|
silence_kit posted:P.S. not a lot of people wash out of medical school--it is not that hard. You don't need to be a brilliant genius to be a doctor. If they just let more people in, more people would meet the standards, and we'd have more doctors. medical schools have acceptance rates in the single digits - they weed everyone out who they're not completely sure will make it thru the program during the interview process it's p crazy but yeah we need to mint more new doctors like whoa esp since the damage the AMA did a decade ago or so when they thought that there were too many being graduated at once like what happened in law - instead of in reality where we barely even have enough to handle the people who have money to be seen in the first place. iirc we need nearly twice the numbers we have currently if we want to adopt the evils of socialized medicine the two main problems as i understand it is that it's too difficult to open new med school programs (and that teaching doctors are expected to also practice to support themselves since teaching alone doesn't pay too much) and that there are far far too few residency spots available for graduating doctors since it's directly tied to medicaid funding and hasn't been increased since the 90s (and that having resident doctors is somehow not profitable enough for a hospital so they need that federal money to pay them less than the nursing staff)
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
This isn't a California prop, but since you guys are so used to discussions that put state constitutional amendments and taxation directly in the hands of voters, and because I know you guys (in this thread, not statewide) are a generally progressive bunch, I bring this question to you: Sales tax on prescribed medical equipment like pacemakers, etc. Yes or no? I know California passed an exemption at some point, many large states like New York have not, but since this is on my ballot this year and I've chewed through the CA props with you bunch a lot, I just wanted to know if anyone had any strong feelings how I should vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This isn't a California prop, but since you guys are so used to discussions that put state constitutional amendments and taxation directly in the hands of voters, and because I know you guys (in this thread, not statewide) are a generally progressive bunch, I bring this question to you: In general, sales tax is really bad and regressive as it punishes low/middle class people more than anything else. Instead there should just be increased progressive-levels of property/income tax but alas, general trend is just slowly ramp up sale tax until it'll be like 20%+ many years, hell we're almost there with almost 11% sales tax here in some California Counties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Given the markup on medical equipment I don't think sales tax is going to make a dent in either direction
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
If you have an opportunity to cut sales tax on medical equipment with a vote, I'd vote for that. The dent it makes to the states' coffers would have to be infinitesimal. But yeah generally sales taxes are bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Well, Nevada is one of those states that boasts of not taxing incomes and making it up on property and sales taxes and use taxes, so "sales taxes are bad" isn't up for debate. Perhaps what annoyed me is that the Question was put on the ballot and funded by one of the state's manufacturers for such equipment, the kind of self-interest measure CA props are long familiar with. The argument against was written by a private citizen and basically went, "what is a medical device? This question doesn't define it, so It'll be up to the Legislature (which meets for three months every two years and isn't due back in 18 months) to figure it out!" I decided to vote for the exemption after researching how, of all places, Canada handles such things under their GST.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This isn't a California prop, but since you guys are so used to discussions that put state constitutional amendments and taxation directly in the hands of voters, and because I know you guys (in this thread, not statewide) are a generally progressive bunch, I bring this question to you: If it is a life and death necessity and must be purchased, then it should have no tax. Pacemakers definitely fit under there. If people insist on tax, then maybe a deduction could be applied directly to the out of pocket cost so that it covers basic models and not luxury models (such as maybe those with bluetooth communication or whatever) but man, that would be so much work that it wouldn't be worth making the distinction in the first place. If it is a prescribed medical device then just make it tax free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Crossposting from USPol:Roland Jones posted:So California's attempting to pressure states with anti-LGBT laws now:
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
