For many of us nervously eying the state budget negotiations, perhaps the most unsettling proposal on the table is an elimination of Medi-Cal benefits for recent, legal immigrants. That's L-E-G-A-L immigrants. Permanent residents, actually. Here in the US for less than 5 years. Playing by all the rules.
Except, of course, for Rule No. 189A-2 of the Federal Arbitrary and Inequitable Statutes of 1996, which says, in relevant part, that "unless you've been here for 5 years it's probably not a good idea to be poor because you're not likely to get any help with your healthcare."
Okay, as savvy readers know, technically there's no such rule. But essentially there is. And it's the unfair singling out of immigrants that's so unsettling to those of us in the community healthcare world.
Because obviously there's no public health rationale for segmenting out recent immigrants from otherwise identical not-so-recent immigrants (or anyone else, for that matter) and blocking them from primary healthcare. And the whole thing smacks of the same anti-immigrant fervor that's characterized legislative ridiculousness in Arizona and rhetorical ridiculousness on the California gubernatorial campaign trail this year. Which is concerning.
Which is why this blog post from Henry Fernandez of the Center For American Progress Action Fund - which discusses the political Downside of beating up on immigrants - was so encouraging to read.
So there's your shot of optimism for the day. Enjoy!
Comments