|
Raskolnikov38 posted:for the next hour and change these guys on the appropriations committee Here are their Sacramento office numbers: Ricardo Lara (Chair, Bill Author): (916) 651-4033 Pat Bates (Vice Chair): (916) 651-4036 Jim Beall: (916) 651-4015 Steven Bradford: (916) 651-4035 Jerry Hill: (916) 651-4013 Jim Nielsen: (916) 651-4004 Scott Wiener (Bill Co-author): (916) 651-4011
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:for the next hour and change these guys on the appropriations committee Thanks! Beall represents me so I'll give a call shortly.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Just called all of them (I think; I may have called one of them twice) and spent less than five minutes doing it! A few of the staffers were more excited than others!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:State level UHC would have the same problem as Prop 61. UHC doesn't work without price controls, and one state has less leverage than the medical industry, because the state needs to provide the promised health care, but the industry can survive not dealing with one state. Dead Reckoning posted: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.)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Just called the office of Jerry Hill who represents my district, and made sure to point out where I lived during the call. Hadn't called a political office before! According to the staffer that picked up he already supports the bill in any case.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
I think my favorite part about the Healthy California Act is that it regulates health care providers, instead of health insurance providers, because I don't want to grant the latter industry the legitimacy of being mentioned in our laws. Edit: SD Stream: http://senatestream-lh.akamaihd.net/i/Sen_TV2@118078/index_360_av-p.m3u8?sd=10&rebase=on HD Stream: http://senatestream-lh.akamaihd.net/i/Sen_TV2@118078/index_720_av-p.m3u8?sd=10&rebase=on Audio: http://stream.senate.ca.gov:1935/live/_definst_/TV2_audio/media_w1257606577_111.aac Nothing's on, yet, aside from a title card. CPColin fucked around with this message at 19:05 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted: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.) If I didn't  at this the first time, Dead Reckoning posted:single payer systems often collapse under the weight of the newly insured with deferred health problems and an inability to pay. Can you cite examples of this happening "often"? Deferred health problems are a big reason healthcare costs are so high in this country. Uninsured people wait until it's an emergency to get care, and we wind up paying for it anyway with higher rates. Even if there's a large initial cost, better preventative care should ease costs over time.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:If I didn't Man, this isn't even a moral thing, it's a practical one. The super rich get most of their money from investments, dividends, capital gains, and similar non-salary/wage vehicles. They are OK with the fact that they might make $8 million one year, and $4 million the next. While someone living off an hourly wage would find a 50% pay cut devastating, these fluctuations are far less important when you have established wealth. While there is certainly a tax base there to be tapped, and we should tax it more, it is volatile, it isn't consistent in a way that is good for long term budget planning. This is why Prop 55 was a mistake. The best way to handle this is to have a fund that is built up in fat years so that it won't run out in lean years, but elected officials from Sacramento to D.C. have never met a pot of money they could keep their fingers out of.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The classic D&D answer of "tax the wealthiest" doesn't work, because the income of top earners tends to fluctuate with the economy
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Can we fix property tax yet? The Wiggly Wizard posted:Can you cite examples of this happening "often"?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The best way to handle this is to have a fund that is built up in fat years so that it won't run out in lean years, but Good thing the bill does that: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB562#id_364D9E8C-5071-421F-BCA8-738FB6FC28F8 Of course, the text could be changed later to redirect funds elsewhere, but that can happen to every statute everywhere, so it's not really a useful topic to explore.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:God willing. Unfortunately, it's a policy that directly benefits the upper middle class, the wealthy, and those who got here first, so I don't have high hopes. Vermont has the second smallest population of any state. They have far fewer people to care for, but also no bargaining power, a small tax base, and no way to take advantage of economy of scale. California's population is more than sixty times that of Vermont and our economy is larger than that of most nations with effective single payer. California to Vermont isn't an apples to oranges comparison, it's apples to watermelons. It might take unfucking our tax code and keeping the feds and industry fucks from sabotaging it, but California unquestionably has the resources for single payer at least on par with Canada's.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
