6 ms·

[2] is about CalPERS, which is separate from the budget of the State. There may be a current budget shortfall, but CalPERS is fine (it is the largest non-countr

[2] is about CalPERS, which is separate from the budget of the State. There may be a current budget shortfall, but CalPERS is fine (it is the largest non-country pension fund in the world; and comes in the top 10 when listed among countries). [3] mentions that tax revenues will fall because of the end of temporary tax increases; those increases are likely to be renewed. Categorizing these as 'severe budget issues' is disingenuous and misleading. California has had a bumper crop in terms of tax revenue over the past decade, and this stupid meme about California being out of money needs to be corrected. That being said, health care is not an inexpensive line-item, and will have to be funded with taxes. But as a Californian, I'm sure as shit happy to pay more in taxes for a universal single single-payer. I have many friends who are either contractors or who earn very little and find themselves in that uncomfortable valley of having to pay for expensive insurance -- I'd rather that people (like me) who are better off financially foot a bit more of a communal bill so that no one would need to worry about it.

ng12 10y ago
> it is the largest non-country pension fund in the world; and comes in the top 10 when listed among countries Yes, and that's the problem. It's funding is at 73% and dropping -- that 27% is an astronomical deficit. Numbers here: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/newsroom/calpers-news/2017/annual-report-details-fund-finances https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/newsroom/calpers-news/2017/a...
chaostheory 10y ago
> is about CalPERS, which is separate from the budget of the State. There may be a current budget shortfall, but CalPERS is fine It's 'separate' from the state budget, but doesn't California still ultimately pay for pensions? How is this fine when there's a huge difference between the projected costs and the actual costs? Doesn't 70% of CA tax revenue go towards paying pension obligations? Current CA pension debt is $965 Billion. http://news.stanford.edu/2015/10/15/cali-pension-tracker-101515/ http://news.stanford.edu/2015/10/15/cali-pension-tracker-101... http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php
- mmanfrin 10y ago
  Doesn't 70% of CA tax revenue go towards paying pension obligations Not even close. The article linked by the comment I replied to states that CA will chip in $5.4bil -- last years budget was $122bil. Maybe you got the 70% figure from where CalPERS gets its funding? Currently yearly contribution is ~70% from the state, but there was a bill passed that is shifting some of the requirement on to those who will benefit from it.
  - chaostheory 10y ago
    I'm not sure why both of our comments got downvoted, but thanks for the clarification. Yes there was a new bill and there was a shift, but most of the burden is still on the state of California which makes sense since CALPERS is an agency of the state of California. Isn't CA still ultimately responsible for CA pensions? I just felt that CALPERS was in trouble years ago when they were selling their members an advancement in years for the pension if they paid a fee upfront (which could be deducted from their paychecks) in order to meet current pension obligations. Current CA pension debt is $965 Billion. It'll become $1 Trillion soon. http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php
__realtime 10y ago
> as a Californian...I'd rather that people like me... There is crux of the issue: not everyone shares the same opinion and belief, so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others? Personally I think it won't end up how you anticipate but that's just me. Right now the working people of America are already subsidizing healthcare for the masses and all I ever hear is people complaining about it.
- hprotagonist 10y ago
  >not everyone shares the same opinion and belief, so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others? Yes. Ideally, that's what governments should do: require citizens to act in our collective and long-term best interests, not only their own. In the case of healthcare: a healthy population is a productive, happy, and peaceful population. All of those things are good for the economy, not to mention any one particular person's soul -- you can make a completely utilitarian argument for it and largely sidestep thorny issues of morality.
  - mcbruiser 10y ago
    most likely what will happen is people will just leave CA, leaving a shortage and it will fail
    - astrange 10y ago