celeron 300a posted:If it is a life and death necessity and must be purchased, then it should have no tax. Pacemakers definitely fit under there. Completely disagree. The medical device tax was supposed to be part of Obamacare (but they keep delaying it) and it was specifically designed as a revenue stream to help subsidize the insurance of poorer people. So while most sales tax is regressive, the medical device sales tax is much less so. It's actually effective wealth redistribution. The poorest people aren't even really paying the tax (as Medicaid will pay for their device and its sales tax). The lower-middle-class will pay lower premiums for their insurance because of Obamacare subsidies funded by this sales tax, while the upper-middle-class will pay the regular price for premiums to the insurance plans that will buy their device if it is needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Crossposting from USPol: This is cool and good. Tolerance of intolerance is the dumb , and states that enforce 'religious restoration' or whatever stupid name they give their anti-LGBT bullshit don't deserve the help of the government to articulate with the 8th largest economy in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:This is cool and good. Tolerance of intolerance is the dumb , and states that enforce 'religious restoration' or whatever stupid name they give their anti-LGBT bullshit don't deserve the help of the government to articulate with the 8th largest economy in the world. Oh, I agree here, for sure. I love the idea here, I just wasn't sure how it'd work out in practice. Not sure if there's something I'm missing that'd make it a bad idea in practice or something. If there isn't, then the law has my full support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Oh, I agree here, for sure. I love the idea here, I just wasn't sure how it'd work out in practice. Not sure if there's something I'm missing that'd make it a bad idea in practice or something. If there isn't, then the law has my full support. I'm not arguing that the following would tip the scales but there are annual conferences that move around the nation for my field, and we have managed to send people them for the training aspects in spite of our of state travel already being like pulling teeth. I'm not certain how common this is with other fields as it's pretty uncommon in mine. I can think of other scenarios where this would be a baby with the bathwater issue (emergency aid) but I'm not certain how often that would come up given the distance. If Nevada or Arizona were on the list I would be a lot more hesitant as we'd be risking retaliatory behavior in likely emergency conditions like a major earthquake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I can think of other scenarios where this would be a baby with the bathwater issue (emergency aid) but I'm not certain how often that would come up given the distance. If Nevada or Arizona were on the list I would be a lot more hesitant as we'd be risking retaliatory behavior in likely emergency conditions like a major earthquake. Is there any trigger that nationalizes public services under federal control? Some 9-11 level poo poo where Homeland Security/The President just says you're under federal auspices now? That would get around it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:This is cool and good. Tolerance of intolerance is the dumb , and states that enforce 'religious restoration' or whatever stupid name they give their anti-LGBT bullshit don't deserve the help of the government to articulate with the 8th largest economy in the world. Roland Jones posted:Oh, I agree here, for sure. I love the idea here, I just wasn't sure how it'd work out in practice. Not sure if there's something I'm missing that'd make it a bad idea in practice or something. If there isn't, then the law has my full support. This is stupid as hell. Deciding that we are going to cut ties with states that are insufficiently liberal is a perfect example of putting feel-good politics ahead of having a functional state. Off the top of my head, a lot of state agencies, like CalFire, the CHP, and the state Emergency Management agency, have mutual aid agreements with their counterparts in other states. That's why you saw CHP guys helping out after Hurricane Katrina. The idea is, when the Big One hits, or wildfires get out of control, those states will send resources to help. Abrogating those agreements can only hurt us in the long run, and sets an awful precedent. Should we refuse to do business with Nevada, or any of the states that supply us with water, because they haven't adopted California's preferred policies about gun laws or drug legalization? And maybe you think, "oh, we can get along without AK, TN and NC," but I guarantee you the rest of the states in the south and the great plains are paying attention. FilthyImp posted:Is there any trigger that nationalizes public services under federal control? Some 9-11 level poo poo where Homeland Security/The President just says you're under federal auspices now? That would get around it.  no. "Why can't we just have the feds make the people we refused to help, help us?" All the executive can do is mobilize FEMA resources and activate federal troops in certain circumstances. I don't think trying to deploy a National Guard unit without the home state's consent has ever been tried before, but I can't imagine it would go well.
