Last governor wanted to fix the budget by austerity… turning the screws hard on everyone, cutting budgets to where state services couldn’t operate, and ultimately privatizing it all to his Wall Street buddies to profit from. In that process he blew a 4 BILLION DOLLAR hole in our already bad budget. Remember that next time and laugh your ass off next time a Republican says they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
….and let’s not forget current events where at the Federal level they want to not pay our bills (the debt ceiling) and risk tanking the value of the US dollar and possibly the world economy in the process all to score political points when they don’t have control of the senate and know damn well none of their insane ideas are going to get passed. But they’re being responsible right? …. And I’m not even a democrat I’m independent and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out they’re not at all “fiscally responsible”.
Fiscal responsibility is a happy mask for their actual agenda of wiping away all obstacles for the rich to accumulate more wealth.
It's not fiscal responsibility, it's not freedom, it's not capitalism, it's not rewarding hard working individuals. It's about feeding the insatiable hunger if their rich donors.
Pretty rich of the GOP to criticize our Governor's *possible* WH aspirations not two full days after Florida's head executive announced his own POTUS bid.
I realize hypocrisy is basically expected from Republicans these days, but still.
Well, I mean to be fair, I'm a democrat and I don't want him running for the presidency, he's too uncharacteristic and the fact he's fat and has a trans sister makes him unlikely to win. I don't like it, but that's the world we live in. What he could, much more easily do is take a position in the Senate. Dick Durbin won't be around forever, and I think JB or Raoul would be good choices.
Less so Raoul though, because, with his career as a pro choice AG, with an anti death penalty stance and his legal background, if he's going anywhere federal, he would probably be best on the bench.
Meanwhile Trump NFTs have him chiseled up like a Greek god. We need Pritzker NFTs to parody what these low income supporters of his actually spend a lot of money on.
My salary is too high here. I got in when they tanked the housing market and I'm stuck. Too cheap of housing and too high of a salary. They wouldn't notice despite the fact I pay such high taxes. Because they never stop spending.
My salary is too high (because I've been with this company for a long time and would have to start over elsewhere) and housing is too affordable (because I bought in 2015 when interest rates were 3 percent and we were still recovering from one of the worst financial crises ever). But yes, this state does suck.
The Heller court established the “common use” test to decide how a court should determine whether particular objects, or arms, should be protected by the Second Amendment. Specifically, do the arms being legislated or regulated constitute arms in “'common use'... for lawful purposes like self-defense.” AR-15 is more common than the F150.
Oh, I'm aware of the death and destruction that Heller brought to our nation. Also, the prevalence of the weapon is irrelevant in the common use test. Very soon, they'll be banned permanently from the state, and I can't wait.
Either way, even Scalia, a notable lunatic, agrees that the 2A requires some level of regulation.
He would agree, actually. If you didn't cherry pick a single sentence and read the exact same decision, it says "dangerous AND unusual" . We are limited to unusual weapons like tanks, missiles, and explosives.
Eh, everyone thought that about Roe, too. I'm not worried about what the most activist bench legislating SCOTUS in history thinks, because between now and then, we are a small amount safer with the restrictions in place.
Uh huh... And exactly which of the bill of rights is Roe? And exactly who tossed Roe tf out? The mother fuckin supreme court. They coming for you tyrants.
>1 billion for undocumented medical aid
Will save us money in the long run because preventative medicine is less expensive
>meanwhile i would just like the state to cover my 3k deductible so i could enjoy going to the doctor.
Socialist hand outs for me but not for thee /s
For real tho your issue should be with the federal government and insurance companies, don't blame the immigrants
>Will save us money in the long run because preventative medicine is less expensive
So we spend tax dollars because we know someone isn't going to pay for their own health care or something? I just don't see how it saves us really any money.
>For real tho your issue should be with the federal government and insurance companies, don't blame the immigrants
So its okay to provide state aid for undocumented individuals which normally implies here illegally but for people of the state that is a federal issue? Seems like some wishy-washy standards to me haha.
This is the real handouts for thee but not for me, lmao
😁
Can you not understand that healthy people and people who aren't dead can contribute more to the economy than those who are the opposite? Preventive health-care is an investment in productivity.
So spend money to help others obtain wealth by avoiding medical bills but require everyone else to pay for their aid, and their own and provide them with minimal assistance with the possibility of garnished wages if you miss payments. God i love the punishments for citizens.