      Do people migrate out of EU states with universal health care? They have free movement and everything. I think this would actually be another great lock-in feature, on top of rent control and Prop 13 making it so nobody would ever want to sell their house.
    - bsder 10y ago
      > most likely what will happen is people will just leave CA Could you please inform our population here about that? Republicans keep promising that people will flee the Blue states due to various policies; somehow it never seems to happen. Could you let us know what we're doing wrong? We'd really like to send some of these folks to Red states to help balance out the voting. Thanks bunches.
gavman 10y ago
Thanks for the details regarding the budget, I didn't realize the pension budget shortfall was separate from the state budget. In that case stupid question: if CalPERS owes much more than it can afford to pay, where is the rest coming from? The LA Times article, in multiple places, talks about how much the shortage will cost the "taxpayers" (see quote below for example), how is this not related to the CA budget which is, well, funded by taxpayers? > "This year, state employee pensions will cost taxpayers $5.4 billion, according to the Department of Finance. That’s more than the state will spend on environmental protection, fighting wildfires and the emergency response to the drought combined." That makes it seem like it's related to the budget...
- gnopgnip 10y ago
  They will either have to increase contributions or cut payments to future retirees.
  - numbsafari 10y ago
    As if those are the only two options... what happens when the unions plans their strikes for the week before a major event, like transit workers before the DNC here in Philly? Also, when tax-free pension contributions go up and taxable payments to future retirees go down... then taxes collected also goes down...
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      They strike they strike. It's happened before, it will happen again. As for a change in tax revenue, the same is true if you contribute more to your 401k and/or get back less because your investments didn't do good. Also, if you lay state employees off, your state income tax revenues go down.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  It is related to the budget, but not directly related since it is promises to fund pensions rather than something directly related to government services. It could be funded by increasing contributions gradually until it reaches the correct funding level (either from cuts in other areas or taxes), by cutting the future amounts they distribute from the pensions, by raising the retirement rate of current workers which would give them time to make up the deficit, or a combination of these. The problem is, these options all kind of stink politically, but they won't bankrupt the state by themselves.
theflyingkiwi42 10y ago
Have your contractor friends check out NASE. I used to have amazing health coverage through them for about $150 (pre-Obamacare).
Girlang 10y ago
California confiscates 13.8% of every dollar I earn (my husband's income puts us into that category). There are already two "millionaire" taxes that kick in for incomes over $1,000,000. Californians are evil, so they try to always tax "other people" and not themselves.
stale2002 10y ago
Uhh, no thanks. I'd rather be able to decide for myself what healthcare I buy, instead of being forced into a substandard single payer system. Ok, fine, create a public option. But don't force me to buy it. Let me buy my own healthcare.
- gautamnarula 10y ago
  This is what Australia does, I think. Single payer public option, but you can choose to buy private health care as well (though you still pay taxes for the public option regardless). I'm curious to hear from any Australians about how this system works for them.
  - marak830 10y ago
    I use to work pretty well for me. Note I haven't been there in 4 years. When I left if you earnt over (iirc) 40k per year, you had to purchase private health insurance. Im happy with that. I did have to goto hospital a few times, I shattered my elbow joint and required 3 surgeries to repair it in total. The cost was under 5k in total if I remember correctly. I went to public hospital first, but for something like this they recommended private(which I had at the time) - that way there was less waiting, 2 days later I was having my first surgery.
  - nikdaheratik 10y ago
