View Full Version : Human Rights Bonanza! California's Senate just passed Single Payer!!!!
gimmethesimplelife
6-2-17, 6:15pm
That's it, that's all I have to say. I just read online that California's Senate just passed Single Payer Health Care......Redding is looking really really really good right now.....and I've always liked the State Flag in California, and there still is some minor movement about to secede plus California is going against Trump's pulling out of the Paris Accord. I've for many years thought California was expensive and pushy and not my kind of place but I gotta say, living somewhere with basic human rights at this level (that are available with citizenship in any other country in the developed world) is my kind of place. I'm looking at California very differently now.....Rob
I read about this the other day. The annual expense to the citizens will be over twice the state's current general budget, and the legislation doesn't include a method of paying for it. I wonder how that works?
I read about this the other day. The annual expense to the citizens will be over twice the state's current general budget, and the legislation doesn't include a method of paying for it. I wonder how that works?
Tax the rich more.
Teacher Terry
6-2-17, 6:37pm
People in CA have been moving to Nevada in droves especially when they retire because of the HCOL and taxes. I am all for single payer but they do need a realistic plan to pay for it.
I believe that we're entering a time when states and cities are taking action rather than wait on Washington. On various issues and on various sides of the arguments. This will be interesting to watch ...
I believe that we're entering a time when states and cities are taking action rather than wait on Washington. On various issues and on various sides of the arguments. This will be interesting to watch ...
So, sort of like things were back when we signed up to the Constitution?
As with everything the devil will be in the details. I'm ok with higher taxes to pay for it. My employer and I combined already shell out over $6,000/year in premiums for my high deductible policy. However, I'll be curious to see how we stop a massive flow of retired people from moving here just for healthcare. Obviously a large inflow of nonemployed people would be unsustainable.
I was listening to an interview of the mayor of LA recently where he tossed out the statistic (I assume it was accurate) that in last november's election $230 billion in state and local spending initiatives were passed by voters around the country. That seems to tell me that people aren't really against paying taxes and having a government that spends money. Maybe it's just that they don't feel like they are getting much from the federal government for the amount of taxes paid in. Not particularly surprising when such a huge part of the federal budget goes towards a ridiculously bloated military.
That seems to tell me that people aren't really against paying taxes and having a government that spends money. Maybe it's just that they don't feel like they are getting much from the federal government for the amount of taxes paid in. Not particularly surprising when such a huge part of the federal budget goes towards a ridiculously bloated military.
Bingo. Plus I think that folks tend to prefer local solutions - my community is much more likely, for instance, to support a school bond issue or a county-wide environmental program than to send money down to Seattle to fund unclogging their highways. Especially when the State has been taking our gas road taxes for years, and not sending a penny back to the county.
Bingo. Plus I think that folks tend to prefer local solutions - my community is much more likely, for instance, to support a school bond issue or a county-wide environmental program than to send money down to Seattle to fund unclogging their highways. Especially when the State has been taking our gas road taxes for years, and not sending a penny back to the county.
Yes, the federal spending affects how we feel about taxes, but when we see it in action I have no problem contributing. In Colorado we voted for some good pot tax money, I am curious to see what happens next because many of us feel it is not being used the way we voted for. A lot is going into 'healthy lifestyles' programming, which on my side of delivery is a pain in the rear.
I do see local and state starting to step up, I also see in general. My son's best friend just graduated and their urban school has a lot of immigrants. He told me about how they are taking care of issues in their school community from girls in hijabs being harassed on the bus to a kid being accused of something and the students getting involved in making sure he was treated fairly. I don't know the details but just the sense I got from him of being mature and engaged was awesome.
It does look like states are responding to the current regime by stepping up to the plate. Maybe that's the silver lining to a very dark cloud. I hope California's single-payer plan is a success and I hope we can fend off Trump's war against women, immigrants, the environment, cannabis, etc. I expect the "Left Coast" to be a leader in this. I never thought I'd be an advocate for states' rights, but here we are.
iris lilies
6-3-17, 11:11am
?..I never thought I'd be an advocate for states' rights, but here we are.
Why ever not?
But in the end, each state can be just as dictitorial, as bloated, as corrupt as the big feds. Citizens must be ever vigilent, and not wax poetic about state go ernance.
I think it is great that Cali will be paying for all health care for its citizens. As to concerns mentioned above about paying for it, you guys are just downers.
Why ever not?
But in the end, each state can be just as dictitorial, as bloated, as corrupt as the big feds. Citizens must be ever vigilent, and not wax poetic about state go ernance.
I think it is great that Cali will be paying for all health care for its citizens. As to concerns mentioned above about paying for it, you guys are just downers.
Because it's been historically used to defend odious practices like segregation, and is still being used to promote religion in government, voter suppression, and other retrograde practices. Of course the devil is in the details of the California plan, but I have hope. A national plan would probably work better, but we work with the army we have, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld.
I think it is great that Cali will be paying for all health care for its citizens. As to concerns mentioned above about paying for it, you guys are just downers.
Except that Cali isn't paying anything, the citizens will pay for state run healthcare along with all the problems such as waste, abuse, rationing and the reality of wealth fleeing the state for greener pastures.