speaking of unfucking the tax code, the appropriations committee released its analysis of the bill and we need 200 bill in new tax revenue *eyes prop 13* http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...-htmlstory.html
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
I do think that Prop 13 is increasingly becoming an ethical test for California's left and anyone who claims to respect good government. The original proposition was blatantly unconstitutional but the bellicose "tax revolt" mood of the time made challenging it too politically risky. Now we've had decades of budget crises for our trouble and not much else to show for it. Our initiative process is a trainwreck. Every election we get a dozen badly written and legally dubious initiatives clogging our ballots and the courts only review them after they pass. California judges are notorious for allowing things they shouldn't because they don't want to contradict "the will of the people" (or piss off voters) and the legislature is completely barred from reviewing, amending, or repealing initiatives the way they would be with any other laws. I get why direct democracy is valuable, I really do, but I think we're well past the point of needing a constitutional amendment to fix our initiative system and I think most Californians would be just fine with that. Bare minimum, I want to see thorough judicial review happening before initiatives go to ballot and some mechanism for initiatives to expire or a way for the legislature to amend outdated initiatives. This situation where our budget is handcuffed by an illegal (at least by modern standards) backdoor amendment passed by voters in the 70s who had no idea what they were really voting for is just too preposterous to let stand, but it's not enough to just reverse it. We need to actually do something to keep it from happening again.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Yep, Clinton-voting liberal Democrats are rushing to stomp out the single-payer fire in favor of a "public option." John Burton told the California Nurses Association to "shut the gently caress up or go outside." I can confirm this. I remember that my indivisible group co-ran an event with the moveon/organizing for action folks and their lead national organizer told me to go around the room confiscating california single-payer signs during our event (I didn't).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Trump administration decided not to gently caress up Caltrain electrification, FTA will provide the federal dollars that were earmarked.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
That's great news! What a relief. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...m=.d6fc4bf9c612 The article posted:“This is yet another bait and switch to deceive state taxpayers and take imaginary dollars from one project to pay for another, putting at risk California’s transportation future,” [Rep. Jeff Great reasoning there. It's not like the high-speed trains are going to use those tracks or anything! CPColin fucked around with this message at 01:25 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Eat Prop 13.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
I would, but I'm afraid it would permanently lower my CON.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Calexit might come about after all... https://twitter.com/KPCC/status/866856719317708801
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Calexit might come about after all... That sounds like the exact type of sound bite that is taken out of context and makes scientists and academics wary about talking to the press.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
How does ending prop 13 not push working class out of their homes and not push them further away from where they work just because they are a filthy home owner. Owning a home for me is cheaper than renting by miles and I can see how this could be difficult for many people and possibly myself if home values just keep getting even more ridiculous. Or do we need to just rip off the band-aid and it should stabilize the market? I really don't know enough about it. Either way, there isn't enough inventory, eat the rich, many regular home owning schlubs aren't rich at all. Help me understand it, I assume tax collection has had to change. Schools are still funded by property tax, and in reality they shouldn't and should be equally funded. But that's a different discussion.
