative to pay, by which time they'll be dead, insured or otherwise.

Or treat them, and then sue them for all they're worth. If they can't find documentation for them, inform ICE while they're still in hospital to go pick them up.

[Salandriagado]

Only if you're sociopathic.

More specifically, the only alternative would be for hospitals to simply not treat anybody who gets brought in unconscious until they've run insurance checks or found a relative to pay, by which time they'll be dead, insured or otherwise.

Or treat them, and then sue them for all they're worth. If they can't find documentation for them, inform ICE while they're still in hospital to go pick them up.

Which doesn't change anything, because they don't have the money, so you still don't cover your costs.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Or treat them, and then sue them for all they're worth. If they can't find documentation for them, inform ICE while they're still in hospital to go pick them up.

Which doesn't change anything, because they don't have the money, so you still don't cover your costs.

But you make sure they can't have the problem again, as they're not in America anymore.

[Salandriagado]

Which doesn't change anything, because they don't have the money, so you still don't cover your costs.

But you make sure they can't have the problem again, as they're not in America anymore.

This argument only works if there's exactly one illegal immigrant in America.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

But you make sure they can't have the problem again, as they're not in America anymore.

This argument only works if there's exactly one illegal immigrant in America.

Other measures, such as not providing sanctuary to them, would reduce the financial problem that they would cause for the government. California created this issue.

[Salandriagado]

This argument only works if there's exactly one illegal immigrant in America.

Other measures, such as not providing sanctuary to them, would reduce the financial problem that they would cause for the government. California created this issue.

Yeah, no. California not lending its police forces to the federal government for free has absolutely no relevance to the question.

And it's irrelevant, because for any number of people, it's still better for the government to provide them with free healthcare than to not do so, from a purely financial standpoint.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Other measures, such as not providing sanctuary to them, would reduce the financial problem that they would cause for the government. California created this issue.

Yeah, no. California not lending its police forces to the federal government for free has absolutely no relevance to the question.

And it's irrelevant, because for any number of people, it's still better for the government to provide them with free healthcare than to not do so, from a purely financial standpoint.

If California deported illegal imigrants, or assisted the federal government in doing so, would there be less illegals in California?

[Salandriagado]

Yeah, no. California not lending its police forces to the federal government for free has absolutely no relevance to the question.

And it's irrelevant, because for any number of people, it's still better for the government to provide them with free healthcare than to not do so, from a purely financial standpoint.

If California deported illegal imigrants,

California is legally incapable of doing so: immigration is the federal government's job.

or assisted the federal government in doing so,

Again, why should California lend its law enforcement to the federal government?

would there be less illegals in California?

Not significantly.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

If California deported illegal imigrants,

California is legally incapable of doing so: immigration is the federal government's job.

or assisted the federal government in doing so,

Again, why should California lend its law enforcement to the federal government?

would there be less illegals in California?

Not significantly.

Isn't it a states duty to assist in the enforcement of federal law?

[Salandriagado]

California is legally incapable of doing so: immigration is the federal government's job.



Again, why should California lend its law enforcement to the federal government?



Not significantly.

Isn't it a states duty to assist in the enforcement of federal law?

Nope, not in the slightest.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Isn't it a states duty to assist in the enforcement of federal law?

Nope, not in the slightest.

So selective independence then?

[Kowani]

California is legally incapable of doing so: immigration is the federal government's job.



Again, why should California lend its law enforcement to the federal government?



Not significantly.

Isn't it a states duty to assist in the enforcement of federal law?

[Salandriagado]

Nope, not in the slightest.

So selective independence then?

No, federalism.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So selective independence then?

No, federalism.

Does this mean a state could refuse to assist the ATF in enforcing firearms laws?

[Telconi]

No, federalism.

Does this mean a state could refuse to assist the ATF in enforcing firearms laws?

Yes.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Does this mean a state could refuse to assist the ATF in enforcing firearms laws?

Yes.

If only more had spines.

[The Emerald Legion]

Mind explaining how?

I've already done so several times: the government already picks up emergency bills for everybody who can't pay. There's no possibility of filtering out illegal immigrants at that point, since emergencies tend to be, well, emergencies, and don't leave time to run checks. Preventative care to stop it getting to the emergency point is orders of magnitude cheaper than the emergency bill. Thus, paying for that preventative care saves the government money.

Perhaps in the short term yes. Long term? Likely not. Because emergencies only happen so often, and while a sufficient medical emergency might get an illegal to risk discovery, unless explicitly told they can, it's unlikely they would do the same for preventive care.

Not to mention you're effectively agreeing to that preventive care in perpetuity, rather than taking the hit of one emergency bill and then booting them back to their home country.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I've already done so several times: the government already picks up emergency bills for everybody who can't pay. There's no possibility of filtering out illegal immigrants at that point, since emergencies tend to be, well, emergencies, and don't leave time to run checks. Preventative care to stop it getting to the emergency point is orders of magnitude cheaper than the emergency bill. Thus, paying for that preventative care saves the government money.

Perhaps in the short term yes. Long term? Likely not. Because emergencies only happen so often, and while a sufficient medical emergency might get an illegal to risk discovery, unless explicitly told they can, it's unlikely they would do the same for preventive care.

Not to mention you're effectively agreeing to that preventive care in perpetuity, rather than taking the hit of one emergency bill and then booting them back to their home country.

Essentially what I suggested.

'We'll fix whatever emergency you're having, but you're going over the border when you leave here...oh and we're building a big wall to stop you wandering back over!'

[Bear Stearns]

Perhaps in the short term yes. Long term? Likely not. Because emergencies only happen so often, and while a sufficient medical emergency might get an illegal to risk discovery, unless explicitly told they can, it's unlikely they would do the same for preventive care.

Not to mention you're effectively agreeing to that preventive care in perpetuity, rather than taking the hit of one emergency bill and then booting them back to their home country.

Essentially what I suggested.
'We'll fix whatever emergency you're having, but you're going over the border when you leave here...oh and we're building a big wall to stop you wandering back over!'

Seems reasonable.