3 ms·

Just charge out-of-state patients the difference -- like how out-of-state tuition is more than in-state tuition at state-run universities.

rayiner 10y ago
Out of state tuition at public universities is charged pursuant to exceptions to the dormant commerce clause that don't apply to welfare programs like healthcare.
- Mindless2112 10y ago
  I'm sure there are bright enough legal minds in California to construct something that both legal and effectively equivalent for healthcare.
int_19h 10y ago
"Shapiro v. Thompson (1968) considered the constitutionality of a state law that established a one-year residency requirement for welfare recipients. The Court struck down the law, finding it a violation of the "right to travel" (really, more the right to migrate). The Court said it had "no reason to ascribe the source to any particular constitutional provision," relying instead on the "fundamental rights" prong of equal protection analysis. In a subsequent case, the Court upheld residency requirement for in-state tuition benefits. In so doing, the Court distinguished Shapiro, which it said involved access to "basic necessities of life." In Zobel v Williams, the Court, 8 to 1, struck down a Alaska scheme that distributed royalties from the state's mineral revenues to state residents based on the length of state residency. Residents received $50 in benefits for each year they lived in Alaska. Various justices offered three different reasons for invalidating the plan. Finally, in Saenz, the Court breathed new life into the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in finding that clause to be violated by a California law that set lower welfare benefits for newer residents than for long-term residents. The Court says the clause "does not allow for degrees of citizenship based on length of residence." (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/newresidents.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/newresi...)
- Mindless2112 10y ago
  As far as I can tell, this only addresses benefits based on length of residency. What about immediate residency?
  - int_19h 10y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. If you can't regulate welfare depending on length of residency, it's fairly trivial to come out of state for just long enough to establish residency, then immediately claim full benefits, and move away once you don't need them anymore.
    - Mindless2112 10y ago
      True, but establishing residency is at least some barrier against exploitation. I suppose it sorta breaks down when you try to determine whether a homeless person is a resident of the state. :/

rayiner 10y ago

Out of state tuition at public universities is charged pursuant to exceptions to the dormant commerce clause that don't apply to welfare programs like healthcare.

Mindless2112 10y ago
I'm sure there are bright enough legal minds in California to construct something that both legal and effectively equivalent for healthcare.

int_19h 10y ago

"Shapiro v. Thompson (1968) considered the constitutionality of a state law that established a one-year residency requirement for welfare recipients. The Court struck down the law, finding it a violation of the "right to travel" (really, more the right to migrate). The Court said it had "no reason to ascribe the source to any particular constitutional provision," relying instead on the "fundamental rights" prong of equal protection analysis. In a subsequent case, the Court upheld residency requirement for in-state tuition benefits. In so doing, the Court distinguished Shapiro, which it said involved access to "basic necessities of life." In Zobel v Williams, the Court, 8 to 1, struck down a Alaska scheme that distributed royalties from the state's mineral revenues to state residents based on the length of state residency. Residents received $50 in benefits for each year they lived in Alaska. Various justices offered three different reasons for invalidating the plan. Finally, in Saenz, the Court breathed new life into the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in finding that clause to be violated by a California law that set lower welfare benefits for newer residents than for long-term residents. The Court says the clause "does not allow for degrees of citizenship based on length of residence." (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/newresidents.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/newresi...)

Mindless2112 10y ago
As far as I can tell, this only addresses benefits based on length of residency. What about immediate residency?
- int_19h 10y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. If you can't regulate welfare depending on length of residency, it's fairly trivial to come out of state for just long enough to establish residency, then immediately claim full benefits, and move away once you don't need them anymore.
  - Mindless2112 10y ago
    True, but establishing residency is at least some barrier against exploitation. I suppose it sorta breaks down when you try to determine whether a homeless person is a resident of the state. :/