By the way, in case you were wondering…
…this is the rule in California about illegal immigrants and Medicaid (known as “Medi-Cal” in that state):
For Medi-Cal, immigration status only affects the scope of service. The services that Medi-Cal provides to undocumented immigrants include, but are not limited to, emergency medical services, prenatal care, pregnancy-related services, nursing home care, and limited breast and cervical cancer treatment.
Of course, in other states, “undocumented immigrants” can get medical treatment via emergency rooms and what’s known as “emergency Medicaid.” But the California policy seems far more comprehensive, more planned and less reactive to circumstances. And what does that “not limited to” clause mean? Are there any limits to the coverage for illegal immigrants who qualify financially?
I confess to being stumped when it comes to the issue of Medicaid for illegal immigrants. The solution, of course, is to have prevented large numbers of illegals from coming here in the first place. But that horse is very much out of the barn. So now what do we do now? If so many millions of people can’t be deported (or if we lack the will to do so, which is pretty much the same thing), how can we allow them to die for want of treatment, especially the very many children among them?
It’s a huge dilemma, because the more services that are provided the more it entices new illegal immigrants to enter. And the more who enter, the more pressure there is to give them more services on humanitarian grounds.
You can see from the list of covered services in California that a significant number of them are geared to mothers and children (pregnancy and prenatal services, and breast and cervical cancer), as well as emergencies. Emergency services are the bottom line and there should probably be some provision for them, but what of nursing home care? Why should that be provided? And how is it possible to avoid the overuse of emergency services by illegal immigrants who might have coverage for emergencies but not for regular doctor visits?
Maybe it’s time to start either withholding the cost of treating illegals from the aid we send to their countries or setting an additional tariff on imports to cover the cost of treating their citizens. That may have the side effect of their actually wanting to help enforce the borders since it would cost less to treat their own people at home instead of our costs here.
If strict enforcement of our immigration laws was actually carried out and deportation were a real threat, I think a lot of illegals would “self deport.”
However, as it stands at the moment, illegal aliens know that they have a free ride.
From the looks of it, illegals are a net negative for our economy and country–forcing U.S. towns, cities, states, and the federal government-i.e. ultimately U.S. citizens and legal residents–to pay many tens of billions in extra money each year to provide for the social services, medical and education services and benefits, and the law enforcement, legal, and the increased auto insurance costs (citizen’s and legal resident’s insurance policy’s costs higher than they would otherwise be in order to compensate insurance companies for their payouts where an illegal driver with no insurance is involved) associated with their presence here illegally; money that otherwise would not have to be spent, adding to our deficits and debt, or which would at least be spent for the legitimate benefit of U.S. citizens and legal residents.
Moreover, that’s not even counting illegal alien’s effect in undercutting the number of jobs available for and the wages paid to U.S. citizens in lower paying jobs and the trades, the untaxed profits in the “underground economy,” or the estimated $22-$25 billion or so dollars that Mexicans here in the U.S suck out of our economy each year–more than 6 million of them apparently illegals according to the PEW Hispanic Research Center–and wire back home to Mexico.
I’d much appreciate it if *someone* could explain to me the logical difference (using leftie logic) between aiding someone who is in the USA illegally and requires medical intervention, and someone who is not in the USA and never will be, and requires medical intervention.
Why should the illegal alien benefit from USA medical aid, but not the guy over there in Azerbaijan or Zanzibar or wherever? Why, all we’d be required to do would be to ship medical supplies / personnel / expertise over there, if the needy are so unfortunate as to not be well-positioned to come here (illegally).
Awwright, M J R, what’s yer point?
My point is, it is a very short leap from the Compassion Cartel trying to lay a guilt trip on us for not doing more for the illegal in need of medical intervention, to not doing more for the human never coming to the USA in need of medical intervention. Why is one human alien more worthy of our aid than is the other?
It’s a rhetorical question, but once the wallets are (coercively) opened for the illegal alien in need of medical intervention, then the corollary, the next logical step, is to (coercively) open our wallets for those who weren’t so lucky as to enter the USA illegally and set up homemaking here. And don’t think the USA-hating lefties won’t pull that one next! At least that’s where I perceive their logic leading, seems to me. (I fancy most “neo” denizens can get my drift here.)
Are we supposed to underwrite the whole blankety-blank world population’s medical needs? ‘Cause logically, that’s where it all leads. Where is *our* line in the sand?
“how can we allow them to die for want of treatment, especially the very many children”
MJR beat me to the point.
