In one, you relocate your life, your job, your family, and leave behind old friends to make new.
In the other, you are just going through the steps to attain legal residence.
Pretty much. Depends on how generous the state is. If they won’t let anyone die, regardless of what state they are from, then that’s all they need to do. If they need actual residency, then all that takes is to rent an apartment and a visit the the DMV. As you currently cannot deny benefits based on how long someone has been a resident, you could be receiving health benefits the same day you move in.
Can you really tell me that if you had no insurance, and were diagnosed with something that was going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat, and there was a state that would treat you for basically free, you would not do exactly this?
Of course I would. But I would also move from some shitty state into another one with a better job outlook and many people don’t do that.
Like I said, Maryland Medicaid covers single people with low income even if they don’t have children. There HAVE to be single people throughout the country that currently don’t have insurance. Why are they not moving to Maryland?
For instance, according to this site there are 4.3 million people in Texas that don’t have insurance. A lot of them could move to Maryland and get Medicaid. Why don’t they?
Yes. The Federal government should provide a job relocation tax deduction to help people move to a new area to start a new job. Yay! They already do that.
These people are probably qualified in their home state already.
We are talking about a slight improvement, where people are not going to leave everything behind, as opposed to an actual UHC that actually covers its residents well.
And do you not think that there are some number of people that do leave texas, specifically because of it’s lack of healthcare?
Are we talking about relocation assistance in order to go to a state with better healthcare? If that is the case, I think that you have missed part of this conversation.
If you are talking about how, in a thread about whether we should be trying to bring jobs to the poor rural areas, or if we should be trying to move poor rural people to where there are jobs, I mentioned that relocation assistance would be beneficial, as many do not have the resources for such a move, if their primary concern is that they do not have a job to support their family, and they wish to move to a place that will have a job to support their family, but that has little to do with this thread, other than Manson’s implication that I didn’t think that people should move to where jobs were.
There is a residency requirement for MA. You need to secure residency before applying for health insurance, which means competing with a lot of other interested parties for available homes. And you’d have no idea what your health insurance is going to cost or what it covers, because you don’t live here yet and can’t apply.
An that’s why I said implication, and I don’t even know if it were an intentional implication, but as you were responding to me, while at the same time, claiming that there were those who felt that way… I was concerned that there may be others who would pick up on that idea.
In any event, we are talking about why I think it would be impossible for one state to come up with the perfect healthcare plan that covered everyone at little cost to the patient, without the rest of the states acting as a free rider, and bankrupting the system.
Any system either needs to have the majority of states participating, needs to be federally based, or needs to be rather cruel towards those who do not live in the state.
Some justices more or less forthrigthly admit that they are basing their decisions on things besides the text of the law: “The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”
You need just a bit more straw for that argument. Even if I thought Brown was wrongly decided, which I don’t, nearly 70 years of precedent argue for keeping it. Simply nobody wants a return to segregated schools. Same with Loving, Powell, and Gitlow.
I’m not sure why McDonald is in this list of horribles. It is consistent with the substantive due process jurisprudence of the Court that personal rights are incorporated against the states under the 14th amendment. A right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights should certaintly get that treatment. There is WAY more support for McDonald than Lawrence or Obergefell.
Because as you admit, the guys that wrote the 14th amendment didn’t mean that. That much is clear. If Section 1 was as broad as you claim, why did Section 2 specifically allow states to restrict the votes, to males only without penalty, and to white males only with a representation penalty?
Doesn’t reading Section 1 and Section 2 together suggest that the law is not as broad as the current jurisprudence allows? There would be no need for the 15th or 19th (or possibly even the 26th) amendments if such a broad application was proper.
It’s not a “reflection of our society” that the 14th amendment was never thought to provide for same sex marriage, when you concede that was never the purpose of it.
Yes. However the results of those cases are unquestionably right for our modern society, and have been a part of society for years before I was born. Private expectations have arisen from them and we structure our lives around the fact that those things are settled law.
If I was on the Supreme Court and read the original debates over the 14th amendment and became convinced (again, I’m not) that Brown was wrongly decided, and I convinced four of my colleagues to rule in the same way, it would be a disaster for the country. Hopefully it would be a meaningless disaster as no state legislature today would reimpose segregated schools.
What has been long settled should not be overturned on de novo review based upon abstract legal principles. I believe that Scalia and Bork both agreed with this position.
So if we just wait 30 years then you’ll be fine with gay marriage as it will then be “settled law”? What makes law settled besides just time in your view?
All those cases were decided on a non-originalist reading of the 14th, which you stated almost immediately after, you don’t support. Which is it, an originalist reading or a textual one? Make up your mind.
As I said above, it is not simply time by itself, but the private expectations that have built up around these decisions. The scope of the commerce clause is far beyond what the framers intended, but going through and trying to eliminate the FDA, civil rights laws, social security, etc would be laughable.
People expect that the freedom in the Bill of Rights apply to their state governments. The doctrine of substantive due process is a dangerous legal fiction, but it has been around for more than 100 years and has provided a source of rights for people as a protection against government. When it is properly applied, it is a good doctrine, even if the framers of the 14th amendment were surely only talking about process.
Stability in the law is also important. You don’t want decisions changing whenever Justices change. So, let’s say Kennedy retires next year and Trump nominates Pryor to take his seat. I do not believe it would be appropriate to take a case and overturn Obergefell on a 5-4 vote.
So, I’m not entirely sure what you are asking except to get me in some sort of trap because I refuse to tear out long settled precedent root and branch, consequences be damned, just to show my fidelity to original intent.
I mourn the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment. I hold out hope that Slaughterhouse can one day be overturned, but I don’t see a realistic avenue for that.
Can you explain that for me? I saw that come up in my minimal research, but I don’t really understand the significance of it.
Also, as the the originalist reading of the 14th, I can’t give a damn what the intent was. The words are there. Use the words. Everything else is subjective.
Even if I thought Brown was wrongly decided, which I don’t, nearly 70 years of precedent argue for keeping it. Simply nobody wants a return to segregated schools. Same with Loving, Powell, and Gitlow.