Aeka 2.0 fucked around with this message at 06:06 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 05:54
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:How does ending prop 13 not push working class out of their homes and not push them further away from where they work just because they are a filthy home owner. Owning a home for me is cheaper than renting by miles and I can see how this could be difficult for many people and possibly myself if home values just keep getting even more ridiculous. Or do we need to just rip off the band-aid and it should stabilize the market? I really don't know enough about it. Either way, there isn't enough inventory, eat the rich, many regular home owning schlubs aren't rich at all. Help me understand it, I assume tax collection has had to change. Schools are still funded by property tax, and in reality they shouldn't and should be equally funded. But that's a different discussion. Most people who want to end prop 13 want to end prop 13 for Commercial properties. That's a bigger deal than the cost of lost property taxes on your house. Edit: I suppose many want it ended for all properties, but still, commercial first.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
fermun posted:Most people who want to end prop 13 want to end prop 13 for Commercial properties. That's a bigger deal than the cost of lost property taxes on your house. Most sane proposals for walking back prop 13 also include things like undue burden exemptions, a schedule of increases towards true property value over x number of years vs an immediate hike, and/or grandfathering in existing residential property at their current tax rates until it changes hands due to inheritance/sale/etc.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
The big loophole with prop 13 and commercial property is that somebody will build a strip mall or something like a Walmart on empty land in the middle of nowhere, and the real estate/building is owned by a shell company, with the premises on 99 year leases. But since the property never technically changes hands, the assessed value stays based on when it was just a patch of dirt in the middle of nowhere. Edit: also a decent compromise on 13 is to only make it apply to single-family owner-occupied dwellings. That way you get the additional revenue, but you avoid the "Assemblyman X wants to throw grandma out of her house!" Instant Sunrise fucked around with this message at 06:34 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Calexit might come about after all... But what about those foreign cities that have The Big Ones and don't fall into the core of the Earth?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
I think post Hurricane Katrina it's not crazy to carefully plan for possible logistical challenges following a major natural disaster striking a major city.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Good thing the bill does that: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB562#id_364D9E8C-5071-421F-BCA8-738FB6FC28F8 Duckbag posted:Vermont has the second smallest population of any state. They have far fewer people to care for, but also no bargaining power, a small tax base, and no way to take advantage of economy of scale. California's population is more than sixty times that of Vermont and our economy is larger than that of most nations with effective single payer. California to Vermont isn't an apples to oranges comparison, it's apples to watermelons. It might take unfucking our tax code and keeping the feds and industry fucks from sabotaging it, but California unquestionably has the resources for single payer at least on par with Canada's.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and live in California. Taking their money and refusing to give them health insurance would be tantamount to robbery, which I'm sure would mightily offend your sensibilities.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and live in California. Taking their money and refusing to give them health insurance would be tantamount to robbery, which I'm sure would mightily offend your sensibilities. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It is entirely reasonable to fine people for breaking the law So you're just a horrible person huh? Would mentioning that hundreds of thousands of undocumented Californians came as small children mean anything to you? I dated one. She was 30, had lived in California most of her life, and was still undocumented because immigration law is a nightmare and people don't want to put targets on their backs while waiting to get papers. Interstate commerce and healthcare intersect in interesting ways that I don't know much about, but I haven't seen much of an argument for why it would be a deal breaker. Pretty much everyone I've read discussing why the Vermont plan failed brought up the fact that it's a state that's not used to such large social programs and also most Vermonters live about an hour drive from an out-of-state hospital. As for negotiating with providers, California has 12% of the US population. Vermont has about 0.2%. Isn't it reasonable to assume that one will have a whole hell of a lot more leverage than the other?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Would mentioning that hundreds of thousands of undocumented Californians came as small children mean anything to you? You're assuming that he cares about any Californian he can't see in the mirror
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
We already  lose money on undocumented people when they get emergency care, might as well cut down on that with preventative care first.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Are you serious? Animal shelters don't hire people who believe in dog fighting, pharmacists can't have drug problems, why do you think the state government should be forced to hire people who are in favor of its violent destruction? I don't want people like you determining what other people and groups believe for the purposes of taking away their employment.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
so happy the CA GOP is a mess and people like dead reckoning have very little voice in the state government
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:so happy the CA GOP is a mess and people like dead reckoning have very little voice in the state government E:It would be nice to get an electable canidate (that in reality would probably be more like a red state democrat) to run against people like Diane Feinestein. E2: all that said I would like to see a functional healthcare system built from the smouldering ashes of the previous one. CopperHound fucked around with this message at 16:51 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:God willing. Unfortunately, it's a policy that directly benefits the upper middle class, the wealthy, and those who got here first, so I don't have high hopes. Could that be softened if only primary care were included in universal single payer st first? Kind of like how well baby checkups are free to make sure everyone goes?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Diane Feinstein is the moderate opposition at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Diane Feinstein is the moderate opposition at this point. Yes, unfortunately she's not running as a Republican.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
No joke - last night, I had a dream where I realized that I had a "Reelect Diane Feinstein" bumper sticker on my car and I woke up panicking about how it got there.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 17:30
|
|