People are dying all over the planet all the time. They are also being born all the time. So it goes. There are actual Hispanics dying in Mexico and the rest of Latinoland. Gosh.
Abortion-loving, low birth rate Libs issue pleas for “the children” all the freakin’ time, especially to fund salaries for their fellows in arms, the public school teachers.
When immigration laws are broken with impunity and those in charge of enforcing the laws, for generations, fail to duly enforce the law; there is no solution until society at large is capable of electing officials who will do their duty under the law. On a personal level, my heart is hardened to the plight of those who have lived here illegally for many years. Let them return to their point of origin and seek mercy there. Its time we stopped being the social welfare system for the likes of Mexico.
and wire back home to Mexico.
Half of it goes to the criminal cartels and Mexican officials.
Just so you know.
A lot of the comments and sentiments here are hard to sell on a propaganda level.
So to re-organize the pov, you can have everything you want here, but first you must frame it in a different manner. Instead of making it look like an attack on the benefits of Californian immigrants, make it look like a wealth redistribution which takes from the police and teacher’s unions, to give to the emergency care of immigrants.
In this fashion, you decrease funding for both, since somebody will lose out. And you’ll avoid looking like an anti-immigrant, which is their easy to reach counter-propaganda attack.
Don Carlos:
Of course people are dying all the time all over the planet. That is irrelevant.
This is people dying on your proverbial doorstep (a hospital emergency room).
We can choose not to treat them, and instead to let them die. But don’t pretend it’s all the same as not going to Zanzibar to save someone.
“But don’t pretend it’s all the same as not going to Zanzibar to save someone.”
Its not the same, because we are (for the most part) a compassionate society and suffering, in the flesh, before our eyes evokes our empathy. However, Don Carlos has a point. Where does compassion for others ever end? We could have sent in 10,000 marines with air power and nipped the Rwanda genocide in the bud; but unless we were willing to stay the course, the genocide would continue. How many Black Hawk Down compassionate episodes are we willing to spend blood and treasure to ‘save someone’?
CA authorities bend over backwards to make sure services across a broad range are extended to illegals – actually ‘illegal’ is frowned upon because it might make them uncomfortable.
And, we’re equal, but some are more equal than others. For example, if you happen to be white and obviously a citizen try driving without a license and see what happens when you get stopped. If you are illegal and get stopped…….
Let us suppose that you were indigent and had illegally gone to Mexico to do something, (oh, say, mule some drugs) but found yourself in need of emergency medical care. How do you think you would be treated? Not well? That would be correct. Same thing in most foreign countries.
Why do we have laws against people coming into the country? Is there any good reason for them? If not, then why do we spend so much money on, and give so much lip service to, keeping our borders secure? Is there a difference between a legal immigrant and an immigrant who came “without documentation?”
This whole doggone debate has become Orwellian because we are told that we have no right to decide who can immigrate. And word games are played to bamboozle the LIVs.
When you reframe the questions, it makes you realize just how absurd our immigration debate has become.
Of course we need to have secure borders, if for nothing else, to stop drug smugglers and terrorists from coming in. Integrity of elections, preventing the spread of communicable diseases, tax laws, government benefits for legal citizens, and many other factors are also involved. If there aren’t any reasons for such laws, why do all countries have them?
It’s time for Americans to realize that there is a stealth takeover of the Southwest going on. The laws in California are highly influenced by a growing Latino population. Read Victor Davis Hanson about what he sees happening in his beloved California. How long before we become an official dual language society like Canada?
These questions are all going to be front and center as Obama goes forward with his “immigration reform.”
Give them the care they need and then deport them as the price for receiving it.
Wolla Dalbo says what I would say.
Beyond that, and speaking as a legal immigrant, it is incredible how our government cossets those who have broken our laws just to get here. There is a line to get here. If you want to come, get in line.
On the subject of extending aid outside our borders, I learned today that a niece by marriage is living off a salary from the non-profit she founded.
The non-profit subsists on a Federal grant to provide after school and educational services to children–in Costa Rica. She justified the grant by citing that it would reduce drug use by unsupervised children–in Costa Rica. The niece lives in Key West, but the non-profit has a “very good manager” who presumably is actually in Costa Rica and also lives off the the Federal grant.
So, there is no reason to be surprised at anything the government, at any level, chooses do do with our money; or to be surprised that there is always some one ready to take advantage of our generous stupidity.