I'm as much an idealist as anyone but I think it must be tempered with reality. Unicorns are extinct and rainbows are rare. ;)
flowerseverywhere
6-3-17, 11:34am
As with everything the devil will be in the details. I'm ok with higher taxes to pay for it. My employer and I combined already shell out over $6,000/year in premiums for my high deductible policy. However, I'll be curious to see how we stop a massive flow of retired people from moving here just for healthcare. Obviously a large inflow of nonemployed people would be unsustainable.
interesting point about elderly. Especially if the powers that be start screwing around with social security and Medicare. Which I would not put past any of them.
We lived for a few years in a house a company rented for us in Los Altos when DH was doing some work in Silicon Valley. We got to know the owners and they had four pieces property that had been in the family for years thus had very low taxes thanks to prop 13. Which is the case for some of the multi million dollar houses in California.
It it will be interesting to see what happens. If the Feds cut off funding to sanctuary cities, you have a large elderly population sucking up lots of healthcare, a large illegal population (who send their kids to taxpayer funded schools) and prop 13 and mix them all together it could prove to be an interesting ride.
Teacher Terry
6-3-17, 12:27pm
Californians have been moving to NV in droves for the past 20 years that I have lived here for lower taxes, etc.
interesting point about elderly. Especially if the powers that be start screwing around with social security and Medicare. Which I would not put past any of them. ...
It it will be interesting to see what happens. If the Feds cut off funding to sanctuary cities, you have a large elderly population sucking up lots of healthcare, a large illegal population (who send their kids to taxpayer funded schools) and prop 13 and mix them all together it could prove to be an interesting ride.
Gee, I'd hate to be accused of "sucking up lots of health care" as an old person. How dare I get sick and cost somebody something! (Didn't I pay into Medicare?) Glad I'm healthy. Of course if health care costs here were equivalent to what they are elsewhere, maybe I could just pay for them out of pocket, which I would be happy to do. But that's not about to change unless we kick the insurance/Pharma grifters out of the temple.
ToomuchStuff
6-3-17, 12:42pm
I was listening to an interview of the mayor of LA recently where he tossed out the statistic (I assume it was accurate) that in last november's election $230 billion in state and local spending initiatives were passed by voters around the country. That seems to tell me that people aren't really against paying taxes and having a government that spends money. Maybe it's just that they don't feel like they are getting much from the federal government for the amount of taxes paid in. Not particularly surprising when such a huge part of the federal budget goes towards a ridiculously bloated military.
People like having the right to decide where their money goes and what causes to support or not. Taxes without representation or choosing how to use them helped push this country into being. People want transparency (which you won't get with federal black budgets or so large that people needed forensic accounting training to decipher hidden things) and to be able to see the results.
That doesn't mean people are not stupid enough to be duped. As politicians/preachers, etc. can infer one thing, and you actually get exactly what they said, and not what you thought because of what they inferred. (my states example is gambling and education. It was inferred that the gambling money would go to schools on top of the regular money, what happened was what they said, gambling taxes ONLY go to education, and the money that would have gone to education, went back into the general fund)
But there is always the fight about balance, because without the federal government, it would have been a cluster of problems to get highways across this country, or the internet started, and other things we do see that we like, use and want maintained.
flowerseverywhere
6-3-17, 1:35pm
Gee, I'd hate to be accused of "sucking up lots of health care" as an old person. How dare I get sick and cost somebody something! (Didn't I pay into Medicare?) Glad I'm healthy. Of course if health care costs here were equivalent to what they are elsewhere, maybe I could just pay for them out of pocket, which I would be happy to do. But that's not about to change unless we kick the insurance/Pharma grifters out of the temple.
here is the proof
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/2010AgeandGenderHighlights.pdf
i am 63. Many of my friends have had costly joint replacements, several have had strokes and cancers and many many have various skin cancers. The majority are not due to lifestyle but rather shit happens. Add to the lifestyle components of loss of activity and social contacts many seniors have is not helpful for circulation, mental acuity and just plain old wearing out and nursing home costs and seniors are a costly group indeed.
Yes, it's hell getting old. And costly, unless you just keel over. I guess I don't see the point. Soylent Green, maybe? Mandatory voluntary self-immolation?
Age-related illness seems to cost a lot less elsewhere (from a sports medicine site):
Hip replacement surgery
• $6,757 in Spain
• $7,685 in South Africa
• $15,465 in New Zealand
• $16,335 in the United Kingdom
• $17,112 in Switzerland
• $19,484 in Australia
• $29,067 in the Unites States
iris lilies
6-3-17, 3:51pm
Except that Cali isn't paying anything, the citizens will pay for state run healthcare along with all the problems such as waste, abuse, rationing and the reality of wealth fleeing the state for greener pastures.
I'm as much an idealist as anyone but I think it must be tempered with reality. Unicorns are extinct and rainbows are rare. ;)
Downer!
Why wouldnt Cali citizens wish to pay for everyone's health care? What could possibly go wrong? Dont give me none of that downer finances talk, now. Dont bring me down.
:)
Downer!
Why wouldnt Cali citizens wish to pay for everyone's health care? What could possibly go wrong? Dont give me none of that downer finances talk, now. Dont bring me down.
