California Lawmakers Pondering Move to Dump Health Insurers

By | April 27, 2017

  • April 27, 2017 at 11:31 am
    Observor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 4

    If this passes, it would be great for surrounding states who would welcome the businesses who leave. These politicians all want the benefits, but no one wants to pay.

    The one other disadvantage of a single payer system is handling claims. With Workers Compensation, monopolistic states pay more claims and have much higher severities than competitive states. When a state converts from monopolistic to competitive, claim costs go down significantly.

    • April 28, 2017 at 9:48 am
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 11

      There is nowhere near the demand in neighboring states to support businesses leaving CA. Right-wingers have been explaining to us for decades how all the businesses are going to leave California because of minimum wage, gun laws, equal pay laws, environmental laws, etc., and it hasn’t happened. The only thing doing it is the state being too successful, and having too many people with money driving up real estate prices. All “big government” did there was create a university system that created Silicon Valley. I know we are all so surprised that didn’t happen in Alabama, what a freaking coincidence.

      Businesses cannot survive without demand, it’s shocking conservatives don’t understand that. Although, maybe if they do this a lot of businesses will move to Galt’s Gulch and flourish.

      • May 2, 2017 at 3:07 pm
        Perplexed says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        UW, I might believe what you’re saying if I didn’t know so many people from California that have moved to central Texas to live in a state that didn’t tax them to death. They sell their modest homes in California (probably some that are not so modest), come here and buy a ranch with their profit and then expect the municipal governments that they live in or near to behave as their former governments did. The majority of us Texans would love if they all went back to California. We don’t need nor want them here messing with our schools, local governments, etc.

    • May 2, 2017 at 9:05 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Increased demand in neighboring states will come from intelligent people exiting CaliBfornia for lower-taxed, better-governed, sensible political philosophy states.

      • May 2, 2017 at 10:53 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 4

        0% tax on a $40k income is still less worse than a 50% rate on $90k. But, genius, you missed the whole point, because it’s above you. There is no infrastructure there. There is little to attract people who do these jobs there. Even if companies wanted to go there, a large number of employees would not be there. They don’t like to go to IHOP and rip on minorities in their free time, they like to go to shows, comedy clubs, cool bars, public parks, concerts,etc.

        You are living in a fantasy world, liberal areas have had higher taxes for decades. They have grown and conservative states have shed jobs because they were lower skilled jobs, eg manufacturing. People are migrating towards urban, ie liberal areas lately, not away from them.

        What you are claiming is wrong, and it has been for decades.

        • May 2, 2017 at 11:12 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          How deep a fiscal hole is CaliBfornia in these days?

          Taxes aren’t the problem in CaliBfornia. It’s Liberal spending.

          • May 2, 2017 at 1:15 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            California has had a surplus for years, this year they have a deficit, largely due to Republicans cutting federal spending, not, genius, due to people. Also, Einstein, it’s weird, but they are 1st in the nation in real growth, despite having the largest economy. Maybe from moving trucks taking people away? Their deficit this year is less than 1% of GDP. Their debt is not particularly high for a state with their size, capital, and growth, and not much different than Texas’ debt. But California’s economy is built on tech, tourism, shipping and other industries while Texas’ is based on oul, and the numbers don’t account for the externalities imposed on the rest of society, making their numbers seem higher. But, of course, as a noted supporter of idiotic conspiracy theories you think climate change is a hoax by scientists. This is because stupid believe stupid things.

            The bottom states on growth are almost all conservative states, despite being smaller and less developed, and receiving a disproportionate amount of tax dollars from liberal states.

          • May 2, 2017 at 3:40 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “California has had a surplus for years, this year they have a deficit, largely due to Republicans cutting federal spending, not, genius, due to people”

            You are completely full of it. So California has a deficit because they rely on federal funding to ensure they don’t have a state deficit? Is that really what the above says? Then you go on to say that conservative states are taking tax dollars from liberal ones?

            Let’s just use California and Texas as an example and compare GDP growth in each state to spending shall we? I’ll list spending first as a percent of gdp, then economic growth each time. You can check this all out on this site:

            http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/compare_state_spending_2006pF0h

            2006:

            Texas:

            14.71% (Best 3 in spending)
            5.7% (Top ten in growth)

            California:

            19.24%
            3.2%

            2007:

            Texas:

            14.49% (Best 3 in spending)
            4.6% (Top ten again)

            California:

            19.80%
            1.6%

            2008

            Texas:

            15.33% (Best 3 in spending)
            .5%

            California:

            20.53%
            .4%

            2009

            Texas:

            17.41% (Best 10 in spending)
            -.3% (Very close to top ten)

            California:

            22.25% (11th worst in spending)
            -4.4% (Bottom Ten)

            2010

            Texas:

            17.48% (Texas again 5th best in spending)
            2.9%

            California:

            21.9%
            .9% (11th worst in growth)

            2011

            Texas:

            16.37% (3rd best again, seeing a pattern?)
            3.4% (Top ten in Growth)

            California:

            22.32%
            1.4%

            2012

            Texas

            15.18% (2nd best spender)
            5.4% (Top 3)

            California

            21.06%
            2.4% (Nearly in the worst 5)

            2013

            Texas

            14.49% (2nd best spender)
            4.3% (Best GDP growth)

            California

            20.5%
            2.6%

            2014

            Texas

            14.46% (2nd best spender)
            3.8% (4th Best GDP Growth)

            California

            20.25%
            3.1% (Finally joins Texas in the top ten, still loses, at 8th place)

            2015

            Texas

            15.24% (2nd best spender again)
            3.8% (3rd best GDP growth)

            California

            20.09%
            4.1% (California makes it’s second good running at GDP, with this being a tie for first place)

            2016

            Texas

            15.67% (Texas the 2nd best spender again)
            2.0% (Texas places 3rd best in the GDP growth)

            California

            21.15%
            2.2% (California’s third time of placing in the 5, in first again)

            So let’s recap, as this is now a total of 11 years:

            California hasn’t done too terribly in spending. They weren’t in the worst ten that often, though they were often in the worst 15-20. They were on the top of the economy growth twice, and top three once. However, they were also in the bottom ten twice, and on a normal basis, the bottom 15.

            Texas has done exceptional in spending. In 10 out of the 11 years they have been the best 5. In 9 of the last 11 years they have been the best 3. It seems we can have good GDP growth without massive spending. We should find services that are low cost to maintain, offer fruits of labor (agriculture) and don’t raise the cost of living for everyone else. I would rather have a state focus on oil mining than pushing more and more computer science careers that create their own stress, and college debt. That’s just a personal preference though and I’m not saying it should be one or the other. Different states will have focuses, and I think California has too much bet on the types of careers they do in computer sciences or college intensive jobs, and the poor in low skill fields there suffer out the kazoo for it due to higher costs of living. Either way you cut the cake though, Texas has done well enough economically compared to spending. 9 out of the 11 years they were in the top 11. 8 of the 11 years they were in the top ten. They hit 3rd three times, 1st, and 4th. So in 5 times they did the top 4 out of 11 years.

