Trump threatens to use "military version of eminent domain" to seize private property


#41

And see? You’re admitting that you’ve confused the issue.

Americans get treatment just the same way, you would get it yourself if you had no money. And you qualify for more, not less assistance than an illegal would. There are income streams available to Americans that they can’t use, hence why Medical repatriation is a thing.

Your actual objection is to a cost sharing mechanism that disproportionately puts the load on other patients, when it should be everyone pitching in. Because it’s everyone, through public authority, requiring hospitals to do this.


#42

And STILL, AS, you IGNORE the fact that illegals aren’t “entitled” to ANYTHING we routinely provide to citizens and legal residents. Nobody CARES that the costs of treating illegals are closing dozens of hospitals or at least their ERs…except those AMERICANS who might lose their lives because emergency services aren’t available any longer.


#43

No, you’re the one who is confused. You are confusing the popular conception (which might even be in line with the design) of how the system is supposed to work with how the system actually does work, or, more properly, gets worked.


#44

You’re one who claimed the illegals are getting something you can’t, when that’s false.

Hospitals are repatriating illegals, for the very reason that they qualify for less assistance that Americans get, no question.

Not because they’re feeling patriotic or even bound by law (indeed, them doing this is a gray area), but because, money.

The proof is in the action.


#45

I have NEVER claimed that illegals are getting something I can’t. Not once. Even though they most assuredly ARE. Just for example: I live in Oklahoma, but I can’t go down to Texas and enroll in any university and pay “in-State, resident tuition rates.” Illegals CAN.


#46

They have rules about residency, just like for anyone else. You can’t just pop in and get this, there has to be something tying you to the area.


#47

BS. Texas offers ILLEGAL ALIENS in-state tuition rates. They do NOT offer those to someone who is an American CITIZEN from another State.


#48

Yeah, the one who can show they’ve been living there for a while. Work history, bills, etc.

Residency is the requirement for in-state tuition, and it goes for everyone, illegals are not exempted.

I did not misspeak, you misunderstood Dave.


#49

Anyone here ILLEGALLY is not a “resident”. They are an invader and should be treated as such, not given special status.


#50

Of course, Slim, if you say so I should simply disbelieve my own lyin’ eyes :roll_eyes:


#51

I didn’t deny getting them something , but you proposed something even Milton Friedman tested.

He found, Illegals use less than legals, and legals use less than citizens.

Ultimately, welfare and social safety net spending is something you can track. Even if 100% of this spending on foreigners were all illegals, citizens would still be taking more.


#52

Gee! Citizens are vastly in the majority in this country (so far) and there are more legal immigrants than illegal invaders. Who would have imagined that citizens use more welfare than legal immigrants and both would use more than ILLEGAL invaders??? That’s a NONSENSE argument and AS SHOULD be smart enough to know it.


#53

Per person Dave. That’s what Milton Friedman hit upon.

That’s why he thought illegal immigration was, frankly, better. They’re overwhelming immigration to jobs, according to what he had done to study it.


#54

Friedman also classifies Medicare and Social Security as “welfare.” It’s not.


#55

He didn’t, I can explicitly show you where he separates welfare from social safety nets.

But my point is that, you keep pretending it’s just my own observations I’m offering here, when it’s not.

It’s observations made by right-wing economists, to include Friedman. And Sowell.