How do they do it in all the civilized countries in the world? As someone pointed out, when you look at the cost of insurance, it's clear the public sector could do it much more cheaply.
gimmethesimplelife
6-3-17, 4:22pm
How do they do it in all the civilized countries in the world? As someone pointed out, when you look at the cost of insurance, it's clear the public sector could do it much more cheaply.Jane, Thank You for your reasonable post here. I have the same question for all conservatives here - how does every other country in the developed world manage to pull this off for their citizens, and why do Americans believe they are not worth human rights to this level? I knew differently at the age of 8 for crying out loud.....no one had to tell me anything, I figured this one out for myself at a very young age. It did not take intelligence, just common sense and the ability to think for myself and to not care what others thought of me when I knew I was on to common sense. Rob
Jane, Thank You for your reasonable post here. I have the same question for all conservatives here - how does every other country in the developed world manage to pull this off for their citizens, and why do Americans believe they are not worth human rights to this level? I knew differently at the age of 8 for crying out loud.....no one had to tell me anything, I figured this one out for myself at a very young age. It did not take intelligence, just common sense and the ability to think for myself and to not care what others thought of me when I knew I was on to common sense. RobWhatever sense tells you that you have a right to other's assets, educational product and skills is not necessarily common. But then again, what does an 8 year old know?
It would be more accurate to say you prefer to vote yourself an entitlement paid for by your neighbors. That's what those other countries have done.
It's called a risk pool. Most countries have them. But we live here in DogEatDogistan, where we're supposed to fend for ourselves or die trying.
gimmethesimplelife
6-3-17, 6:17pm
Whatever sense tells you that you have a right to other's assets, educational product and skills is not necessarily common. But then again, what does an 8 year old know?
It would be more accurate to say you prefer to vote yourself an entitlement paid for by your neighbors. That's what those other countries have done.I see it very differently - I see it as everyone pitching in for the good of the collective - this is why the concept of socialized medicine so fits me and works so well for me. Now, Alan, seriously, after sparring with me (mostly good naturedly, I'll give you that right here and now) for some time, can you at least see why the United States is not a good fit for me, with my concern for the collective and the collective good as I have? I don't mind paying high taxes so that someone else - the next Rob in the 85006 for example, let's call him Javier (I've always liked this name) can have access to necessary health care as I did this past December when I had a 3.5 inches in circumference liver abscess.....I'm willing to pay more so that Javier can get well and recover and hopefully continue to contribute something to the collective.
You know something though? I really wonder if this is a straight vs. gay thing? Seriously! And I'm the one who brought this up, ok, not you, let me state that here and now. I state this only because I really do believe straight men are taught (and buy into) the concept of rugged self sufficiency in this society (the only society in the developed world where straight men are abused this way, btw, and I DO have sympathy for this abuse, I truly do, and I don't believe it's all men causing this abuse, either, ladies) whereas gay men like myself are afforded a luxury most straight men don't have access to (and I feel for straight men here, I truly do)....that being concern for the collective and the collective good as opposed to rugged self sufficiency. It makes me very glad to be gay - way beyond sexuality if anyone can grasp this - that I am worth the luxury of being concerned for the collective good as a gay man. Oddly enough, if any of you were to meet me (and I still feel bad as I was going to meet some of you in Phoenix at the Art Museum on their free entrance day but bailed due to illness) I am not particularly masculine but I am also no man into the gay scene - in other words, I can't be easily pigeonholed as I don't fit into the gay world much better than I do the straight world.
I bring all this up as I truly believe that straight men are raised to believe in going it alone at all costs (at least in this society) and gay men are afforded a break from (what I consider anyway) this abusive BS. I may bitch an awful lot about my lot in life, I'll give you'all that right here and now, but I have to say Alan, with no snark whatsoever intended, Thank You.....for helping me realize here that I truly have something to be grateful here that I never fully realized before - the luxury of being allowed to be concerned for the collective good of society - and being worth this luxury due to the fact that I'm gay. What a perk!!! I really mean this. What a perk. Whoever is responsible for my being worth this luxury - many, many, many Thanks and much gratitude, and no snark whatsoever is meant here. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-3-17, 6:22pm
It's called a risk pool. Most countries have them. But we live here in DogEatDogistan, where we're supposed to fend for ourselves or die trying.I'm so grateful that I started seeing this through this line of thinking the Summer I was 8 years old - 1975 - when I discovered that the laws in America are applied based on skin color and social class. I'm so glad I never bought into this thinking!!! Something to be proud of and I will say that my family in Austria has my picture up on their family wall due to this fact alone - that I chose at an early age to reject this line of thinking and kicked it to the curb for the abusive BS it truly is. Rob
It's called a risk pool. Most countries have them.
Exactly. Everyone uses a fair amount of healthcare over the course of their lifetime. We already cover people when they have the most expenses, in their old age. It really doesn't seem like much of a stretch to increase the Medicare tax sufficiently to cover everyone from cradle to grave. If we wanted to be more "fair" for Alan's apparent definition of fair maybe we should stop giving medicare to people who didn't work a sufficient amount during their working lives. After all, why should society have provided my mother medicare since she stopped working at 25 to become a housewife and stay at home mother and never reentered the workforce or paid another dime in medicare withholding.
iris lilies
6-3-17, 7:22pm
here is the proof
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/2010AgeandGenderHighlights.pdf
i am 63. Many of my friends have had costly joint replacements, several have had strokes and cancers and many many have various skin cancers. The majority are not due to lifestyle but rather shit happens. Add to the lifestyle components of loss of activity and social contacts many seniors have is not helpful for circulation, mental acuity and just plain old wearing out and nursing home costs and seniors are a costly group indeed.
I heard on the radio that the U.K.'s Teresa May and her party were proposing to take the estates of Alzheimer's patients because that populatin is bankrupting the NHS. Funny, thats what we do HERE. But it didnt fly, the citizenry there nixed it.
Teresa May, just another downer. Just print the money to pay for everything, thats what everyone else (cough cough California) does!
How much are you willing to pay? I pay $18,000 per year for my wife and I. This is after tax money. I haven't had a job in 10 years. I'd be happy if you would just pay half of mine.
it always seems the ones willing to pay high taxes, Arndt he ones actually paying them.
Maybe I could buy an acre or two out in the boonies and claim residency. I'll have to see how they are going to pay for it.
This is might be much Easier than dealing with Obamacare and getting my income low enough.
I would hope that they will be smart enough to only cover emergency treatment outside the state to prevent faux residencies.
Teresa May, just another downer. Just print the money to pay for everything, thats what everyone else (cough cough California) does!
Funny, I hadn't heard about our new California central bank.
I suppose we could just cancel all government spending, cut taxes and having a booming economy like (cough cough) Kansas. That seems to be working fantastically for them...
I would hope that they will be smart enough to only cover emergency treatment outside the state to prevent faux residencies.
What is a "faux residency"? If you have established yourself properly as a resident of California, and subject yourself to CA income taxes, seems to me you'd be entitled to all benefits of a CA citizenship. Heck, California is loath to let people *leave* the state, and pursues their income with great vigor already.
You probably can't show up on the doorstep and demand medical insurance as a resident with no prior association with the state (unless they decide to cover undocumented immigrants, and then you'd wonder if they'd discriminate between undocumented immigrants from Baja vs. those from Oregon...).
If California can't figure out how to pay for this, with the size and strength of their economy, then I don't see how the nation as a whole could manage to pay for it, assuming all other governmental expenditures remain the same. In my recent visit to the Scandinavian nations, and my exploration of their systems, I did notice their governments prioritize their spending quite differently than ours, allowing them to have some Really Nice Things, but at the expense of lacking a Borg-like military.
Maybe I could buy an acre or two out in the boonies and claim residency. I'll have to see how they are going to pay for it.
What is a "faux residency"?
I'll let dmc describe that for you.
I'll let dmc describe that for you.
you buy or rent a place there and say you live there for over 6 months of the year. Or you can just claim your an illegal. It will be interesting on how they pay for it. It's easy to vote for benefits, but someone has to pay.
Ive read where the cost is expected to be 400 billion. One report figured they could count on 200 billion on federal money, but if it's going to be spent on illegals that may be a tough sell.
Its not a done deal yet, but hopefully they can figure it out. I'm sure there are plenty of Robs out there that would contribute.
What is a "faux residency"? If you have established yourself properly as a resident of California, and subject yourself to CA income taxes, seems to me you'd be entitled to all benefits of a CA citizenship. Heck, California is loath to let people *leave* the state, and pursues their income with great vigor already.
You probably can't show up on the doorstep and demand medical insurance as a resident with no prior association with the state (unless they decide to cover undocumented immigrants, and then you'd wonder if they'd discriminate between undocumented immigrants from Baja vs. those from Oregon...).
If California can't figure out how to pay for this, with the size and strength of their economy, then I don't see how the nation as a whole could manage to pay for it, assuming all other governmental expenditures remain the same. In my recent visit to the Scandinavian nations, and my exploration of their systems, I did notice their governments prioritize their spending quite differently than ours, allowing them to have some Really Nice Things, but at the expense of lacking a Borg-like military.
They do plan on covering illegals, so just don't show any ID's.
Nationally, we could reinstate reasonable income tax rates, close loopholes, and do something to curb massive "defense" spending--black budgets, anyone? We could prioritize keeping people alive and healthy in this country rather than killing random people abroad. Not likely, I know.
They do plan on covering illegals, so just don't show any ID's.
Actually undocumented immigrants can get a driver's license or state ID here since it cuts down on hit and run accidents.
you buy or rent a place there and say you live there for over 6 months of the year.
Which it would seem would subject you to the tender mercies of the California Franchise Tax Board.... I had a devil of a time escaping them...
(As I recall from when I was a citizen of CA, it wasn't that simple to become a resident, *unless* they thought they could get their hooks in you tax-wise They've already got rules in place to cover the case of random people from across the country declaring residency to get state-resident tuition rates in the University of California system - I suspect they'd adopt a similar policy for their medical care system. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/tax-law/b/stateandlocaltaxation/archive/2013/07/22/california-residency-for-income-tax-purposes.aspx )
Nationally, we could reinstate reasonable income tax rates, close loopholes, ...
"Return to an era of 'reasonable' income tax rates and close loopholes" is a common narrative. However, any reasonable analysis of the issue would involve comparing the *effective* overall rates paid in the alleged Golden Age to today's *effective* rates. Which provides a bit of a different picture than simply looking at the top marginal rates.
Also, as usual, I'd love to have a good list of these awesome present-day loopholes that the rich can use. I've been looking for them for years now, with little joy.
You know something though? I really wonder if this is a straight vs. gay thing? ... I state this only because I really do believe straight men are taught (and buy into) the concept of rugged self sufficiency in this society ... whereas gay men like myself are afforded a luxury most straight men don't have access to ....that being concern for the collective and the collective good as opposed to rugged self sufficiency. ... I am not particularly masculine but I am also no man into the gay scene - in other words, I can't be easily pigeonholed as I don't fit into the gay world much better than I do the straight world.
Well done with laying on the stereotypes of both gay and straights, caricaturizing masculinity, trivializing the range of gay/queer culture, and the great just-so stories!
My father and his husband are gay. From an earlier era. The Stonewall era. They and their friends wear leather, smoke cigars, ride motorcycles, and are rugged, manly, self-sufficient men. They are rather fiscally conservative, while being socially liberal. They have each devoted much of their lives to public service. And both have served in the US military during wartime.
My father-in-law, who I just buried yesterday, was also gay. He was also a rather manly man, very self-sufficient - going on anthropological expeditions in very scary places with just his charm and wits. The crowd who showed up yesterday from all over the world to celebrate his life, and the heroic things he did to defend their rights or secure them a seat at the table was pretty impressive. He was a generation older than my father, was a bona fide socialist and founding member of the Post-WWII John Reed Society at Harvard (after his education there was interrupted by serving in WWII) and lived quite outspokenly through the McCarthy Era. His circle of gay society was very different than my father's, a vastly separate world and experience.
I grew up in gay culture, as I lived with my father many of my formative years, and I lived in my once-and-future father-in-law's house on weekends through most of my high school years. In my experience, both from observation and participation, your black-and-white gay vs. straight cultural/behavioural division is inaccurate, and harmful. And shall we talk about what respect your theory offers non-binary folks? (I realize significant chunks of the gay and straight community prefer to sweep such folks under the rug for a variety of reasons, but still....)
Which it would seem would subject you to the tender mercies of the California Franchise Tax Board.... I had a devil of a time escaping them...
(As I recall from when I was a citizen of CA, it wasn't that simple to become a resident, *unless* they thought they could get their hooks in you tax-wise They've already got rules in place to cover the case of random people from across the country declaring residency to get state-resident tuition rates in the University of California system - I suspect they'd adopt a similar policy for their medical care system. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/tax-law/b/stateandlocaltaxation/archive/2013/07/22/california-residency-for-income-tax-purposes.aspx )
It was just a passing thought. I'll just continue to pay my way as I've always done.
Which it would seem would subject you to the tender mercies of the California Franchise Tax Board.... I had a devil of a time escaping them...
I wonder if the song Hotel California was actually about the Franchise Tax Board...
Williamsmith
6-4-17, 3:33pm
Two thoughts.
1. It is going to be interesting to see the Californian politicians who are for free and open national borders try to defend why they have to set up strict state borders in order to protect the taxpayers of California from subsidizing non residents health care costs. Why should Californians have to pay for my health care if I chose to visit the state without healthcare and a preexisting serious disease and just bum around until I have to be hospitalized? Or perhaps I like to participate in risky extreme sports.....sounds like California might be the best place to skydive and hang glide.
2. When you create a system whereby you must tax the citizens of the state at least 15% of their payroll then I would think they have a right to demand those that are covered not be in a state of obesity.....which is a portender of extreme health care costs. So.....California might want to insist on an Obesity Tax with mandatory weigh ins? Who here would be in favor of that?
flowerseverywhere
6-4-17, 10:48pm
2. When you create a system whereby you must tax the citizens of the state at least 15% of their payroll then I would think they have a right to demand those that are covered not be in a state of obesity.....which is a portender of extreme health care costs. So.....California might want to insist on an Obesity Tax with mandatory weigh ins? Who here would be in favor of that?
don't forget the smoking tax
not exercising tax
sex without a condom tax
Alcohol drinking tax
motorcycle rider tax
high blood pressure tax
high cholesterol tax
driving a car on a freeway tax
female tax (you might have a costly pregnancy)
over 60 years old tax
breathing LA air tax
stepping outside your door tax
flowerseverywhere
6-4-17, 10:50pm
Well done with laying on the stereotypes of both gay and straights, caricaturizing masculinity, trivializing the range of gay/queer culture, and the great just-so stories!
My father and his husband are gay. From an earlier era. The Stonewall era. They and their friends wear leather, smoke cigars, ride motorcycles, and are rugged, manly, self-sufficient men. They are rather fiscally conservative, while being socially liberal. They have each devoted much of their lives to public service. And both have served in the US military during wartime.
My father-in-law, who I just buried yesterday, was also gay. He was also a rather manly man, very self-sufficient - going on anthropological expeditions in very scary places with just his charm and wits. The crowd who showed up yesterday from all over the world to celebrate his life, and the heroic things he did to defend their rights or secure them a seat at the table was pretty impressive. He was a generation older than my father, was a bona fide socialist and founding member of the Post-WWII John Reed Society at Harvard (after his education there was interrupted by serving in WWII) and lived quite outspokenly through the McCarthy Era. His circle of gay society was very different than my father's, a vastly separate world and experience.
I grew up in gay culture, as I lived with my father many of my formative years, and I lived in my once-and-future father-in-law's house on weekends through most of my high school years. In my experience, both from observation and participation, your black-and-white gay vs. straight cultural/behavioural division is inaccurate, and harmful. And shall we talk about what respect your theory offers non-binary folks? (I realize significant chunks of the gay and straight community prefer to sweep such folks under the rug for a variety of reasons, but still....)
maybe referring to them as people is a lot easier than complicated stereotypes
maybe referring to them as people is a lot easier than complicated stereotypes
Stop it with your crazy talk :-)
Two thoughts.
1. It is going to be interesting to see the Californian politicians who are for free and open national borders try to defend why they have to set up strict state borders in order to protect the taxpayers of California from subsidizing non residents health care costs. Why should Californians have to pay for my health care if I chose to visit the state without healthcare and a preexisting serious disease and just bum around until I have to be hospitalized? Or perhaps I like to participate in risky extreme sports.....sounds like California might be the best place to skydive and hang glide.
2. When you create a system whereby you must tax the citizens of the state at least 15% of their payroll then I would think they have a right to demand those that are covered not be in a state of obesity.....which is a portender of extreme health care costs. So.....California might want to insist on an Obesity Tax with mandatory weigh ins? Who here would be in favor of that? Interesting questions. Didn't Vermont try to go single payer only to balk and recoil at the "cost?"
iris lilies
6-5-17, 7:33am
Interesting questions. Didn't Vermont try to go single payer only to balk and recoil at the "cost?"
Several states have had voted down single payer. Oregon and Colorado come to mind. I suppose it is the "cost" since it is a lovely idea, unicorns and rainbows and all, but when it comes to fundng it, that is a problem.
Our Colorado single payer proposal, ColoradoCare, was voted down by a large margin in the last election. I pretty much stopped studying the bill after learning that the Medicare system would be left in place, but a Medicare eligible senior's income would be taxed to pay for the new system. Essentially a new tax (for an age group that I am approaching) for no additional benefits. I think anytime you talk about a big new tax it's going to scare people away, even though there were plenty of number runners saying many or most would come out ahead or break even by not paying for health insurance otherwise. I don't know about CA, but I think there is a stigma around large new tax increases regardless of the benefits received and single payer will probably always be some form of wealth redistribution. Then again, that is basically what an insurance "pool" is about.
Comparing the exiting system run by greedy insurance companies padded with layers of middle men, and single payer with government bureaucratic waste and abuse, I'm not sure I see an advantage to either system over the other. I do like the concept of single payer if done correctly.
don't forget the smoking tax
not exercising tax
sex without a condom tax
Alcohol drinking tax
motorcycle rider tax
high blood pressure tax
high cholesterol tax
driving a car on a freeway tax
female tax (you might have a costly pregnancy)
over 60 years old tax
breathing LA air tax
stepping outside your door tax
Indeed. I remember reading, several years ago, that the Romanian government had done a study and found that because smokers die younger on average that they were actually a net benefit to the combined social medical care and old age pension programs compared to non-smokers.
Indeed. I remember reading, several years ago, that the Romanian government had done a study and found that because smokers die younger on average that they were actually a net benefit to the combined social medical care and old age pension programs compared to non-smokers.
Sure, but right there I am skeptical that Romania treats their dying-of-COPD and etc patients the same way with the same products and services that we do.
Dying is cheap. Keeping people alive is expensive.
Sure, but right there I am skeptical tah Romania teeat their dying-of-COPD and etc patients the same way with the same products as servcies that we do.
Dying is cheap. Keeping people alive is expensive.
We're all going to die from something. And regardless of lifestyle or how old they are the last couple of years of most people's lives is filled with expensive medical treatment no matter what the final cause of death, unless one happens to just drop dead from a heart attack out of nowhere. My dad's death from COPD was no more expensive than my FIL's death from parkinsons and aplastic (sp?) anemia. If anything it was probably less expensive since it only involved a six month final hospital stay instead of spending more than 50% of his last three years in hospitals the way FIL did.
We're all going to die from something. And regardless of lifestyle or how old they are the last couple of years of most people's lives is filled with expensive medical treatment no matter what the final cause of death, unless one happens to just drop dead from a heart attack out of nowhere. My dad's death from COPD was no more expensive than my FIL's death from parkinsons and aplastic (sp?) anemia. If anything it was probably less expensive since it only involved a six month final hospital stay instead of spending more than 50% of his last three years in hospitals the way FIL did.
But a six month stay in a U.S. Hospital stay is a phenomenal expense. There is no way Romania affords that same experience.
I am not saying that Romania "should" or that U.S. Care is superior or that we should do everything to keep people away feom death. I am saying none of that.
I am just making comparisons of experiences. Yhe U.S. Has big ezpenses in treatment, right or wrong.
