> >>The most recent data for California health expenditures
> >><<http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/nhestatehealthaccountstables.pdf>http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/nhestatehealthaccountstables.pdf>
> >>was $126 billion in 2000. If that's increased in line with national
> >>expenditures, that was probably about $170 billion in 2004. So,
> >>$1.4 billion is 0.8% of the total. Big damn deal, eh?
> >
> >Nonchalance is left to the health care-privileged.
>
> 0.8%. What more can I say?
The other thing here is that Marta is making this assumption, "If that $1.4 billion wasn't going to immigrants it could be going to disabled people", which may be true on its face, but there is no reason to believe that it WOULD be going to disabled people. Furthermore even to make this assumption is to accept that there is only so much money for social expenditure and that the recipients have to compete for their slice of the pie. Progressives should not be accepting this - we should be fighting to increase it for ALL those who need it. Conservative policy-makers love to see people like Marta blaming immigrants or other marginalised groups for the lack of funds available for their own particular group - it lets them (the ones who are truly responsible) off the hook and reduces the possibility of a united campaign for social expenditure increases. Honestly, Marta, it's incredible that you don't see how you're playing right into their hands.