Unlike, say, Grover Norquist, I'm not a reflexive opponent of some form of universal healthcare, at least on the face of it. But, as with other things there's frequently a hidden agenda, such as people pushing UHC who have wider goals. Does anyone think Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fabian Nunez, and Andy Stern of the SEIU (pictured right) are just humble albeit misguided progressive servants of the greater good?

And, there's the matter of corporatism, as those who are some degree of crook want everyone else to pay the full and true cost for their workers. And, of course, there's the insanity of providing a huge array of public services at the same time as allowing loose borders. And, there's the insanity of threatening to declare a fiscal emergency and then just a few days later having a vote on a massive UHC plan.

Yes, the insanity I'm discussing is in California, right now. From the 14th (link):

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will declare a state of fiscal emergency under never-before-used rules that would force lawmakers into a special session to address a $14 billion deficit. The governor, touring a hospital in Long Beach, said he will declare the emergency in January when lawmakers return from recess. Under the action, the Legislature would have 45 days to find ways to plug the shortfall, including cutting spending from the current budget.

Flash forward to earlier today ("California Assembly approves plan to overhaul health care system", Tom Chorneau, link):

California's Assembly approved a landmark overhaul of the state's estimated $190 billion-a-year health care system Monday, setting the stage for a vote in the state Senate in the coming weeks.

The proposal, which has the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as well as some key labor unions and a handful of big corporations, would require all Californians to have health insurance through their employers or government-sponsored programs, or to purchase it on the open market.

The new system, which also would require voter approval, would be financed by a new tax on hospitals, an increase in the tobacco tax, billions of new federal matching funds, and a tax on employers of up to 6.5 percent of their payrolls.

Supporters say the overhaul would reduce the cost of health care because most of the estimated 6.8 million uninsured residents, who now receive care at hospital emergency rooms, would get the benefit of regular doctor visits and preventive care once they were covered.

The problem is that a large part of that 6.8 million are illegal aliens who should not be here in the first place. And, by offering benefits, we'll attract even more people, leading to an even greater problem. By restricting benefits (as Proposition 187 tried to do), we can reduce the number of those who shouldn't be here. That will to a certain degree reduce consumer spending and the like, but overall it will leave more for U.S. citizens and those who are here legally. If the Legislature wants UHC, they should be responsible enough to try to reduce illegal immigration in California. And, that will make the sales job even easier, as people no longer have to guess whether those pushing this scheme are in one way or another agents of or at the least useful idiots for the Mexican government. Of course, whether people like Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo, and others really represent U.S. interests or Mexican interests is a very open question.

Whether he's playing a game or not, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata wants a study of the costs first, apparently specifically because it has to not only be passed by the Legislature and then signed by Arnie but also be approved by the voters.

I didn't read the whole bill since it's around half a meg of text. While some parts of it seem like they might restrict benefits to non-illegal aliens, others have the opposite effect (link):

...On and after July 1, 2009, children who otherwise meet eligibility requirements for the program but for their immigration status are eligible for the program.

...Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and after July 1, 2009, a child who is otherwise eligible to participate in the program shall not be determined ineligible solely on the basis of his or her immigration status.

...An individual under the age of 19 years who would be eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits without a share of cost, if not for his or her immigration status, shall be eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal services under this section.

...To establish that the individual meets the immigration requirements under this section, the parent or caretaker relative shall sign under penalty of perjury an attestation that the individual is not described in any of the categories enumerated on the attestation for which federal financial participation for full-scope services is available.

Note also that neither the SFGate article above, nor the Mercury News version from Mike Zapler (link), nor the Los Angeles Times version ("State Assembly backs healthcare for everyone" by Jordan Rau and Patrick McGreevy, link) mention anything about immigration.