Also, NPR did its best to convince me that COPD meds are very. very expensive, too expensive for the average bwar. This news segment ran last Friday.
From what I've read, the Senate bill basically makes a wonderful golden promise but leaves the grubby details such as who to tax to pay for it, and how to get the feds to turn over all the Medicare and Medicaid funding to California, to the Assembly. Getting their public employee unions and Medicare recipients to give up their current plans may be challenging. This could take a while.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-single-payer-bill-20170605-story.html
But a six month stay in a U.S. Hospital stay is a phenomenal expense. There is no way Romania affords that same experience.
I am not saying that Romania "should" or that U.S. Care is superior or that we should do everything to keep people away feom death. I am saying none of that.
I am just making comparisons of experiences. Yhe U.S. Has big ezpenses in treatment, right or wrong.
Also, NPR did its best to convince me that COPD meds are very. very expensive, too expensive for the average bwar. This news segment ran last Friday.
But what I'm saying is that regardless of one's final illness that last hospital stay or multiple stays in the US is crazy expensive. I doubt that Romanians simply give up on lung cancer or COPD patients quicker than they do other patients. My guess is that the final hospital stay(s) for any final illness in the US averages to X, with smoking related illnesses not being that different from others and that the final stay(s) in Romania is Y, a number significantly less than X, but again, not too different on average for smoking related final illnesses vs. other illnesses.
I'll have to look into that NPR story. Dad died several years ago and his COPD treatments prior to the hospital stay after getting pneumonia were not terribly expensive. His main med, advair, went off patent in 2010. Other than that his main medical expense beyond regular doc visits to monitor him was a few years of having an oxygen concentrator at home and tanks of oxygen for when he left home. Hopefully if there are newer treatments that cost significantly more they also work significantly better because even with these treatments he felt pretty lousy for the last 3 years of his life, to the point of not wanting to ever leave his tiny apartment because he didn't trust the portable oxygen tank as much as he did the concentrator.
Whatever sense tells you that you have a right to other's assets, educational product and skills is not necessarily common. But then again, what does an 8 year old know?
It would be more accurate to say you prefer to vote yourself an entitlement paid for by your neighbors. That's what those other countries have done.
Those other countries have citizens who, of their own free will, vote for higher taxes so that everybody can have health care, and education. in the long run, the common weal is the individual weal.
Speaking of entitlement, nobody succeeds as an individual in a bubble. Individual success is built on the use of other people's assets, skills, and educational products. Any employer feels entitled to use other people's skills and talents, for personal profit. Many, sadly, chisel their employees - keeping hours 1-2 below the level at which benefits are payable; paying the lowest wage at which they can get workers; demanding unpaid overtime.
When I first came to the USA, I worked 3 jobs, 60 hours a week. Two of those jobs were for the same employer, in different departments, 20 hours a week for each. I wasn't eligible for benefits because each department counted as a separate job and I wasn't working 21+ hours per week in either. 40 hours a week, no benefits. I couldn't get private health insurance because I have pre-existing conditions - in the bad old days pre ACA, migraine and depression could get one excluded, or quoted prohibitive premiums. After a year, after I was tipped off by a much more savvy co-worker, badgering by me, the Human Resources person reluctantly admitted that I could be included in my husband's insurance as a dependent - my husband worked for the same employer!
Exploitation is also common in high-level jobs, where employees are expected to answer work emails in the evening and over weekends, or volunteer their time to finish a project.
Karen Ho's ethnography of Wall Street, Liquidated, is a brilliant expose of the exploitation of lower-echelon staff, for whom an 80-hour week is the norm. They're not paid for 80 hours, of course. They're expected to demonstrate their commitment and put skin in the game. The burn-out rate is very high, as is the abuse of substances like cocaine that'll keep you going after what would normally be breaking point.
I worked for two weeks as a doctor's receptionist. I found I was expected to arrive an hour early to prepare the consulting rooms and clean the bathroom - unpaid. Likewise, I was expected to work through my lunch hour - unpaid - if there were patients in the waiting room, which was always. I was expected to stay after hours to dip strips into pee and pack samples for the lab - unpaid. Pee dipping? Only use one rubber glove, on my right hand, to save money. I left when the creep called me into the consulting room to help with a colonoscopy! The doctor bragged about how efficient he was and how high his profit margin was. He voted himself an entitlement to my time and my skills.
I would happily pay higher taxes on my gross pay for the sake of secure health care for all. I think that caring for the health of the populace is just plain common sense; better health all round is good for the individual as well as the population. I come into contact with many people every day, directly or indirectly. People touch things that I touch - like the grab handles when I'm standing in the streetcar. People cough and sneeze in the supermarket. The cashier in the coffee bar hands me my receipt. Conversely, others hang onto grab handles I've used; the cashier takes my cash or credit card. I might be in the early stages of an infectious disease, asymptomatic but still contagious, so I could be infecting people who have no, or very poor, health insurance.
To my mind, the true wealth of the state or nation is its people. History shows, over and over, that the ability to make great inventions, discoveries, insights, and human rights advances, or to create great art, music and literature, is not restricted to the privileged classes.
Those other countries have citizens who, of their own free will, vote for higher taxes so that everybody can have health care, and education. in the long run, the common weal is the individual weal.