The conditions in their home countries which motivates over one million people annually to migrate need to be exposed and addressed. Sweeping the causes under the carpet with a general amnesty would serve to exacerbate their impact in America and the conditions in their home countries. The politicians, advocates. and illegal aliens need to be held to a higher standard than they are willing to adopt.
parker:
That is exactly why I wrote “I am stumped” and “It’s a huge dilemma,” because the answer as to where to draw the line is not so clear. It obviously must be drawn somewhere.
Prop. 187 would have put an end to this, but it was thrown out in federal court. The measure would have kicked illegal children out of schools as well, which you can’t. Basically, even undocumented have rights to all kinds of public services.
Ymar….
It’s as common as sunrise for Mexican criminal gangs to run protection rackets — threatening the elderly relatives of illegals working in the US.
This is compounded by American firms actually sending labor ‘brokers’ down into the Mexican interior — to hire away entire villages… every able bodied soul. These folks are then transferred — at corporate expense — to American factories. Their illegal status permits their new employer to hold them in — de facto — perpetual indenture.
The prior American native crew is laid-off en masse, of course, a mere three weeks ahead of the corporate ‘restructuring.’
This was caught on video in the American South — at a Tyson’s chicken processing plant.
The County went to the wall trying to fund all of the social costs: the illegals + the natives. (Both went on SNAP, and all the rest.) All of the benefits went to the managers and the corporation.
Natives willing to accept a wage cut to get their jobs back were kicked to the curb. As you might expect, there were no other jobs for blue collar talent for sixty-miles around. Such is the nature of a company town.
The flamingly gross violations of Federal statutes were deemed a joke by the firm. Such is the nature of crony pay offs.
The fact that Neo overlooks is that the illegals are not dying here in droves, Not. Being sick does not equal being dead. The childhood illness and death rates among illegals probably approximate the rates in their home countries without our intervention to make ’em better faster.
My earlier post meant to (subtly) indicate that a life is a life, and an illness is an illness, regardless of geography. Neo seems to feel proximity is the controlling variable. I am more of a NIMBY on this; I didn’t put them in my back yard: they invaded.
Don Carlos:
Of course they’re not dying in droves. They are being treated in emergency rooms and elsewhere, and have been for years, by law.
I think it is reasonable to assume that if emergency rooms started turning them away and refusing to treat them, quite a few would die, whether “in droves” or not, who would otherwise have lived if treated. And this would become big, big news.
A life is a life, but proximity changes the perception of responsibility, and it certainly changes the visuals and the publicity. That is just a fact of life—and death.
Let’s not be hasty, now folks! Social Security is only staying a float because several million Ramon Gonzalez’s and Maria Ramirez’s are paying into the same social security number, which will never be drawn upon.
This reminds me of a classic ethics problem. There may even be a name for it, though I don’t know it:
A gunman has ten prisoners hostage. He gives you a knife and tells you that if you don’t kill one person, he will kill all ten (you can’t attack him, so forget about any clever “third option” way out).
What is the ethical thing to do?
I think the proper response is: YOU are not the one holding the gun, and it isn’t YOU pulling the trigger. You have no moral responsibility for what evil the gunman commits. If you kill a hostage, then you will be complicit.
The only moral thing to do is to drop the knife and refuse to cooperate.
In this case, the illegal immigrants are both the gunman and hostage, threatening suicide. They were the ones that put themselves into this position by breaking the law. We have no moral obligation to them.
Of course, it tugs at the heartstrings and no one wants to appear uncaring. But the alternative is to submit to emotional extortion as well as both financial ruin and breakdown of the rule of law (not to mention other possible negative cultural consequences).
Oh, and another thing:
People love to pull hair and rend garments over the injustice of it all. When economic collapse (and I do mean COLLAPSE) occurs in the US due in part to things like this, when you are forced to choose in a very real way between the welfare of your own family and that of illegal immigrants, well…I think you’ll be surprised at just how decisive and callous your fellow Americans can be.
Charity is a luxury. When the price gets too high, it will be abandoned. That is the real world.
Whatever their stated motivations, the Democrats in California (and the rest of the nation) want illegal immigration for votes. They don’t give a shit about Mexicans.
If you doubt that, see all the Democratic angst that occurred after more than 200 Mexican nationals died from Fast and Furious…oh yeah, that’s right…there was only silence.
There was a meme on LiberalLogic101 that said, “If illegal immigrants benefited the Republican Party, Obama would have executive-ordered a 20 foot tall, impenetrable concrete wall around the entire country.”
Yeah, that’s about right.
