New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

i can't find it any more

Something similar wasn’t too hard to find:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/u...ant-labor.html

For years American corporations actively recruited workers in Mexico to come here on work visas, and then everyone got xenophobic when the demographic landscape shifted, and we suddenly decided to boot everyone out who had built a life here for years. It was messed up.

There is already a problem, and it will only get worse. Undocumented immigration is more of a benefit than a burden. We should have an easier path to citizenship and an easier path to getting work visas.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/califor...nough-workers/

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by bcj

"Them" are all fake now and are no longer human. Thanks.

Jim Crow continues unabated.

have you followed any of the google firing of their co-lead of AI, Timnit Gebru?

there's not a ton of factual info, but what is there seems to imply that she had a number of preconceived notions on racism and AI, that biased in the direction that she seemed to think that white people set up computers to discriminate against people of color. it seems she made a lot of demands(the demands and their specifics are murky at best though) that were somewhat related to this as well..

everyone loves to highlight white-on-black, but always seem to forget that it works the other way around as well.

i've come to the conclusion over the years working in a variety of different houses that different ethnicities are raised, taught, and encouraged/discouraged in extremely different ways. many of these methods are directly counter-intuitive to other ethnicities. it's a nice idea for us all to sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya, but the reality is that it will likely never happen. because the cultural divide is too great.

most recent example: back before covid, my pastors house was teepeed by the youth group. it was a fun prank for the kids, and the pastor had a good laugh over it. he thanked them for the months-supply of toilet paper.

a few days later, a black neighbor knocked on his door, and started apologizing for the local community and the horrific way they've treated him, and if he'd already filed a police report. it took a while for him to even understand what she was going on about, but finally realized that she was talking about the teepee job that had been done in fun.

they got to talking, and it came about that in her original culture, to cover someone's house like that was a sign of significant disgrace. to her, it would have been no worse to have burned a cross with the kids chanting around it in white hoods.

after white american culture was explained to her a little more, she started to relax some, and my pastor learned an aspect of another culture that he'd never heard of, or had ever even considered to exist. but once it was explained to him, he was the one apologizing and trying to better understand.

there are so many acceptable nuances like this to one culture that are flagrant acts of violence in other cultures that it's impossible not to brush up against them from time to time. because we are all so engrained in our individual beliefs being 'the right way', less and less we offer the patience and time to understand others beliefs and how they differ from our own. because of that the divide(label it racism if you want) between cultures only stands to grow, not shrink.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Because the two issues aren’t dependent. It is like saying shouldn’t we have an effective immigration policy before we decriminalize marijuana?

Not dependent but they definitely impact each other. I would argue more so that the two examples you cited.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The implications from this statement...

Rather presumptuous.

[bcj]

Originally Posted by soundman98

Because we are all so engrained in our individual beliefs being 'the right way', less and less we offer the patience and time to understand others beliefs and how they differ from our own. because of that the divide(label it racism if you want) between cultures only stands to grow, not shrink.

That is undiluted up front in your face racism.

Tp'ing someone's house has always been a visible social sign of disapproval and disgrace.
Still is today. No wonder she was morified.
The parish kids get a nudge nudge wink wink for wasting resources. Should have egged it too.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Not dependent but they definitely impact each other. I would argue more so that the two examples you cited.

Rather presumptuous.

If my presumptions were off, yet as you say, those issues impact each other, then how do they impact each other in ways different than my presumptions?

I should point that I did ask “why” in post 358. If you are going to ask “why not” in the next post then I can begin with whatever objections or presumptions may exist to answer that question you asked me.

Do you have any actual arguments against my points or the evidence provided or were you conceding the point? It is another false dichotomy.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by bcj

That is undiluted up front in your face racism.

Tp'ing someone's house has always been a visible social sign of disapproval and disgrace.
Still is today. No wonder she was morified.
The parish kids get a nudge nudge wink wink for wasting resources. Should have egged it too.

never has been to anyone i've known.. most people i know, it's a badge of honor that someone cares enough to spend the time doing it.

like i said. differences.

then there was the time years ago when i called overly-loud car subwoofers driving around 'ghetto blasters' online, as i've grown up with them being called that all around chicago, and someone wrote an entire book back to me about the jewish ghetto's and how out of turn i used the word.


the internet has brought us together, but has also torn us apart.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If my presumptions were off, yet as you say, those issues impact each other, then how do they impact each other in ways different than my presumptions?

I was referring to your comment ab the “implications” of my statement.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I should point that I did ask “why” in post 358. If you are going to ask “why not” in the next post then I can begin with whatever objections or presumptions may exist to answer that question you asked me.