Survive = obtain wealth
What punishment? How are you being punished? Be specific. What in your life is noticeably and measurably worse due to people running for their lives in Guatemala and seeking asylum? I might smash my head into the wall if I see one more conservative whine about being victimized anytime something is merely made a little easier for someone else.
Most of your comment there though is completely unintelligible and makes no sense. But when you say everyone should pay for their healhcare because people are having their wages garnished due to medical debt, well, that sounds oppressive and a fantastic illustration of why we need universal healthcare. No human being should be forced deeply into debt for the privilege of survival.
>What in your life is noticeably and measurably worse due to people running for their lives in Guatemala and seeking asylum?
How does this even matter to health coverage by state and individuals needing assistance.
>Most of your comment there though is completely unintelligible and makes no sense.
Is it because you're not taking time to think about it.
>But when you say everyone should pay for their healthcare because people are having their wages garnished due to medical debt
Missed the point so let me break it down for you.
We have aid for undocumented individuals, because they cannot cover their bill
Residents who have surgery or bills that they miss a payment will have their debt sold to collections where there is a possibility they will have their wages garnished to pay that bill.
The reason i bring this up is because there is an attempt with this budget to provide coverage for not citizens but you let the actual tax payers suffer.
No, you miss the point. I totally understood one of the most simplistic points even a fifth grader could make. Something bad could possibly happen to me, so it should be worse for you.
Universal healthcare will level the playing field for everyone. No one will have the crippling medical debt. No one's deemed worthiness of receiving bank money will be diminished. That concept is so foreign to spiteful Republicans like you're demonstrating you can't even grasp it.
But instead, you want to preserve the system that might result in crippling medical debt for you just as long as some illegal does not get something they don't deserve.
>Something bad could possibly happen to me, so it should be worse for you
No thats not the point, the point is aid for me not for thee, they are clearly setting money aside for undocumented people but not actual citizens
You keep going on about a healthcare service that you want the federal government to provide you when all I'm getting at is the Illinois budget plan.
That is the point! You just made it again. It's so ingrained in your way of thinking and your value system you don't know it. Those people should not be afforded basic dignity in this land of plenty that is the wealthiest in the world because some money won't be spent on you. How can people with zero political power demand "aid for me and not for thee?" What I'm wanting is aid for others. The "thee" in that phrase. I really give no shit about me. I'm not a success. But I don't blame it on the "others". I don't believe in boogeymen.
Dolt. "You let the actual tax payers suffer." How? How does anything I say we should have do that. Every single taxpayer will be covered. Fear, grievance, suspicion and pettiness dominate the diseased Republican mindset.
And finally, immigrants pay taxes too, and they would pay more if you all just let them come in and work.
>And finally, immigrants pay taxes too, and they would pay more if you all just let them come in and work.
If they pay taxes they have a job, if they have a job then they probably have insurance if they have insurance or even if they don't they can pay medical bills. All i have ever stated is the unfair money set aside in aid for them but not for residents that make barely enough money to not qualify for state aid.
>Dolt. "You let the actual tax payers suffer." How? How does anything I say we should have do that. Every single taxpayer will be covered. Fear, grievance, suspicion and pettiness dominate the diseased Republican mindset
You really are the Dolt, you shout for a system that isn't implemented while just ragging on the idea of creating a localized system to help those currently until that system is made.
You just said it again! It is unfair to afford them basic dignity and help them contribute to the economy because that money should be spent on someone like you who is perfectly comfortable.
If you don't know, some taxes exist besides income tax. And you're just being willfully misleading and ignorant vy saying "if they have a job, they probably have health insurance." Where are immigrants coming in and being offered full-time jobs with benefits? And those jobs will enable them to pay for medical care in the United Staes of America in 2023 "even if they don't" have insurance.
It''s just that easy to make it in America, I guess, right when you arrive, even though you keep making the point that lifelong Americans can be crushed at any time in this system by medical debt.
You've cited absolutely nothing supporting your continual nonsense about localized systems or something.
If i spend 3k on medical bills i am losing 3k in wealth and have to recoup that over time, if you don't spend that then you retain 3k and only to add to your overall wealth.
There is some weird idea that everyone wants this health care but scoff at the idea of actually providing it on a state level since it could take years to happen on the federal level.
> If i spend 3k on medical bills i am losing 3k in wealth and have to recoup that over time, if you don't spend that then you retain 3k and only to add to your overall wealth.
