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

politics

19125 readers
4702 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

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] 1 points 9 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 9 months ago (1 children)

? You not having proof of coverage is enough proof.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 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 9 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.