|
I got my mail-in ballot and have been procrastinating researching all my choices. Glad this thread exists to get me started in the right direction. Still gonna vote for the cigarette tax, though.
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
It's really lovely that California is refusing to absorb this expense considering they are the ones ultimately at fault. I've already seen some people blame Obama though
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Yeah, besides my fear-mongering friends making up poo poo like mandatory minimum sentences, the only other negatives I could find were growers against it because it "would invite big business to swoop in and steal all their profits". Which doesn't really have an effect on me. Jerry!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:I just read Pete's write-up, having already voted, and his write-up is pretty damned convincing on no. Hrm. I didn't really think about what would happen if the drug companies just refused to sell at that price, leaving the state with no leverage to enforce the proposition. I considered it, but I talked to my dad and he seemed pretty positive that at the end of the day, they want to make money and won't turn down making a large profit to gently caress people over for the chance to make a huge one if there were any risks. I told him he might be underestimating how greedy and inhuman drug companies are, but he's been around the block a lot longer than me so I took his word for it. Plus the proposition bars the state from buying drugs at a higher price. They can refuse to sell at that price, but that just means the state is powerless to buy. They won't be making any money, just causing a political ruckus.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:which I believe is actually printed in the voter guide that our environmentally friendly state killed a whole bunch of trees to send you. Actually we generally get our paper from sustainable tree farms now and have for a long time, according to my Environmental Science professor, but please continue your pseudo-intellectual outrage at people who don't agree with you
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Drug companies probably would have spent a lot of money fighting a ballot proposition to put their California offices to the torch and to throw their shareholders in the stocks so that the poor could pelt them with rotten fruit, but that wouldn't make voting for it out of spite a good idea. I would, though. I'd vote for it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:~$140K/yr 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Doesnt communism extremely bias people who are shady and immoral by putting everyone on a level playing field and making any succesd based on illicit activity and favor exchangimg  capitalism definitely doesn't favor people who are shady and immoral and promote illicit activity and favor exchanging
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Just wait until the trusts get busted u0 again Busted up by whom? Big Government? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:
Probably an inlander
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Chard posted:I posted this in USPOL where it promptly drowned in piss. Should have known better. Read the last few pages friend
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Pain of Mind posted:Are the soda and cigarette taxes seen as regressive since those are more common lower income vices, or does the increase in price limit usage enough to make it worthwhile? I am not really sure how to vote for those amendments. It depends on whom you ask. I personally think that while sin taxes do hit the poorest the hardest, if it gets them to stop destroying their bodies with harmful substances it's a net good. The rich can choke on their lung cancer for all I care.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:They strike me as patriarchal. You know why the poor don't eat the same way as the rich? It's because they're poor, not because they're dumb. Let them eat cigarettes!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:it's weird seeing a billboard for Prop 61 along a certain major highway in the Central Valley He finally got that name recognition! People love him. Losing the primary relatively close was probably the best thing that could've happened to him. None of the baggage of the presidency, all the popularity of his ideals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's weird how "The people who use government services should be the ones who pay for them" is a libertarian pipe dream, except when ostensible liberals are paternalistically slapping the wrists of the poor, $2 per pack at a time. Please do explain how a libertarian utopia would ensure that medical bills for lifelong smokers would be placed on the shoulders of those who incur them. Would they make sure the cost of cigarettes are high, like is proposed, even though they're cheap to manufacture and cigarette companies would gladly underprice their product to get people addicted? Or would they eliminate taxpayer-funded medical care and force the poor to either pay their outrageously expensive American medical bills themselves, or try and get insurance they can't afford because it isn't regulated and the industry has ridiculously high premiums and pre-existing conditions? Either way, I'd love to hear you justify how that way of government is fairer and more responsible to the least fortunate among us than those mean liberals and their awful nanny state tsk-tsking at them for their body-destroying chemical habit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:Do the same for wine https://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub92.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:Yes, however: Feel free to write the proposition, then, you edgy thing
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:I'm saying tax it at lets say $1/bottle rather than $0.04/bottle Considering the price at which wine is normally bought by rich people, that is most definitely a regressive tax.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Speaking of CRV, let's crank that poo poo up to a dollar. Be a real shot in the arm for the people who go around collecting cans. I'd actually like to hear about the consequences of doing something like this, perhaps as an alternative to a soda tax.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Honestly eating the rich is just always the better option.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
So we're safe in our ivory tower liberal stronghold, right? The rest of the country is going to burn, but we'll be alright, right? e: Seriously, who went out to vote to ban plastic bags and speed up the death penalty?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
"Safe" as in we are not going to become second class citizens completely unprotected by the federal government. Everyone's economy is going to be hosed, but we can at least be shielded from the social consequences of the election. e: Also we should not secede from the U.S., Brexit was incredibly dumb and self-sabotaging.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Unless you're operating on the Democratic/Republican axis, I don't really see what one has to do with the other. I mean, legal weed is backed by the concept of overcriminalization and innocent people going to jail. The death penalty is backed by the concept of recidivism and criminals being horrible people who deserve to die.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Either that, or legal weed is backed by the concept of "I wanna smoke weed." "I wanna smoke cigarettes" was not enough to stop Prop 56 and I'd argue more people smoke cigarettes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:The thought that occurred to me that made me think, as emotionally satisfying as it is, a CalExit isn't actually a good idea is that I think I now understand how nationalists, Brexit voters, and Trump voters feel. #Calremainia I think you're quite right. I never thought I would take solace in state's rights. Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Do we know whether or not the Ds have supermajorities again? Googling is finding me pre-election news. Ballotpedia suggests Ds have 55 of 80 Assembly seats now, which is a supermajority. Not sure about the State Senate, we won 15 of 20 races there. How many did we need to win? e: We lost districts 25 and 27 and gained districts 21 and 29. We failed to unseat any incumbents. So that looks like a wash.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
raminasi posted:That's the official line, anyway California went to Clinton so probably the former.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:My wonderful city, Oceanside, re-elected the incumbent City Treasurer Gary Ernst with 53% of the vote. He died in September. Dead men sell no bonds
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:God, I love California but I don't think it's immune from the forces that elected Trump. Instead of Calexit or something equally stupid, I'd like to an effort to fix some of the real, structural problem with the state. Things that come to mind include Prop 13, water rights, and governance in general (constitution, term limits, ballot initiative process). Also can we get a Cliff's Notes of our Constitution
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
This is pretty funny: (Prop 61)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Xaris posted:If it did, I wouldn't be surprised to see republican house+senate+president to pass bills banning state-level UHC just as a gently caress you, and it wouldn't effect any states that voted for them anyways. But states' rights! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Also, a lot of Trump voters live in places that didn't get the Medicaid expansion anyway. Thanks to the party they voted for!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
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. So how much does the insurance industry pay you to post here?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That's an actual problem, dude. California is the one state with the most possible leverage, because it's got something like 20% of the country's population and universal health care would mean signing up the entire population. But it's still the case that any given medical provider can refuse to cooperate by taking its ball and going home rather than accept a state-determined low price for its products. Of course it's an actual problem, but literally all that guy does is post about how it's stupid to even attempt it, without ever offering his own solutions (probably because he would get obliterated). He's nothing but a concern troll.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Holy poo poo, are you guys trying to set some sort of goldfish-like record for shortest memories in politics? Then let's throw our support behind it, and leave it to the policymakers and experts to answer those questions. That's why we elect representatives.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
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
|
|