        • May 3, 2017 at 2:01 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          “There is little to attract people who do these jobs there. Even if companies wanted to go there, a large number of employees would not be there. They don’t like to go to IHOP and rip on minorities in their free time, they like to go to shows, comedy clubs, cool bars, public parks, concerts,etc. ”

          You have a very bigoted and narrow view of Texas.

          I’m sorry to break it to you, but this is not what happens in Texas. This is grouping without evidence, and yet you tell others “You are living in a fantasy world”

          This is precisely what needs to end. You can’t call other entire states of people bigoted.

          • May 4, 2017 at 6:17 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            STFU

          • May 5, 2017 at 12:54 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Getting a little tired of your one liners you throw out to people that don’t agree with you. It’s not just me. You call every conservative here crazy and idiotic.

    • May 2, 2017 at 9:06 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Here’s why it will happen soon;

      A frog in a pot of cool water will not jump out until the water is heated to a temperature that is uncomfortable for the frog.

      • May 2, 2017 at 10:51 am
        Confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        or until the frog is hungry

        or until there’s a predator in the water with him

        or until someone tips the pot over

        • May 2, 2017 at 10:55 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          Polar doesn’t understand how markets work, so he goes to cartoons, or stupid analogies.

      • May 2, 2017 at 11:13 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        Rabbit hole ahead! Enter at your own risk, all who dare discuss issues with Libitterals!

  • April 27, 2017 at 1:37 pm
    Jack Kanauph says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 5

    This is a wonderful idea. I’ve always said that government knows more about business than anyone, including business people.

    Ok, I never said that, ever! This is a dumb idea by some politicians looking to get there name out there. Any publicity is good publicity. Hopefully the good citizens (and the bad citizens) of California will shoot this down.

  • April 27, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Reality Check says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 6

    Lets do some simple math (Not Common Core) based on 2015 stats for California.
    Population: 39.14 million X Avg cost of care of $9,000 = $352,260,000,000 (14.4% of California GDP: 2.448 trillion)
    <18 million employed = $19570 in taxes per working Californian

    If the government takes over health insurance add 20% to the cost for administration so it will be a minimum of $23,484 per worker to fund.

    Good luck Dope Smokers in power.

    • April 27, 2017 at 2:41 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 12
      Thumb down 7

      How about we grant their wish to secede and let them handle all their expenses from now on?

      • April 28, 2017 at 12:11 pm
        Confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 2

        CA is ranked 46th on the Most Federally Dependent States list while TX is ranked 35th.

        How about we let TX leave and handle all their expenses from now on? It would be finanically better for the rest of us if TX left instead of CA.

        • May 1, 2017 at 12:08 pm
          Stardoes says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          You are absolutely right. The Federal government should eliminate all federal money to states except direct federal interests like the military, interstate commerce. Eliminate money (all states) to find intrastate roads, welfare, high speed rail, commuter trains, business and ag subsidies, etc. States should be able to make their own decisions and also find their own money to fund them.

        • May 2, 2017 at 9:16 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          THIS url matches your numbers…

          https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

          This url DOESN’T match your numbers:

          https://www.thestreet.com/story/13752300/11/the-10-states-most-reliant-on-federal-dollars.html

          This url DOESN’T match your numbers:

          http://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-dependent-on-federal-government.html/?a=viewall

          IF I search on Algore’s internet long enough, I will find a URL which lists states dependency on the Federal Govt for CERTAIN TYPES of state level funding which shows CA to be more greatly dependent on Federal funds than TX.

          So, what’s your point?

          My point: YOU’RE BUSTED!

          • May 2, 2017 at 11:52 am
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            My point: As TX is 36/50 and CA is 46/50 on the federally dependant list, TX leaving the USA would have a greater financial benefit to the USA than if CA leaves.

            Your first link: Confirms my statement
            Your second link: Stops after #10
            Your third link: Stops after #15

            36 comes after 15. Neither Texas nor California are even discussed on those other two links you posted.

            You provided one link that goes past #15 and that supports my original statement, so thank you for proving my point.

            You didn’t actually read your own links before you posted them here, did you?

          • May 3, 2017 at 1:45 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            From my ending:

            Federally, we can see that 2011 Texas was more than responsible.

            We can also see that from 2006 to 2016, on a state and local spending basis they were in the top states for responsibility.

            Why don’t you get to work on a chart from 2006 to 2011 on the federal aspect, since I already did the state and a year in Texas? We have yet to see any data showing negatives for Texas with numbers, just one terrible chart you posted. Was this the level of research you did in college? Be honest. You know it isn’t.

            I’m going to challenge you, because I don’t accept low level information, without data explained, and also because we should. This is a form of peer review, in a sense, that society should be doing. Do you think you can take up the challenge? Or will you back your links from others mindlessly?

          • May 3, 2017 at 2:47 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “You provided one link that goes past #15 and that supports my original statement, so thank you for proving my point.
            You didn’t actually read your own links before you posted them here, did you?”

            Agent,

            This was condescending and was based on personal insults. Do not talk with Confused.

        • May 3, 2017 at 1:40 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          The site you used as reference has terrible methodology for one.

          For Two: You googled to find something that supported the narrative that Texas took more than it gave. You did not search for data and then try to form your own conclusion. This is clear. Do your own thinking. As I just showed with my CA TX comparison. I didn’t just quote some study as to who was the best, who then weighed cherry picked numbers to meet their narrative. You didn’t even break down the basis from your “study” I will call it, even though it isn’t. You provided what you thought merited a study. You really think you’re a lot smarter than you are.

          For three: Federal benefits also happen to include Medicare. Saying Texas receives more federal benefits doesn’t mean much at all about Texas’s state and local benefits and fiscal responsibility if the whole of U.S. happens to pass federal benefits which target groups that happen to live in Texas. This is just a random note I had to add, not specifically due to Texas, but other states that actually do have disproportionate aging populations do tend to have higher federal spending than revenues, and this does not mean the states themselves are bigger takers in the sense that you are portraying it. Texas is right about average in the field of elderly age, but I still felt this needed to be pointed out as you clearly lack common sense and are disparaging with very rudimentary metrics many blue or red states that are known to have such an elderly population, there are states where people are known to retire more.

