|
Trabisnikof posted:You mocked someone for daring to ask a question about fire policy as a lay person, but presume to know all about healthcare. Yet you only can cite yourself and your misreading of a paper. Got it. Can you explain how my interpretation of the passages I quoted is a misreading?
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
They're not too far off from SB-562. http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=18&event_id=3367
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mocked someone for assuming a conclusion about firefighting despite not having the vocabulary to even articulate the point they were trying to make properly. mock isnt really the word so much as "had a totally freaking meltdown"
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:They're not too far off from SB-562. Graphic says 185 but website text says 377? edit: ok I see that the video is the correct one. Aeka 2.0 fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:22
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Lemming posted:You would need to know how much staff they have to hire to deal with all the different insurance companies, how much less you'd need to spend if you were only dealing with one, and how much less you'd need to spend if you were dealing with a government run payer rather than a private insurer. It's also not at all what The Glumslinger posted, which specifically invoked arguing with Medicare about reimbursement. (Medicare would still exist in this fantasy world.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Even if we assume that the paper is correct and having a single insurer would net a 15% savings across the healthcare sector, and even assuming that savings is 100% passed on to providers, it's still less than the haircut the paper assumes providers will take. Where did I argue anything but the fact that you're an rear end in a top hat who made poor assumptions? You wrote "just sort of assumes that hospitals, physicians, and other service providers will simply suck it up and take a 22% to their reimbursement while providing the same quality and level of service." which implies that's literally the whole situation (that hospitals would be paid less with no other factors), when you didn't account for something that would be glaringly obvious to anyone who understood anything about the situation. He also posted literally that there were savings due to not having to pay people to deal with private health insurance companies The Glumslinger posted:Knowing a lot of physicians, I'd say alot of them would take deal, since they almost never get face value on anything that they charge and have to employee tons of people to argue with insurance and medicaid to get payments You don't know what the gently caress you're talking about, you pretend to have authority and understanding you don't, and you dismiss everything you don't agree with on a gut level out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
What the gently caress was that? They skipped over it as someone wasn't at their desk. Does that mean they are done with it for the day?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
They skip bills when the author of the bill isn't around. I'm guessing if Senator Lara comes back, they'll pick it back up. He's been absent for a lot of the votes today, for some reason. Maybe he's in the conference meetings, working on the budget.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:SB 179 just passed! CPColin posted:SB 179 just passed 25-12. Oh, man, that's great news. I've been out today because of a job interview and stuff and only just learned this, but this is definitely good news to come back to. Hopefully it passes through the house fairly quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
CPColin posted:They skip bills when the author of the bill isn't around. I'm guessing if Senator Lara comes back, they'll pick it back up. He's been absent for a lot of the votes today, for some reason. Maybe he's in the conference meetings, working on the budget. Looks like he is back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Holy gently caress. Anderson needs to shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Watching the stream now, wow, the way votes on this are read, with the last person's vote closer to the next person's name than the actual vote makes this confusing to listen to. Had to take some effort to hear things right; at first listening and watching the list was leaving me very confused. So, any updates on 562? No one's been posting about it in here, and it sounded like they're finishing soon; are they just not voting on it, or...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
It'll be in tomorrow's session.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Alright, thanks. When will who voted for what be published? I want to harass my senator if he didn't vote for 179 (it's Berryhill, a Republican, so he probably didn't, unless he abstained), and also about 562, even if that won't accomplish anything probably. Edit: I know it was available during the stream, but I missed that, and the legislature site hasn't updated yet, so. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
I think when Appropriations passed SB 562, it took a few days for the site to update. Maybe they only do it on Fridays or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Okay, so, that was weird. Called Berryhill's capitol office to say I support SB 562, and was told that they heard the bill's author is considering pulling it. Anyone else hear something like that? That doesn't sound right. Was I lied to by my senator's representative, or did something happen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Okay, so, that was weird. Called Berryhill's capitol office to say I support SB 562, and was told that they heard the bill's author is considering pulling it. Anyone else hear something like that? That doesn't sound right. Was I lied to by my senator's representative, or did something happen? Of course a legislator who proposes a bill will be considering pulling it, at least until it lands on the chief executive's desk. Brains are weird. But no one says that because it's usually vanishingly unlikely, and even if there WAS an above-background chance of pulling the bill they wouldn't be talking about it unless there was a suitable alternative that wasn't vulnerable to the same spitball reasons for pulling the first one, or pulling it was basically certain. They probably simply have no idea what's going on, but said that to discourage constituents that might want to replace them with their general election opponent, or even primary them, for voting against the public interest - because hey, if the person who brought the bill no longer believes in it, why should I, a member of the electorate, hold my representative to account for opposing it? Really, they aren't even lying. But they may very well be BSing their constituents. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
You're right; that doesn't sound right. I don't see anything like that on Senator Lara's Twitter or Healthy California's Facebook.
CPColin fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
dont be mean to me posted:Of course a legislator who proposes a bill will be considering pulling it, at least until it lands on the chief executive's desk. Brains are weird. But no one says that because it's usually vanishingly unlikely. He actually suggested I call Lara's office about it, which is the weird thing, but yeah, I've been leaning more towards "I got lied to" than "Lara's decided the ongoing popularity and success of 562 means he must keep it from being voted on" or whatever. Whatever. The guy's a Republican so I'd be voting against him anyway, this is just one more thing to hold against him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
You should call Lara's office and say, "I support calling out Berryhill for lying about SB 562."