That’s your prerogative but if you’d like to know why presumptions are riddled with flaws, common sense is a good start. It led you down a lengthy tangent that I wasn’t arguing. I actually agree that America is a land of immigrants as well. I’m very interested in your perspective on how many immigrants should be allowed in each year? Or if there shouldn’t be limits at all?

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Do you have any actual arguments against my points or the evidence provided or were you conceding the point? It is another false dichotomy.

See above and reread what you quoted me. I’ll take a false dichotomy over presumptions. However action versus inaction isn’t a false dichotomy.

I’m not talking ab the benefits of people contributing to society I’m talking ab the concept that if you’re a permanent resident of this country you should be paying taxes just as everyone else. Is the system expensive and drawn out? Yes, do you think we should fix that? Or just be perpetually kicking the can down to the next person? You seem to be arguing in support of the latter because the economical benefits. My research suggests that half of undocumented immigrants are (not) paying taxes. So if billions are being paid in taxes then billions are not.

https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...ted-immigrants

You seem to believe that private insurance companies are fronting the bill for uninsured patients but we’ve covered this: the federal state and local government cover between 75-85% of the bill (taxes). If you’re making an income and not paying income taxes while also using a system that is funded by tax payers then you’re part of the problem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221653/

I don’t believe there are any impacts of illegal immigration on the legalization of marijuana at least on a national level.

[nextcar]

Originally Posted by soundman98

never has been to anyone i've known.. most people i know, it's a badge of honor that someone cares enough to spend the time doing it.

like i said. differences.

then there was the time years ago when i called overly-loud car subwoofers driving around 'ghetto blasters' online, as i've grown up with them being called that all around chicago, and someone wrote an entire book back to me about the jewish ghetto's and how out of turn i used the word.


the internet has brought us together, but has also torn us apart.

Perhaps there are regional aspects to this too...

When I was in Jr High and High school, TP'ing was almost exclusively done on a boy/girl basis... e.g. a girl and her friends TP'ing a boys home or a boy TP'ing a girl's... and more often than not there was a crush involved.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I know a lot of farmers but I generally don’t ask them ab the workers’ citizenship status.

Don’t you think it’s a problem that there are those with 3-4 SSNs? Shouldn’t we do something ab it?

I’m not arguing for booting people out who are just trying to make a living. Im arguing that if people are wanting to roll out a system that will give citizens free healthcare, don’t you think we should have an effective immigration policies first. I do.

No. Why do you?

Originally Posted by Tomm

I was referring to your comment ab the “implications” of my statement.

That’s your prerogative but if you’d like to know why presumptions are riddled with flaws, common sense is a good start. It led you down a lengthy tangent that I wasn’t arguing. I actually agree that America is a land of immigrants as well. I’m very interested in your perspective on how many immigrants should be allowed in each year? Or if there shouldn’t be limits at all?

See above and reread what you quoted me. I’ll take a false dichotomy over presumptions. However action versus inaction isn’t a false dichotomy.

My post quoted you and contained a quote from someone else. My response wasn't entirely directed at you. It was addressing the false dichotomy statement that we need to fix immigration before rolling out M4A. This is never a statement about resources and priorities; there isn't any popular discourse on the issue of whether we have the time, means, resources, etc for tackling healthcare reform and immigration reform. What is popularized is the false dichotomy that if we don't first address immigration then when we go to M4A then healthcare costs will balloon out of proportion because immigrants will use free healthcare. This is the narrative that has linked immigration and M4A. Do you have an alternative?

As far as how many immigrants should we allow each year, that number will fluctuate based on a lot of things such as the market needs, population growth, resources, etc. I don't really have a problem with opening a wide path for legal immigration.

Originally Posted by Tomm

I’m not talking ab the benefits of people contributing to society I’m talking ab the concept that if you’re a permanent resident of this country you should be paying taxes just as everyone else. Is the system expensive and drawn out? Yes, do you think we should fix that? Or just be perpetually kicking the can down to the next person? You seem to be arguing in support of the latter because the economical benefits. My research suggests that half of undocumented immigrants are (not) paying taxes. So if billions are being paid in taxes then billions are not.

https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...ted-immigrants

You are repeating what I already quoted from the article I posted, that 50-75% of illegal immigrants pay taxes. They are paying into social security, yet they never get to collect that money. The pay into medicare, and they will never get to use medicare when they turn 65. The other 25-50% who don't pay taxes probably would pay taxes if we gave them a path to pay taxes without recourse from ICE or with a way for them to pay some taxes, but not have to pay for programs they will never get to use. You also seem to miss the Texas example where the benefits from illegal immigration exceeded the social costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Do we need immigration reform? Yes. Do I see an ethical argument for everyone paying their fair share? Of course, but immigrants are often receiving the short end of the stick, so I'm not so quick to point a finger in their direction. The fact is we are benefiting more from them then they are costing us, so yes, we should have immigration reform, but there is no argument for why immigration reform needs to precede healthcare reform.