          For a bit more break down though: Far and away the largest amount of federal funds they receive is Medicaid. However, often people in present day weigh the temporary funds Texas received during stimulus years (which you yourself don’t count with Obama nearly as much), out of 30.247 billion spent in 2011, 4 billion were in the infrastructure category, much of it temporary stimulus. That’s a large chunk. Medicaid was 19.6 billion. Now unlike your link, I just gave the actual total spending dollars and didn’t say I would simply explain how I made the weight for all states. You by the way didn’t go over the methodology, you simply found a link that says Texas is behind California.

          Revenues from Texas in the 2011 time frame? Well first let’s see the report from Texas for their goals:

          ht tp://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/focus/Revenue82.pdf

          This was pretty responsible in terms of the plan. They were shooting for 77.3 billion in federal revenues brought in compared to 70.2 billion of spending over 2 years, what I’m seeing is that Texas is not taking more than what they put in. Your link doesn’t show those numbers, it just says who is the biggest taker and gives no explanation as to who was negative, who wasn’t, etc. Please note, that as I just said, the actual 2011 ended up being 30.24 billion, so Texas did better on the first of their biennial years than they expected, federally anyway. Their federal revenue in 2011 ended up being 38.4 billion. In other words: They paid more than 8 billion more than they put in during the 2011 year time frame, and, they outperformed their biennial budget and revenues the first of two years.

          ht tps://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/reports/revenue-by-source/history.php#2011

          The second of two years they dipped, down to almost 33 billion federal dollars, (32.9 billion)

          Before I go further here I have to note this is taking way too long too compile, and that’s why you don’t do it Confused. You’re simply lazy and would rather someone else do it for you. I have to weed out even government reports that do not truly include all spending. You can look up 2012. I’m not doing it.

          All I can say is that you need to do research like this for yourself. We can see that in the year I listed Texas was fiscally responsible. Your chart doesn’t show these numbers by year. It doesn’t have a breakdown. It says how it made the numbers, and even that is shotty methodology.

          I was going to go to California and compare, for a liberal state, but I don’t have to or want to. This isn’t my career. I shouldn’t have to break out my studying for this type of aspect, which should be common sense.

          Texas is not a taking state. They are fiscally responsible.

          • May 3, 2017 at 2:06 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            As you can see from my replies to Yogi, it’s possible to disagree with someone, present data, and not insult the other person when doing so.

            Due to your insults and ad hominim attacks, I respectfully refuse to engage you in further conversation on this matter.

            I will be happy to talk to you further if you are able to present your arguments without trolling me by insulting my intelligence multiple times.

            Would you like to talk about facts and stop with the insults and personal attacks, or are you not interested in discussing matters that way?

          • May 3, 2017 at 2:20 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            No. I’m not allowing this. My post was perfectly within reason. Quite the alternate: You’re going to admit my post was reasonable, or we won’t debate. Ron constantly engages in the speech style I just used, and you constantly try to state that Agent doesn’t use facts.

            You weren’t using “You didn’t actually read your own links before you posted them here, did you?” as an insult the same way in which I said you think you’re a lot smarter than you are? I think your ego does need to be kept in check when you simply post someone else’s study, and I think you’re using this to shape the argument so you can ignore my facts.

            My facts stand alone.

            You’ll debate my facts, not like this. This ruins debates, and is disrespectful to human nature.

            I was not out of line. Go watch the movie equilibrium, and realize the reason I’m snapping out you now is your level of control is out of line. Knock it off Confused, you have constantly bashed Agent around and talked condescending to him, just because I once say you think you’re a lot smarter than you are, it doesn’t mean anything and my argument was NOT ad hominem. I made points with DATA. Not with personal attacks as the basis. Look up the definition of Ad Hominem. On the other hand, you used Ad Hominem to manipulate the situation and try to force me to change my speaking style. Get over it! I talk how I talk. If you want to choose to ignore the other side based on how they talk so be it, but it is not a strength or virtue confused. I do not restrict any person from debate, who is within the normal band of human behavior, I don’t use high level bantering to dismiss facts when it occurs. This is why I tend to learn well. In every aspect I have grown it is precisely because I’m willing to debate “jerks” as you perceive them. Even people as bad as UW. I often tell him to stay on topic, but that’s about it, stop being soft. Deal with my speech, deal with life, deal with the other side, learn their woes, and respect them.

            Moving on: Put up your info and debate if you have one. Don’t dilly dally with comments like this.

          • May 3, 2017 at 2:26 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            To put this a bit further because I won’t tolerate this and have dealt with it my whole life:

            You don’t know how life works. When your boss redirects you and tells you quite explicitly your behavior is mindless, this is life. As long as he explains why, and how, and redirects you, he’s a good boss.

            I have seen constant millennials refuse to learn, using the basis of how they were talked to, over what they should learn.

            You need to learn the following:

            People need to be kept in check. This includes myself. When someone “mindlessly” posts a study that meets their narrative, while accusing someone of not having read links themselves, and doesn’t present a case based on the facts but thinks they did, they need to be told that was mindless thinking, and shown what is not.

            You have this absurd youthful way of thinking about things. So do I. Let’s try to keep each other on track, rather than off it. In this scenario your off.

            I’ve said before when I feel I’ve been out of line, or off track. You haven’t. So let’s get on track!

          • May 3, 2017 at 2:34 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Q: Would you like to talk about facts and stop with the insults and personal attacks…?

            A: No

            Alllllrighty then. I’ll be here if you change your mind.

          • May 3, 2017 at 2:42 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “No. I’m not allowing this.”

            You just doubled down on immorality. When you’re ready to acknowledge that my original comment was not based in personal attacks and was normal we can talk.

            What you just did was not ok. Don’t like me saying that? Don’t be immoral.

            Don’t like me saying you mindlessly posted a link? Don’t mindlessly post a link. By the way, being mindless is not meant as an insult. How should I phrase the fact that you posted a link which did not have data? You tell me. You yourself did the same with Agent above. You’re being a hypocrite. Is that now an insult because I said it? You’re being dominating in the conversation and are restricting speech. That is the “No, I won’t allow this” that I said no to.

            Stay on topic, debate facts. I will always debate facts, I won’t have my normal posts turned into something they aren’t. Got it?

          • May 3, 2017 at 2:45 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I got my point across on what you should learn. Let’s test you.

            Confused, I am ready to have a debate without insults.

            Start your debate. Be forewarned I will consider ANY line treading to be an insult, and due to your method of debate and own standards I WILL cut off any and all debate at that point.

            Do you consider me to be reasonable and open to all avenues of information? If so, make your argument and we can agree to this form of debate.

            Do you agree?

          • May 3, 2017 at 3:05 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Okay bob. Let’s give this a shot. Here’s my argument:

            1) I posit that TX is more dependant on federal government funds than CA is, as ranked in this list
            https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

            2) I argue I do not need to explain in detail the methodology that analysis used to create the list because they already included that at the end of the page for anyone to read.

            3) I subsequently argue that Yogi’s “YOU’RE BUSTED” links do not prove his argument that my data is invalid.

            3a) Yogi said I was wrong because https://www.thestreet.com/story/13752300/11/the-10-states-most-reliant-on-federal-dollars.html and
            http://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-dependent-on-federal-government.html/?a=viewall don’t match my numbers.

            4) I submit that those two links cannot be used to prove if TX or CA is more dependant on federal funds as neither of those two states are listed anywhere in those links.

            5) Based on 1-4, I do not consider it condecending or a personal attack to ask if someone read their links before posting them if the links don’t talk about the states we’re discussing.

            5a) If he did read the links before posting, maybe he just posted the wrong ones? If he did, he could post the right links as a reply!

            5b) If he didn’t read the links before posting, he is wrong in saying his links invalidate my argument and that I’m busted.

            If 5b) is correct, this brings us back to (3) wherein the burden of proof is back on Yogi to provide data to dispute my initial argument.

          • May 3, 2017 at 3:06 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Okay bob. Let’s give this a shot. Here’s my argument:

            1) I posit that TX is more dependant on federal government funds than CA is, as ranked in this list
            https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

            2) I argue I do not need to explain in detail the methodology that analysis used to create the list because they already included that at the end of the page for anyone to read.

            3) I subsequently argue that Yogi’s “YOU’RE BUSTED” links do not prove his argument that my data is invalid.

            3a) Yogi said I was wrong because two of the three links he provided don’t match my numbers. He admitted one of the three links does support my argument.

            4) I submit that those two links cannot be used to prove if TX or CA is more dependant on federal funds as neither of those two states are listed anywhere in those links.

            5) Based on 1-4, I do not consider it condecending or a personal attack to ask if someone read their links before posting them if the links don’t talk about the states we’re discussing.

            5a) If he did read the links before posting, maybe he just posted the wrong ones? If he did, he could post the right links as a reply!

            5b) If he didn’t read the links before posting, he is wrong in saying his links invalidate my argument and that I’m busted.

            If 5b) is correct, this brings us back to (3) wherein the burden of proof is back on Yogi to provide data to dispute my initial argument.

          • May 3, 2017 at 3:38 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “1) I posit that TX is more dependant on federal government funds than CA is, as ranked in this list”

            In other words, from Authority X you make claim Y. You didn’t make this list. You didn’t digest the numbers.

            “2) I argue I do not need to explain in detail the methodology that analysis used to create the list because they already included that at the end of the page for anyone to read.”

            I did say I would end the debate for things like this, but that was to prove a point. I won’t. You’re perfectly allowed to “believe” what you just said. I understand for example why you said it and your point of view. I understand why you think that the data is there. However, I will ask you this: Where in the data sourced are the numbers for federal spending for Texas like in my link to you? Can you show me Texas vs California, or are you taking the conclusion based solely on this equation:

            “State Residents’ Dependency – Total Points: 50
            Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government: Triple Weight (~37.50 Points)
            Note: This metric was calculated by dividing federal funding in U.S. dollars by IRS collections in U.S. dollars.
            Share of Federal Jobs: Full Weight (~12.50 Points)
            State Government’s Dependency – Total Points: 50
            Federal Funding as a Share of State Revenue: Full Weight (~50.00 Points)”

            Which does not define what any of those include? There is something suspect here, when I specifically pull the 2011 numbers, and Texas is at an 8 billion surplus, at the same time as having the lowest state deficits as per my other links. So you’re telling me a state with federal surpluses, and that leads state deficits, is 36th. I doubt your item 1, because you can’t show me a chart with dollars and cents, as I showed you.

            “3) I subsequently argue that Yogi’s “YOU’RE BUSTED” links do not prove his argument that my data is invalid.”

            I am not Yogi. I don’t argue for Yogi. Is this the old grouping band wagon again?

            3a) Yogi said I was wrong because two of the three links he provided don’t match my numbers. He admitted one of the three links does support my argument.

            I don’t care. Let’s not spend time on this. Haven’t you seen me directly say Yogi or Agent often has the right concept but the wrong numbers? I’ve specifically told him to get his act together.

            4) I submit that those two links cannot be used to prove if TX or CA is more dependant on federal funds as neither of those two states are listed anywhere in those links.

            I don’t care about Yogi. Address my argument and numbers. They proved that Texas gives more than they receive. So your statement:

            “How about we let TX leave and handle all their expenses from now on? It would be finanically better for the rest of us if TX left instead of CA.”

            I take issue with TX handling their own expenses having a negative affect on any State. They clearly do well with spending, and you clearly haven’t showed any numbers for long term showing they have consistently taken more federal dollars than they paid. If you can give me 2006 to 2016, like I did for state and local we can have a debate. I don’t want to look up all those years. Go start to do it and you’ll see why. Even Texas links for federal funding often EXCLUDE various types of grants, including education grants. Might this show that I did a great deal of research on the matter? Can you tell me whether or not your link includes all federal funding forms? Can you list what they all are? We know some because it provides some in the chart, but some say “various other” funding. I take issue with this, especially considering that by default Texas does not include it in their reports, you have to dig deeper. I’m willing to do this digging, but only so much. You have no idea how much time this takes.

            “5) Based on 1-4, I do not consider it condecending or a personal attack to ask if someone read their links before posting them if the links don’t talk about the states we’re discussing.”

            You sound like a robot, and are making way too many arguments simply to justify whether or not it’s ok or condescending to talk a certain way. This is precisely why you should not start at square one of “If I feel insulted I won’t debate” Realize this: Whether or not you feel justified or it wasn’t an insult, the person you are talking with also feels justified. You cannot itemize or marginalize a human being, while insisting that talks go from your view point on the moral scale and trying to weight that logically. It doesn’t work. Let people talk how they talk, don’t complicate the matters based on human emotion which causes some people to talk worse than others. It is disrespectful. Just as disrespectful as what you find me to be disrespectful in. This is balance. I give you leniency. Do the same for others. I have applied the same metric to myself. Do the same for others. Walk a mile in their shoes so to speak. Could Agent feel offended, whether you feel justified or not?

            “5a) If he did read the links before posting, maybe he just posted the wrong ones? If he did, he could post the right links as a reply!”

            I don’t care. You’re putting too much into this. This is again why I told you I would not participate in what you did with my original comment. You’re putting far too much into how people say things, or whether it is offensive, over the data they say. It is a weakness.

            “5b) If he didn’t read the links before posting, he is wrong in saying his links invalidate my argument and that I’m busted.”‘

            Oh my God…I’m not going over this anymore. I’m not Yogi. And the above still applies.

            “If 5b) is correct, this brings us back to (3) wherein the burden of proof is back on Yogi to provide data to dispute my initial argument.”

