Anonymous #1 5d

Did daddy Trump tell you that

58

Anonymous OP 5d

why u assume i voted for trump just cause i disagree with you

-9

Anonymous #1 5d

What evidence do you have of this?

36

Anonymous #2 5d

ill find something for you give me a second

-10

Anonymous #1 5d

Been 2100 seconds

36

Anonymous #4 5d

Yeah dawg im at fucking work

-7

Anonymous #4 5d

Here dickhead, illegal aliens are explicitly ineligible for programs like Medicaid and Medicare yet states have exploited loopholes. provider taxes, improper capitation payments, and mixing state and federal funds to indirectly funnel federal dollars toward their care.

-8

Anonymous #4 5d

Audits show that these practices have cost the fed govt billions, and including over $1.35 billion in improperly spent Medicaid funds across states like California, Illinois, and Washington in 2024 and 2025 alone

-7

Anonymous #4 5d

California was required to repay $53 million for such violations. Estimates from The Congressional Budget Office show total Medicaid spending on illegal aliens at more than $10 billion recently, a 196% INCREASE to $9.1 billion annually under the Biden administration

-7

Anonymous #1 5d

Can you quote your source please ?

34

Anonymous #5 5d

Look it up yourself

-6

Anonymous #1 5d

Aka I made it up

38

Anonymous #7 5d

i literally said where i pulled it from lmao

-4

Anonymous #1 5d

And this is why no one takes you seriously you dumb fuck 😭😭

16

Anonymous #7 5d

He’s a bot

4

Anonymous #1 5d

You realize the government spends around 900 billion on Medicaid relative to the total amount this isn’t a large percent.

6

Anonymous #5 5d

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-increasing-oversight-states-illegally-using-federal-medicaid-funding-health-care-illegal

10

Anonymous #1 5d

There you go was it so fucking hard ?

0

Anonymous #1 5d

I also can’t find some of these numbers for the California 53 million (which is not a significant amount) California just over estimated the cost of emergency services used by non citizens (which is completely legal for non citizens to use emergency services since Ronald Reagan).

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Yea that link does not work. Literally copy and pasted your link and nothing. 🤷🏻‍♂️

1

Anonymous #5 5d

shit hold on

3

Anonymous #5 5d

Most of the times links don’t work

5

Anonymous #5 5d

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-increasing-oversight-states-illegally-using-federal-medicaid-funding-health-care-illegal Idk the link works for me dawg, check and see if you put an extra character in there or something

11

Anonymous #5 5d

Just look up the title

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5d

I think It’s the article that you posted

1

Anonymous #5 5d

Here is a screenshot #5

2

Anonymous #5 5d

About california: https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2024/california-improperly-claimed-527-million-in-federal-medicaid-reimbursement-for-capitation-payments-made-on-behalf-of-noncitizens-with-unsatisfactory-immigration-status/

10

Anonymous blue__wave 5d

Never mind I don’t think it’s that article bc that article literally doesn’t use numbers at all . So I still don’t know what’s this guys source 😭😭

7

Anonymous #1 5d

Where did you get the numbers from ?

6

Anonymous #5 5d

Yeah the source doesn’t have any of the numbers he referenced it just says they’re stepping up oversight.

11

Anonymous #5 5d

Im still sending you shit

1

Anonymous #5 5d

https://budget.house.gov/press-release/cbo-medicaid-spending-on-illegal-aliens-has-cost-taxpayers-over-162-billion-under-open-border-czar-harris

0

Anonymous #5 5d

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/fiscal-year-2024-improper-payments-fact-sheet

2

Anonymous #5 5d

Look the rest up yourself. I gotta get back to work.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

16.2 billion for Medicaid would be around 2% for Medicaid spending on emergency services which is completely legal btw. I guess if by “we’re paying for illegals healthcare” we mean we’re not letting them die then I guess that’s true. Would you rather 1. hospitals foot the bill or 2. We just let illegals die bc we refuse to give them emergency care?

16

Anonymous #1 5d

Just another note on the California thing, 52 million is nothing to their state budget they’re the fourth largest economy in the world. Especially since that seems to have came from an administrative error that’s not a significant abuse.

5

Anonymous #5 5d

He 100% used an ai that’s why he had to find random sources that didn’t match his original numbers lol.

6

Anonymous #1 5d

And for the 16.2 billion number that’s actually over three years so that’s not even 2%.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 5d

It would be 5.2 annually which would be under 1% of Medicaid spending. Relatively not a significant amount or illegal.