Originally Posted by Tomm

You seem to believe that private insurance companies are fronting the bill for uninsured patients but we’ve covered this: the federal state and local government cover between 75-85% of the bill (taxes). If you’re making an income and not paying income taxes while also using a system that is funded by tax payers then you’re part of the problem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221653/

I don’t believe there are any impacts of illegal immigration on the legalization of marijuana at least on a national level.

Private insurance is fronting the bulk of the costs. In our current system, without private insurance payers, hospitals would operate in the red if all they had was uninsured, underinsured and medicare/medicaid/medical patients.

There are three types of patients: patients with private insurance, patients with government insurance and patients with no insurance. Payments received from private insurance exceed the cost to operate. Payments from the government leave a hospital in the red. Payments from uninsured patients leave a hospital deep in the red.

Ex: A barbershop needs to charge each customer $15 for a haircut to break even with operating costs, overhead, etc and to have a little profit for growth, reinvestment, etc. The government insured customer comes in and says that they have calculated that $12 is the break even point, so that is all they are going to pay because it is fair. The uninsured/underinsured customer comes in and pays nothing today, but sometimes pays $2-5. A private insured customer comes in and leaves with a payment of $15 plus a tip to cover the other guys of $15 for a total of $30.

Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies.

The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively.

For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies.

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-b...he-literature/

Again, the point is that illegal immigrants already have access to use the hospitals, and people are paying for it in the form of private insurance and taxes, so transitioning into a M4A system doesn't instantly create a new financial burden from illegal immigrants using a system they weren't previously using because they currently are using it. If anything, the costs will go down according to 22 studies, as I posted.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

No. Why do you?

Because of what I said.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

My post quoted you and contained a quote from someone else. My response wasn't entirely directed at you. It was addressing the false dichotomy statement that we need to fix immigration before rolling out M4A. This is never a statement about resources and priorities; there isn't any popular discourse on the issue of whether we have the time, means, resources, etc for tackling healthcare reform and immigration reform. What is popularized is the false dichotomy that if we don't first address immigration then when we go to M4A then healthcare costs will balloon out of proportion because immigrants will use free healthcare. This is the narrative that has linked immigration and M4A. Do you have an alternative?

Gotcha, I thought your were linking the two arguments. I don’t think it will balloon out of proportion but I think it would have impacts. I’m pretty moderate when it comes to immigration reform. As I said, I think America is a land of immigrants as long as everyone is paying their part (taxes).

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

As far as how many immigrants should we allow each year, that number will fluctuate based on a lot of things such as the market needs, population growth, resources, etc. I don't really have a problem with opening a wide path for legal immigration.

Interesting, since Germany was previously mentioned and has universal healthcare, has anyone looked into their immigration laws? If I recall correctly, it’s pretty strict. I’m less concerned ab market needs and more ab resources.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You are repeating what I already quoted from the article I posted, that 50-75% of illegal immigrants pay taxes. They are paying into social security, yet they never get to collect that money. The pay into medicare, and they will never get to use medicare when they turn 65. The other 25-50% who don't pay taxes probably would pay taxes if we gave them a path to pay taxes without recourse from ICE or with a way for them to pay some taxes, but not have to pay for programs they will never get to use. You also seem to miss the Texas example where the benefits from illegal immigration exceeded the social costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Do we need immigration reform? Yes. Do I see an ethical argument for everyone paying their fair share? Of course, but immigrants are often receiving the short end of the stick, so I'm not so quick to point a finger in their direction. The fact is we are benefiting more from them then they are costing us, so yes, we should have immigration reform, but there is no argument for why immigration reform needs to precede healthcare reform.

No, I’m stating the same statistic from a different perspective. The findings I had, which I posted, showed that the number was closer to 50% - not a 25% range. There is absolutely an argument. Considering the US has more immigrants than any other country, it has significant impacts. So I would ask, how do you provide blanket healthcare coverage to a country with minimal border restrictions? Here is an interesting read on how European countries (with universal healthcare) have handled their unauthorized immigrants with regard to health care.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sit...intl_brief.pdf

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Private insurance is fronting the bulk of the costs. In our current system, without private insurance payers, hospitals would operate in the red if all they had was uninsured, underinsured and medicare/medicaid/medical patients.

There are three types of patients: patients with private insurance, patients with government insurance and patients with no insurance. Payments received from private insurance exceed the cost to operate. Payments from the government leave a hospital in the red. Payments from uninsured patients leave a hospital deep in the red.