            I’m not Yogi.

            So on a “B” level on this, applying the same thing to myself and you, the burden of proof is on you to show Texas indeed takes more than it receives. I just showed the actual numbers from 2011. It didn’t.

            So if Texas gave 8 billion more than it received, Texas leaving the nation would be good for no one. I postulate that.

            I also think your statement was not productive, and was originally meant to show hypocrisy of agent to go after his character over all other things.

          • May 3, 2017 at 4:09 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I finally found some info on California.

            http://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/does-california-give-more-it-gets-dc/

            This is the closest I can find on California.

            356 billion in Federal outlays vs 369 in revenues. So they do have a surplus of 13 billion. They give more to the Federal Government than received. In my prior post I mentioned age having a factor and Medicare. 14.1% of the population in California is 64 or above. The national average is 20%, Texas is 19.1%. Texas is a smaller economy, considerably. With 30 billion in spending they did 38 billion in revenues in 2011 as I showed. They had an 8 billion dollar excess, or, as a percentage of their total spending: 25%. California? 3%. See how selective numbers can make things look better or worse? If instead I took it as a percent of GDP, it might look quite a bit different.

            How about I take these numbers, and you tell me what you think:

            Texas has lower taxes than California.
            They spend less than California as a percent of GDP (and this one I think is fair).

            We consistently had Texas at 14% and California at 20%.

            Despite this, and despite California having a much larger economy, their excess sent to the government was only 3% of what they spent, whereas Texas’s excess was 25%, in the only years we have to compare.

            Do you agree that considering this:

            A: Texas spent/spends better (as we actually have a prolonged reference above from 2006 to 2016) on state and local considerably than California?

            B: Texas (with the info I can see mind you, show me other years, I’ve asked you to compile some years so we can have a big picture here, this is a lot of work for only me to do) seems to be doing very well when considering how much excess they have left over after federal spending compared to how much they receive.

            This is another note. Your site doesn’t say what the time frame was, what the dollars were in those time frames, what those dollars included, (federal spending still has to be defined, as some states as I said do not by default include federal grants in spending, and your link showed “other”)

            Your overview is just as simplistic as Yogi’s/Agent’s by the way. The reason I said you think you’re a lot smarter than you are is not intended as a primary insult. It is that you need to hear this and understand it. You generally believe people out there don’t think who believe what Agent does, whether they are well thought or not. You assume they are on the “not” side. Don’t tell me you don’t. You assume you are on the “are” side of well thought out.

            This comment was for your own good when I told you that you think you’re smarter than you are. Self analysis is direly needed in your case. You don’t need to worry about Agent or Yogi’s comments that you seemed quite obsessed over in a debate with me. Worry about your own argument, and mine for that matter since we are talking now.

          • May 3, 2017 at 4:18 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Sometimes I say something and I let it speak for itself, it’s a weakness I should probably work on.

            I said:

            “14.1% of the population in California is 64 or above. The national average is 20%, Texas is 19.1%”

            And assumed you would draw the same conclusion as me.

            I’m saying that California should have less federal expenditures due to the age of it’s population in the same area that is Texas’s primary area of spending (Medicare/Medicaid). It’s even more surprising that California isn’t better off on this number due to this.

            California has a younger population. They have higher state taxes and spending. Yet they still seem to fare worse than Texas in terms of how much they send back to the government by comparison to Texas. Getting 30 billion and sending back 38 billion is a much larger and better result than 13 billion back on 356 billion. You’ve got 10 times more revenues sent in, and only less than 2 times more revenue sent back.

          • May 4, 2017 at 4:19 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Confused:

            I need to make this point again:

            Because you are hung up on people like Agent, you marginalize people like me, moderates who know their facts. I keep on telling you this. People like this on the right are kept in check, however, people like UW on the left have not been. I’ve constantly said things like the below to conservatives here. You have not told UW or people on the left to be better with their information. Please also note that at this time I said there was no way in heck we would see a healthcare plan from Trump until Spring. As in details on one. Agent said December January. I was calling that blatantly absurd and I explained why not long before. On your side, Ron and you called the right and Trump “liars” and that we should hold Trump accountable for not having it ready instantly. Agent was unreasonable on the right. You were unreasonable on the left. Let’s get some balance here. Being ambitious and setting out to do something as soon as possible which is what Trump did is not something we need to keep in check. Go listen to the song Kenny Rodgers I am the greatest, and understand that over ambition is a good thing when it has good intentions. I only post this because I don’t think you know what my over all goals are. I think you think of me like Agent, tough I talk nothing like him. If you want to get on someone about insults that are based on ideology, why not get on him for the libiterals, or however you spell it that he keeps throwing out? It’s literally a prejudiced slur that I have numerous times told him to stop saying. That actually is a basis of ad hominem.

            At the same time start telling UW to get his head on straight. I have no problem keeping the right on check. Though there seems to be a substantial issue with keeping the left in check in my age group that needs to be dealt with.

            http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/11/14/432150.htm/?comments

            “says:
            Like or Dislike:
            1
            1
            Ok here I go with something I’ve been doing a lot lately:
            Agent, Deplorables, stop making uneducated commentary. Above I just spelled out why a Healthcare plan would probably not come until several months into his candidacy.
            I source quoted historical reasons as to why.
            Confused,
            Just because Agent says something doesn’t mean you need to hold all republican politicians responsible, or all people with conservative view points.
            The last post about a week ago, over half the conservatives here were on his tail.”

          • May 4, 2017 at 6:26 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Confused, just ignore this guy, he is not stable,nor is he coherent or consistent.

            “Let people talk how they talk, don’t complicate the matters based on human emotion which causes some people to talk worse than other… ”

            But above he tells Agent to ignore data and not debate because he viewed a reply as condescending. He isn’t interested nor capable of debate; he wants to argue and be perceived as an intellectual. He isn’t. That’s why he posts 20 page replies but freaks out and lies if you point out his data doesn’t show what he claims. He is a lying POS.

          • May 5, 2017 at 12:58 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “Confused, just ignore this guy, he is not stable,nor is he coherent or consistent.”

            Incorrect.

            “Let people talk how they talk, don’t complicate the matters based on human emotion which causes some people to talk worse than other… ”

            “But above he tells Agent to ignore data and not debate because he viewed a reply as condescending. He isn’t interested nor capable of debate; he wants to argue and be perceived as an intellectual. He isn’t. That’s why he posts 20 page replies but freaks out and lies if you point out his data doesn’t show what he claims. He is a lying POS.”

            Did you see me tell Confused that was to make a point? Do you understand sarcasm and throwing something in someone’s face to show them the error of their ways?

            Actually UW, no one has said my data doesn’t show what I claim right now.

