this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
96 points (98.0% liked)
Slop.
778 readers
549 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're talking about people moving to a state en masse for the socialized healthcare and thus becoming a financial burden on the state?
Well, it wouldn’t really be moving. It would be an extremely temporary relocation for a procedure (which is increasingly common in the US as our costs get absurd. Except here it would be to CA for free care instead of Mexico or Thailand or Turkey for cheaper care). Under Saenz vs Roe, it would be quite difficult for a state to stop this.
Edit: though I suppose for something longer term, like cancer treatment, it could be properly characterized as moving.
Establishing residency can be pretty onerous. When I first moved to California, I had to keep literal receipts without very long gaps (3 days or so?) between consecutive ones for several months. I was advised against voting absentee in my old state, as that could be considered an indication that I was going to move back. If it works the same for healthcare, it really would only make sense for more involved conditions.
For which purpose were you trying to establish residency? There are various federal cases about different purposes (welfare, in state tuition, healthcare benefits, voting), and the requirements are not the same.
Tuition
The law of the land for in state tuition is vlandis, which is an older case and doesn’t go into as much detail to positively prescribe what limits are acceptable (rather, it states an irrebuttable presumption against residency is forbidden).
The more recent Saenz (concerning welfare benefits) and less recent Memorial Hospital (regarding healthcare) are probably more on this point here. In these cases, the court noted that welfare and emergency health services were critical to the life and wellbeing of an individual, and thus the residency restrictions in those cases infringed on the constitutional right of the claimants to free movement between the states. And thus, the states would need a compelling state interest to put on these statutes, and their reasons of avoiding fraud, safeguarding taxpayer money, etc. were insufficient.
So there’s a higher standard set by the law with respect to state’s residency restrictions on welfare/access to emergency health as opposed to tuition (where the standard is just there cannot be an irrebuttable presumption)