|
I imagine the fate of a hypothetical California secession to closely mirror that of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
We want weed, health care AND a participatory society. In a country about to be handed over to Heisenberg Uncertainty Cheeto and the Millenarian Backup Band. We're liable to suffer that fate either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
My wonderful city, Oceanside, re-elected the incumbent City Treasurer Gary Ernst with 53% of the vote. He died in September.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Note that at its core, Medi-Cal is California's version of Medicare/Medicaid. And no republican administration would be so blindingly stupid as to cut either of those. Oh, I guess you didn't hear about how block granting Medicaid is on the Republican agenda (i.e. making it subject to the standard appropriations process and a strong candidate to be cut (especially vindictively on a state-by-state basis) in the name of balancing the budget after Trump's tax plan guts federal income tax receipts) So yeah, Medi-Cal will probably be on the ropes by 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:My wonderful city, Oceanside, re-elected the incumbent City Treasurer Gary Ernst with 53% of the vote. He died in September. Were these write-ins, or had the ballot just not been updated? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:My wonderful city, Oceanside, re-elected the incumbent City Treasurer Gary Ernst with 53% of the vote. He died in September. Dead men sell no bonds
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
God, I love California but I don't think it's immune from the forces that elected Trump. Instead of Calexit or something equally stupid, I'd like to an effort to fix some of the real, structural problem with the state. Things that come to mind include Prop 13, water rights, and governance in general (constitution, term limits, ballot initiative process).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:God, I love California but I don't think it's immune from the forces that elected Trump. Instead of Calexit or something equally stupid, I'd like to an effort to fix some of the real, structural problem with the state. Things that come to mind include Prop 13, water rights, and governance in general (constitution, term limits, ballot initiative process). Also can we get a Cliff's Notes of our Constitution
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Were these write-ins, or had the ballot just not been updated? http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-treasurer-dies-20160923-story.html quote:Because of state election rules, Ernst name will remain on the November ballot. If he is elected, the council will have to appoint a replacement, City Clerk Zack Beck said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Oh, I guess you didn't hear about how block granting Medicaid is on the Republican agenda (i.e. making it subject to the standard appropriations process and a strong candidate to be cut (especially vindictively on a state-by-state basis) in the name of balancing the budget after Trump's tax plan guts federal income tax receipts) California really went all-in on the expansion efforts & has intertwined several programs under the Medi-Cal umbrella. Beyond expanding coverage to childless adults (rip), you have programs like M9 pregnancy Medi-Cal, MCAP (which is also pregnancy Medi-Cal at a higher income threshold), CCHIP, not to mention the recently added who-knows-how-many undocumented children under 19 who just became eligible for full-scope benefits. Unwinding all those programs would be an unbelievable task, unless of course they simply knock them all down & start over from scratch. Which very well could happen. God drat. Highbrow Slick fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:God, I love California but I don't think it's immune from the forces that elected Trump. Instead of Calexit or something equally stupid, I'd like to an effort to fix some of the real, structural problem with the state. Things that come to mind include Prop 13, water rights, and governance in general (constitution, term limits, ballot initiative process). Why is it so hard to get rid of prop 13? Doesn't affect me directly, but my bf has owned his property for just 6 years now and it's ridiculous what he pays that others don't have to. I know. Grandmas. I wonder how real that boogeyman really is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Though the Grandmas thing is only part of Prop 13.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
The real problem with 13 was that it covers commercial and industrial property, which changes hands almost never. The same ballot at 13 had a prop 8 that would have been much more restrictive and would have had far less of the bad consequences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
I did not know that! That's too bad!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:The real problem with 13 was that it covers commercial and industrial property, which changes hands almost never. Wait, prop 8 doesn't affect commercial property? Or am I misunderstanding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:53
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Also, a thing to keep in mind was that Prop 13 was run on the primary ballot in 1978 when Governor Moonbeam was running for re-election, while the Republican challengers were fighting a bitter primary battle. So most Democrats didn't bother to show up at the polls, while Republicans turned out in droves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
What kind of hot garbage is that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Wait, prop 8 doesn't affect commercial property? Or am I misunderstanding. Okay this is really confusing because until 1982, every slate of ballot measures would start at 1, so every ballot had the same proposition numbers. Prop 8 on the 1978 primary was a somewhat complex formulae on the rise of property assessment value, thus the property tax rates. It only applied to residential property and didn't apply to commercial property and as far as I could tell, couldn't be passed down like 13. Prop 13 was a simpler formula to keep property tax rates from rising and didn't exempt commercial or industrial property. There was a follow up to Prop 13 in the 1978 general election confusingly called Prop 8. What that did was if the property value crashed for whatever reason, the assessed value would drop with it until the property value rose back where it would have been had that crash not happened and the assessed value had just kept rising at the existing Prop 13 rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WWRob/status/796372335745843200 Saw this on Twitter, thought it was nice. We're not perfect, but at least this state does some things right. Other results are interesting too. That's not the only one the state was united on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
The loving death penalty...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