5

Anonymous blue__wave 5d

That’s what I was thinking but you got to give everyone a fair shake 😭😭 bc if that was the case he would have shared the follow up links in his original post 🤷🏻‍♂️

9

Anonymous #1 5d

Increasing oversight by itself does not mean that federal money was actually wrongfully spent on illegal immigrants

4

Anonymous #1 5d

That report from CBO discusses Medicaid spending on illegal immigrants for emergency services. To be clear: that has been covered since 1986 (thanks Reagan). If you show up to a hospital they are required to screen you for a life-threatening emergency. If you have one, they must treat or transfer you regardless of your ability to pay or immigration status

9

Anonymous #10 5d

That is covered under something called “emergency Medicaid”. Full Medicaid is not given to most immigrants (and definitely not undocumented ones) unless the state provides it with their own money. Federal funding cannot be used if an undocumented immigrant shows up to the doctor’s office with a cough, fever, etc

5

Anonymous #3 5d

Because there’s a variety of illegal immigrants. Believe it or not they are people too. So some of them are hard working and come here on work visas and overstay them and continue to work, and some of them come here not on any visa, and get handed benefits and social services while they sit on their ass and do nothing. Duality of man if you will. The only people that should receive social services are citizens and people with valid visas who pay taxes.

2

Anonymous #11 5d

They don’t get benefits from the federal government (unless you consider care in a life-threatening emergency a benefit)

16

Anonymous #10 5d

All they have to do is have a kid to get federal benefits through them. And many states, including the one I live in, use state taxpayer funds to provide social benefits such as state funded health coverage, housing programs, and subsidized education.

4

Anonymous #9 5d

That’s racist smh you can’t say that

9

Anonymous #11 5d

Yes bc their child is a citizen so their child gets benefits.

4

Anonymous #11 5d

Usually, when people discuss this, they’re talking about federal funds. And I don’t see any problem with giving benefits to US citizens in need, regardless of who their parents are

10

Anonymous #11 5d

And I think thats ok position to have that states shouldn’t do that. Even though I think immigrants are less likely to use those benefits mostly bc they’re a younger healthier population relative to native born Americans.

-1

Anonymous #9 4d

Name one, and show your work hun

1

Anonymous nya_nya 4d

California Colorado Oregon Illinois

4

Anonymous nya_nya 4d

Washington too

3

Anonymous #10 4d

I do not have a problem with it either, except for when people who are not that citizen or citizens at all for that matter, start to take advantage of those benefits. I don’t think it’s crazy to expect that tax funds (federal and state) shouldn’t be used on people who are not supposed to be in the country in the first place, unless absolutely necessary.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 4d

I’m not talking exclusively about just healthcare, even though we don’t get our own, I mean there’s tax money going towards giving them free housing when we have a homelessness crisis. American taxpayer money should be used to better the lives of tax paying Americans.

3

Anonymous #11 4d

Wdym we don’t get our own? My understanding is when immigrants are getting housing that’s not for illegals that’s usually for asylum seekers who are potentially escaping some form of persecution?

1

Anonymous #11 4d

And most of the shelters we put them in are temporary. I don’t think temporarily sheltering people trying to run away from persecution is the same as housing people full time and dealing with the underlining issues that caused the homelessness.

1

Anonymous #11 4d

But you know state or federal housing program that only applies to illegals go ahead and drop it. I don’t think that’s rlly a thing.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4d

State sometimes happens. Federal definitely not lol

1

Anonymous #11 4d

That’s literally what I’ve been trying to explain. They do not get federal benefits unless absolutely necessary

1

Anonymous #11 4d

Even if this WERE true, which I doubt (but i’d welcome proof)— housing unhoused people is not a bad thing. There are more EMPTY HOUSES than there are homeless people. Don’t blame immigrants for (supposedly) getting free housing, blame corporations for buying all the houses up and making them unaffordable

1

Anonymous #14 4d

The Roosevelt Hotel might be an example

5

Anonymous blue__wave 4d

Assuming they are all being ‘persecuted’ yeah sure whatever but they aren’t and the system has been being abused bc it’s an easy access card to the US. There’s obviously not programs specifically for illegals but I’m saying they should not be eligible for these programs en masse. Take New York for example, their department of homelessness housing a peak of 69,000 migrants, 77% in hotels, where they are giving them each ~$1000 a month debit cards and free Medicaid, not to mention paying for the-