    It seems to work okay for the most part, and the population of Australia is much smaller than that of California so I don't believe it would be impossible to do by itself. There are always political discussions in the background about changes to cost or services, but it has a high level of public support across the spectrum of politics, which helps. The main thing to consider is that the tax base is much different from the U.S. There is an across the board GST which is managed federally, so no local/state options. The income tax overall is higher, though the part that is earmarked specifically for healthcare is only a small percentage of overall income tax. This means that general revenues make up a larger portion of funding than it would appear from a single item on your paystub. Also, the pricing for public health services is heavily regulated, though there are completely private hospitals and clinics that are separate from that system. Ambulance is also separate from the system, which means either a local tax in some areas or you would need to pay for insurance coverage. Overall, patient cost is lower, but take-home pay is also lower. Also, I don't believe you can make a sustainable public system without also having a large number of regulated "public" clinics and hospitals. If done correctly, I believe there would be alot of buy in from doctors and other professionals who are just as tired of dealing with the payment headaches as patients are. But you have to get alot of buy in from both them and patients to make it work, and you need an option for people who want to pay for their own "cadillac plans" if you want to keep insurance companies and the very wealthy from getting upset at the effect on choice and lifestyle.
intopieces 10y ago
>I'm sure as shit happy to pay more in taxes for a universal single single-payer. As someone who just climbed out of being a contractor and into a full time position, I concur. Raise my taxes for this. Please do it, and do it soon.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Not to mention that detaching health insurance from employment is sure to create a lot more fluid labor market (contracting would be easier, part time work becomes more viable, etc....).
mcbruiser 10y ago
> I'm sure as shit happy to pay more in taxes for a universal single single-payer. I Great, you can opt in to that, but don't force everyone else who doesn't agree with you to subsidize everyone else's poor decisions
- mozumder 10y ago
  That's the deal with citizenship - we allow you to live with us as long as you pay for other people. In particular, paying for people that don't make good decisions for themselves. Which is fine, since everyone is poorer than someone else. No one is interested in allowing you to live in a country without paying for it. You live under the permission of others. Them's the rules - take it or leave it.
  - mcbruiser 10y ago
    you allow me to? so what if I stop working and pay no taxes? do I have to leave? you sound very self righteous. I assume you're a typical liberal. do you realize you're making an argument against illegal immigration?
    - mozumder 10y ago
      As a typical self-righteous liberal, I'll just say that: illegal immigrants pay taxes.
  - jxramos 10y ago
    L'Etat c'est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s'efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde. The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else. The State in Journal des débats (1848) par. 5.20. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat#Quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat#Quo...
- Frondo 10y ago
  Ok, well, as a cyclist who doesn't own a car, and as a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat, and as a childless infertile dude, I'm sure tired of subsidizing you cow-eating motorist parents. Oh, wait, that's what society is--we all pay for communal stuff because we're all ultimately in this together.
DrScump 10y ago
California has had a bumper crop in terms of tax revenue ... but is outspending even that! There was a "surprise" extra $1.9 billion deficit hit from Medi-Cal last fiscal year[0] (which should tell you something about the government's inability to track or control spending), and an overall budget deficit is projected for the current year. And this doesn't even count the huge infrastructure deficiencies and deferred maintenance. [0] http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6563825-181/19-billion-error-adds-to http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6563825-181/19-billion-err...
- jxramos 10y ago
  Another thing I'm finding out is that states have been playing accounting gimmicks and moving funds about accounts that should not have been mixed up as they were... tens of thousands of local government entities issue bonds, and some employ dubious accounting techniques “that obscure their true financial position,” according to a 2015 report of the Volcker Alliance https://www.city-journal.org/html/zeroing-government-fraud-14955.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/zeroing-government-fraud-1...