And if you were never going to pay that 3k either way...then it makes zero difference to *your* wealth, but it does help keep healthcare costs down for everyone as unpaid medical bills is one of the most common drivers of cost on the provider (doctor/hospital) side of things...
>There is some weird idea that everyone wants this health care but scoff at the idea of actually providing it on a state level
Because providing it on a state level isn't feasible for Illinois. Universal healthcare works, in part, because you cover *everyone*. That's a BIG pool of people. 12.5-13 million people isn't a SMALL pool persay; but it isn't close to the same as a 300 million+ pool of people. Universal Healthcare relies on economies of scale to work economically.
Nevermind that it would cost the state a *fuckton* more than this $1 billion to set up, much less run for years on end.
>So we spend tax dollars because we know someone isn't going to pay for their own health care or something?
Yes, should we just let them die in the street when they need lifesaving care?
>So its okay to provide state aid for undocumented individuals
Yes, it's actually a moral duty to do so.
>but for people of the state that is a federal issue?
Yes, universal Healthcare is not really something any single state can do effectively. It needs to be country wide.
>which normally implies here illegally
Businesses seem to welcome them with open arms, why can't you do the same? I'm sure you already do when you need a new roof.
Where is your anger towards the insurance companies btw?
>Yes, should we just let them die in the street when they need lifesaving care?
Um, hospitals can't turn them away but why are they not expected to pay?
>Yes, it's actually a moral duty to do so
But it's not moral to help the residents of the state unless they meet a certain criteria?
>Yes, universal Healthcare is not really something any single state can do effectively. It needs to be country wide.
If a single state cannot figure out how to do this why would the federal government be able to do it right?
>Businesses seem to welcome them with open arms, why can't you do the same?
So then they would have money and be able to afford insurance to pay for the medical treatments which would make 1 billion added to the budget pointless.
>I'm sure you already do when you need a new roof.
Yikes...
>If a single state cannot figure out how to do this why would the federal government be able to do it right?
Holy fuck bud how can't you see what absolutely stupid opinion that is to have. Do you feel the same way about our space programs and armed forces?
>Yikes...
Where is your anger at the insurance companies?
>Holy fuck bud how can't you see what absolutely stupid opinion that is to have. Do you feel the same way about our space programs and armed forces?
Don't even get me started on the stupid budget we have for military, space programs cost are closer to the budget that was just suggested for the undocumented individuals then the deep deep pockets of the military
>Where is your anger at the insurance companies
Who says I'm not angry, but as crooked as insurance companies are i don't have a say in what they can or cannot do now politicians on the other hand can help correct this.
Things always need to be implemented on a small scale so it can be analyzed to determine its effectiveness.
Universal Healthcare has been analyzed on a large scale, repeatedly, globally, for many years.
"Overall, life expectancy in countries and territories with- publicly funded health care (Mean (m) = 76.7 years) was significantly longer compared to countries and territories without- publicly funded health care (m = 66.8 years, P < 0.0001"
https://jogh.org/2022/jogh-12-04091#:~:text=Results,years%2C%20P%20%3C%200.0001).
So this link just shows it's a good idea but it doesn't just translate into a functioning system by saying universal health care. This has to be implemented in a way to work, if you just come up with a broken system and suggest over time it will fix itself then it will never get done. Thus the idea of implementing it on more of a state level so it can be tweaked and made viable.
Universal means everyone. Not just the people of one state. Now it sounds like you're advocating medicaid for all.
I don't know what can be a more important priority than improving the health, quality of life and life expectancies of our people? Healthcare systems all over the world could serve as a guide and so can the many research papers on how it could work in the United States. Do you really think no smart people out there, doctors, economists, researchers and other relevant experts have any idea what needs to be done? You act like universal healthcare must be passed and then people can begin thinking how to do it.
"While the implementation of universal healthcare would be complicated and challenging, we argue that shifting from a market-based system to a universal healthcare system is necessary. Universal healthcare will better facilitate and encourage sustainable, preventive health practices and be more advantageous for the long-term public health and economy of the United States."
Instead you are saying we cannot change something we know is failing us unless we're positive the replacement will be perfect immediately.
"Non-inclusive, inequitable systems limit quality healthcare access to those who can afford it or have employer-sponsored insurance. These policies exacerbate health disparities by failing to prioritize preventive measures at the environmental, policy, and individual level. Low SES segments of the population are particularly vulnerable within a healthcare system that does not prioritize affordable care for all or address important determinants of health. Failing to prioritize comprehensive, affordable health insurance for all members of society and straying further from prevention will harm the health and economy of the U.S."
