[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.701

File: 1562497570570.jpg (136.19 KB, 1200x763, 1200:763, Ca being ca_488aaf_7176818.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

California will start penalizing their legal citizens for not being able to afford healthcare, and they will use the money to fund free healthcare for illegal immigrants.

Thoughts?

https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/california-legislature-passes-health-insurance-individual-mandate-penalty/

 No.711

Health insurance is of greater quality and less cost when more people opt into it.

I think the concerns brought up regarding young people are relevant. The fine should not apply to people under a certain age and/or under certain income levels.

 No.712

The framing of this thread is disgusting btw.

The health care applied to illegal immigrants is only for emergency situations, and it's only applied to immigrants below the adjusted national poverty line, who own less than 2000$ of assets.

 No.713

Forcing people to buy insurance will only further inflate the cost of health care.  This will ultimately make the problem worse.  This almost certainly came about due to lobbying from the insurance industry, the only party to unequivocally benefit from such a mandate.

 No.714

The way you've framed this thread is faulty and I'm fairly certain it is a misrepresentation of what is actually going on.

 No.716

>>714

Well it lines up with the article presented, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find more sources if you wanted to.

 No.717

>>716
Well, even if the way this is framed is technically true (in certain cases), it's being presented in a way that's misleading. Similar to saying something like "A Big Mac has nutritional value". Technically true, but highly misleading.

 No.718

Here is the fact-based, unbiased take of the bill, if we would like to actually discuss this properly:

SB 78 (Enrolled) — Health

This trailer bill is an omnibus health trailer bill which makes statutory revisions affecting health programs. In brief, the bill:

   Creates the Minimum Essential Coverage Individual Mandate to require an individual who is a California resident to ensure that the individual, and any spouse or dependent of the individual, is enrolled in and maintains minimum essential health care coverage for each month beginning on and after Jan. 1, 2020.
       Requires the California Health Benefit Exchange (Covered California) to grant exemptions from the mandate for reason of hardship or religious conscience, and would require Covered California to establish a process for determining eligibility for an exemption.
       Imposes the Individual Shared Responsibility Penalty for the failure to maintain minimum essential coverage, as determined and collected by the Franchise Tax Board, in collaboration with Covered California.
   Establishes a program within the Health Benefit Exchange (Covered California) to provide state subsidies to assist individuals with incomes under 600 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) afford health insurance.
   Implements several grant programs to local health jurisdictions, with no less than 50 percent of the funding being provided to community-based organizations. These grants will be related to the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and hepatitis C.
   Creates a Value-Based Payments program to provide supplemental incentive payments to Medi-Cal providers to meet metrics related to behavioral health integration, chronic disease management, prenatal and postpartum care, and early childhood preventive services.
   Extends the availability of $50 million in funding for the Health Home Program (HHP) until July 1, 2024.
       The HHP is designed to serve eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries with complex medical needs and chronic conditions who may benefit from a full range of physical health, behavioral health, and community-based long-term services and supports needed by eligible beneficiaries.  

https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2019/July/Governor-Signs-the-Budget,-Legislature-Continues-W

 No.719

>>716
I can find articles on the internet that say black people are naturally suited to be slaves.

The key is in which articles you choose to present in your thread, that's going to determine the focal point of the discussion and what frame of mind people are going to enter the discussion with. In this case, we are entering with a frame of having to justify why immigrants should be allowed life-saving health care, forcing people to provide arguments for something that is inherently subjective and hard to prove. This is the case even for citizens. The argument for why I personally deserve healthcare for example, is really even here quite hard to make.

Furthermore, by forcing the question of whether or not immigrants deserve this, the implicit concern is raised, that maybe immigrants within the country should not be given lifesaving treatment if they're ill. Maybe we should just let them die.

Even getting people to entertain the notion seriously in a discussion forum, I think is unethical framing. This is not a question any reasonable person should be asking themselves. There are more important ways to be talking about healthcare, than whether it should be denied to immigrants.