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4d

hotel rooms which costs taxpayers $3-4M a day, $10M at its peak for a total cost so far of $12.6B Not to mention the corruption factor and the fact that most all of the hotels are 4 stars. Also the fact that while this is all happening the hotels also charged for an estimated 9,874 vacant rooms, artificially inflating room costs, and not to mention while the taxpayer dime is doing all this there’s over 91,000 homeless citizens on the streets. But ya know the migrants are being ‘persecuted’ so eh

1

Anonymous #14 4d

See my other comment. Everyone should be housed but sanctuary cities/states are focusing more on these ‘asylum seekers’ than our own citizens, and the governments are using it as an excuse to embezzle and run rampant with corruption(not that they weren’t already before this was an issue, ex: California’s homelessness initiatives) because it’s a flagship issue to house foreigners for you guys apparently.

1

Anonymous #11 4d

We can’t know if they’re actually persecuted or not until they make their case in immigration court

1

Anonymous #11 4d

So we should focus on our own citizens rather than asylum seekers, but you’re also arguing that efforts that focus on our own citizens are rife with corruption and shouldn’t continue?

1

Anonymous #10 4d

Are the two mutually exclusive? If I have a shit sandwich and add marginally more shit onto it does it make it any more appealing or is it just a bigger problem now?I think the efforts should continue but I think they undoubtedly need to be reformed and more closely monitored. I don’t know why you pose that question like what I’ve said is conjecture.I don’t think we should just let in anyone who says they are being persecuted without question, give them a court date in 7 years and turn em loose

1

Anonymous #11 4d

So you supported the Biden border bill, right?

1

Anonymous #10 4d

Sorry, bipartisan border bill**. And the reason I ask is because you’re criticizing both for some reason. At least they’re trying to help the homeless citizens like you asked. There’s been some success but there’s more to be done

1

Anonymous #10 4d

No I was not a huge fan of that bill. I’m criticizing both because on one hand you have migrants being treated leagues better than our governments own citizens while still being rampantly corrupt and then on the other hand you have the government pouring billions into a problem when there’s practically no oversight so everyone is just bumping up their own paycheck while the homeless crisis is worsening. Notice how both suck. Our homeless population should have been treated similarly to how-

1

Anonymous #10 4d

-these migrants are being treated(with some minor tweaks). Both situations are bad and one of them is marginally worse and frankly an insult to our homeless citizens and the every day American

2

Anonymous #11 4d

So you didn’t support the bill that would have made sure they weren’t given court dates 7 years in the future (the exact problem you were complaining about)?

1

Anonymous #10 4d

I support that but that wasn’t the only thing in the bill. I didnt and still don’t support giving Ukraine billions in ‘emergency aid’ and Israel 14 billion because they own most of our politicians.

1

Anonymous #10 4d

genociding children and proxy wars aren’t really something I want my money going towards

1

Anonymous #11 4d

There was a separate bill with aid for Ukraine and Israel excluded.

1

Anonymous #10 4d

Didn’t that bill die? And then another one that had similar contents and then also died? The only thing that passed from that bill was the foreign aid portion if I recall correctly. But yes I support the border reform ideas that were in the bill

1

Anonymous #11 4d

Died because there was Republican support for it suddenly disappeared after Trump disapproved of it (he wanted an issue to run on for the election)

1

Anonymous #10 4d

Well fuck him then but I guess it worked. Was that the whole reason you brought that up?

1

Anonymous #11 4d

Was just curious whether you supported the bill that would have actually helped us adjudicate asylum cases faster. Because many I’ve interacted with ironically did not support it

3

Anonymous #10 4d

Well you should probably phrase the question differently to clarify you’re talking about the two bills that didn’t include funding a superpower proxy war and a genocidal ethnostate and you might get different answers

4

Anonymous #11 4d

I expect that most people who have an opinion on the “bipartisan border bill”, as mentioned, are aware that it was proposed a second time without any mention of Ukraine or Israel. But maybe I’m expecting them to get their news from some unbiased sources

2

Anonymous #11 4d

I agree they aren’t going through the system that’s bc republicans refused to move forward with a bill to fix the backed up asylum system. I don’t believe they’re paying luxury rates for any hotel we can go through sources if you want.

1

Anonymous #1 4d

Trump has already spent some $70 million of tax payers money on finding for 30% of his presidency. Complain about that before complaining about people receiving healthcare 💀

1

Anonymous #15 4d

On golfing* idk how autocorrect fucked me over that bad 🤣

1