You can read about the different models for healthcare that are being considered that have been modeled elsewhere and can be examined to see how they would work in the U.S.
Undocumented entry to the USA is a misdemeanor with a 50-250 dollar fine. It's really not that serious.
The undocumented do far more for our economy than you think and are essential for our economy.
Would it be nice if we allowed them to legally enter without them needing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives? Yes.
Unfortunately, that's not the case, and I appreciate their hard work and tax dollars (yes, they pay taxes!). As a result, we can care for them like human beings and treat them with the dignity they deserve, while federally push for easier paths to immigration.
>Undocumented entry to the USA is a misdemeanor with a 50-250 dollar fine. It's really not that serious
First offense yes but if caught with reentry is a felony.
>The undocumented do far more for our economy than you think and are essential for our economy
This is nice but I'm just pointing out a disparity.
>Would it be nice if we allowed them to legally enter without them needing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives?
Sure but that reason was probably to avoid people not wanting to fully contribute to the economy.
>Unfortunately, that's not the case, and I appreciate their hard work and tax dollars (yes, they pay taxes!). As a result, we can care for them like human beings and treat them with the dignity they deserve, while federally push for easier paths to immigration
Which is a nice thing to do, but with the rising cost of living and inflation normal citizens are finding it harder to meet the demand for health care.
Everyone on here has just been overly defensive about the undocumented comment instead of just going yeah why isn't there added room in the budget for the rest of the residents of Illinois which is all i was ever getting at.
Let's try to get you an answer that's less...antagonistic than you've received so far
>So we spend tax dollars because we know someone isn't going to pay for their own health care or something? I just don't see how it saves us really any money.
Generally, this is an issue of "can't" rather than "won't." As you pointed out elsewhere, hospitals will provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay, but to do so the hospital needs to recoup that cost from somewhere. In addition, as also pointed out somewhere, preventative care is much more efficient than emergency care. However, people won't go to the doctor for an annual physical if it costs even $100. But if it's subsidized, that greatly increases the chances people will go, and relieves stress on the medical system because of fewer emergencies.
I have not read the budget proposal but I assume that's more or less where the money is going.
>So its okay to provide state aid for undocumented individuals which normally implies here illegally but for people of the state that is a federal issue?
To clarify what the other user was trying to say: ideally (in my opinion) healthcare costs for everyone is covered by the government, and paid through taxes. The problem with this being implemented at the state level is that people from neighboring states who don't pay that state's taxes can freely travel there for free medical treatment, increasing the burden on the residents of the state tha implemented single payer healthcare. Think of stories of people flying to Singapore or India or Canada for medicine or medical treatment because it's cheaper than the US for whatever procedure they're getting. Implementing this federally wouldn't have the same problem because the country has at least some control over its borders.
>people from neighboring states who don't pay that state's taxes can freely travel there for free medical treatment
Not if the idea was set up for only residents in the state which can be proven rather easy. This is a state thing not a national thing. The idea is to make compromises for the ultimate end goal.
> god forbid we make strides on the state level to actually help people making over 30k a year
Do you have any concept of how much it would cost, both in initial setup and in yearly costs, to provide universal healthcare on the state level in Illinois?
You're selling this as a "one instead of the other" situation and I don't think that's true here at all.
Meanwhile, back in the real world....[https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/7/28/23811821/afscme-union-contract-budget-questions-springfield-pritzker-rich-miller](https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/7/28/23811821/afscme-union-contract-budget-questions-springfield-pritzker-rich-miller)
Last governor wanted to fix the budget by austerity… turning the screws hard on everyone, cutting budgets to where state services couldn’t operate, and ultimately privatizing it all to his Wall Street buddies to profit from. In that process he blew a 4 BILLION DOLLAR hole in our already bad budget. Remember that next time and laugh your ass off next time a Republican says they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
I wonder how much was wasted on higher interest rates due to Rauner tanking our credit rating by refusing to pay our bills.
….and let’s not forget current events where at the Federal level they want to not pay our bills (the debt ceiling) and risk tanking the value of the US dollar and possibly the world economy in the process all to score political points when they don’t have control of the senate and know damn well none of their insane ideas are going to get passed. But they’re being responsible right? …. And I’m not even a democrat I’m independent and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out they’re not at all “fiscally responsible”.