Ex: A barbershop needs to charge each customer $15 for a haircut to break even with operating costs, overhead, etc and to have a little profit for growth, reinvestment, etc. The government insured customer comes in and says that they have calculated that $12 is the break even point, so that is all they are going to pay because it is fair. The uninsured/underinsured customer comes in and pays nothing today, but sometimes pays $2-5. A private insured customer comes in and leaves with a payment of $15 plus a tip to cover the other guys of $15 for a total of $30.

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-b...he-literature/

Again, the point is that illegal immigrants already have access to use the hospitals, and people are paying for it in the form of private insurance and taxes, so transitioning into a M4A system doesn't instantly create a new financial burden from illegal immigrants using a system they weren't previously using because they currently are using it. If anything, the costs will go down according to 22 studies, as I posted.

I understand that, we have discussed this before. I was being specific to uninsured patients. The answer is in the link I provided but just over halfway down.

[Jordanwolf]

What has this thread become, Jesus christ.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Interesting, since Germany was previously mentioned and has universal healthcare, has anyone looked into their immigration laws? If I recall correctly, it’s pretty strict. I’m less concerned ab market needs and more ab resources.

This interview has a lot of points for proponents of immigration as it pertains to a declining birth rate, an aging population, a need for economic support, etc.

Currently, 25% of the people living in Germany are either immigrants, or first or second-generation descendants of immigrants.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-needs-...ist/a-51158216

Originally Posted by Tomm

No, I’m stating the same statistic from a different perspective. The findings I had, which I posted, showed that the number was closer to 50% - not a 25% range. There is absolutely an argument. Considering the US has more immigrants than any other country, it has significant impacts. So I would ask, how do you provide blanket healthcare coverage to a country with minimal border restrictions? Here is an interesting read on how European countries (with universal healthcare) have handled their unauthorized immigrants with regard to health care.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sit...intl_brief.pdf

What you are talking about is fairness, which I agreed that we should make it fair by having illegal immigrants pay taxes by giving them an easy path to pay taxes without recourse. I think a lot of people should pay more taxes who don't. I think we should be more concerned about billionaires and corporations not paying taxes or paying super low taxes than about getting $5k in taxes from an illegal immigrant. Regardless, I get the ethical point, but just so we are clear, are you getting the point that we are better off with immigrants than without, even if 50% aren't paying taxes? If you aren't then you can think of it like Walmart or Target having leakage (employee and customer theft); even if leakage is a problem that is worth improving, it is far better to stay in business because the profits exceed the losses from leakage. Similarly, we are benefiting more from immigrants than we are losing.

And to tie this back on topic, and to reiterate, healthcare reform is not dependent on immigration reform. Like I mentioned before, just because someone is an immigrant in Germany, doesn't mean they will get a knee replacement. That article you linked pretty much says just that, that countries limit healthcare resources for immigrants to emergency services, preventative clinics and screenings, and to other systems that benefit the state. For instance, the quote I provided earlier showed that prenatal screening and services saves the state money. Similarly, screening immigrants for HIV or VD would save the state money, so why not do that? Just like collecting social security requires a valid social security card, etc., higher levels of care for things like a knee replacement in a M4A system would require documents like a social security card or state/country issued healthcare card, but emergency services and clinics might not ask for anything more than a copay or whatever the system dictates for M4A.

There is a part of my that is an idealist, but more often, I fall to pragmatic or realist thinking. People like to have the moral or ethical debates about the fairness of paying for other people or about the immorality of something like supporting needle exchange programs because it suggests we support drug use, but I'm much more pragmatic that whatever works, works. Not so much that the ends justify the means, but that there is only so much we can do to get to an idealistic place on issues. Thus, we need to be pragmatic. Like the example above, ideally, demand and supply of drugs wouldn't exist, but we have both and will never get rid of both, so we need to be pragmatic. On point, we will always have illegal immigration, so we should work on solutions that creates success, instead of trying to forever control something that can't be controlled. The war on drugs is a great example of pouring money into something that has no chance of ending. Similarly, the war on immigrants is not necessary and unfounded, it is not productive, it has harmed more than it has helped, and in the end, we will be worse off if it continues.

Originally Posted by Tomm

I understand that, we have discussed this before. I was being specific to uninsured patients. The answer is in the link I provided but just over halfway down.

I read your link. It talked about how uninsured payments are covered. While there are many people contributing to pay their bill, ultimately, the billed amount and money recovered does not pay for the cost of their visit, which is why private insurance is paying 200% of what medicare pays. Regardless, the point is we already pay for illegal immigrants, so we should just do it more effectively with M4A.

[86MLR]

.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf

What has this thread become, Jesus christ.

What has this thread not become is Jesus Christ, but we have covered everything else. Here: