|
You've also gotta figure out what stops every really sick person in America from renting an apartment in Yreka in order to get free health care on CA's dime. Other countries can legally control their border and not let e.g. cancer patients and the permanently disabled come become citizens, bur CA can't restrict other Americans from moving here.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You've also gotta figure out what stops every really sick person in America from renting an apartment in Yreka in order to get free health care on CA's dime. Other countries can legally control their border and not let e.g. cancer patients and the permanently disabled come become citizens, bur CA can't restrict other Americans from moving here. Of course there would be some cases where the answer is yes. But how large is that number compared to the size of the state as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Oh hey, I wonder if that BART extension to San Jose, Los Angeles transit expansion, or HSR were depending on federal funds for completion, because that would make another little cherry on the poo poo sundae that was Tuesday night. BART will be fine, but HSR I can see definitely being on a chopping block and I'd be surprised if it's not gutted in the next year or two
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
I personally think it would be pretty awesome if California's healthcare system was so good that sick people from across the country moved here to use it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I personally think it would be pretty awesome if California's healthcare system was so good that sick people from across the country moved here to use it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Good point. They might get healthy and decide to stay and contribute to our great state. And you know California would go after their income tax for years too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Oh hey, I wonder if that BART extension to San Jose, Los Angeles transit expansion, or HSR were depending on federal funds for completion, because that would make another little cherry on the poo poo sundae that was Tuesday night. I dunno actually. I could see that being one area where Trump does something worthwhile. The dude spent his career in the large-construction-project industry and I imagine he'd love to shove as many lucrative mega-projects towards cronies as possible, with the side benefits of us actually getting something built (albiet expensively.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
This state's absurd hatred with grocery bags astounds me. I'm okay with not having plastic bags, but don't charge me for a paper one. I ride a loving bus everywhere, it's not as easy as throwing poo poo in my trunk (whether it's a reusable bag or a bag-les purchase) because I don't have a trunk. Aside from that reusable bags are by nature less sanitary after many uses. Sometimes I just want a bag because I'm going to multiple stores in one trip and don't want to be accused of shoplifting the goods at the second store. I've never seen a law so aggressively inconvenient to people who don't own cars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This state's absurd hatred with grocery bags astounds me. I'm okay with not having plastic bags, but don't charge me for a paper one. I ride a loving bus everywhere, it's not as easy as throwing poo poo in my trunk (whether it's a reusable bag or a bag-les purchase) because I don't have a trunk. Aside from that reusable bags are by nature less sanitary after many uses. Paper bags aren't really better if you're not reusing them, that's why there's a bag fee. You know that you can get a cloth bag for the cost of a few dozen bag fees? And reusable cloth bags can go in the wash. I also have no car and use bus transit, you just gotta toss your receipts in your bag and not worry about being accused of shoplifting because you aren't going to be carrying so much that it won't be quick and easy to check if you really gotta.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:How many people can afford to do this? If you are suffering from a debilitating disease and struggling to pay for treatment, can you afford to uproot (possibly your family as well) and move across the country with no guarantee of a job when you get there? The majority of personal bankruptcies in the US are medical bankruptcies. And the most tragic part is that typically when one person is facing a hundred thousand dollars in bills for their hospitlization after an accident, or their cancer treatment or whatever, those bills come spread out over months or years, and their entire families wipe out their savings and sell their homes etc. and all go down in flames and only declare bankruptcy once nobody can pay anything any more. By comparison, finding a room to rent in some cheap rural part of the state, so you can establish residency and then get all that treatment for free? Sounds like an amazing deal to me. bawfuls posted:Good point. They might get healthy and decide to stay and contribute to our great state. I agree as well. The difficulty is that the idea of a statewide subsidized health care plan for everyone will have to be sold to the voters based on its costs and benefits. Health insurance works by spreading risk; the healthy people pay more into it than they get out, and the sick pay less, but you're insured so it's worth it for everyone. But if the state of California winds up absorbing the most expensive uninsured Americans from across the country, that upsets the balance - e.g., the cost to CA taxpayers rises. I don't know that it's definitely a huge problem. But I don't know how anyone could possibly estimate how much of a problem it would actually be: it'd be an unprecedented experiment. One way you could control the cost would be to refuse to cover pre-existing conditions of people who move into the state, but that'd be awful, and also probably horribly undermine the system's viability. One thing California definitely could not do is prevent other American citizens from entering the state and establishing whatever level of residency would be necessary to qualify