This is pretty funny: (Prop 61)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Artificer posted:The loving death penalty... Yeah, that's just, ugh. I don't know how Prop 57 could pass so overwhelmingly, while 62 could fail and 66 apparently squeak by, in the same state. It's like people have been conditioned that it's necessary, even if they think the prison system in general is terrible and abused way too much, and that we can't get rid of it because "some people deserve it" or something. It sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Maybe the Pacific Union could start out as an common medical insurance market. And then we confiscate the aircraft carriers one by one as they come into San Diego for resupply...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Oh, I guess you didn't hear about how block granting Medicaid is on the Republican agenda (i.e. making it subject to the standard appropriations process and a strong candidate to be cut (especially vindictively on a state-by-state basis) in the name of balancing the budget after Trump's tax plan guts federal income tax receipts) California is a very blue state but we still have quite a few republican congressmen whose re-elections certainly hinge on whether or not every single retired person in California is furious with them or not. Medicaid may be "on the agenda" but I'll be very shocked if that goes anywhere. Republicans hate "socialism" but make a (hilariously hypocritical) exception for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. That (giant wealth redistribution project) money is theirs, they "earned" it!!! e. Remember it was a Republican congress under the Bush administration that expanded medicaid coverage for prescription drugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:California is a very blue state but we still have quite a few republican congressmen whose re-elections certainly hinge on whether or not every single retired person in California is furious with them or not. Medicaid may be "on the agenda" but I'll be very shocked if that goes anywhere. Medicare is sacrosanct. Medicaid is about to get cornholed something fierce.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
California actually tried to pass single-payer UHC twice, and both times it got vetoed by Schwarzenegger. When Brown took over the ACA had just passed and so the state govt was focused on implementing the ACA and as a result, trying to pass UHC got sidelined. Now that the republicans have power at the national level again, and are chomping the bit to repeal the Affordable Care Act? Hopefully that effort to get UHC in California will get revived.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I think you're confusing Medicare (health insurance for old people that everyone gets) with Medicaid (aka Medi-cal aka health insurance for poor people) Ah yeah the Bush prescription drug plan was Medicare, I got that backwards. SSI recipients usually qualify for Medicaid, but it looks like different states handle it differently. I do think that generally speaking, gutting health care for the people who just gave the election to Trump (poor white uneducated high unemployment families in the midwest) might backfire badly for the republican party, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Now that the republicans have power at the national level again, and are chomping the bit to repeal the Affordable Care Act? Hopefully that effort to get UHC in California will get revived.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Xaris posted:If it did, I wouldn't be surprised to see republican house+senate+president to pass bills banning state-level UHC just as a gently caress you, and it wouldn't effect any states that voted for them anyways. But states' rights! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Xaris posted:If it did, I wouldn't be surprised to see republican house+senate+president to pass bills banning state-level UHC just as a gently caress you, and it wouldn't effect any states that voted for them anyways. How? By what mechanism could the federal government prevent a state from using its own tax revenues to provide a health care plan to its own residents?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Xaris posted:If it did, I wouldn't be surprised to see republican house+senate+president to pass bills banning state-level UHC just as a gently caress you, and it wouldn't effect any states that voted for them anyways. 10th Amendment bithc edit: the right has been talking up about how important "states rights" are for the past 8 years, let's flip it on them and make the strict constitutionalists in the supreme court have to defend Universal Health Care. Instant Sunrise fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform It's already been done once! I mean, legislatively, they never managed to actually fund it. So I don't think it's faced any sort of effort by the federal government to challenge or attack it... but I don't recall anyone suggesting there would be a way for the government to do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
They can ignore Vermont, it's that weird little state Bernie Sanders comes from. The biggest state in the country, on the other hand, would get serious attention. Which is one reason why we should do it. California is the nation's left in nearly every sense; we need to reject the Republicans and Trump, visibly and loudly, in every way we can, and make sure the entire nation sees what we do and how they respond. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:How? By what mechanism could the federal government prevent a state from using its own tax revenues to provide a health care plan to its own residents? Really depends on how dicks they want to be, but an easy way you can tie it up with other (i.e. highway) funding. it's anti-business afterall!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:let's flip it on them and make the strict constitutionalists in the supreme court have to defend Universal Health Care.  if you think they won't just see a chance for partisan slapping-down of uppity libstates.My family had some of that Health Families stuff in the late 90s that California provided. That was some good stuff. It helped me get glasses in middle school and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
What? Like, tell California if they don't get rid of their universal health care system, they don't get highway funding any more? That'd be an amazing game of chicken. I really want to see the press coverage for that: "Sore Republican congress enacts punitive revenge bill to punish California for daring to spend its own money on health care!" I think instead they'll crow that universal insurance will surely bankrupt California, and then sit around waiting for that to happen. Remember the press when California's state budget was in crisis? It was all because of our liberalism and tax & spend policies, and we deserved it. Our good jobs were all gonna go to Texas, too. In any case if we started today, I doubt we'd have fully rolled out a CA universal health care plan before the next presidential election, so it may be moot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Ah yeah the Bush prescription drug plan was Medicare, I got that backwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Also, a lot of Trump voters live in places that didn't get the Medicaid expansion anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Also, a lot of Trump voters live in places that didn't get the Medicaid expansion anyway. Thanks to the party they voted for!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
quote:Thanks to the party they voted for! quote:What? Like, tell California if they don't get rid of their universal health care system, they don't get highway funding any more? That'd be an amazing game of chicken. I really want to see the press coverage for that: "Sore Republican congress enacts punitive revenge bill to punish California for daring to spend its own money on health care!" Facts, reality, and rational voters: Things that have totally defined the last twenty-plus years of US politics. You already know exactly what the press coverage would be. It'd be Fox spouting one side, NYTimes spouting the actual truth, and CNN presenting both sides as if they're equally valid while doing their best to represent the journalistic equivalent of tubgirl. You also know that any failure by the Republican party to meet expectations of the base is still better, in their eyes, than voting for a Democratic candidate. It may even, depending on the conservative news echo chamber, even be the fault of the democratic party in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:48
|
|