            Why don’t you contribute and add all the 2006 – 2016 federal years for taken revenues and spent revenues?

            You never compared the age of the populations either, which considering the Medicare section is the largest single section of Texas’s budget (19 billion, which is over HALF) I think we can surmise that if Texas on the year I showed had a much bigger surplus than California, not only are they doing better, they are doing much better. They spent much less state and local, and sent back funds. They are much less reliant on any aspect of government from all data that I have seen. Confused’s data is NOT broken out by year, by number, for people to digest.

            My data is. No one here has contradicted my years. You are acting extremely insane.

            I am not unstable, but you are.

          • May 5, 2017 at 1:08 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Since you are acting absurd, I’ll show you what I mean.

            Did you see where I put the 2011 year for Texas? They received 30 billion, and sent back 38 billion. California, the only year I can find that seems trust worthy is on that politifact page. Do you know why I trust it? Because it links the actual report. If you go to that page I linked, and click, you will actually see the numbers. Non of Confused links did this. It showed spending dollars and cents, and the year. It did not like confused’s link give a methodology, without the data! If you don’t understand why I would never listen to a link with methodology, without the data, we have a problem. In that year and data (which was shown on politifact’s site and sourced at this link: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14databk.pdf)

            California spent 356 and sent back 369 in the only year I have numbers. That is for a fact worse than the Texas ratios of sending back 38 billion from 30 received. Do you know how you could stop the whole argument? PROVIDE MORE DATA AND YEARS instead of berating me! You know so much, SHOW ME! And moreover, compare more. I want to see how much of California’s budget matches up with what I just said about Texas, considering how Texas has an older population. I want that accounted for.

            I want to make a BETTER metric than what was used, using data. Not someone else’s conclusion. But you’re not very good at that, are you?

          • May 5, 2017 at 1:23 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Here’s your homework UW:

            You keep saying I get pissed when people show me data. This simply is not the case.

            1: Show what data Confused has shown.

            2: Show how that conflicts mine.

            You will find that Confused’s link does not show the dollars and cents. It says where it got it from, and apparently it does say the year, which I missed. Again, my strength shows, I know where I can mess up and am willing to say as such. The dates are: 2014 and 2015. So two years of comparison. Which is wonderful. Since then my comparison is just as valid, isn’t it? I already showed the dollars and cents. Confused still hasn’t. He just trusted their work and data manipulation. I don’t. Could it be they selected a year in which it met their narrative? Just why did they select those years, if they have access to more complete data?

            I want to see these numbers side by side. You keep saying how ignorant I am. Give me 2011 spending vs revenues received for California, since I gave it for Texas. Go!

            Your issue here is that let’s assume I’m an idiot (I’m not) the way we deal with idiots, is we give them facts. We don’t give them this bull you put above.

            This isn’t how one debates. It’s literally near harassment UW, which you keep accusing me of.

        • May 3, 2017 at 2:50 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          “How about we let TX leave and handle all their expenses from now on? It would be finanically better for the rest of us if TX left instead of CA.”

          Agent, this was intentionally sarcastic to mock the way you think of other states as takers, and was based on you being a hypocrite, and thus, was based on your character and was an insult to you. Don’t reply to confused. Refuse to debate him.

          See what will happen if we take your standard Confused? See why I said I won’t allow this?

          Be a man, make your arguments, deal with how people talk. If you’re so soft you cannot deal with someone saying you are being mindless, and yet you antagonize and call others essentially hypocrites and mindless (in the case of Agent not reading his own source accusation) we have a problem. Information will stop flowing.

          This is humanity Confused. Are you a human? How will you learn, if the slightest comment of someone calling you wrong, a hypocrite, or mindless, is enough for you to stop listening to all facts and debate?

          Buck up. You won’t learn otherwise.

          • May 3, 2017 at 3:07 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            see my reply above.

          • May 3, 2017 at 4:43 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Allow me to compare:

            I often say: You’re a jerk. Or I insult back, to people. “You” generalized, not actually you. Or insert any insult. Sometimes, from their perspective I start the insults. Sometimes, from mine, they do.

            However, at the end, I nearly always eventually try to pull back to the debate at hand and demand numbers. Just how many times have I told people to focus on the data, and to provide me numbers?

            And how often do I get raw numbers like the ones I just gave?

            I asked you for them, and you re-quoted your study, and that was only after you initially refused to debate because I called you mindless in your digestion of said study.

            I insisted on continuing debate. You insisted on ending it. And this is often how I operate. This is how I believe we should operate. I believe that the crowd who says “talk like this or we won’t talk” is out of line. Even though I said that back to you, that was throwing it back at you, I never tell people here I won’t talk to them because they might insult me. Why? It would dangerously limit my data inflow.

            I can’t allow that. That could easily be manipulated.

    • April 27, 2017 at 2:43 pm
      Bernie Sanders says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 3

      Reality Check,
      That sounds about right, but don’t forget to throw in free college for everyone! This is awesome!

    • April 28, 2017 at 2:45 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 12

      Common Core aims to teach people to understand concepts and eventually become better critical thinkers instead o just memorizing a formula: you would have benefited from it.

      Yes, simply math, also 100% wrong. You treat it as if California is a closed economy. Google, Facebook, etc., don’t only operate in CA, they are worldwide. Taxes and money come from other places, because they are a massive economy. Tourists come and pay sales tax, that shoots down your idiotic math formula basing it on population. Companies also pay taxes. Movie studios sell things around the world, and are mostly based there, most things shipped to the US from Asia use the ports (that includes China, FYI) and on and on, you should get the line. Of course the conservative answer would be that they will just start shipping through Arizona.

      You are treating it like a closed economy, where only individuals living in the state contribute to the economy, instead of including exogenous factors as well. This “simple math” would literally be an F in any of the economics courses I took beyond the first month of econ 101.

      Now cue the morons…

      • April 28, 2017 at 10:53 pm
        Actuary Dude says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 1

        UW, with your math skills I can see why you are not an actuary. Right now California, especially the Bay area, is experiencing a tech bubble. If it becomes too much of a burden to stay in the state, many companies will move a good portion of their high paid employees some where else. The legislature should be aware that the current economy may not sustain itself at this level much longer.

        The good news is that Governor Brown is aware of the financial challenge of this proposal and has declared that he will not sign it.

        • May 1, 2017 at 11:39 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 3

          Yes, the tech companies have been in the verge of moving to Alabama, Arizona and Mississippi for 20 years now, just 1/4% more in taxes and they’re gone. Oooooor, the people making this argument are idiots and have been wrong for 20 years.

