New poll reveals majority of Californians oppose this key benefit for illegal immigrants

A majority of Californians oppose providing healthcare coverage for adults who are in the United States illegally, despite the Golden State currently offering it.
The Public Policy Institute of California survey revealed that 58% opposed and 41% of those polled were in favor of the policy. The move took effect last year to allow people to enroll in Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid that takes taxpayer dollars, "regardless of immigration status."
According to the pollster, a majority of those surveyed used to support the idea from 2015-2023.
Illegal Immigrant Healthcare Costs In Blue State Triggers Intense Budget Debate
The Medi-Cal program went insolvent this spring, as it required billions in loans to keep it afloat. The governor's office proposed changes like an "enrollment freeze" and a $100 monthly payment for "individuals with certain statuses" on Medi-Cal.
However, some of those changes are unlikely to move forward in the Democratic supermajority legislature, according to CalMatters. According to the legislature's budget proposal, Democratic leadership is backing possibly creating a $30 monthly payment instead of $100 for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status" beginning in 2027, which would make some changes to the "enrollment freeze" that could start in 2026.
Read On The Fox News App
The legislature also proposes scrapping the governor's proposed $2,000 asset limit pitch for Medi-Cal participants and instead would bring it back to $130,000.
Newsom Proposes Freeze On Allowing Adult Illegal Immigrants To Join California's Medicaid Program
Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, told Fox News Digital that the percentage of Californians opposing providing healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants may be even higher.
Click Here For More Immigration Coverage
"This debate is not about 'Should we provide healthcare to illegals or not?' because that's a false question. The bigger question is, should we provide free taxpayer funding to illegal immigrants and not have enough money and jeopardize services for citizens who are the neediest among us relying on Medicare?" DeMaio said. "That's the real debate. And this poll doesn't even capture that."
"The Democrat position is a lot worse than this poll even suggests," he continued.
Newsom's office previously attributed the issues with Medi-Cal to broader economic concerns.
Lawmakers Reveal Whether Americans Should Pick Up The Medicaid Tab For Illegal Immigrants
"Governor Newsom proposed adjustments in the 2025-2026 budget that will allow California to preserve our commitment to immigrant communities, protect coverage for millions of Californians, and preserve the strength of our values and health care system," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Fox News Digital. "To be very clear, these proposals are the results of a $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization."
Fox News Digital reached out to the California Latino Legislative Caucus about the poll. The caucus has continuously raised concerns about the impact of Medi-Cal reform on immigrants.
On the federal level, the reconciliation bill currently in Congress could also impact states that provide Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants.Original article source: New poll reveals majority of Californians oppose this key benefit for illegal immigrants

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Post

an hour ago

• New York Post

Mayor Adams expected to hold re-election campaign kickoff event Thursday: ‘Major announcement'

Mayor Eric Adams is expected to hold a re-election campaign kickoff event Thursday, two days after the city's Democratic mayoral primaries close. Hizzoner will make a 'major announcement about the future of his re-election campaign' at the event, according to sources from his campaign. The announcement will be held on the steps of City Hall at noon and will include 'hundreds' of supporters, sources said. Mayor Eric Adams is holding an event for a 'major announcement' about his re-election bid on Thursday William Farrington Adams, 64, will be running for re-election as an independent following a tumultuous year in office, which saw him accused of corruption before the historic case was dropped by the Trump administration. He blamed the long duration of the 'bogus' case for tanking any hopes of campaigning for the primary and still insists he is a Democrat, but has been indicating a split from the party for several months. The city's Democratic primary will close Tuesday, with former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Democratic socialist Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani battling out for the nomination amidst a large field of contenders. Adams is running on the line 'safe streets, affordable city,' arguing that those are the two areas New Yorkers are most concerned about. 'Those are the issues that are important to New Yorkers,' Adams told 1010Wins in April. 'They want a safe city. They want an affordable city. And I want them to know that is what I produced for them.' An Adams aide also may have violated city laws while publicizing the Thursday event after they blasted out a message promoting it from their government email, the Daily News reported. Local law prohibits city employees from using municipal resources for 'political activity,' the city's Conflicts of Interest Board states. The aide later told the Daily News they 'accidentally' sent the message from the wrong email account while multitasking.

