|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Important upcoming elections | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I looked up the section of the proposed law defining "resident" and that's what I quoted.
I didn't see any restrictions beyond that. Here's a link to the current text of the bill: Bill Text - SB-562 The Healthy California Act.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined:
|
You assume that the only type of person who will come is someone who can't contribute to the state?
Why not make an assumption that the state will attract all types of people? It isn't clear that giving poorer people health care security won't have larger economic benefits anyway. It must be pointed out that there is a distinction between an entire nation adopting a health care system, based on funding primarily from the taxpayers being directly taxed upfront, and a narrow section alone adopting the specific policy - while the larger body of the nation remains under the older ( better or worse ) system. There comes a risk of a race-to-the-bottom when the latter is the situation one looks at. The feared race isn't the certain situation. The certain situation is a more productive economic climate as the certain change (before the race to the worst part of the world factors in ). When California is part of a nation that employs 1.5 million workers in the fundamentally unproductive health insurance industry, then you have an amazingly high (1%) percentage of the workforce choking Californians and Americans at large. We hear alot about the diminished wage gains of nonmanagerial private sector workers and the lack of keeping up with the growth in the national average per person yearly income. The general economic theory is that the wages in the group will tend to rise a certain amount which will be proportional to the combination of the inflation rate PLUS productivity rate. Low productivity growth will suggest smaller non inflation adjusted wage growth. Do you want your tax and/or consumer dollars going to medicine or insurance bureaucrats ? Do you want your dollars going to nurses or insurance company execs? To Doctors or some pencil pusher in Delaware? And Doctors can spend at least 60% more of their PAID TIME taking care of patients with a switch to single payer so how could you fear a population increase of ( highly unlikely to rise by anywhere near ) that amount? I will take investment in health related technology over the anti-technology, anti-research insurance companies any day of the week. Any such day will be alot more productive than today's anti-science moment (a sorry moment with longer momentum which hurts our future badly ) Californian will lower its bill per person in a single payer healthcare system. Californians will live in a more productive state . But will the taxes be higher than the current health insurance requirements and standard business expenses? What will happen when taxes cause an overall higher upfront cost? Will the more productive overall economic dynamic handle the competing tension of the taxes which are an economic force in their own right? Healthcare has been rising as a percentage of GDP. But our national per capita income has never been $50,000 higher than the per capita healthcare cost as it is about to be. The simple fact is that there is a larger and larger economic pie brought about by growth. The economic growth comes from higher productivity for one (major ) thing. We have to be aware of the macroeconomic forces and make sure that the benefits of the policy changes are explained. Long term benefits being understood are a key part of the health of the economy because CONFIDENCE is a fundamental reality in the economic climate and the actual conditions - both in the here & now AND ( naturally ) the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I looked up the section of the proposed law defining "resident" and that's what I quoted. That is not sufficient to answer my question, is it? Have you read the proposed bill? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Democratic party with perhaps 1 gross pickup opportunity in the Senate.
Democratic party chances are better in the house. I am amazed to say that there are 23 seats that Hillary Clinton won which the Republicans hold. The Democrats need 24. These are very confusing situations though because many of them were once safe GOP seats like Virginia -10 (a super high educated district that couldn't vote for Trump ) but swung mightily and gave Hillary a slight win. There are 7 such districts in California alone. I expect the Republicans to at least break even in the Senate but Democrats can really make it hard to pass to many things if the Republicans can get their House majority nocked down to say 223-212 from around 243-192 presently. Trump might just make it possible as he lost alot of typically Republican seats. (On the other hand, Democrats lost in the once Democratic leaning state of Montana in a congressional district so they might have a bigger brand problem than the GOP. Ohio Democratic party star Tim Ryan feels his party stinks worse than the Trump GOP and he might be right )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
And while we are looking at Ted Cruz and Texas, it seems that the exit polls that had Trump getting 34% against Hillary Clinton's 61% were flawed.