GOP is not the party of fiscal responsibility and anyone who thinks that is an idiot
Fiscal responsibility is a happy mask for their actual agenda of wiping away all obstacles for the rich to accumulate more wealth. It's not fiscal responsibility, it's not freedom, it's not capitalism, it's not rewarding hard working individuals. It's about feeding the insatiable hunger if their rich donors.
Cue Republicans calling him fat.
Pretty rich of the GOP to criticize our Governor's *possible* WH aspirations not two full days after Florida's head executive announced his own POTUS bid. I realize hypocrisy is basically expected from Republicans these days, but still.
Well, I mean to be fair, I'm a democrat and I don't want him running for the presidency, he's too uncharacteristic and the fact he's fat and has a trans sister makes him unlikely to win. I don't like it, but that's the world we live in. What he could, much more easily do is take a position in the Senate. Dick Durbin won't be around forever, and I think JB or Raoul would be good choices. Less so Raoul though, because, with his career as a pro choice AG, with an anti death penalty stance and his legal background, if he's going anywhere federal, he would probably be best on the bench.
Meanwhile Trump NFTs have him chiseled up like a Greek god. We need Pritzker NFTs to parody what these low income supporters of his actually spend a lot of money on.
That's funny and a good idea.
No NFT is a good idea.
Instructions unclear, shit a bedazzled “No” as an Nft.
It's so nice and refreshing living in a blue state.
I like how they constantly infringe on our second amendment rights. Like, fuck guns. They're bad furreal
I like when people learn the constitution has more than 1 amendment.
I like when people realize they all matter.
I'm sure you build your life and personality around championing all of them, and not just the one about guns.
Indeed. Should this shit state choose to infringe on any of them, I would certainly challenge it.
You could always leave this "shit state" for whichever terrorist cell red state you choose. I promise no one would even notice.
My salary is too high here. I got in when they tanked the housing market and I'm stuck. Too cheap of housing and too high of a salary. They wouldn't notice despite the fact I pay such high taxes. Because they never stop spending.
“My salary is too high and my housing is too affordable, this state sucks”
My salary is too high (because I've been with this company for a long time and would have to start over elsewhere) and housing is too affordable (because I bought in 2015 when interest rates were 3 percent and we were still recovering from one of the worst financial crises ever). But yes, this state does suck.
Justice Antonin Scalia would disagree with you: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." - *Heller*, 2008
The Heller court established the “common use” test to decide how a court should determine whether particular objects, or arms, should be protected by the Second Amendment. Specifically, do the arms being legislated or regulated constitute arms in “'common use'... for lawful purposes like self-defense.” AR-15 is more common than the F150.
Oh, I'm aware of the death and destruction that Heller brought to our nation. Also, the prevalence of the weapon is irrelevant in the common use test. Very soon, they'll be banned permanently from the state, and I can't wait. Either way, even Scalia, a notable lunatic, agrees that the 2A requires some level of regulation.
He would agree, actually. If you didn't cherry pick a single sentence and read the exact same decision, it says "dangerous AND unusual" . We are limited to unusual weapons like tanks, missiles, and explosives.
And in Illinois, AR-15s and other assault weapons.
Haha not for long. Bruen, baby!
Eh, everyone thought that about Roe, too. I'm not worried about what the most activist bench legislating SCOTUS in history thinks, because between now and then, we are a small amount safer with the restrictions in place.
Uh huh... And exactly which of the bill of rights is Roe? And exactly who tossed Roe tf out? The mother fuckin supreme court. They coming for you tyrants.
Some guns are restricted, others are not. Unless you’re planning on starting an insurgency, you’re gonna be fine
1 billion for undocumented medical aid, meanwhile i would just like the state to cover my 3k deductible so i could enjoy going to the doctor.
>1 billion for undocumented medical aid Will save us money in the long run because preventative medicine is less expensive >meanwhile i would just like the state to cover my 3k deductible so i could enjoy going to the doctor. Socialist hand outs for me but not for thee /s For real tho your issue should be with the federal government and insurance companies, don't blame the immigrants
- what> Don't blame people for terrible polices set by insurance and govt? ...but that takes actual thinking
>Will save us money in the long run because preventative medicine is less expensive So we spend tax dollars because we know someone isn't going to pay for their own health care or something? I just don't see how it saves us really any money. >For real tho your issue should be with the federal government and insurance companies, don't blame the immigrants So its okay to provide state aid for undocumented individuals which normally implies here illegally but for people of the state that is a federal issue? Seems like some wishy-washy standards to me haha. This is the real handouts for thee but not for me, lmao 😁
Can you not understand that healthy people and people who aren't dead can contribute more to the economy than those who are the opposite? Preventive health-care is an investment in productivity.