for the health care. A healthy state can and should absorb immigrants, but a rising population requires addition to infrastructure and that takes time and money. In the end it more than pays back what it cost, in increased productivity, more vibrant and diverse communities, etc. So I dunno. I hope we try it out. But I think one of the key lines of attack opponents will trot out is the one that anti-homeless-help people trot out all the time: if we provide very generous services, the needy will flock to them from elsewhere and overwhelm them with demand. That's not a good enough reason not to do the right thing, but it's also not a factor that we should just totally ignore and pretend can't possibly happen. e. Just as an anecdote. My brother in law has MS, and it has advanced relatively quickly. He's now almost totally paralyzed and completely confined to a bed. CA provides in-home care about 30 hours a week, and my sister has to try and do the rest. She can't, so the family helps as much as we can. It's not enough, though, and a lack of constant care has led to bed sores (he has to be turned every hour), sepsis, hosptializations, and eventually as he becomes weaker and weaker, he will die. When exactly, we don't know, but it's coming. Before that, there are going to be hellish bills to pay, some picked up by the state, some by SSI, and some just not covered. If some other state in the country provided actual full-time care, for free, along with all the medication he needs, free hospitalizations when needed, etc? gently caress yes we'd move him there, along with my sister and their two kids. We'd all chip in for the rent on whatever we could afford in any community we could find a spot for them. Especially if they started in a state that offered even worse help than what CA does (which right now is most of them). We can't afford to hire full-time qualified medical staff, but between his disability income and what the rest of us could chip in, we could afford basic rent in someplace like Eureka, CA. If it gave him a shot at an extra year or two of life? Without hesitation. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
How did Saskatchewan handle it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Good point. They might get healthy and decide to stay and contribute to our great state. Most expensive medical bills are incurred in the last years and months of life. It's a nice thought, but it flies in the face of the reality of healthcare in this country. The reality is that you would have very sick people moving to CA, trying to wring another year of life out, or totally dependent people subsisting on untaxable benefits, who would then die and leave California with the bill without having ever contributed to the tax base. Leperflesh posted:So, I dunno. I hope we try it out. But I think one of the key lines of attack opponents will trot out is the one that anti-homeless-help people trot out all the time: if we provide very generous services, the needy will flock to them from elsewhere and overwhelm them with demand. That's not a good enough reason not to do the right thing, but it's also not a factor that we should just totally ignore and pretend can't possibly happen. Creating an unfenced commons that would be unsustainably exploited is absolutely a good reason to not do something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
fermun posted:Paper bags aren't really better if you're not reusing them, that's why there's a bag fee. Paper bags aren't choking sea life and blowing across the desert. That's better. El Mero Mero posted:I dunno actually. I could see that being one area where Trump does something worthwhile. The dude spent his career in the large-construction-project industry and I imagine he'd love to shove as many lucrative mega-projects towards cronies as possible This term is going to be another out of control mix of spending and tax-cutting because no matter how much Ryan wants a balanced budget, he can't visibly fight tax cuts and he can't reign in the orange goblin in charge of spending the government's gold. And Trump wants a whole bunch of fancy yuuuuge infrastructure projects to compete with Chainuh. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The majority of personal bankruptcies in the US are medical bankruptcies. And the most tragic part is that typically when one person is facing a hundred thousand dollars in bills for their hospitlization after an accident, or their cancer treatment or whatever, those bills come spread out over months or years, and their entire families wipe out their savings and sell their homes etc. and all go down in flames and only declare bankruptcy once nobody can pay anything any more. How did the European Union handle it? This is not an unprecedented experiment. Craptacular! posted:This state's absurd hatred with grocery bags astounds me. I'm okay with not having plastic bags, but don't charge me for a paper one. I ride a loving bus everywhere, it's not as easy as throwing poo poo in my trunk (whether it's a reusable bag or a bag-les purchase) because I don't have a trunk. Aside from that reusable bags are by nature less sanitary after many uses. I'm pretty sure you're allowed to bring reusable bags on the bus. Just buy them and wash them, they're cloth. Your routine is completely unchanged except you bring your bags from home instead of buying them at the store, and you save money in the long run. What's worth moaning about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Paper bags aren't choking sea life and blowing across the desert. That's better. Paper is also the ultimate renewable resource. It literally grows on trees. Paper products are great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:How did the European Union handle it? This is not an unprecedented experiment. Can you elaborate on this? It looks like most of the large countries in the EU have Universal Health Care or systems (like Poland) which protect the most vulnerable people. I think the number of people in the UHC systems far exceeds the number of people who can freely access it by simply moving. This is the opposite for a US State system in a single state. How were Colorado or Vermont proposing to handle it? I'd like to believe it wasn't blind optimism and that someone ran some numbers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This state's absurd hatred with grocery bags astounds me. I'm okay with not having plastic bags, but don't charge me for a paper one. I ride a loving bus everywhere, it's not as easy as throwing poo poo in my trunk (whether it's a reusable bag or a bag-les purchase) because I don't have a trunk. Aside from that reusable bags are by nature less sanitary after many uses. Purely from a practical standpoint, imagine I'm the guy who has to deal with wastewater run off systems. Do you know what 60% to 70% of my problem causing load in the system is going to be? Why, yes, a material that will literally never break down inside of the next ten millenia can be somewhat problematic if you're trying to keep water flowing. These nice little cancer-causing plastics are now loving everywhere in the world because their completely disposable nature is perfect for casually tossing out the side window of your car without giving a gently caress. What do the Back River, Canada and Manhattan have in common? Not a loving thing, except being contaminated with loving plastics from littering assholes. Disposable plastics as a whole were the dumbest thing we ever invented. We've basically salted the entire earth with plastic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Holy poo poo, are you guys trying to set some sort of goldfish-like record for shortest memories in politics? Oh and they have spent the last 8 years clearing the road for their chosen one and her miles of baggage, ensuring no other young Democrats get any attention lest their risk another Obama. They are the architects of their own downfall as there ARE no other establishment Democrats with any name recognition ready to step into place. cheese fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
cheese posted:The Democratic party has to be gutted from the top down. Its been years since they were anything other than a hollow pro corporate centrist garbage pile and for at least as long their message to voters has been "Vote for us, have you seen how racist and bigoted those white hicks in the flyover states are?". It turns out this worked when you had a young, mixed race Cicero with an easy megawatt smile, but it was only ever a tenable position as long as Republicans played ball. Trump showed up, broke the Business As Usual paradigm by telling voters that the establishment fuckers in both parties couldn't give two shits about their plight and that he would make it all better, and now the DNC is a complete shell. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:Can you elaborate on this? It looks like most of the large countries in the EU have Universal Health Care or systems (like Poland) which protect the most vulnerable people. I think the number of people in the UHC systems far exceeds the number of people who can freely access it by simply moving. This is the opposite for a US State system in a single state. How were Colorado or Vermont proposing to handle it? I'd like to believe it wasn't blind optimism and that someone ran some numbers. My point is that "people will move in to abuse the system!" is literally the exact same concern people raised about the open borders of the EU, what with their universal healthcare and free education and other ivory tower progressive bullshit that obviously would never work in the real world. Did that actually come to pass, or did it turn out that a majority of people don't really pull up tacks and throw themselves across the world to take advantage of a potentially exploitable situation and milk them for tax dollars before they die? Medical tourism is certainly a huge thing in Europe, but those people actually pay their medical bills (because they have enough money to fly across the world anyway), benefiting those countries, and they do it because those bills are so much cheaper in those places because the healthcare and insurance joint scam doesn't have such an indomitable loving stranglehold on the public discourse and legislature. It turns out that their doctors and medical care are actually often better than ours anyway, in addition to being cheaper!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
cheese posted:They are the architects of their own downfall as there ARE no other establishment Democrats with any name recognition ready to step into place. ...gently caress, I hope Feinstein isn't going to run next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:My point is that "people will move in to abuse the system!" is literally the exact same concern people raised about the open borders of the EU, what with their universal healthcare and free education and other ivory tower progressive bullshit that obviously would never work in the real world. Did that actually come to pass, or did it turn out that a majority of people don't really pull up tacks and throw themselves across the world to take advantage of a potentially exploitable situation and milk them for tax dollars before they die? Medical tourism is certainly a huge thing in Europe, but those people actually pay their medical bills (because they have enough money to fly across the world anyway), benefiting those countries, and they do it because those bills are so much cheaper in those places because the healthcare and insurance joint scam doesn't have such an indomitable loving stranglehold on the public discourse and legislature. It turns out that their doctors and medical care are actually often better than ours anyway, in addition to being cheaper! A massive backlash against eastern european immigrants in western european countries has been taking place for a decade, yes, actually! But also the EU does not have totally 100% free movement within its borders (see: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/move-live/index_en.htm). But yeah a biiiig reason for Brexit is because Brits are angry about immigrants. More broadly, Germany, France, the UK, etc. are financially on the hook for unfunded and underfunded services in poorer EU countries, and the turmoil has locked the entire EU in a perpetual state of financial near-panic for half a dozen years now, too. But specifically for health care, even the poor countries like Greece have u-care so the difference between most EU countries is smaller. You don't have what we'd have in the US, where poor people in one state have nothing but emergency room services (for which they will be billed, mind you, irrespective of ability to pay) while another state offers universal health care for everyone. e. Here's a decent rundown of a few of the different health care systems in the EU. It's not free for citizens, you can get emergency treatment using your state-issued card if you're an EU citizen but as an EU citizen you can't just arrive in a different EU country, rent a room somewhere, and get ongoing free medical care. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A massive backlash against eastern european immigrants in western european countries has been taking place for a decade, yes, actually! But also I don't believe the EU has totally 100% free movement within its borders. But yeah a biiiig reason for Brexit is because Brits are angry about immigrants. Of course there's a massive backlash against immigrants in Europe. My question wasn't whether people were bitching about it, or whether xenophobia exists or not. My question was, did the poo poo they complain about actually happen? Is there any reliable evidence that this is a serious problem worth addressing in these existing systems, i.e. is there evidence of significant numbers of people flooding into more advanced countries to take advantage of their systems? Enough to cause a noticeable increase in cost to the legitimate users of these systems? That's not the same thing as being on the hook for other countries' lovely economies or underfunded systems. That's already a problem in the U.S. irrespective of UHC. California already pays huge welfare to red states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know. As I just spelled out, the situation would not be the same as CA enacting universal care, because EU member states actually have far more restrictions on relocation than US states do. But I do not have the means to do the research to discover exactly how much e.g., France is paying to provide health care to immigrant Romanians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't know that it's definitely a huge problem. But I don't know how anyone could possibly estimate how much of a problem it would actually be: it'd be an unprecedented experiment. One way you could control the cost would be to refuse to cover pre-existing conditions of people who move into the state, but that'd be awful, and also probably horribly undermine the system's viability. I'm imagining a truckload of hoops to jump through to verify that you were a CA resident when you acquired your pre-existing condition, but is there some danger to general system viability that I'm not thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Of course there's a massive backlash against immigrants in Europe. My question wasn't whether people were bitching about it, or whether xenophobia exists or not. My question was, did the poo poo they complain about actually happen? Is there any reliable evidence that this is a serious problem worth addressing in these existing systems, i.e. is there evidence of significant numbers of people flooding into more advanced countries to take advantage of their systems? Enough to cause a noticeable increase in cost to the legitimate users of these systems? That's not the same thing as being on the hook for other countries' lovely economies or underfunded systems. That's already a problem in the U.S. irrespective of UHC. California already pays huge welfare to red states. Leperflesh posted:Yeah I don't know. As I just spelled out, the situation would not be the same as CA enacting universal care, because EU member states actually have far more restrictions on relocation than US states do. But I do not have the means to do the research to discover exactly how much e.g., France is paying to provide health care to immigrant Romanians. It looks like Colorado eligibility wasn't well defined. Also, unfortunately I can't seem to find concrete calculations on the free rider problem. The obvious answer is how new resident eligibility is determined. What that looks like I couldn't tell you. E: I should mention that I tend to agree with Leper in that either through movement restrictions and eligibility requirements or a much smaller proportion of free riders to tax payers in the EU, the situation is different for a state in the US. Except the recent refugee crisis, I don't see the ability for large number of people (compared to current EU populations) being able to move in when sick. Though writing this gives me an idea to research how EU countries are handling refugee health care. This might be a different problem in that it isn't the very sick that are moving but relatively healthy people who are willing to work. If I've learned anything about this topic it is that my fingers think that it is spelled "heatlch care". Boot and Rally fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
raminasi posted:I'm imagining a truckload of hoops to jump through to verify that you were a CA resident when you acquired your pre-existing condition, but is there some danger to general system viability that I'm not thinking of? Creating a second-class tier of California citizens who do not get to have universal health care. But who vote. You could permit pre-existing condition coverage for citizens coming to CA if they get a job, maybe, but then... how much of a job? Do we cover migrant farm workers? Part-timers? What about retirees? What if you lose your job after a month? The details could be worked out but ultimately I think if we are creating a UHC system in the state for economic reasons, we have to deal with the expense of the country's most expensive patients coming here, and if it's on moral grounds, we have to deal with the morality of denying people access just because they only moved here in order to get access. Probably it's on both grounds, and we have to figure out a compromise that we can live with. I'm not arguing this is an insurmountable problem, but it's probably an expensive and contentious issue that will be raised if/when we seriously consider UHC in this state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Besides my own representatives, the only Democrats with name recognition I can think of now are Sanders and Anthony Weiner