From this site, I quote Survey: Majority of battleground voters oppose current immigration policies
quote: Viewpoints: Why exit polls are wrong about Latino voters in Arizona AP to offer election voter survey to replace exit polls Also see December 2 2016 Washington Post article saying Trump did NOT win 34% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. This means that the pro deportation Ted Cruz might bomb out with Hispanics in Texas (as Trump seems to have done despite the exit polls), thus he could loose (I think he will win albeit narrowly). Democrats nominated a superb candidate in Arizona (a congresswoman who was one of the few Democrats who opposed mental health discrimination - the bill disguised as "good gun policy" - and she is a politician who supported Nader in the past). Republicans are going to have a hard time painted her as a "socialist" because she is the most bipartisan Democrat there is according to the voting record. And the first ever openly bisexual means it is a historic election. (This election will really help Democrats in Arizona who are still hurting by the Gabby Giffords stain, a congresswoman who claimed to support gun rights when first elected in 2006, but then turned against them rather strongly) Kirsten Sinema is at heart a progressive (despite here wise bipartisan votes) and supports rights for all. She will help the Democratic brand. I knew who she was years before she ran for congress in 2012, because she was frequently on television defending immigrants in Arizona. Arizona and Nevada look like Democratic pickups.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 1052 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Just to update folks on the title of this post and the one before: Beto O’Rourke and Ted Cruz are polling essentially equal right now. Those of us supporting Beto are cautiously optimistic, though now is the time for dirty campaigning to fire up.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1822 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
So basically a GOP candidate being called out for faking her credentials.
She then doubles down by posting her fake credentials, and thus having her diploma confirmed as fake. TIP: If your going to fake your credentials do not post your fake credentials all over the internet. https://www.washingtonpost.com/...l-says-her-diploma-is-fake
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
See Real Clear Senate polls section for those.
But here is an interesting article. Cruz is trailing Hispanics 54% to 31% (while the Republican Governor is only trailing by 6% against a Hispanic Democratic opponent)
Finally, Democrats Lead in a Texas Poll, But It May Not Matter – Texas Monthly
quote: I haven't followed the race, and don't know much about the Democrat. But I heard he wants to "decriminalize" illegal immigration border crossings, whatever that means. The "decriminalize" word is a famous technical term when it comes to drug policy, but I wonder how big of a deal this is for immigration policy. (It sounds big, but Republican talking points make any policy that isn't 100% anti-immigration sound like some radical anti-nationalistic turn WHICH WOULD BE AWSOME IF IT REALLY WAS)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
How many Democratic hearts have been broken based on the hope of Democratic voters turning out for midterm elections? Lots.
Perhaps this year will be different, but I won't believe it until I see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
I was just looking at turnout among Hispanics in Texas.
It is low, really low. Texas voter turnout is huge this year. But here's who doesn't vote. | The Texas Tribune In 2012, 59.8% of whites turned out, but only 27.7% of Hispanics and 23.8% of Asians. (61.1% of blacks turned out, but blacks dropped a lot nationwide in 2016)Census shows pervasive decline in 2016 minority voter turnout In 2012, Texas saw minority voters make up just over 40% of the electorate, and whites cast 5,087,000. Hispanics cast 1,890,000 and Asians 214,000 (blacks cast 1,352,000 votes). Now, Hispanics would have been at 4 million had they turned out at the same rate as whites. Asians would have been at 500,000. That was 2012, when Romney won Texas 58% to 40% McCain won 55% to 43%.
quote: But look at the healthcare situation (in 2012 which was before the ACA made a decent dent in the uninsured Texans)
quote: National numbers. From 2012 to 2016, national eligible voter numbers show that Hispanics jumped from 10.8% of total eligible voters in 2012 to 11.9% in 2016. (actual turnout portion of national vote was 9.2% in 2016, up from 8.4% in 2012). Asians were 4.0% of the eligible vote in 2012, and 4.7% in 2016. (turnout portion of vote was 3.1% in 2012 and 3.7% in 2016) Blacks went up from 12% of eligible vote in 2012 to 12.3% in 2016. (turnout dropped from 12.9% in 2012 down to 11.9% in 2016) Whites fell from 73.4% of eligible votes in 2008 to 71.1% in 2012. Then down to 68.9% of eligible voters in 2016. I assume the numbers will be between 66.5% and 67.0% in 2020. (But whites are still 73.3% of the actual vote as of 2016) Back to Texas. Another Texas poll (today on 9/12/2018 from CBS) has Cruz only up 46% to 42%. Pro Deportation Republican verses a fairly Pro Immigration type of Democrat. EDIT But I must add that I saw commentary that stated that minorities were just under 50% of eligible voters as recent as 2017. 49% was the number I saw. So these sources might be off a bit. See my links for the numbers. The Texas numbers have me wondering. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
It seems that the 2012 numbers were correct, but the percentage was screwed up.
