|
RIP Sutter He was a Good Boy
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
gently caress you, 2016, you garbage pile of a year, you just had to pour a little more salt in the wound on your way out the door
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Good news in LA! DOT fully funded one of our biggest subway projects. http://thesource.metro.net/2017/01/04/1-6-billion-in-federal-funding-secured-for-purple-line-extensions-second-phase/ I'm just glad this terminates at the VA. Condolences rest of the state for not getting loot from the feds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/816737497917116420 Did not show up to to vote on against repeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Good news in LA! DOT fully funded one of our biggest subway projects. dont worry, im sure our federal funding will get yanked as punishment for daring to make Glorious Leader lose the popular vote im only sort of joking; tell me you couldnt imagine an earthquake knocking over SF and Trump replying with a tweet like "Maybe if Failing CA wanted disaster relief they shouldnt have committed election fraud! Shame!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Nah, it won't be about the election, it'll be about the plethora of things that Californian cities and state government does to spite Trump. The election will be long
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Republicans don't need a reason to hurt California, its very existence infuriates them. Though, yes, we'll probably be doing everything in our power to give them reasons to hate us more over the next four+ years, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Though, yes, we'll probably be doing everything in our power to give them reasons to hate us more over the next four+ years, too. Hallelujah 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:ACA subsidies and Medicaid payments. Wife and I are on the ACA, but I'm in the glitch so I don't get subsidies, but I was able to get my kids on some kind of medical thing, I'm not sure of the details as the wife did the legwork, I assume if this Obamacare repeal goes through, does that pretty much mean the end to my kid's state coverage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 17:04
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Roland Jones posted:Republicans don't need a reason to hurt California, its very existence infuriates them. Xavier Becerra dropping a "come at me bro" gave me a powerful moment of pride in this dumb state, ngl
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Wife and I are on the ACA, but I'm in the glitch so I don't get subsidies, but I was able to get my kids on some kind of medical thing, I'm not sure of the details as the wife did the legwork, I assume if this Obamacare repeal goes through, does that pretty much mean the end to my kid's state coverage? Nobody actually knows, because it depends on how exactly they repeal it. The house wants to just yank out the rug, but there might be a handful of republican senators who will push for a "repeal, but it takes effect in a year or so, so we have time to pass something to replace it with". And of course there's the distinct possibility that if they do go for an immediately-effective appeal, multiple health insurance companies go instantly bankrupt. The industry likes aca, it increases total membership in health care plans which means more profits, it's why they were so gung-ho about writing most of the law in the first place. And when the media starts reporting on the people who literally died because the ER wasn't an appropriate way to treat their cancer or whatever, there's gonna be a lot of blowback. I could see the congress repealing their repeal pretty quickly if there was enough pressure. All that said: people on poor-people government assistance of any kind are likely hosed in this political climate, one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
I really doubt Medi-Cal will get gutted. Way too many people in California depend on it,in particularly kids in the Foster Care system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Yeah but Medi-Cal is medicaid, it's federal dollars, and rand paul hates medicaid. I don't think california could pay for it entirely by itself without massively raising taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Nobody actually knows, because it depends on how exactly they repeal it. The house wants to just yank out the rug, but there might be a handful of republican senators who will push for a "repeal, but it takes effect in a year or so, so we have time to pass something to replace it with". Even a delayed repeal is going to be chaotic, since insurers by their very nature have to account for expected changes in the future. If an insurer is paying for someone's chemo now and the ACA won't even exist in 2-4 years, thus changing the future risk pool, they won't be able to recover the cost of that chemo. Any repeal, even if it's nominally delayed, is probably going to see insurers pull out of the exchanges and stop writing policies. (I'm not an expert on this stuff, this is just what I've read)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah but Medi-Cal is medicaid, it's federal dollars, and rand paul hates medicaid. I don't think california could pay for it entirely by itself without massively raising taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure we'd be the largest, unified spending block for healthcare in the country...the feds notwithstanding. With paying for everything would give us significant clout to negotiate prices. Hell, even create a CARB for healthcare and have other states adopt our policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:CA could and should go for state wide single payer if the ACA is gutted. Given the size of the economy, and that single payer would be cheaper/more effective than the current system (low bar I know), I think this would actually be pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:CA could and should go for state wide single payer if the ACA is gutted. I highly doubt it will play out if California does. With Republicans in control of Congress, I could easily see Republicans trying to "protect" citizens by:
And that's before you even get to more vindictive uses of the purse. The biggie though is that Republicans will absolutely try to use that "across state lines" rule to kill single-payer before it even is born. I would be surprised if there wasn't a poison pill of some form in that bill, once it appears. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
There is a significant cost.quote:For most families and children, SPDs, and pregnant women, California generally receives a 50 percent FMAP—meaning the federal government pays one–half of Medi–Cal costs for these populations. However, a subset of children with higher incomes qualify for Medi–Cal as part of the state’s CHIP. Currently, the federal government pays 88 percent of the costs for children enrolled in CHIP and the state pays 12 percent. Finally, under ACA, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs of providing health care services to the newly eligible Medi–Cal population from 2014 through 2016. Beginning in 2017, the federal cost share will decrease to 95 percent, phasing down to 90 percent by 2020 and thereafter. If we generously assume the federal government is only funding 50% of Medi-Cal today, then replacing the federal funding will double the state's cost. The 2016 CA budget for Medi-Cal was $19.1B. CA's total discretionary budget was $168B, so adding $20B in spending isn't impossible, but without major cuts elsewhere, would require increasing revenues, e.g., tax increases. Fortunately, it seems the Democrats have won a supermajority in California, so if they were unified in determination to directly fund Medi-Cal, I think it could be done. Going entirely to single-payer would be far more radical, of course, and the previous post lists some of the potential obstacles the Republicans could throw up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:CA could and should go for state wide single payer if the ACA is gutted. It can't and won't. We've been over this before. Even assuming that Republicans don't torpedo state managed healthcare systems by allowing insurance to be bought across state lines, single payer systems often collapse under the weight of the newly insured with deferred health problems and an inability to pay. The classic D&D answer of "tax the wealthiest" doesn't work, because the income of top earners tends to fluctuate with the economy, while healthcare costs are relatively constant (although generally going up year upon year.) The only way even have a shot at making it work (and this is without Republicans in Congress actively loving with the insurance market) is to implement a requirement to demonstrate a certain length of residency, which A) will likely place a difficult obstacle in the way of the poor and homeless and indigent trying to obtain care, and B) will require you to stand fast and take a hard-nosed approach when the sob stories about undocumented immigrants, migrant workers, and aspiring actors fresh off the bus in Hollywood are denied care, which no one seems willing to do. Every one wants free healthcare, but no one wants to talk about how we are going to gate and ration it so that it doesn't go bankrupt. Your dreams are never going to happen, real life is messy and doesn't offer morally pleasant solutions, Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:while healthcare costs are relatively constant (although generally going up year upon year.) It looks a little different if you split "profits" that the industry is mercilessly increasing off from "costs".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your dreams are never going to happen, real life is messy and doesn't offer morally pleasant solutions, Hail Satan. 10% of the population controls 75% of the wealth. If you think any healthcare solution that actually is a solution and not a thinly veiled attempt to make Pfizer stockholders richer won't involve increased taxes on the rich  .Also, things can never ever get better so we should just let the Republican broomfucking go on without ever doing anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
This is why we need to back the Russian plot to make California an independent state. Trump and Putin are buddies and it would help solidify further Republican control over the US, so it's a win-win for all players that matter. As an actual nation state we could make universal healthcare work (see: every other nation state that has made it work). As part of a federalized system, we'd get flooded by people we'd have to accept while also getting ratfucked to failure by the Republican controlled government. New York almost left the US during the Civil War to become an independent city state. We ought do the same now in California.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Oh God shut the gently caress up with the Calexit stuff. Even entertaining it opens up a can of Balkanization that leads to the free state of Jefferson and north vs south rap battles and the coast vs the inland empire and... The answer to Trump is to send liberal missionaries across the country to uproot the weeds of stupidity, not play "how finely can we divide ourselves."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