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:He actually suggested I call Lara's office about it, which is the weird thing Telling your constituents to cross district lines is a gutsy play. I wonder if Berryhill's hoping they'll ask why Lara's pulling his own bill. I mean yeah, "I'm not the author of the bill, go ask them" seems like a decent redirection, but it could also be a gaslight, the right wing is demonstrably not above gaslighting, and I don't have much room (still more than I ever should have had?) for taking right-wing discourse in good faith or at face value these days. CPColin posted:You should call Lara's office and say, "I support calling out Berryhill for lying about SB 562." Ooo, I like this idea. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Yeah, I called their bluff and called Lara's office to ask about this, saying I'm not one of his constituents but support SB 562 and was wondering why Berryhill's office is saying "the author" is considering pulling it; person there I talked to made it sound like they have no intention of pulling it and in fact directed me to the oneplanmychoice.com site, then actually asked for my name and email to keep in touch because he sounded somewhat interested in this, so, at best Berryhill's team is misinformed. At worst they're doing a (really weird) play and outright lying to their constituents because... I don't even know why really, it's baffling. I mean, there's not even any reason to do so because, with the Democrat supermajority, whether this passes or fails is basically not on them anyway. He could have just thanked me for engaging politically and wished me a good night, but instead... Yeah. I don't know. In both cases I called their capitol offices, by the way. Just in case that's relevant. God, I somehow have the worst reps. Nunes is my House rep and I've hated him since I was in college, and now apparently Berryhill's team is doing weird bullshit and lied to me because reasons. Democrats need to gently caress these assholes up. Edit: Seriously, I am so confused/bemused/amused by this, because it's so dumb. Democrats have a supermajority so his vote is irrelevant anyway, and again, he could have just thanked me for my time and let me go since I was being polite about things (despite my hate for Republicans I'm not belligerent when calling them) and I'd have hung up, knowing I accomplished nothing but glad I at least called. Now I'm baffled and interested and engaged not just on the matter of SB 562 but also on what the gently caress Berryhill's team is up to, and I also may have gotten Lara's team involved. Did I get a rogue staff member? Is this some really stupid plan o his team's part? Are they legitimately that misinformed? I don't know, but this doesn't seem at all worth it for Berryhill, and there's no option here that looks good, outside maybe his guy having misheard me. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Just called my rep (Bill Monning) about SB 562, which was actually my first time calling a political office. I feel pretty good about it! It only took a second, too. http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
It feels good to make the call because these calls are legit important and before you ever do it it seems like it would be a major pain in the rear end, then you do it and you realize it only took like 30 seconds and you did something important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Now I'm baffled and interested and engaged not just on the matter of SB 562 but also on what the gently caress Berryhill's team is up to
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:When will who voted for what be published? I want to harass my senator if he didn't vote for 179 (it's Berryhill, a Republican, so he probably didn't, unless he abstained), and also about 562, even if that won't accomplish anything probably. The roll call for SB 179 is up now: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB179
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:This is weird. The call pretty much should have just gone "okay, we'll mark you down in support of 562" I know, right? What the hell. CPColin posted:The roll call for SB 179 is up now: Thanks. I just saw that, yeah. Unsurprisingly Berryhill did in fact vote against it, the fucker. Well, one more reason to vote against him next chance I get. Edit: Oh hey, stream's started.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
gently caress I didn't realize Pat Bates is the Republican leader in the Senate. It sucks being represented by her and Darrell Issa. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:gently caress I didn't realize Pat Bates is the Republican leader in the Senate. Hey there, bad rep buddy. Nunes and Berryhill here, both of whom I have personal grudges against due to their responses to my attempts to contact them in addition to hating their policies and votes and whatnot. Though with Nunes it's more of a petty grudge over a form letter response to me that thanked me for my support of him and two terrible bills that I had contacted him to criticize and ask how he could support them, rather than his team outright lying to me personally because reasons. I should look up my assemblymember. Jim Patterson, another Republican. I bet he's a fucker too. Edit: Ha, this current guy's a moron. He's repeating Trump's "repeal two regulations for every one we pass" except for government agencies and whatnot. What a loving idiot. Do we have any Republicans who aren't complete lunatics or monsters? Also, where the hell is Lara? Edit again: Good grief Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
I liked yesterday when Moorlach asked questions of a couple of bill authors and they had answers ready that demolished whatever point he was trying to make. Like, for one bill, he asked, "Did anybody with a financial background review this?" and the author was like, "Yes, these three people reviewed it and the last one was an advisor to George H.W. Bush." And I hope Lara's doing Conference Committee work with the budget and not just hanging out somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Oh my god shut up and quit whining about the poor wall-builders and people resisting Trump. No poo poo your colleagues are resisting Trump; the country may have voted for him, by some measures, but this state voted against him, and the state senators represent California. Edit: Holy gently caress the next Republican argument here is even dumber and more disingenuous. I hate these people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
drat, Lara is doing some good work. Any chance of getting a gay Mexican into the Oval Office?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Any chance of him being at his dang desk once in a while? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
They went through a lot of his bills earlier, got to the one in the agenda just before 562, then went to someone else's bill earlier in the agenda instead. I have no idea how they decide what agenda items they address because they seem to jump back and forth arbitrarily sometimes. So, is that today's session over, 562 pushed to tomorrow, or are they just taking a break? I missed the end due to a phone call.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Where are we at today with Lara is he still out again? edit: well poo poo, hope it is just a break.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
They're caucusing, probably to figure out who's going to argue against what. The Republicans are in "the Cocks Room," a fact I greatly enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
CPColin posted:They're caucusing, probably to figure out who's going to argue against what. The Republicans are in "the Cocks Room," a fact I greatly enjoy. How long does that last, as long as they need it to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:How long does that last, as long as they need it to? I didn't notice how long it took last time. Maybe half an hour to an hour or so? I wonder if any of them called a caucus in order to get some lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
 WE DID IT GUYS
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
I mean good, but you're a bastard right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:48
|
|