Speaking of entitlement, nobody succeeds as an individual in a bubble. Individual success is built on the use of other people's assets, skills, and educational products. Any employer feels entitled to use other people's skills and talents, for personal profit. Many, sadly, chisel their employees - keeping hours 1-2 below the level at which benefits are payable; paying the lowest wage at which they can get workers; demanding unpaid overtime. ...
I would happily pay higher taxes on my gross pay for the sake of secure health care for all. I think that caring for the health of the populace is just plain common sense; better health all round is good for the individual as well as the population. I come into contact with many people every day, directly or indirectly. People touch things that I touch - like the grab handles when I'm standing in the streetcar. People cough and sneeze in the supermarket. The cashier in the coffee bar hands me my receipt. Conversely, others hang onto grab handles I've used; the cashier takes my cash or credit card. I might be in the early stages of an infectious disease, asymptomatic but still contagious, so I could be infecting people who have no, or very poor, health insurance.
To my mind, the true wealth of the state or nation is its people. History shows, over and over, that the ability to make great inventions, discoveries, insights, and human rights advances, or to create great art, music and literature, is not restricted to the privileged classes.
This bears repeating. I'll never understand what appears to be the prevalent mindset in this country--the "I've got mine, the hell with you" sentiment that is what you get, I guess, when you create a society of extremes where the more fortunate among us seem to think their wealth is conferred by God himself.
ApatheticNoMore
6-8-17, 10:51am
It's going to happen someday somewhere because people are sick of a dysfunctional system. And perhaps even more sick of fear of losing whatever access they have to healthcare even under a dysfunctional system (I mean it's only natural to respond to threats of losing ACA benefits with concluding that: "we need single payer"). The new ACHA is horrible and people know it, know they won't be able to afford healthcare under it, unless their state at least blocks most of it's effects. People are scared of losing ACA benefits, the ACA doesn't always work that well to begin with (although it already works much better in a state like CA where the state fully supports it, and the population base is large - it works very poorly in states where they are down to 1 or no insurers).
It probably would be a much less risky implementation on the federal level, it not easy financially for a state to pull of at all and it leaves the problem of how not to allow people from other states to just move there and get full healthcare benefits right away. And if that's allowed it's pretty disastrous IMO (because we don't need a population explosion of people who have moved here just yesterday and get free healthcare - they need to study how likely that is - not when people are being forced into homelessness already because they can't pay rent at this point). I don't' favor allowing instant full qualification. OTOH the healthcare system is dysfunctional. It's possibly whole regions could cooperate to get single payer, it would work better than states, but I'm not sure there is any mechanism for this given that's not how government is divided in this country. But since it's not going anywhere on a federal level, people will keep trying because, the current system doesn't work, and gets worse every year.
This bears repeating. I'll never understand what appears to be the prevalent mindset in this country--the "I've got mine, the hell with you" sentiment that is what you get, I guess, when you create a society of extremes where the more fortunate among us seem to think their wealth is conferred by God himself.
There may be some few people like that. But is it so unreasonable to ask about the limits of what the collective can ask of the individual? I do alright, but no one will ever mistake me for a fat cat. If I add up what I pay in income taxes, social security/Medicare, property taxes, sales taxes, etc directly, it comes to 35-40 percent even before considering all the taxes baked into what I pay for goods and services. Can I at some point say "enough" without being evil?
I realize I am part of and benefit from a larger society, and that some are incapable of providing for themselves. But if that society becomes too arbitrary and demanding am I wrong to protest? When did the Bill of Rights become a shopping list?
There may be some few people like that. But is it so unreasonable to ask about the limits of what the collective can ask of the individual? I do alright, but no one will ever mistake me for a fat cat. If I add up what I pay in income taxes, social security/Medicare, property taxes, sales taxes, etc directly, it comes to 35-40 percent even before considering all the taxes baked into what I pay for goods and services. Can I at some point say "enough" without being evil?
I realize I am part of and benefit from a larger society, and that some are incapable of providing for themselves. But if that society becomes too arbitrary and demanding am I wrong to protest? When did the Bill of Rights become a shopping list?
You make a fair point--In my Utopia, those at the very top, with more money than they could ever spend, should pay more in taxes, programs should be streamlined for efficiency, waste should be eliminated--think oil and gas subsidies and the military-industrial complex--and the profit motive should be eliminated from essential services--because where profit is everything, wages and corners are cut and costs just keep rising. But those are just some ideas--ideas that will probably never be realized because the one percent likes things just the way they are. The system is set up, maintained, and works for them.
ToomuchStuff
6-8-17, 4:03pm
When did the Bill of Rights become a shopping list?
Well, for those that immigrated to this country it may have very well become a shopping list to escape something it covers that wasn't provided in their country. (such as Jewish faith leaving Austria for freedom to practice and part of the declaration of Independence or a "camp")
I wish we had some access to those that had expatriated to other countries on this board, like all those American comedians who moved to England, or those like Tina Tuner who relinquished, verses renounced their citizenship and the differences thereof, as well as the why's. (in her case, probably had a lot to do with her husband)
It looks like the California Assembly has decided not to move forward on this legislation, something to do with "not addressing many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care or cost controls". Who'd a thunk it?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.