First, here are 2016 numbers compared to 2012 race. 2012 White 5,087,000 2016 White 5,905,000 2012 Asian 214,000 2016 Asian 338,000 2012 Hispanic 1,890,000 2016 Hispanic 1,938,000 2012 Black 1,352,000 2016 Black 1,349,000 Looks like 62% (white vote) to 38% (minority vote) in 2016 before mixed race and Native Americans are factored in.
quote: Regardless, Hillary only lost by 9.0%, and Texas might just be trending significantly toward a voting direction which requires the Republicans to be PRO IMMIGRATION if they want to win. Florida, Arizona, and Texas are seeing lots of super close races. Arizona Governor Ducey is only ahead of his Democratic challenged Garcia by 4% and the anti immigration GOP Gubernatorial candidate in Florida in trailing a progressive black by 3% in several polls. Garcia has been described as an "open borders" dreamer due to comments. (something about telling people to imagine no southern border). The Republicans are going to be forced to put up pro immigration candidates if they want to win nationally. Perhaps in 2020 to 2024 but 2028 seems certain. And Social Security will be in severe trouble due to way to little immigration, so lets hope the anti immigration side gets the blame it deserves (for that and the much reduced GDP - from way too little immigration - hurting our debt to GDP ratio in a rather dramatic way).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18706 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
LNA writes: Amen! The bottom line is that we need immigration to fund social security if nothing else. The populists simply need to make sure their kids are educated rather than being as whiny and entitled as we were! ...lets hope the anti-immigration side gets the blame it deserves (for that and the much-reduced GDP - from way too little immigration - hurting our debt to GDP ratio in a rather dramatic way).Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Phat said:
quote: To me the issue touches on the "free stuff" and "socialism" fear-mongers. Look at this quote again (see my above few posts just before Phat responded), and do note that Harris County includes the entire city of Houston (though by no means limited to it). Note (again) that Houston has nearly 2.5 million people and is almost half Hispanic. (the county is about 3 times the population of the city of Houston)
quote: Hispanics probably outnumber (non Hispanic) whites in Texas. This is not a small group (and they aren't "liberal" or "entitled" based on what I know of them AND I LIVED IN HOUSTON) Half lack a high school education. 90% lack a college degree. Now, does an argument against "free stuff" - because it "costs society" - get support from the Texas situation? I feel that social programs galore (housing guarantees for those going through schooling in elementary, middle, high, and college schools PLUS food allowances) would ensure fully 5 times the college degree rate among this group (and others). It would pay for itself. How could it not? Populists see education as an "us verses them". Only allow richer communities to get proper education funding. Exclude the poor from getting "free stuff", meaning properly funded K-12 schools in their communities. "Us verses Them" is the status quo. Look at the results in the low-tax heaven of eastern Texas. Hispanics outnumber whites by 2 to 1 in the city of Houston, and blacks also outnumber whites. Look at the results. Less than 15% of the 70% (70% = Hispanics and Blacks) have a college education, and only about half can even make it through high school due to the inhumane situation. (and 1 in 2800 pregnancies is fatal to the pregnant female, meaning that a female with 5 pregnancies have a 1 in 500 chance of loosing her life from it) Really profitable, huh? Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
But the same Fox poll has Sinema ahead of McSally 47% to 44%.
Ducey is described as "Open Borders" so it would be awesome if he could win. Arizona, Florida, and Texas are the big states to watch. Trump won Arizona by 3.5% Texas by 9.0% Florida by 1.1% Texas has always been a major wild card when looking at "the future". (Minority turnout dropped from 2012 to 2016, with 40% of the vote already being reached in 2012 before dropping to 38% in 2016, despite the higher number of eligible minority voters in 16) It has the potential for a real Democratic conversion. Florida is down to 54% white, and the minority groups there are eligible to vote in fairly high numbers (ethnic Cubans and Puerto Ricans are eligible to vote in much higher numbers than other Hispanics) (Puerto Ricans are now 5% of the population in Florida, though I AM SORRY TO SAY they aren't super-duper liberal like the New York Puerto Ricans that we are all so familiar with) (Even New York Puerto Ricans are actually somewhat "Pro Life" despite the 95% Democratic party support, and all other Puerto Ricans are HEAVILY - like 80% - Pro Life, as well as conservative on a lot of other issues. So this is actually a complex situation) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Florida is a state that, in combination with Arizona flipping to the Democrats, would have given Democrats the Presidency in 2016.
Texas flipping would have done the trick alone. These 3 states are the most important. And this same polling outfit FINALLY gave Democrats something to cheer in the Senate race. The incumbent Democratic Senator Bill Nelson is actually ahead of his Republican challenger (Rick Scott) 45% to 44%. Democrats can take heart that the incumbent rule (under 50% is bad, and 45% is really bad) doesn't apply here because BOTH candidates are essentially incumbents (Scott is the Governor that won a come-from-behind re-election in 2014, by a 1% margin, largely because he got about 40% of the Florida Puerto Rican vote) So Democrats are potentially going to take all three of the Senate races in Arizona, Florida, and Texas. (and what wins they would be since even close losses would indicate growing strength in these 3 most important states)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025