The way to deal with this as humanely as possible is:
1) Seal the border
2) Repeal all chain migration laws
3) Institute the most comprehensive, stringent employer cross-referencing system imaginable with heavy fines and prison time for offending businesses that hire illegals
4) Watch the immigrants self-deport
I might mention, as well, that Mexico itself has an extremely harsh attitude and set of laws applicable to illegal aliens. According to reports, they very much on the lookout for illegals and, if found, the first step is to immediately clap such illegals into horrendous Mexican jails for a several month wait for some sort of adjudication, then, apparently, more prison time and/or expulsion.
Then, there is the matter of Mexico’s very extensive border fence along their border with Guatemala, meant to keep illegals from that country from entering Mexico.
Mexico has very successfully made us their safety valve that prevents revolution or any real change in the small number of oligarchic families that rule there. According to reports, the Mexican government directly and actively assisting their citizens–government printed and distributed pamphlets on how best to illegally cross the border and then how to avoid detection once here, some pathway areas cleared up to the border on the Mexican side, bottles of water provided–who might be troublesome, or cost them money, or force them to change their economic, educational, medical, and political systems in crossing over the border into the U.S., where they become our problem.
And, yet, we play their game.
California is no longer a majority Anglo state, and it has the most illegals (the vast majority from Mexico) and, by far, illegals cost California the most of any state. All the Border States, in particular, have similar large populations of illegals.
In reality, due to our laxity in asserting our sovereignty and controlling our borders, what we are seeing is Mexico’s stealth/slow motion invasion and reoccupation of the southern parts of the United States it used to claim and/or to rule prior to our nation’s existence.
So miuch of this expensive burden is for pregnant women and the illegals are popping out kids like Pez.
Americans are going to go broke supporting Mexicans. Treat them kindly for emergencies and send them home. Seal the borders. And for those that remain, make then learn ENGLISH. WHy do we have to select numero uno for English? I dont get it.
About 15 years ago years ago, two of us with shotguns hunted quail about 10 miles from the AZ-MX border. Along with our gunless doghandler and the two pointers, we came upon six illegals sleeping under a big mesquite, covered with big green garbage bags as camo windbreaks.
Now, were you doing this as an illegal anglo in MX and saw Mexicanos with guns and dogs approaching, what would you have done?
In AZ the beaners knew they were safe; they opened their eyes, rolled over, and went back to sleep.
We stopped hunting there a couple of years later: the Mexs had absolutely trashed the desert; plastic everywhere.
Wolla has it right.
But did you know there are bleeding heart Anglos in Tucson who set up water caches in the southern AZ desert (lots of gallon jugs), notify the beaners of their locations, and replenish the caches as needed? The distress, nay death, of even one person due to illegal conduct must weigh heavily on their consciences.
I wonder what Neo thinks of this.
Just from a somewhat cursory survey of news items:
Did I mention the reports of increasing numbers of incursions (reluctantly reported, if reported at all, and apparently quite a number of incursions over a span of several years) by Mexican troops–and sometimes armed Mexican troops–across our borders that, when even reported, are routinely termed innocent “mistakes,” the reports of shots fired in towns on the Mexican side that sometimes land on the U.S. side, or the Mexican surveillance drone that was reported to have crashed in a U.S. Border town a few months ago?
All of these incidents–and, no doubt, many more that we never hear about–which should worry U.S. authorities and call for a vigorous response by the U.S. , just generally ignored by those U.S. authorities.
Net immigration has ceased, for now, because there are so few jobs, and the Mexican economy is doing pretty well.
However, if our economy ever recovers, the immigration will resume.
I am fluent in Spanish, and do home nursing care of disabled kids, American citizens, children of illegal immigrants. Real border control would help these folks a great deal, although it would cause some inconvenience, because the grand parents would not be able to come and visit their kids and grand kids, most of whom live in el norte. The wages, however, would rise.
I have a friend, a “Liberal” who teaches in a small college in Alabama. She complains constantly about the parsimony of Alabama, which prevents the people of Alabama from raising the amount of money available for art history. What this otherwise intelligent woman can not see is that this country has followed a policy of deindustrialization for fifty years, so, for example, Alabama no longer makes steel. The iron ore may also be depleted, for all I know, but, we have exported manufacturing for a half century. So, why do we need to import unskilled labor? We do not, of course. Sure, Tyson, and maybe WalMart and certainly all the fast food joints take advantage of these “huddled masses.” They’d be fools not to do so, considering all the other burdens heaped on business. Sin embargo, (nevertheless) British Labor has already admitted that they imported unskilled and even unlettered voters to keep themselves in power. The fact that Ted Kennedy authored the 1965 immigration law that, even if enforced, would flood us with dependents on government benefits, ought to be a clear enough indication of the intent of these policies of non-enforcement.
