this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
132 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3687 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Days after California became the first state in the nation to offer Medi-Cal to all low-income undocumented residents, a Republican lawmaker introduced a controversial measure to stop future health care funding for the group.

The legislation was authored last week by Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Corona, a first-term lawmaker who has been outspoken on conservative issues.

The bill’s introduction comes days before Gov. Gavin Newsom would present his plan for closing the state’s $68 billion budget deficit. Newsom has repeatedly cited his commitment to protecting the expansion, which is estimated to cost $4 billion per year.

“This is my way of signaling that it should be the first thing to get cut from the budget before we start cutting into education or health care for Californians or other things that are going to be very tough to cut,” Essayli said. “This should be the first.”

Essayli’s measure, Assembly Bill 1783, came in response to California expanding eligibility of Medi-Cal to all low-income undocumented residents. On Jan. 1, the state opened eligibility to undocumented adults 26 to 49 — the last remaining age group to be included.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Give it to all the rest of your citizens too

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

100%. I get fined $700 every year by CA for not having health insurance, because it's cheaper to pay that than some $500/month for bullshit "coverage" that basically is pissing money away just to say I have insurance that doesn't cover a damn thing outside catastrophic accidents. It's a fucking scam.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Can't you just say you have insurance and skip the fine? Do they actually check? A very close friend of mine got away with it for years before getting covered at work.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, you can. You always have a choice. It’s just that tax fraud is almost always the wrong choice. You don’t fuck with the IRS. Even if you get away with it for a while, there’s a non zero chance you get audited and have to pay fines out the ass, at best. At worst you’re facing jail time on top of that fine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Does the IRS care? They aren't doing fines anymore, just CA and a few other states. I looked but couldn't find reports of anyone ever being prosecuted for lying about coverage, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Actually, that’s a fair point. I believe you still report the status to the IRS which means you could incur a fine. But your states DOR has similar methods as the IRS.

That said… Even if you don’t get caught that year, you have it looming over your head criminally until the statute of limitations, and civilly for the rest of your life.

TLDR: Just don’t do it. It’s really not worth it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think it's probably worth it. CA has employers reporting the coverage they provide, and they know who's buying through their marketplace, but I can't see how they'd prove you didn't get coverage somewhere else if you told them you did. The only way I could see getting caught would be if you went to the ER and they ratted you out for not having coverage, but you could just give them a fake name to avoid that. If you're like me, then you're optimistic about the future and any fine that would eventually be assessed will be easier to deal with than paying one now. Plus future fines are in post-inflation dollars, so that helps too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

? You not having proof of coverage is enough proof.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But they don't ask for proof of coverage, so they'd have to suspect you somehow before they could ask for proof

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Yes, as with a lot of things to do with auditing you’re unlikely to actually be caught for small stuff. It’s the getting caught disproportionately fucking your life over that’s the deterrent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Eh I'd rather just pay the fine and not have to worry about it. Like I said, it's cheaper to just pay the $700 than to pay out $6000 for insurance that doesn't do anything, and I don't have to trip on getting caught.