Like the Irish?
Or the Polish?
Or other waves of immigrants?

>>"Studies that I've read indicate that illegals just "suck it up" when they need medical attention, and not go to an ER "

Not true at all, hospitals can't inquire about status and we spend billions on free medical.<<

This was the general "method" of the study I read about 3 years ago. I believe it was reported in a medical journal.

1. They took a survey of the people receiving "free" (taxpayor paid) medical work at a hospital in an area with a high % of illegals.

2. They took a survey of a similar hospital, but with very few illegals in the area.

3. Social/economic conditions were the same in both regions.

4. The hospital in the region with lots of illegals actually had a lower rate of free medical work (per regional population) than hospital #2.

So - you say that this was a flawed report from the medical journal???

And you're also telling me that my close friend the Emergency Room Doctor (of over 35 years) is wrong??? He worked for a long time at St Lukes Hospital in San Francisco in the 70s. This region in SF (the Mission) has a high % of illegals.

You sound like Dick Chaney - if some facts don't match your ideology - the facts must be wrong.

BTW - somehow the people in Silicone Valley invented some pretty amazing stuff - despite their hands being tied by our Socialist state.

Back to travel - enough of this !!!!!


Stu Dudley

Hi, Stu!

Welcome to the Lounge!

LOL!

Interesting conversation! Thanks!

Oh, they moved it! Now the visitors will never know and bang on the gates of Ross in vain.

Well I am with corli on this topic. Remember the operative word is ILLEGAL. Take a ticket, get in line! There are millions of people who would do anything to come here... legally. I really and truly dislike queue jumpers. Don't you?

I beg to disagree.

The operative word here is DISCRIMINATION.

As a legal immigrant, I dislike queue jumpers too. Corli's position, though, is the default position of everyone who wants all those 12 million illegals shipped home immediately. They are supposedly to blame for everything including the weather and possibly the sub prime housing market. What is pitiful is that people who have no personal knowledge of illegals in California will not listen to those who know more than they do. When people remain so determined, up against logic and fact, then we are wandering into the area of discrimination as easytraveler said. And, a lot of illegals have gone home. They come here to work so that they can support their families, and they do work hard, but many of the jobs they do have disappeared with the recession. Just recently, I read a news story about there being concern that farmers won't be able to find enough migrant workers to pick their fruit this year.

How is wanting to control our borders discrimination? A country has a right to know or control, who comes here.

"I have nothing against legal immigration. It's just that it should be in small assimable numbers, not en masse."

I agree. And all illegals should be sent home.

For years, California's governors, the legislature and its citizens have been playing games with the budget, spending evermore, and using gimmicks to pay for it. Now, the game is over. The state can't borrow any more money or play anymore sleight of hands games with the budget, and unless something changes won't be able to pay its bills in July.

Add in California's progressive income tax system, severely affected by the recession and the revenue stream can't keep up with what Californians want to spend. The current deficit is around $24 billion in one of the highest taxed states in the country.

Currently, education and health and welfare make up around 80% of the general fund budget. They are both going to get whacked. The state has already given lay off notices to employees, furloughed many, and plans like closing state parks and raising fees for all types of services are being thrown on the table. What did people expect to happen?

Yet despite all the doom and gloom, Californians remain overwhelmingly opposed to raising taxes further, unless of course, they are paid by someone other than themselves. The problem is - there isn't anyone else to pay them.

ET, I think, despite the short-term pain, this will be good for CA in the long run. It will allow them to set priorities and assign a value to what is important.

I really have to laugh when some of you cry "SOCIALISM"... wow...you mean when workers get over a month paid vacation? When there is free medical care for everyone? When schools and higher education is also available to all citizens? When the roads are good and well paved? When libraries are open?? I sure don't mind paying taxes for that.
But for you who decry Socialism, its a comfort to me to know you won't be taking any social security money, since its also a "socialist" program......

"But for you who decry Socialism, its a comfort to me to know you won't be taking any social security money, since its also a "socialist" program......"

And exactly what logic do you use to propose that a person not seek a return of some of the mandatory contributions he had been required to make to SS.

Dayenu - thank you for bringing up this subject about the California State Parks closure.

I would like to add that for every one dollar spent out of the California General Fund on the parks, the parks earn about $2.35 on day use passes, etc., that goes back into the General Fund.

So, by closing these parks, the politicians will show a $70,000 drop in expenses, but will have a $164,500 drop in income.

We wonder why California's broke - it's because the politicians can't do simple math.

Update:

Yesterday, the Budget Conference Committee voted for the elimination of General Fund Support for California State Parks.

On the positive side, the Committee also voted for a $15 surcharge on non-commercial vehicles in exchange for free day-use access to State Parks for California plated vehicles. This fee will keep the State Parks open and running while reducing the State Budget by $70 million.

For California residents, this "State Park Access Pass" fee will pay for itself within 1 to 3 visits of a State Park. Just locally for me, Folsom Lake Recreation Area is currently about $8 for day-use access. With just 2 visits, I have recouped my annual fee. After that, I'm saving money. As a side benefit, I will no longer have to have cash on hand to pay the access fee. I will also no longer have to deal with those stupid little tickets on my dash to prove I paid, my California license plate is my proof.

I think this is a great idea and long overdue and I have sent a message to my State Senator and Assembly Member.

You can get more information and send messages to your state representatives from the Save Our State Parks website:
http://www.savestateparks.org/

Or here is a link directly to an email you can send: http://ga3.org/campaign/budget_spap09

That's a great idea. Maybe more people will use the parks now, although I'm not sure if that's good or bad! It'll make parking at the beach virtually free.

Even if one does not generally go to our California State Parks I don't think that an additional $15.00 fee for our CA license registration is going to be a big burden on most people and IF it will keep our state parks open it will certainly be money well spent.

Now I know some will say very low income people will be hurt by having to pay the $15.00 additional for their car registration. But perhaps those same people could or would take advantage of visiting our beautiful state parks in that they won't have to pay the day-use access fee.

Barbara - I thought about that also. This concept of the "Pass" was originally researched and proposed for 2008/2009. The Department of Parks and Recreation says it will be good for our State Parks even with the increase in usage.

Part of that is simply that with greater visibility INSIDE California, it will provide greater visibility OUTSIDE of the State. That will bring more money into the State economy as a whole.