"Let's start a country with effectively no property tax." Brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Yeah, besides it being another Russian plot and also primarily motivated by the same selfish, short-sighted thinking that led to Brexit and Trump (also Russian plots, tangentially), Calexit would be near impossible if the Republicans didn't want us to leave. And they don't, because our state props up this country's economy and provides a ton of stuff it needs, so unless they think financial ruin is worth basically guaranteeing their control of the country as one of the most Democratic parts leaves it (actually not impossible because they're destroying the country in every other way to keep power, I guess) they'd block it, and probably win because I'm pretty sure the Constitution is not on the side of secession so even a Supreme Court going by the book instead of carrying a Republican agenda likely wouldn't allow it. Like, the only way I can see it happening besides the aforementioned "Republicans decide to gently caress the country in order to be rid of their biggest enemy" is if we somehow vote yes on it in 2018 (which would only write secession into our state constitution, I believe; a vote to actually leave would be held the year after), then Trump and the GOP have so thoroughly hosed the country, like near-apocalyptic hellfucking, that we can just leave and they aren't able to do anything about it because they don't have sufficient resources to stop us and whatever other fires they have to deal with. Which... I don't think things will get that bad, and it's definitely not a situation I'm hoping for. And yes, there'd be a ton of other issues we have to deal with too, assuming we actually got that far, as it's not exactly easy to start a new country I imagine. Ton of economic issues and stuff. Basically, we're better off playing Texas to the reign of Trump and fighting every single thing we can, including their attempts to punish us for fighting them, and when all their stuff goes to poo poo over the next four years and they've made cartoon villains of themselves in the eyes of everyone who isn't brainwashed, insane, and/or stupid, try to take as much of the government back as possible, here and elsewhere. If the anti-gerrymandering cases and such go well, that should help a lot. It won't be easy, and there's a larger-than-comfortable chance we're in for eight years of Trump (and a smaller-but-still-worryingly-possible chance that the GOP will destroy democracy thoroughly enough that it's impossible to get rid of them and we become a Republican oligarchy), but it's better than fighting a futile battle to screw ourselves and the rest of the country over. I mean, at least as far as I see it. Other people could disagree; I admit that I'm not an expert in this area or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:"Let's start a country with effectively no property tax." Brilliant. Woah, excellent point, we'd have to get rid of prop 13! Okay I'm sold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
CalExit is loving dumb. It's as dumb as that plan to split California into 6 states, one of which is Silicon Valley. We need more unity, not less; partisanship and polarization are what got us into this mess. Abandoning your country in its time of need is not a good answer to a crisis, and Californians are more mature than to take their ball and go home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Calexit is fun to think about when you're feeling angry about the apparent direction that the non-californian majority of Americans seem to want to go. If the state somehow decided to do it, it would take decades and be extraordinarily painful in all manner of ways. Here, just for the sake of wanking about it, let's list just a few of the extremely difficult problems: -Citizenship of the new country. Based on place of birth? Then on day 1, millions of people living in California would be resident aliens, while millions of California citizens would be living abroad. -Infrastructure. CA's infrastructure is heavily networked into that of other states. We'd need to negotiate trade treaties with the US we'd just alienated in order to keep the lights on, for example. -Creation of an entirely new national government from wholecloth. No, a state government is not adequate. We'd need diplomatic corps, a treasury department (or would we just use American dollars? What would be the consequences of that?), a military chain of command (no, not just the state's national guard), etc. -Speaking of the military, who actually owns the military bases and equipment currently stationed in California? Do we imagine the US we're seceeding from will happily let us keep all those nice warplanes and ships and jeeps and tanks and etc.? Probably not, even though we helped pay for it. -The Colorado river. Do we still get the water that's currently flowing into the state? The upstream states could literally suck it dry if they wanted. -Private wealth. Most California residents (citizens of the new country?) keep their money in national banks, and much of California's private property is owned by people who don't live in CA or wouldn't be citizens. How does that work out? -Other federally-managed or owned lands and institutions; national parks, federally-funded highways and bridges, national forestry service land, etc. We'd have to negotiate ownership and take over full administration. -Social Security? Almost all working Californians pay into it, and it's 100% a federal program. How does California extract what its citizens own of that program, especially considering it's not like their "share" is sitting around in a bank vault in the form of gold bars we could just have? -Border security? We'd be adding an enormous new land border with a foreign country. -Laws. Not just a constitution for a new independent nation, but an entire legal base separate from the centuries of legal precedent/case law and federal laws currently enforced. -Postal service? FAA? SEC? FDA? CDC? NOAA? There are countless federal departments and bureaucracies we'd be severed from. We'd have to inspect our own farms, manage our own air traffic, regulate our own pharmaceutical industry, innoculate our citizens and be ready to respond to outbreaks of disease, study our own weather and provide weather services to our own shipping, test our own water supplies for safety and cleanliness, regulate our own stock market, create and manage our own home loan programs, regulate our own nuclear power plants, it goes on and on and on and on. Calexit is not going to happen now, and I'd say the odds of it being remotely worthwhile within the next 50 years are extremely slim. The fact we already have a federalized system with state-level governments makes it seem like we could just close the border and be ready to go, but the balance of power and the responsibility for governance of the states has shifted heavily towards the federal government for a couple of hundred years now. California is the largest state by population, it has its own fairly robust agricultural sector, and it has economically successful large population centers, so it superficially resembles something that could try to run itself as an independent country. But the costs of turning it into an actual independent country would be enormous, there would be a host of problems any one of which could easily torpedo the entire affair, and anyone who actually voted in favor of it if we ran a ballot tomorrow would have to be grossly ignorant of the costs, problems, and difficulties. It's not worth it now and it would only be worth it in the future if it was literally the only way to preserve Californians' basic human and civil rights. And even then, it would be an absolutely tragic development, not something to cheer for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
What if they instead denounce statehood and become a territory. Are there any advantages to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
A more brisk buttfucking from a Republican Congress. A White Guy posted:10% of the population controls 75% of the wealth. If you think any healthcare solution that actually is a solution and not a thinly veiled attempt to make Pfizer stockholders richer won't involve increased taxes on the rich elected officials from Sacramento to D.C. have never met a pot of money they could keep their fingers out of. A White Guy posted:Also, things can never ever get better so we should just let the Republican broomfucking go on without ever doing anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
It's easier than you thinkLeperflesh posted:Calexit is fun to think about when you're feeling angry about the apparent direction that the non-californian majority of Americans seem to want to go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
quote:We'll have to fight a few wars over this, but that's doable. The telltale rhetoric of a man who doesn't plan on fighting in those wars
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
What if we just convince all the non-cool states to leave instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:The answer to Trump is to send liberal missionaries across the country to uproot the weeds of stupidity, not play "how finely can we divide ourselves." So California should start gentrifying GOP states? Or are we talking a plan like the libertarians had with New Hampshire only with leftists? Are Wyoming and Montana future Worker's Paradises waiting to be founded? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
I like CalExit because it makes people think about what would happen if it passed and that makes people think more about a lot of political issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Lange Marsch durch die Institutionen didn't work out so well for Germany so I fail to see why such an approach would provide dividends in the US. We need to provoke a real class war, have a real Long March. Otherwise, we'll never have freedom again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:The telltale rhetoric of a man who doesn't plan on fighting in those wars We should establish a minimum population for a state and if it falls under that it should be absorbed by its neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:We should establish a minimum population for a state and if it falls under that it should be absorbed by its neighbors. We need to establish a living space for Californians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Calexit is the dumbest idea, meaning of course that based on the current trend of the dumbest thing possible happening it is pretty much inevitable Jerry Brown for Immortal God Emperor 2020
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:07
|
|