          More likely they will just move to other places nearby, like Oakland, which has been happening. The problem with the incorrect theory that they will be moving any day is that the low tax conservative states cannot support tech companies. The people who work there – primarily younger, highly educated people – have no interest in living in small, rural areas, and there is nowhere near the infrastructure to support tech companies. They stay in California because the population is more educated and it is a competitive job market for the companies.

          Also, imbecile, you did not disprove anything mathematically. Are you arguing California is a closed economy? Based on your math and critical thinking skills, you obviously aren’t an economist (unlike me), which is a field far more suited to this type of analysis.

          • May 1, 2017 at 7:51 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Re: your “Also, imbecile…” remark;

            Don Rickles called from that place he went to a few weeks ago and left a message for you… “thanks for taking over my schtick as I can no longer carry on with it.”

  • April 27, 2017 at 2:26 pm
    UW4Life says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 8

    If I were a Republican or Libertarian in the state legislature of California, I would publicly announce my support of this plan as a wonderful demonstration of why universal healthcare will never work and therefore I am voting FOR it so conservatives can sit back and watch it implode like they all know it will. American’s need a swift smack in the head to wake them up to reality and California’s entire government sinking into the Pacific Ocean as a result of this plan might just do the trick.

  • April 27, 2017 at 3:10 pm
    Doug Spencer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 3

    The State of California does not print money (yet). They can take on additional debt when revenue is less than expenses.
    California Doctors and residents can still vote with their feet. Many of our mature clients are moving out of state to retire.
    Increasing the size of the California state government and obligations appears irrational. Enough is enough!

    • May 1, 2017 at 6:17 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      California cannot ever print money, so “yet” makes no sense. If we assume you are right and older people are leaving the state, that is good, especially in this context, because they are the most expensive to insure. There is net positive migration to CA, so by your theory they are gaining a lot of younger, more productive workers.

      • May 3, 2017 at 1:49 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        And UW shows he favors a sort of form of eugenics. Good, get rid of all the unhealthy people!(?)

        Isn’t that what you say conservatives are like?

        I’ve also seen you blame all the problems on the older generations that won’t move on and let the younger people take over. That’s basically the same complaint. I am prime, I am lion, therefore I dominate. That type of mentality. I feel like I’m watching Animal Planet.

        It’s astounding how little self realization you have when you speak.

      • May 3, 2017 at 1:52 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Even better: Get rid of all the unhealthy unproductive people!

        I left the latter part out.

        I believe it is because democrats internally realize what you just said, that they so often accuse republicans of doing the same (throwing unhealthy and unproductive workers under the bus)

        Someone who hasn’t graduated (isn’t productive) is treated like garbage in my experience by liberals.

        We are human beings, not human doings.

        It’s amazing it takes a conservative saying this to a supposed “liberal”.

      • May 5, 2017 at 12:38 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Dunning-Kruger Effect. STFU, and LEAVE ME ALONE, psycho, pseudo-intellectual trash. That isn’t what I said, and isn’t even what eugenics is.

        • May 5, 2017 at 2:35 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          “Dunning-Kruger Effect”

          Ironic. Look inward.

          You said:

          “that is good, especially in this context, because they are the most expensive to insure. There is net positive migration to CA, so by your theory they are gaining a lot of younger, more productive workers”

          So it is good that we get rid of the most sick, who are the most expensive to insure, and that the old leave, because we will have productive workers. This is selection based on biological status and production and usefulness to society into value based on said biological status, age, sickness, etc. How in the world would my comparison to a “sort of” Eugenics not apply?

          Try to keep up UW. Also, stop calling me trash.

  • April 27, 2017 at 3:36 pm
    Gary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 4

    These people will never give up! Reasoning, and facts really don’t matter. Is an ideological decision. Voting them out of office is the only answer.

  • April 27, 2017 at 4:20 pm
    Big Ben says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 2

    “Symbolism over Substance”………where have we heard this before? I think its a course at Berkley.

  • April 27, 2017 at 5:55 pm
    Michael says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 4

    I’m surprised that people commenting on this article are claiming to be so “objective” and “fact-based” while dismissing the concept of Single Payer out of hand. Medicare’s overhead is less than 5%. That tracks with the overhead rate in places like France where there is socialized health insurance. Private health insurance overhead, including marketing costs and profit, is more than 15%. Single Payer might require some new taxes, but remember that the health insurance premiums which employers and employees are currently paying would go away. Also, any taxes are not going to be levied on a per-capita basis, but as a percentage of income, so you shouldn’t try to scare people by saying that they’re going to get hit with $19,000 in additional taxes. In the long run, society may realize additional savings, since parties injured in accidents will not have out-of-pocket medical expenses, which inflate tort claims.

    • May 1, 2017 at 7:56 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Great; 5% overhead (if you are dumb enough to believe what Socialists claim).

      Now, tell us how much FRAUD & WASTE exists in Medicare, Medicaid, and the costs of MedicatastropheunaffordableObamaCare. Ready, steady, … GO!

      • May 2, 2017 at 9:19 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 3

        There are no data Polar won’t dismiss offhand without researching if it’s inconvenient to his stupid narrative.

  • April 27, 2017 at 6:53 pm
    Barry Gold says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 5

    I am not afraid to say it. This State has it’s companies leaving for a reason, not to mention all the people who have left that have money. This is a one party state, with no love for our Constitution.

    Our governor is certifiable… stupid. If it wasn’t for his father, the former Governor, he would be cleaning Linda Ronstadt’s toilets.

  • April 28, 2017 at 11:45 am
    Observor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    The Affordable Care Act Solution is probably the best solution to a difficult situation. The act, however, needs some reforms. Debate on how much to subsidize certain groups are valid. Currently, a millionaire who reports an income of under $35,000 per year pays no premium in California. One other issue is how much younger people subsidize older people in the state.

    The challenge with a pure state run system is the incentive for efficiency in settling claims. In California, there is also the extra challenge of extremely generous government pensions which significantly add to the costs long term. Al least with the current system, people have some idea of the costs of healthcare. With a pure state run system, the cost is hidden.

    • May 1, 2017 at 3:13 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      Best solution to what, exactly?

      It’s in a death spiral due to its design…. to lead to Single Payer govt control. Get real, dude! Repeal is the ONLY “reform” that will fix that POS.

  • April 28, 2017 at 11:55 am
    Moonbeam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 4

    Brown cleans Ronstadt’s brown. I like that.

  • April 28, 2017 at 1:17 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 1

    Colorado proposed Single Payer on last year’s November ballot. What started out with support in the high 40% range dropped to the mid 20% range just before the election. Reason: The costs of Single Payer were made public.

    Bernie Sander’s beloved Vermont scrapped Single Payer. Despite having a relatively wealthy populace, with no pockets of inner-city poverty to carry, Vermont dropped Single Payer. Reason: The costs.