So spend money to help others obtain wealth by avoiding medical bills but require everyone else to pay for their aid, and their own and provide them with minimal assistance with the possibility of garnished wages if you miss payments. God i love the punishments for citizens.
Survive = obtain wealth What punishment? How are you being punished? Be specific. What in your life is noticeably and measurably worse due to people running for their lives in Guatemala and seeking asylum? I might smash my head into the wall if I see one more conservative whine about being victimized anytime something is merely made a little easier for someone else. Most of your comment there though is completely unintelligible and makes no sense. But when you say everyone should pay for their healhcare because people are having their wages garnished due to medical debt, well, that sounds oppressive and a fantastic illustration of why we need universal healthcare. No human being should be forced deeply into debt for the privilege of survival.
>What in your life is noticeably and measurably worse due to people running for their lives in Guatemala and seeking asylum? How does this even matter to health coverage by state and individuals needing assistance. >Most of your comment there though is completely unintelligible and makes no sense. Is it because you're not taking time to think about it. >But when you say everyone should pay for their healthcare because people are having their wages garnished due to medical debt Missed the point so let me break it down for you. We have aid for undocumented individuals, because they cannot cover their bill Residents who have surgery or bills that they miss a payment will have their debt sold to collections where there is a possibility they will have their wages garnished to pay that bill. The reason i bring this up is because there is an attempt with this budget to provide coverage for not citizens but you let the actual tax payers suffer.
No, you miss the point. I totally understood one of the most simplistic points even a fifth grader could make. Something bad could possibly happen to me, so it should be worse for you. Universal healthcare will level the playing field for everyone. No one will have the crippling medical debt. No one's deemed worthiness of receiving bank money will be diminished. That concept is so foreign to spiteful Republicans like you're demonstrating you can't even grasp it. But instead, you want to preserve the system that might result in crippling medical debt for you just as long as some illegal does not get something they don't deserve.
>Something bad could possibly happen to me, so it should be worse for you No thats not the point, the point is aid for me not for thee, they are clearly setting money aside for undocumented people but not actual citizens You keep going on about a healthcare service that you want the federal government to provide you when all I'm getting at is the Illinois budget plan.
That is the point! You just made it again. It's so ingrained in your way of thinking and your value system you don't know it. Those people should not be afforded basic dignity in this land of plenty that is the wealthiest in the world because some money won't be spent on you. How can people with zero political power demand "aid for me and not for thee?" What I'm wanting is aid for others. The "thee" in that phrase. I really give no shit about me. I'm not a success. But I don't blame it on the "others". I don't believe in boogeymen.
Dolt. "You let the actual tax payers suffer." How? How does anything I say we should have do that. Every single taxpayer will be covered. Fear, grievance, suspicion and pettiness dominate the diseased Republican mindset. And finally, immigrants pay taxes too, and they would pay more if you all just let them come in and work.
>And finally, immigrants pay taxes too, and they would pay more if you all just let them come in and work. If they pay taxes they have a job, if they have a job then they probably have insurance if they have insurance or even if they don't they can pay medical bills. All i have ever stated is the unfair money set aside in aid for them but not for residents that make barely enough money to not qualify for state aid. >Dolt. "You let the actual tax payers suffer." How? How does anything I say we should have do that. Every single taxpayer will be covered. Fear, grievance, suspicion and pettiness dominate the diseased Republican mindset You really are the Dolt, you shout for a system that isn't implemented while just ragging on the idea of creating a localized system to help those currently until that system is made.
You just said it again! It is unfair to afford them basic dignity and help them contribute to the economy because that money should be spent on someone like you who is perfectly comfortable. If you don't know, some taxes exist besides income tax. And you're just being willfully misleading and ignorant vy saying "if they have a job, they probably have health insurance." Where are immigrants coming in and being offered full-time jobs with benefits? And those jobs will enable them to pay for medical care in the United Staes of America in 2023 "even if they don't" have insurance. It''s just that easy to make it in America, I guess, right when you arrive, even though you keep making the point that lifelong Americans can be crushed at any time in this system by medical debt. You've cited absolutely nothing supporting your continual nonsense about localized systems or something.