Forbes

3 hours ago

• Forbes

Price Controls On Doctors Are Costing Patients Dearly

Market Manipulation Just like the December 2024 continuing resolution, the current budget reconciliation bill fails to address the problem of Medicare reimbursing physicians at below market rates. Without a fix, the inevitable consequences will be worsening doctor shortages, declining healthcare quality, higher overall healthcare spending, and the accelerated loss of independent practices. Of course, how do we know that Medicare's payments to doctors are below their economic value? To start, Medicare's reimbursement rates have declined relative to both the cost of running a medical practice and inflation. Doctors consistently report that they lose money treating Medicare patients. A survey of doctors found that Medicare's low reimbursement rates (68%) are a primary threat to independent practices. As for inflation, it has grown 34.5% overall since January 2016 while the prices received by doctors have grown less than half as much - just 15.1%. This is not due to demand for healthcare declining – remember the huge number of aging Baby Boomers seeking health care – or a huge surge in the number of qualified doctors serving patients. In fact, the level of doctors serving patients today - 25.4 active physicians per 10,000 residents - is down from 2019 and has fallen back to 2009 levels. The problem is government setting prices at below market levels. And setting prices below market rates cause adverse consequences to our health, such as fewer doctors available to serve patients. This creates serious health risks for patients including longer wait times for appointments, less access to specialty care, shorter doctor visits, larger numbers of medical errors, and more misdiagnoses or missed diagnoses. These risks are more acute for people living in rural areas, who have a higher chance of living in areas deemed 'medical deserts' or regions that lack sufficient access to pharmacies, primary care providers, and hospitals. Medicare's uneconomical reimbursement system is also changing how patient care is delivered. For example, under the current reimbursement system, Medicare compensates hospitals more than independent physician offices for performing the same service. This incentivizes independent practices to merge with hospitals. Consolidating lower-cost physician practices into higher-cost hospital systems is driving up overall healthcare costs for patients and taxpayers and is reducing patient choice. Congress has acknowledged that there are serious consequences from government price controls, enacting legislation to raise provider payments by 2.9% for most of 2024. But these payments went back down on January 1, and the problem continues to plague the healthcare system. Fixing Medicare's flawed reimbursement policy should be a top priority for Congress. The more efficient reform comprehensively addresses Medicare's broader deficiencies by turning Medicare into a cash-based benefit system that funds health savings accounts (HSAs) for seniors. This direct payment option allows beneficiaries to receive their Medicare benefits in the same manner that they receive their Social Security benefits. At current spending levels, Medicare could give each beneficiary $15,150 annually to cover their insurance and healthcare costs. Under this system, patients and physicians, not bureaucrats, would take change and prices would reflect value. Providers would have to compete and would be incentivized to find new and better ways to expand value and reducing costs for patients. Fundamental reforms that establish well-functioning healthcare and health insurance markets will take time. Given this, Congress could act more immediately to index government payments to medical inflation and stop paying different reimbursement rates for the same services depending on where care is delivered. With more people aging, taxpayers will be spending more and more for Medicare and Medicaid. Unless Congress acts soon to stop Medicare's underpayment of physicians, it is patients who will ultimately pay the highest price with less access to doctors and specialists and longer wait times for life-saving care.

USA Today

4 hours ago

• USA Today

Could there be a military draft? Fears rise after US strike on Iran

Heightened tensions following the United States' June 21 attack on Iranian nuclear facilities has brought the specter of a military draft to the forefront of the minds of many. The U.S. struck three nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan June 21 in what has been dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer." In a June 22 Truth Social post, President Donald Trump said he was open to a regime change in the country, hours after Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. did not want a regime change. There are currently no bills before Congress to institute a draft, however the Washington Post reported last year that influential former administration officials as well as some GOP lawmakers have publicly suggested a "national service mandate." Here's what you need to know about a possible military draft. Fallout of US attack on Iran: US warns of 'heightened threat environment' after strikes on Iran nukes When was the last time the draft was used? The last draft call occurred in 1972, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine, and the draft was announced to be no longer in use by then Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird on Jan. 27, 1973. The final person inducted into the U.S. military – Dwight Elliott Stone, a 24-year-old apprentice plumber from Sacramento, California, – entered the Army on June 30, 1973, according to the magazine. Who would be in charge of reinstating the draft? Legislation would need to be passed through Congress amending the Military Selective Service Act in order to reinstate a draft, according to the Selective Service Agency. In 2015, then New York Democratic Representative Charles Rangel introduced a bill to re-instate a draft alongside a "War Tax" bill to point out the inequity of war as then President Barack Obama attempted to galvanize support for an Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "When I served, the entire nation shared the sacrifices through the draft and increased taxes. But today, only a fraction of America shoulders the burden. If war is truly necessary, we must all come together to support and defend our nation," Rangle, who served in the Korean War, said in a statement at the time, according to The Hill. Who would be eligible for a draft? Currently, all men between 18 to 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System. The Selective Service Agency states that, should a draft be reinstated, the first to receive induction orders would be those whose turn 20 years old during the year of the lottery. Additional drafts would follow for those turning 21 through 25, then 19 and 18 would occur if additional soldiers were required. Who would be ineligible for the draft? All of those who have registered with the Selective Service are presumed to be eligible to be drafted. The only exemptions from Selective Service registration are if a man: A draftee could request to be reclassified, including as a conscientious objector, after he is drafted but before the day he is due to report. High school and college students can ask for service to be postponed while draftees can request hardship deferments. Ministers, certain elected officials and some dual nationals would be exempt from the draft.