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is stupid as hell. Deciding that we are going to cut ties with states that are insufficiently liberal is a perfect example of putting feel-good politics ahead of having a functional state. Off the top of my head, a lot of state agencies, like CalFire, the CHP, and the state Emergency Management agency, have mutual aid agreements with their counterparts in other states. That's why you saw CHP guys helping out after Hurricane Katrina. The idea is, when the Big One hits, or wildfires get out of control, those states will send resources to help. Abrogating those agreements can only hurt us in the long run, and sets an awful precedent. Should we refuse to do business with Nevada, or any of the states that supply us with water, because they haven't adopted California's preferred policies about gun laws or drug legalization? The law specifically makes exceptions for emergencies: quote:(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to travel that is required for any of the following purposes: California isn't going to refuse to send firefighters or other emergency crews to North Carolina during an emergency because of their transphobic laws. On the other hand, it puts pressure on states like NC and MS to cut this poo poo out and to stop persecuting their LGBT residents. Edit: realized MI was Michigan, not Mississippi. FreshlyShaven fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Can I put up a sign in my restaurant that says "We reserve the right to refuse service from people of North Carolina, Tennessee, or Arkansan decent"? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:The law specifically makes exceptions for emergencies: Yeah agree, I like this bill. It seems like the government equivalent of "look, I don't hate you, I still think you're a good person, but if you're going to be a bigoted shithead I don't think we can hang out anymore." We'll still send 'em flowers when they get cancer or chip in to help when their house burns down, we're just not going to go have drinks with assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:The law specifically makes exceptions for emergencies: That may not say what you think. It doesn't specify who's public health has to be protected and the use of "affected" could be meant to mean that, say, calfire can go to TN to get a bulldozer to deal with a CA earthquake. A flood in KY doesn't necessarily have an effect on the Division of Dams.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:Yeah agree, I like this bill. It seems like the government equivalent of "look, I don't hate you, I still think you're a good person, but if you're going to be a bigoted shithead I don't think we can hang out anymore." We'll still send 'em flowers when they get cancer or chip in to help when their house burns down, we're just not going to go have drinks with assholes. Honestly, I wish we weren't giving them emergency aide either. If they want our help they can move to a less bigoted state. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Zachack posted:That may not say what you think. It doesn't specify who's public health has to be protected and the use of "affected" could be meant to mean that, say, calfire can go to TN to get a bulldozer to deal with a CA earthquake. A flood in KY doesn't necessarily have an effect on the Division of Dams. The spirit of the law is obviously "don't be a shithead when people are suffering." It's vague on purpose to allow the government to use discretion. There is always the chance that we elect assholes, but then it's on us to not elect assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:The spirit of the law is obviously "don't be a shithead when people are suffering." It's vague on purpose to allow the government to use discretion. There is always the chance that we elect assholes, but then it's on us to not elect assholes. "Affected" is specific and without watching or reading legislative discussion I would say the intro text of the bill does not indicate that the spirit is to make exceptions. If they intended to keep it vague then "relevant" would have been a better term. I'm on a tablet so it is a giant pain to determine if previous versions of the bill used different language from which to determine intent, as sometimes you can glean what they want from how first drafts are curiously worded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
All that really tells me is that the bill was written by people who don't understand disaster preparedness. You don't show up on game day with a bunch of resources and say, "here you go." These sort of things take prior coordination and planning, and interagency relationships that take time to develop. The best possible interpretation of that clause is, "we will help, but in the most ineffective way possible in order to make a political point," or "All who desire aid from California must come to California and bend the knee, because we are too good to go to your morlock states." It isn't going to put pressure on the targeted states. They can still get aid from 49 other states and the federal government. If anything, it will harm people who want to repeal the bathroom bills, because their opponents can tar them as wanting to cave to political pressure from coastal elites. This kind of overweening arrogance and attempts to dictate to everyone else is why California is a dirty word in other states. Also, the logical end result of other states adopting similar laws, (say, about "fetal health") is states self-segregating into overlapping blocs that may or may not cooperate or coordinate with each other depending on statutory interpretation and the day of the week, which is about as retarded and un-American as you can get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Blame the state that passed the discriminatory law that hurts those very first responders when then ask for their help. Don't blame the state that protects its citizens from spending tax dollars to support laws that discriminate against Americans and traveling Californians. The complaint is that HB2 is "not a big enough deal" right? Or would people oppose this sort of travel ban in the face of any discriminatory law?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:All that really tells me is that the bill was written by people who don't understand disaster preparedness. You don't show up on game day with a bunch of resources and say, "here you go." Well, it is if you're being sent from California to North Carolina on short notice because of a fire or flooding. And in such a case, it's up to the federal government and the affected states to co-ordinate rescue activities, not Sacramento. Obviously, first responders need continuous training and whatnot, but they can do it in California or the other 47 states which don't make being trans in public a criminal act. It's not as though California emergency authorities maintain branches in all 50 states as it is. The fact is that the law makes reasonable exceptions to ensure that rescue activities and those involving emergencies will not be impacted by the boycott. quote:These sort of things take prior coordination and planning, and interagency relationships that take time to develop. Which is why the law makes exceptions for travel(and doesn't preclude communication between CA state agencies and NC/MS state agencies) when doing so is in the interest of preserving human life and property. Which would almost certainly include trips necessary to maintain disaster preparedness. quote:It isn't going to put pressure on the targeted states. The boycott has already put a lot of pressure on the states. True, sports leagues dropping events in NC probably had more impact than banning CA state employees from traveling to NC on state money has, but the point of a boycott is to present a united front of opposition and condemnation. quote:They can still get aid from 49 other states and the federal government. Then why are you so upset about it and why is it California's job to take the lead in dealing with a disaster in North Carolina? quote:If anything, it will harm people who want to repeal the bathroom bills, because their opponents can tar them as wanting to cave to political pressure from coastal elites. That's always a risk with boycotts, but thankfully, that doesn't seem to be happening: the bathroom bills are unpopular and many NCers are a) worried about financial consequences and b) ashamed by their state government's behavior and at the fact that NC is an object of scorn across the country. quote:This kind of overweening arrogance and attempts to dictate to everyone else is why California is a dirty word in other states. One could make the point that banning trans people from using public bathrooms is precisely the kind of hatred and poo poo-headedness that has given the South such a sterling reputation, but such petty regional insults are pointless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Well, it is if you're being sent from California to North Carolina on short notice because of a fire or flooding. And in such a case, it's up to the federal government and the affected states to co-ordinate rescue activities, not Sacramento. Obviously, first responders need continuous training and whatnot, but they can do it in California or the other 47 states which don't make being trans in public a criminal act. It's not as though California emergency authorities maintain branches in all 50 states as it is. The fact is that the law makes reasonable exceptions to ensure that rescue activities and those involving emergencies will not be impacted by the boycott. Alright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Well, it is if you're being sent from California to North Carolina on short notice because of a fire or flooding. And in such a case, it's up to the federal government and the affected states to co-ordinate rescue activities, not Sacramento. Obviously, first responders need continuous training and whatnot, but they can do it in California or the other 47 states which don't make being trans in public a criminal act. It's not as though California emergency authorities maintain branches in all 50 states as it is. The fact is that the law makes reasonable exceptions to ensure that rescue activities and those involving emergencies will not be impacted by the boycott. FreshlyShaven posted:Then why are you so upset about it and why is it California's job to take the lead in dealing with a disaster in North Carolina?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
 Won't someone please think of the homophobes? Dead Reckoning posted:All that really tells me is that the bill was written by people who don't understand disaster preparedness. You don't show up on game day with a bunch of resources and say, "here you go." These sort of things take prior coordination and planning, and interagency relationships that take time to develop. The best possible interpretation of that clause is, "we will help, but in the most ineffective way possible in order to make a political point," or "All who desire aid from California must come to California and bend the knee, because we are too good to go to your morlock states." quote:(7) For the protection of public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the affected agency, department, board, authority, or commission, or by the affected legislative office, as described in subdivision (b). Way to read, chief.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Waaaah, I don't care about effective government as much as I care about someone, somewhere in another state, passing a law I disagree with.A White Guy posted:Way to read, chief. I'm curious what exactly you think that means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Waaaah, I don't care about effective government as much as I care about someone, somewhere in another state, passing a law I disagree with. So would you be saying the same thing about other discriminatory laws?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm curious what exactly you think that means. As determined by the affected agency means no, actually Sacramento isn't deciding whether or not the first responders training conference in North Carolina meets or does not meet the exceptions laid out in the law: it's up to the agency sending that employee to make that determination. All the law requires is that they make such a determination, e.g., just document the fact of making the decision or assign someone to make that decision or whatever. In fact if the law is too vaguely written, it's on the permissive side: any agency that finds itself inconvenienced by this law can pretty trivially get around it to send their employees wherever they want, just by having someone write on a piece of paper that they think this particular case meets the exception criteria of being "for the protection of the public health, welfare, or safety."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So would you be saying the same thing about other discriminatory laws? If they aren't in California, they aren't an issue the California state government needs to be involved in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
California is protecting its own employees with this law. Presumably some percentage of CA's employees are transgendered, and CA is making the decision not to require them to go someplace where they'll be forced to obey discriminatory laws. It's also not singling them out by having a law that only says transgendered employees can't be sent to discriminating states, because to enforce that, transgendered employees would have to identify themselves and be treated differently than their peers. In that respect, this isn't just California trying to apply its values somewhere else, and it's different from some other state being mad about CA letting people get abortions or whatever, because Alabama doesn't require its employees to go to CA and then get a forced abortion there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Yeah, that's bullshit and we both know it. If it was really all about protecting trans employees who are using a restroom opposite their birth gender but are also not out to their peers, they could have just passed a bill with little fanfare that said employees could not be compelled to visit the targeted states without having to provide a reason and left it at that. The cutting of funding and the language used by proponents of the bill (like "boycott") make it obvious that the purpose is to punish other states for having laws California disagrees with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, that's bullshit and we both know it. If it was really all about protecting trans employees who are using a restroom opposite their birth gender but are also not out to their peers, they could have just passed a bill with little fanfare that said employees could not be compelled to visit the targeted states without having to provide a reason and left it at that. The cutting of funding and the language used by proponents of the bill (like "boycott") make it obvious that the purpose is to punish other states for having laws California disagrees with. Good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Again, how are you going to deal with it when evey state between the Sierras and the Appalachian Mountains decides they won't cooperate with California outside national level disasters until we recognize a fetal right to life? I, for one, will cry all the way to the beach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If they aren't in California, they aren't an issue the California state government needs to be involved in. So if we still had de jure segregation in the south you'd oppose a similar travel ban?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, that's bullshit and we both know it. If it was really all about protecting trans employees who are using a restroom opposite their birth gender but are also not out to their peers, they could have just passed a bill with little fanfare that said employees could not be compelled to visit the targeted states without having to provide a reason and left it at that. The cutting of funding and the language used by proponents of the bill (like "boycott") make it obvious that the purpose is to punish other states for having laws California disagrees with. No, that isn't bullshit. Putting a minority of your employees into a position where they are singled out - such as because they have to tell their boss "no, I don't want to go to that thing in North Carolina, but don't ask me why, but you can't make me, but you obviously know why, even though neither of us will put that reason on paper" - is discriminatory. And yes, I have no doubt at all that the legislators who passed this bill also want to score political points. Nevertheless, your argument was that CA has no interest, and this is a direct interest: protecting its own employees. It makes the bill defensible from a legal standpoint, at the very least. And if the effect of protecting its own employees from discrimination is secondary, well: I'll take it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, that's bullshit and we both know it. If it was really all about protecting trans employees who are using a restroom opposite their birth gender but are also not out to their peers, they could have just passed a bill with little fanfare that said employees could not be compelled to visit the targeted states without having to provide a reason and left it at that. The cutting of funding and the language used by proponents of the bill (like "boycott") make it obvious that the purpose is to punish other states for having laws California disagrees with. haha you really hate living in california don't you
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:
Probably an inlander
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
More like Dead Recktening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:36
|
|