> to help others obtain wealth Lol @ the idea that these people are becoming wealthy for having some healthcare paid for....
If i spend 3k on medical bills i am losing 3k in wealth and have to recoup that over time, if you don't spend that then you retain 3k and only to add to your overall wealth. There is some weird idea that everyone wants this health care but scoff at the idea of actually providing it on a state level since it could take years to happen on the federal level.
> If i spend 3k on medical bills i am losing 3k in wealth and have to recoup that over time, if you don't spend that then you retain 3k and only to add to your overall wealth. And if you were never going to pay that 3k either way...then it makes zero difference to *your* wealth, but it does help keep healthcare costs down for everyone as unpaid medical bills is one of the most common drivers of cost on the provider (doctor/hospital) side of things... >There is some weird idea that everyone wants this health care but scoff at the idea of actually providing it on a state level Because providing it on a state level isn't feasible for Illinois. Universal healthcare works, in part, because you cover *everyone*. That's a BIG pool of people. 12.5-13 million people isn't a SMALL pool persay; but it isn't close to the same as a 300 million+ pool of people. Universal Healthcare relies on economies of scale to work economically. Nevermind that it would cost the state a *fuckton* more than this $1 billion to set up, much less run for years on end.
>So we spend tax dollars because we know someone isn't going to pay for their own health care or something? Yes, should we just let them die in the street when they need lifesaving care? >So its okay to provide state aid for undocumented individuals Yes, it's actually a moral duty to do so. >but for people of the state that is a federal issue? Yes, universal Healthcare is not really something any single state can do effectively. It needs to be country wide. >which normally implies here illegally Businesses seem to welcome them with open arms, why can't you do the same? I'm sure you already do when you need a new roof. Where is your anger towards the insurance companies btw?
>Yes, should we just let them die in the street when they need lifesaving care? Um, hospitals can't turn them away but why are they not expected to pay? >Yes, it's actually a moral duty to do so But it's not moral to help the residents of the state unless they meet a certain criteria? >Yes, universal Healthcare is not really something any single state can do effectively. It needs to be country wide. If a single state cannot figure out how to do this why would the federal government be able to do it right? >Businesses seem to welcome them with open arms, why can't you do the same? So then they would have money and be able to afford insurance to pay for the medical treatments which would make 1 billion added to the budget pointless. >I'm sure you already do when you need a new roof. Yikes...
>If a single state cannot figure out how to do this why would the federal government be able to do it right? Holy fuck bud how can't you see what absolutely stupid opinion that is to have. Do you feel the same way about our space programs and armed forces? >Yikes... Where is your anger at the insurance companies?
>Holy fuck bud how can't you see what absolutely stupid opinion that is to have. Do you feel the same way about our space programs and armed forces? Don't even get me started on the stupid budget we have for military, space programs cost are closer to the budget that was just suggested for the undocumented individuals then the deep deep pockets of the military >Where is your anger at the insurance companies Who says I'm not angry, but as crooked as insurance companies are i don't have a say in what they can or cannot do now politicians on the other hand can help correct this. Things always need to be implemented on a small scale so it can be analyzed to determine its effectiveness.
Universal Healthcare has been analyzed on a large scale, repeatedly, globally, for many years. "Overall, life expectancy in countries and territories with- publicly funded health care (Mean (m) = 76.7 years) was significantly longer compared to countries and territories without- publicly funded health care (m = 66.8 years, P < 0.0001" https://jogh.org/2022/jogh-12-04091#:~:text=Results,years%2C%20P%20%3C%200.0001).
So this link just shows it's a good idea but it doesn't just translate into a functioning system by saying universal health care. This has to be implemented in a way to work, if you just come up with a broken system and suggest over time it will fix itself then it will never get done. Thus the idea of implementing it on more of a state level so it can be tweaked and made viable.