So, an illegal in the hospital needs to be treated, and transferred to a hospital in Mexico or Central America or wherever. This might make some people stay out of the hospital who need to be seen. However, it would also stop the midnight strep throat clinic, the 0200 VD clinic, the (I kid you not) seventeen year old, married one year, coming to the ER in the middle of the night, because that’s where one goes for free medical care, to find out why she was not yet pregnant.
It’s a different culture. They are welcome to it. I do not wish to subsidize it. I see no valid ethical or practical reason why we should.
See this for a summary of EMTALA, the 1986 unfunded Federal mandate that turned all ERs into no-cost “screening” clinics:
http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=25936
Note the magnitude of penalties for failure to comply.
This just out: Putting folks on Medicaid increases ER use by those folks:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579296580732297854?mod=djem10point
You cannot save people from themselves. The US can’t do it overseas and we can’t do it inside our own borders either.
The only sustainable system is bottom up power restructuring. You can’t keep feeding redistributed wealth and blood from some other source. Eventually it runs out and destroys the independence of whatever you are trying to help.
This is correct, but it would not improve Democrat electorial margins.
We have those here in the CA desert. Blue plastic 55 gal drums with a flag overhead, spaced at more or less consitent intervals. They contain gallon jugs.
Is that actually increasing? I’ve read stories on this happening years back, like the case where a mexican military Humvee chased a BP agent who was on horse back, and even fired its .50 BMG at him, all on the US side. Also, there was a mexican cop who was snipping across the border (cerca 1999) with an AK until a US counter sniper team returned fire (they think it was a kill because a woman later placed flowers at the spot where he was shot).
I know of things that happen on the border and don’t seem to make it into the news. For example, in my old hometown, a guy shot an illegal with a pellet rifle (exactly why the confrontation began was not relayed to me). The illegal then hit him with a blunt object, then attempted to choke him with some sort of cord. He then stole items from the residence, and was later cought by law enforcement. Not sure of the final outcome.
Also, the fires in San Diego a few years back. Reading the news, you will find it odd that the fire that burned the fewest houses (almost none) killed the most people. This is the fire that started on Otay Mountain, near the border. The people killed were those who started it. My mom learned that it was started by illegals by first responders, but the news did not mention that.
Well, if he doesn’t enter the country he or his kids can’t vote here.
neoneocon:
But that choice, the one in the ER waiting room, comes after a series of choices. The choice to not seriously enforce at the border, the choice to not deport, and the choice to attempt to push some sort of amnesty.
It would be an easy matter to deport illegals who show up in ERs. Give them care, then send them home. But that too would be attacked.
Now, note well: my wife is hispanic. There are many good hispanics, and many illegals are good people. Growing up on the border, I’ve met many illegals and they reflect a mix of people, good, bad, indifferent.
But it is also true that American success is dependent upon culture, and the culture of illegals is the culture that created Mexican failure. On an individual level I can recall Mexican illegals I’d prefer over many Anglo-Saxon Americans, but collectively the cultural success of Anglo-Saxon America is much greater then that of hispanic Mexico. The political downfall of California owes much to illegal immigration.
I helped an elderly friend apply for Ohio Medicaid. She had been widowed in her 40’s and became permanently disabled 20 years ago from a brain tumor, seizures, and resulting surgery. The application went out of its way to reassure illegal immigrants that immigrations status would not count against them in any way. I found the wording in several places throughout the documents. My friend however, who owns nothing and was living on SS, didn’t qualify.
Don:
As I wrote in my post, it would have been best to have prevented the problem in the first place, and we may lack the will (as a nation) to do anything necessarily and sufficiently draconian about it now.
Neo:
That’s kinda like telling a man with lung cancer that it would have been best had he never smoked.
We (as a nation) are opposed to the illegals. But the Ruling Class is not.
Don Carlos:
Yes, indeed, it probably would have been better had he never smoked.
But he has cancer now, and the question is: what is the remedy? And if it’s clear he doesn’t have any interest in some of the remedies you suggest (in the case of illegals, deportation), then what do you do about him?