ng12 10y ago

> it is the largest non-country pension fund in the world; and comes in the top 10 when listed among countries Yes, and that's the problem. It's funding is at 73% and dropping -- that 27% is an astronomical deficit. Numbers here: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/newsroom/calpers-news/2017/annual-report-details-fund-finances https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/newsroom/calpers-news/2017/a...

chaostheory 10y ago

> is about CalPERS, which is separate from the budget of the State. There may be a current budget shortfall, but CalPERS is fine It's 'separate' from the state budget, but doesn't California still ultimately pay for pensions? How is this fine when there's a huge difference between the projected costs and the actual costs? Doesn't 70% of CA tax revenue go towards paying pension obligations? Current CA pension debt is $965 Billion. http://news.stanford.edu/2015/10/15/cali-pension-tracker-101515/ http://news.stanford.edu/2015/10/15/cali-pension-tracker-101... http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php

mmanfrin 10y ago
Doesn't 70% of CA tax revenue go towards paying pension obligations Not even close. The article linked by the comment I replied to states that CA will chip in $5.4bil -- last years budget was $122bil. Maybe you got the 70% figure from where CalPERS gets its funding? Currently yearly contribution is ~70% from the state, but there was a bill passed that is shifting some of the requirement on to those who will benefit from it.
- chaostheory 10y ago
  I'm not sure why both of our comments got downvoted, but thanks for the clarification. Yes there was a new bill and there was a shift, but most of the burden is still on the state of California which makes sense since CALPERS is an agency of the state of California. Isn't CA still ultimately responsible for CA pensions? I just felt that CALPERS was in trouble years ago when they were selling their members an advancement in years for the pension if they paid a fee upfront (which could be deducted from their paychecks) in order to meet current pension obligations. Current CA pension debt is $965 Billion. It'll become $1 Trillion soon. http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php

__realtime 10y ago

> as a Californian...I'd rather that people like me... There is crux of the issue: not everyone shares the same opinion and belief, so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others? Personally I think it won't end up how you anticipate but that's just me. Right now the working people of America are already subsidizing healthcare for the masses and all I ever hear is people complaining about it.

hprotagonist 10y ago
>not everyone shares the same opinion and belief, so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others? Yes. Ideally, that's what governments should do: require citizens to act in our collective and long-term best interests, not only their own. In the case of healthcare: a healthy population is a productive, happy, and peaceful population. All of those things are good for the economy, not to mention any one particular person's soul -- you can make a completely utilitarian argument for it and largely sidestep thorny issues of morality.
- mcbruiser 10y ago
  most likely what will happen is people will just leave CA, leaving a shortage and it will fail
  - astrange 10y ago
    Do people migrate out of EU states with universal health care? They have free movement and everything. I think this would actually be another great lock-in feature, on top of rent control and Prop 13 making it so nobody would ever want to sell their house.
  - bsder 10y ago
    > most likely what will happen is people will just leave CA Could you please inform our population here about that? Republicans keep promising that people will flee the Blue states due to various policies; somehow it never seems to happen. Could you let us know what we're doing wrong? We'd really like to send some of these folks to Red states to help balance out the voting. Thanks bunches.

gavman 10y ago

Thanks for the details regarding the budget, I didn't realize the pension budget shortfall was separate from the state budget. In that case stupid question: if CalPERS owes much more than it can afford to pay, where is the rest coming from? The LA Times article, in multiple places, talks about how much the shortage will cost the "taxpayers" (see quote below for example), how is this not related to the CA budget which is, well, funded by taxpayers? > "This year, state employee pensions will cost taxpayers $5.4 billion, according to the Department of Finance. That’s more than the state will spend on environmental protection, fighting wildfires and the emergency response to the drought combined." That makes it seem like it's related to the budget...

gnopgnip 10y ago
They will either have to increase contributions or cut payments to future retirees.
- numbsafari 10y ago
  As if those are the only two options... what happens when the unions plans their strikes for the week before a major event, like transit workers before the DNC here in Philly? Also, when tax-free pension contributions go up and taxable payments to future retirees go down... then taxes collected also goes down...
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    They strike they strike. It's happened before, it will happen again. As for a change in tax revenue, the same is true if you contribute more to your 401k and/or get back less because your investments didn't do good. Also, if you lay state employees off, your state income tax revenues go down.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
It is related to the budget, but not directly related since it is promises to fund pensions rather than something directly related to government services. It could be funded by increasing contributions gradually until it reaches the correct funding level (either from cuts in other areas or taxes), by cutting the future amounts they distribute from the pensions, by raising the retirement rate of current workers which would give them time to make up the deficit, or a combination of these. The problem is, these options all kind of stink politically, but they won't bankrupt the state by themselves.

theflyingkiwi42 10y ago

Have your contractor friends check out NASE. I used to have amazing health coverage through them for about $150 (pre-Obamacare).

