61–70 of 76 posts
Why should California tax payers provide health insurance to illegal immigrants?
because they provide services that you rely on and do jobs that legal migrants and citizens aren't going to do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be compassionate of these illegal immigrants to improve their own countries instead of using resources in the next country. Another way to resolve the cost might be to fine companies that hire illegal immigrants or to send bills / decrease funding (although I don't think CA sends any funding overseas) to countries that have illegal immigrants here.
Yes, lets fault the shoeless refugees with kids for not single-handedly fixing the complex problems in their countries, some of which are caused by US Government actions going back over 40 years. That sounds like a winning solution. Or maybe California is dealing with their domestic problems as best they can, and the Federal government should start helping Central America rather than starting pointless trade wars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternatives are sending them home - or - giving them citizenship. Suppose you do the later - whoops (!) - as soon as the workers are citizens, and employers have to pay full benefits, and worry about unions ... then they'll dump such new citizens and hire actual illegal workers! Point being: the price of that cheap labour is a function of their illegal status more than anything. It's a false dynamic. Just enforc…
The alternatives you mention are things that could happen in the future. The alternative 'p1necone brought up is the status quo.
Asking people to follow very basic and normative laws is the central social artifact of any civilization. Without it ... it's going to be bad.
Just enforce the laws.
If laws or policies need to be changed, then change them! Say for example, if there's 'very low unemployment' in Cali, and they really need workers, then maybe 1) allow more immigration. 2) have a temporary worker system that's reliably enforced.
But otherwise, don't create two sets of laws, two economies, two classes of people.
Also, the US should be making considerably more material effort to develop adjacent economies, right across the border - and I mean more than military aid for the federales, and more than just economic aid which is inefficient. A major US investment initiative for example in Baja, in the South, focusing on travel, manufacturing, that ensured physical security, financial security etc.. and maybe a lot of money and effort would come flushing in. Aside from historical narratives of colonialism etc. it could be done, and done well, and it'd be a huge win-win. And FYI this means considerably better healthcare for those living there as well, frankly, probably almost as good as American healthcare for pennies on the dollar. If it were up to par ... you'd even see a boon of medical tourism, for which there is a huge unmet demand simply because it's very risky for folks to go to 'some random place' in Central America they've never heard of that may have no standards. Imagine a set of hospitals and clinics with a high operating standard, and some brand equity, with cheap prices? Now that's a business! But it can only be facilitate with core civic stability which the US (and Canada?) could feasibly help provide.
When NAFTA was re-negotiated, I wish they'd have addressed these new, 21st century issues instead of rehashing tariffs on steel and milk ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the alternative is hospitals treating them anyway and sending out bills that will never get paid - ultimately costing society even more. Unless you actually think illegal immigrants should just be left to die when they have medical issues? I sure hope not.
The alternatives are sending them home - or - giving them citizenship. Suppose you do the later - whoops (!) - as soon as the workers are citizens, and employers have to pay full benefits, and worry about unions ... then they'll dump such new citizens and hire actual illegal workers! Point being: the price of that cheap labour is a function of their illegal status more than anything. It's a false dynamic. Just enforc…
No, neither of those are things California can do instead of providing healthcare.
> More medicare just means more '$100 aspirin' unless it's combined with some other, heavier kind of action.
No, it doesn't. Moreover, this is more Medi-Cal (i.e., Medicaid) not more Medicare. Which also doesn't mean that, but it's a completely different program with different policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This slippery slope argument is valueless. It's perfectly possible to have socialized healthcare without communism.
Why should California tax payers provide health insurance to illegal immigrants?
Quite a lot of the undocumented immigrants in California are themselves California tax payers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
who said that? If so, should Medi-Cal also cover the medial expense of Africa? There are more people in terrible condition than these illegal ones.
> who said that? the World Health Organization in their constitution established in 1946: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-right... crazy radical stuff huh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's the compassionate thing to do? Also because it's much cheaper.
It would be compassionate of these illegal immigrants to improve their own countries instead of using resources in the next country. Another way to resolve the cost might be to fine companies that hire illegal immigrants or to send bills / decrease funding (although I don't think CA sends any funding overseas) to countries that have illegal immigrants here.