Don–here are links to three different stories about various such incursions that popped up on just the first Google search results page :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/09/report-border-patrol-confirms-2-incursions-by-mexican-officials-into-us/ and http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/02/16/caught-on-video-possible-mexican-military-incursion-on-u-s-soil/ and http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Mexican-military-copter-over-U-S-neighborhood-792986.php )
I note that it was only very briefly mentioned here and there, now and again, by supporters of Obamacare that, counted as part of the poor, suffering, supposed “30-40 million without health care coverage” who were now to be covered were the 11 million (some estimates put the number of illegal aliens here in the U.S. as high as 22 million) illegal aliens presently here.
Democrats did not want an actual debate about Obamacare, and used every dirty parliamentary trick in the book (among them, reading copies of the exraordinarily complex and far-reaching 1,400 plus page bill not available for Republicans to even read until a few hours before the actual vote on it, a 200 plus page “Manager’s amendment” from Reid that significantly changed/modified the extraordinarily complex bill also presented a few hours before the vote in Congress to see to it that “the bill was passed so that we could find out what was in it.”
Had one aspect of an actual and full debate been, do we want to upend the current pretty satisfactory health care system and stick citizens and resident aliens with billions in extra costs annually so that we can provide a wide range of health care coverage to some 11 million or more illegal aliens, the bill would have been dead in the water, just on the basis of that argument alone.
But, as with practically each and every baleful and pernicious aspect of Obamacare, this aspect of Obamacare was glossed over, and this concealment very concretely demonstrates just how little the Democrats who unilaterally rammed Obamacare through actually care for the well-being and financial situation of the U.S. citizens and legal residents they are pushing around, and have and are fleecing via Obamacare.
A simple immigration law that (I think, or maybe hope) could even pass the Senate:
1. Control the border.
2. Identify everyone in the US with an identity card, with their citizenship or immigration status shown. (Sorry, I realize it’s a violation of American values to require everyone to have “papers” but I don’t see how else to do this. Especially considering that 20-40% of illegals are visa overstays.)
3. Grant everyone in the US ilegally a 5-year, nonrenewable visa. During the first three years, you have a right to apply for a green card without returning to your home country — but at the end of the line, like everybody else. No cuts! (This section is to get the bill past the Dems. Make weepy-heart sounds about the Dream Act, etc.)
4. At the end of the five years, if you’re in line, you get to stay until your application is processed. If not, or if you’re rejected for the green card, you’re gone.
5. Impose a 15% withholding tax on remittances.
I’m sure a couple of Dems would support that bill. Question is, would enough Republicans?
Neo:
“What is the remedy?”
In lung cancer there is no benign, soft remedy. 85% will die of their lung cancer despite subjecting themselves to the unattractive therapeutic options.
With respect to the illegals, there is no soft remedy either. Caving in to them is also not a remedy.
But there are in fact remedies para los illegales.
The first step isn’t to control the border. The first step must be to get rid of the current people who control the border and 2. replace them with actual patriots.
Then you work your way up to DC and the snake’s head.
And it’s not caving to illegals. They will be rendered into a 4th class citizenry. The Left will make one up to suit.
What you will really cave to are the Democrats. Immigrants will be a step below blacks in urban plantations, kept as an example to the black slaves that there are worse things than being a voter.
Lisa M.
Social Security recipients automatically qualify for MEDICARE — even if they’re in the system because of a disability.
ACCEPT: During the FIRST two years, such SSDI are thrown into MEDICAID.
They are not left to their own devices, financially.
Sounds like she was either getting bad advice or you’re getting a garbled tale.
Early retirement does not trigger MEDICARE payouts under ordinary SS.
Which is not her situation, at all.
Don Carlos:
My point is that I can think of plenty of remedies, but the American people will not allow them to be implemented, nor vote for those who would. Therefore, what is the remedy (or rather, the treatment, because it’s not a remedy) when the people lack the will for any of the most obvious remedies?
Financial collapse is the remedy.
Nothing was changing in Detroit until the collapse. Now, everyone sees what happens with irresponsible government.
Hopefully the initial collapse can be contained to California.
The will of the people have been de facto replaced by the will of the aristocracy. That is why the government’s will matters, and the people’s will is meaningless.
Vis a vis financial collapse, there may be a recovery, but it may only take effect for human freedom in 100-1000 years.
Also that kind of collapse is lke chemotherapy. It only “works” because it kills healthy cells along with the crazy cells. If enough healthy tissue dies and collapses, the host dies as well. If the host dies… it won’t matter if the disease was wiped out.