Further skewing the perspective is the fact that OP only presents the sides of reality which would lead someone to not favoring immigrants, further pushing people towards coming to the conclusion, that indeed immigrants do not deserve healthcare. If we like OP believe that undocumented immigrants should be placed in indentured servitude and summarily deported if they ever show up in a hospital with an injury and are unable to pay, we're not many steps away from literal slavery, white supremacy or ethnonationalism. And threads like these have the potential to slowly nudge people in that direction. We've seen that happening on /pol/, we see it happening on youtube, and we can see it happening here right now, I think.

 No.721

>>718

That's a much more detailed outline, but my position is unchanged.  It just smells like a ploy from insurance companies to siphon more money.  If we're going to force everyone to contribute to an insurance fund anyway, we should cut out the concept of insurance and move to socialized health care.  All this does is continue to raise the excessive costs we're burdened with while making sure no one is allowed to object.

Prior to ideas like this, insurance was a shoddy gambling scheme.  The industry was only propped up by people who were "losing".  When people started to realize this and back out of the deal, insurance companies turned to big government to step in and make sure they could still steal money from people.

A bill like this is no different then saying that the entire citizenship is required to spend a certain amount at the casino and anyone who fails to do so will be fined in order to make sure the casino doesn't go out of business.

 No.722

>>721
>we should cut out the concept of insurance and move to socialized health care
Sounds very smart

 No.723

>>721
I agree wholeheartedly. I don't really care much for the steps being taken here, but I feel like they are the necessary kind of baby steps required to move towards socialized healthcare. Hopefully we can make it there soon.

 No.736

>>721
I'm inclined to agree. Forcing people to opt into insurance may create a better potential safety net, but that's nullified by the fact that now insurance companies have no motivation whatsoever to provide a good service at a good cost, since everyone is forced to be their customers anyway.

I also just generally object on principal to anything that says it's illegal not to have money.

 No.738

>>736
>I also just generally object on principal to anything that says it's illegal not to have money.
I instead generally object on the interest.  :-)

 No.741

>>701
Fining people who can't afford insurance is the stupidest thing out there.
On the other hand, California isn't a very sensible place, so I'm hardly surprised.

 No.742

File: 1562790939177.jpg (69.74 KB, 492x600, 41:50, 1557872338031.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should the government have the power to levy a tax on people who don't eat enough broccoli?

 No.748

>>742
If that's what the people represented by the politicians want, I would argue yes, they should at least have the option.

 No.802

>>742
I think there's a good argument for it. Especially if you're looking at healthcare. After all, people who don't take care of themselves are a burden on the healthcare system. I'd argue that if they completely opt out of the health care system, or if they completely, 100% cover their own health expenses, being no burden on either private or public insurance, then the government has no right to tell them how to live, but only under those conditions.

 No.986

>>701
Unbelievable, we have our own people on the streets and they want to give illegal vermin our tax dollars?  So looking forward to when the middle class dies off there and they run out of tax dollars.  Those politicians are traitors to our nation and people.

 No.1011

>>986

Referring to people as "illegal vermin" is not appropriate for the atmosphere of the discussion board, and the rest of the post wasn't exactly constructive, either.  If you've something to say about the OP do try to remain civil about it and make sure to explain your reasoning in order to contribute to a discussion.

 No.1052

It should probably be mentioned that state insurance mandates are somewhat common, and they're not limited to what are typically regarded as "liberal states".

See: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-aca-mandate-states-require-coverage.html

My personal opinion, though, is that it's fundamentally unethical to make people buy a product that they sincerely can't afford due to the whole health care system in the U.S. being such a backward mess.

As far as the illegal immigration question goes, somebody having a heart attack (or whatever else) going to an ER should get treatment regardless of whatever the hell his or her citizenship status is. That's a matter of fundamental morality. We're human beings with consciences. We don't sit back and let our fellow man die when we could do something.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]