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
I personally hope either Tulsi Gabbard or Tammy Duckworth runs in 2020, on a Sanders platform. Gabbard especially because of how hard it would stick it to the establishment hardliners who chastised and threatened her after she endorsed Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Couldn't they just do the thing colleges do for qualifying for In State tuition? Require you to have been a resident of California for 2 years, and then you get your in state tuition to state universities, and health care. It wouldn't prevent long term people coming and staying for the health care, but most people in a real emergency probably wouldn't come here just to wait two years for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:Couldn't they just do the thing colleges do for qualifying for In State tuition? Require you to have been a resident of California for 2 years, and then you get your in state tuition to state universities, and health care. Sure. But that means a lot of people who don't have residency yet, having medical emergencies and getting sick etc and only having maybe private insurance or maybe nothing. We would have to decide to what degree we're willing to leave people out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:Couldn't they just do the thing colleges do for qualifying for In State tuition? Require you to have been a resident of California for 2 years, and then you get your in state tuition to state universities, and health care. Cup Runneth Over posted:I personally hope either Tulsi Gabbard or Tammy Duckworth runs in 2020, on a Sanders platform. Gabbard especially because of how hard it would stick it to the establishment hardliners who chastised and threatened her after she endorsed Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Sure. But that means a lot of people who don't have residency yet, having medical emergencies and getting sick etc and only having maybe private insurance or maybe nothing. We would have to decide to what degree we're willing to leave people out. I don't think it's any worse than every country with UHC requiring you be a citizen for X years (normally between 2 to 4) to get the benefits of UBC fully. Yeah, it might suck for someone who just moved to California, but ideally we could still have programs to get people help getting temporary insurance for a year or two, while they wait to be declared real residents. And if that's not possible, UHC usually lowers the general price of medical things to the point where its viable to go in without the insurance too (at least in places like Canada and NZ)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
To be clear, the actual bill that would have given us UHC said:quote:All California residents shall be eligible for the system. Residency shall be based upon physical presence in the state with the intent to reside. The commissioner shall establish standards and a simplified procedure to demonstrate proof of residency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:To be clear, the actual bill that would have given us UHC said: Wow, it's almost like that problem isn't that hard for legislators to solve, whose jobs are to solve problems like that. cheese posted:Ya but what happens to the people who move here for normal and common reasons? If a family moves to CA from Arizona for a new job, do they just not get health insurance? Does Arizona continue to pay for them? He locked Virginia the gently caress down though!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
I think people seeking CA residency for UHC would have about as much effect as people currently doing the same for in-state tuition
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:I think people seeking CA residency for UHC would have about as much effect as people currently doing the same for in-state tuition I think Woodie Guthrie put it best, the "do" in "do re mi" is a play on dough aka  quote:
California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see; but believe it or not, you won't find it so hot if you ain't got the
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
cheese posted:I remember when the Clinton nomination was secure and there was talk of who the VP would be, I kept coming back to Tulsi Gabbard as a choice. Young, POC female, a loving Iraqi War Vet, beautiful, well spoken and a Bernie endorser whose presence on the ticket would have been a big olive branch to Bernie supporters. Shes even fairly hawkish which would have given the establishment Dems some comfort. But instead of we a potato telling Dad jokes. Well she would have been a good choice for peeling off Islamophobic voters from trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Well she would have been a good choice for peeling off Islamophobic voters from trump.  Its hindsight I know, but there were signs. Either way, she picked Kaine because was inert and physically incapable of creating a scandal risk. This jived with her plan of just keep pointing out how ridiculous Trump is and waltz into the white house.When do things like the legalized recreational weed and the cigarette tax come into play? cheese fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:To be clear, the actual bill that would have given us UHC said: Thanks! This is how I suspect it would be handled. It reads a lot like the Colorado version. It acknowledges the problem and assigns responsibility for it. I can see the downsides of giving a single entity this much control, but I think trying to codify a solution before the realities are known is much worse. Cup Runneth Over posted:Wow, it's almost like that problem isn't that hard for legislators to solve, whose jobs are to solve problems like that. I think assigning responsibility and solving it are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:33
|
|