    Single Payer always sounds great. Until reasonable people realize there is no free lunch. Single Payer in every country lowers costs by subtracting coverage and lowering provider (read doctor’s) payments.

    Good luck with all that.

  • May 1, 2017 at 1:10 pm
    Jestr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Eventually it will happen as health care as it stands now will not be sustainable to insure everyone has affordable care. Mr. Trump’s campaign promise of better more affordable health care has shown the constipation in the industry nationwide. Right now patients can’t see doctors right away as the wait time to get an appointment is 30 to 60 days just for pre-approval from insurance carriers. Doctors have been playing the “pay me game” refusing to add to their patient load and not accepting many plans that are low reimbursement. Hospitals are high end hotels pushing as many patients in and out at exorbitant costs just for an overnight room stay. So let’s not kid ourselves believing private carriers can do it better as they don’t even do good as it is!

  • May 1, 2017 at 1:24 pm
    M.Thompson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I HATE CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are hell bent on destroying this place.

    • May 5, 2017 at 2:43 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      In the defense of those there, they believe what they are doing is good.

      Also, as shown above, California hasn’t done too terribly in terms of spending issues. Though they do have a younger population. It remains to be seen if maybe the reason they do somewhat better in spending is the youthful population, and maybe there is some truth to what UW said in older people leaving helping the state, though I have no clue how many people really do.

      I don’t hate California’s politicians, per say, but I strongly dislike the politics of Nancy Pelosi.

      The politicians I dislike most do include her. However, just compare that to Harry Reid, Al Franken (From Saturday night live for God’s sakes) Jay Inslee, Patty Murray, Chris Gregoire (Yes, she shortened her name, and yes, I dislike WA politicians more than almost any others) and then to Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and others.

      • May 5, 2017 at 3:22 pm
        SNL Alum says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        You dismiss Al Franken because he was on SNL yet praise Ronald Reagan and ignore that he was an actor too.

        • May 5, 2017 at 7:06 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          “You dismiss Al Franken because he was on SNL yet praise Ronald Reagan and ignore that he was an actor too.”

          You tried to make two things the same that aren’t. What was my exact phrase?

          Did I say he shouldn’t be in office because he was once an actor?

          No.

          I will put some commentary on my thoughts on this matter:

          SNL is a joke, and that anyone who was on it could have moved on to politics is beyond me. It speaks volumes to the issues with liberal voters that he was supported, whereas voting for an actor in general does not. Al Franken remained in his satirical style of humor, employed by leftist media organizations who make a point of conservative bashing, and manipulation, for some time and his style of satire was a way of life for him. He may well have won because of his style of satire, and because of his fame. I don’t know if you’ve ever watched him, but go back and give it a try, and read his book writing style.

          For Reagan, considering how much time passed since he left the acting field before he ran, and his Economics degree, he gets a pass. He didn’t make a living riling people up about democrats, like Al Franken did riling people up about republicans, and he was not that famous. Let me ask you a question: Do you remember the actor from the first Freddy Krueger movie from 1984? If he stayed out of the acting field, and had not gone on to Pirates of the Caribbean, and instead, went into politics in 1995, do you really believe people would have known? My mother didn’t know he was in that early movie, and I just mentioned it recently. Reagan was not a popular enough actor in his prime, nor was he active for it to have impacted people’s voting for him who were active in watching and being indoctrinated by media bias, and on that note, I tend to weigh this more on liberal politicians than conservative ones as is, due to this clear bias that even CNN admits exists. Did you read above where I said I read a CNN article that was literally wrong on 5 of 5 topics that Trump was supposedly a hypocrite regarding? This was the article, on a side note. I can explain why they were wrong regarding each item if you want, just know that they are.

          htt p://www.cnn.com/2017/04/30/opinions/trump-is-right-about-media-bias-stanley/

          Only 7.1% of people employed by the media are openly conservative. While liberals have been shrinking, consider for a moment that the majority of people on CNN and Huffington post claim to be independent, so we can assume this is far more left leaning in that independent section as well. I’m going to estimate that roughly 95% of media tilts left. Does that sound crazy? It is, however, it’s true. Obama’s plan for the ACA was online to be viewed nearly the day it was announced online from companies who tried to let you form your own idea, (and some that tried to make you pick theirs). After Trump’s plan got passed by the house, the only place I could find it (as the companies didn’t even source link it that criticized it, in a very unusual sequence of events) was by looking on the .gov site. Why am I going on this off tangent? It is extremely obvious to anyone with half a brain, you have a larger risk of someone coming from a point of media bias and power voting for a leftist from the media who was employed by leftist networks, than you do from a republican, employed by just about anyone, as the republican networks simply don’t have power or nearly enough representation to drown out the overwhelming liberal bias.

          So you know, Reagan didn’t get his star until 1960, and won a razzle award for worst actor (in 1982 after he won the presidency, which could have something to do with this) and a Hollywood Citizenship Award, which is nothing special and that’s about it.
          htt ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken

          Regan ran for office in 1980. His last film or TV debut was 1965.

          htt ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_filmography

        • May 5, 2017 at 7:07 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          I meant 1999, that would be the equal math. Not 1995. Same concept though.

        • May 5, 2017 at 7:15 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          And I’ll give a bigger example:

          If any current conservative radio host or political commentator on a major news network ran for office that I know of, I would not vote for them.

          Ann Coulter,
          Bill O’Reilly (not just due to the sex scandal, I’m talking if we never had it, he was the biggest star there and I would NEVER have voted for this man)
          Hannity

          Or let’s even go to some humor:

          Dennis Miller. Who is really one of the only conservative comedians who talks about politics. That just shows more about what I put above.

          Or Maybe I should vote for George Carlin (when he was alive), much more of a libertarian? I wouldn’t have voted for him.

          Heck let’s go back liberal for a moment, you tell me which democrat commentator on politics I should vote for and it would be reasonable who talks like a mad man?

          Bill Maher? He talks even more mad than Al Franken did.

          Would you consider it reasonable for a democrat to vote for Bill Maher, over Joe Biden? In that scenario, I would overwhelmingly take Joe Biden. No contest.

          No matter who, if they were an active humor and satire person in the liberal media for political commentary, or even the conservative media, I wouldn’t give them a shot in hell. And I’m fairly sure conservatives are this same way.

          When Al Franken was on SNL, political humor was still his skit, and I will never vote for a political humor type of commentator.

        • May 5, 2017 at 7:18 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Now go back to Reagan, economics degree major, was out of acting for 15 years, did no political commentary for major networks, did no major network humor regarding political aspects, was not involved in it at all, and was not a huge heart throb which could garner votes from people who were thinking of fame?

          By what metric do you think Reagan’s acting benefitted him from low information voters or, from your point of view was a negative aspect?

          Focus inward before you try to call me a hypocrite.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*