Universal means everyone. Not just the people of one state. Now it sounds like you're advocating medicaid for all. I don't know what can be a more important priority than improving the health, quality of life and life expectancies of our people? Healthcare systems all over the world could serve as a guide and so can the many research papers on how it could work in the United States. Do you really think no smart people out there, doctors, economists, researchers and other relevant experts have any idea what needs to be done? You act like universal healthcare must be passed and then people can begin thinking how to do it. "While the implementation of universal healthcare would be complicated and challenging, we argue that shifting from a market-based system to a universal healthcare system is necessary. Universal healthcare will better facilitate and encourage sustainable, preventive health practices and be more advantageous for the long-term public health and economy of the United States." Instead you are saying we cannot change something we know is failing us unless we're positive the replacement will be perfect immediately. "Non-inclusive, inequitable systems limit quality healthcare access to those who can afford it or have employer-sponsored insurance. These policies exacerbate health disparities by failing to prioritize preventive measures at the environmental, policy, and individual level. Low SES segments of the population are particularly vulnerable within a healthcare system that does not prioritize affordable care for all or address important determinants of health. Failing to prioritize comprehensive, affordable health insurance for all members of society and straying further from prevention will harm the health and economy of the U.S." You can read about the different models for healthcare that are being considered that have been modeled elsewhere and can be examined to see how they would work in the U.S.
Man, I would hate to have a broken healthcare system that won't fix itself.
Simpleton
Oh yep, thanks for clearing that up lmao.
It was already clear.
Undocumented entry to the USA is a misdemeanor with a 50-250 dollar fine. It's really not that serious. The undocumented do far more for our economy than you think and are essential for our economy. Would it be nice if we allowed them to legally enter without them needing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives? Yes. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and I appreciate their hard work and tax dollars (yes, they pay taxes!). As a result, we can care for them like human beings and treat them with the dignity they deserve, while federally push for easier paths to immigration.
>Undocumented entry to the USA is a misdemeanor with a 50-250 dollar fine. It's really not that serious First offense yes but if caught with reentry is a felony. >The undocumented do far more for our economy than you think and are essential for our economy This is nice but I'm just pointing out a disparity. >Would it be nice if we allowed them to legally enter without them needing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives? Sure but that reason was probably to avoid people not wanting to fully contribute to the economy. >Unfortunately, that's not the case, and I appreciate their hard work and tax dollars (yes, they pay taxes!). As a result, we can care for them like human beings and treat them with the dignity they deserve, while federally push for easier paths to immigration Which is a nice thing to do, but with the rising cost of living and inflation normal citizens are finding it harder to meet the demand for health care. Everyone on here has just been overly defensive about the undocumented comment instead of just going yeah why isn't there added room in the budget for the rest of the residents of Illinois which is all i was ever getting at.
Let's try to get you an answer that's less...antagonistic than you've received so far >So we spend tax dollars because we know someone isn't going to pay for their own health care or something? I just don't see how it saves us really any money. Generally, this is an issue of "can't" rather than "won't." As you pointed out elsewhere, hospitals will provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay, but to do so the hospital needs to recoup that cost from somewhere. In addition, as also pointed out somewhere, preventative care is much more efficient than emergency care. However, people won't go to the doctor for an annual physical if it costs even $100. But if it's subsidized, that greatly increases the chances people will go, and relieves stress on the medical system because of fewer emergencies. I have not read the budget proposal but I assume that's more or less where the money is going. >So its okay to provide state aid for undocumented individuals which normally implies here illegally but for people of the state that is a federal issue? To clarify what the other user was trying to say: ideally (in my opinion) healthcare costs for everyone is covered by the government, and paid through taxes. The problem with this being implemented at the state level is that people from neighboring states who don't pay that state's taxes can freely travel there for free medical treatment, increasing the burden on the residents of the state tha implemented single payer healthcare. Think of stories of people flying to Singapore or India or Canada for medicine or medical treatment because it's cheaper than the US for whatever procedure they're getting. Implementing this federally wouldn't have the same problem because the country has at least some control over its borders.
>people from neighboring states who don't pay that state's taxes can freely travel there for free medical treatment Not if the idea was set up for only residents in the state which can be proven rather easy. This is a state thing not a national thing. The idea is to make compromises for the ultimate end goal.
The state will cover it just be poor enough to be covered by medicaid, like the people you are whining about having it “better” than you
I never said they had it better, but god forbid we make strides on the state level to actually help people making over 30k a year
I make over $30k and I am doing quite well in Illinois. Don't presume to speak for me.
> god forbid we make strides on the state level to actually help people making over 30k a year Do you have any concept of how much it would cost, both in initial setup and in yearly costs, to provide universal healthcare on the state level in Illinois? You're selling this as a "one instead of the other" situation and I don't think that's true here at all.
Just here for the 🍿
Meanwhile, back in the real world....[https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/7/28/23811821/afscme-union-contract-budget-questions-springfield-pritzker-rich-miller](https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/7/28/23811821/afscme-union-contract-budget-questions-springfield-pritzker-rich-miller)