Girlang 10y ago

California confiscates 13.8% of every dollar I earn (my husband's income puts us into that category). There are already two "millionaire" taxes that kick in for incomes over $1,000,000. Californians are evil, so they try to always tax "other people" and not themselves.

stale2002 10y ago

Uhh, no thanks. I'd rather be able to decide for myself what healthcare I buy, instead of being forced into a substandard single payer system. Ok, fine, create a public option. But don't force me to buy it. Let me buy my own healthcare.

gautamnarula 10y ago
This is what Australia does, I think. Single payer public option, but you can choose to buy private health care as well (though you still pay taxes for the public option regardless). I'm curious to hear from any Australians about how this system works for them.
- marak830 10y ago
  I use to work pretty well for me. Note I haven't been there in 4 years. When I left if you earnt over (iirc) 40k per year, you had to purchase private health insurance. Im happy with that. I did have to goto hospital a few times, I shattered my elbow joint and required 3 surgeries to repair it in total. The cost was under 5k in total if I remember correctly. I went to public hospital first, but for something like this they recommended private(which I had at the time) - that way there was less waiting, 2 days later I was having my first surgery.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  It seems to work okay for the most part, and the population of Australia is much smaller than that of California so I don't believe it would be impossible to do by itself. There are always political discussions in the background about changes to cost or services, but it has a high level of public support across the spectrum of politics, which helps. The main thing to consider is that the tax base is much different from the U.S. There is an across the board GST which is managed federally, so no local/state options. The income tax overall is higher, though the part that is earmarked specifically for healthcare is only a small percentage of overall income tax. This means that general revenues make up a larger portion of funding than it would appear from a single item on your paystub. Also, the pricing for public health services is heavily regulated, though there are completely private hospitals and clinics that are separate from that system. Ambulance is also separate from the system, which means either a local tax in some areas or you would need to pay for insurance coverage. Overall, patient cost is lower, but take-home pay is also lower. Also, I don't believe you can make a sustainable public system without also having a large number of regulated "public" clinics and hospitals. If done correctly, I believe there would be alot of buy in from doctors and other professionals who are just as tired of dealing with the payment headaches as patients are. But you have to get alot of buy in from both them and patients to make it work, and you need an option for people who want to pay for their own "cadillac plans" if you want to keep insurance companies and the very wealthy from getting upset at the effect on choice and lifestyle.

intopieces 10y ago

>I'm sure as shit happy to pay more in taxes for a universal single single-payer. As someone who just climbed out of being a contractor and into a full time position, I concur. Raise my taxes for this. Please do it, and do it soon.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Not to mention that detaching health insurance from employment is sure to create a lot more fluid labor market (contracting would be easier, part time work becomes more viable, etc....).

mcbruiser 10y ago

> I'm sure as shit happy to pay more in taxes for a universal single single-payer. I Great, you can opt in to that, but don't force everyone else who doesn't agree with you to subsidize everyone else's poor decisions

mozumder 10y ago
That's the deal with citizenship - we allow you to live with us as long as you pay for other people. In particular, paying for people that don't make good decisions for themselves. Which is fine, since everyone is poorer than someone else. No one is interested in allowing you to live in a country without paying for it. You live under the permission of others. Them's the rules - take it or leave it.
- mcbruiser 10y ago
  you allow me to? so what if I stop working and pay no taxes? do I have to leave? you sound very self righteous. I assume you're a typical liberal. do you realize you're making an argument against illegal immigration?
  - mozumder 10y ago
    As a typical self-righteous liberal, I'll just say that: illegal immigrants pay taxes.
- jxramos 10y ago
  L'Etat c'est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s'efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde. The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else. The State in Journal des débats (1848) par. 5.20. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat#Quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat#Quo...
Frondo 10y ago
Ok, well, as a cyclist who doesn't own a car, and as a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat, and as a childless infertile dude, I'm sure tired of subsidizing you cow-eating motorist parents. Oh, wait, that's what society is--we all pay for communal stuff because we're all ultimately in this together.

DrScump 10y ago

California has had a bumper crop in terms of tax revenue ... but is outspending even that! There was a "surprise" extra $1.9 billion deficit hit from Medi-Cal last fiscal year[0] (which should tell you something about the government's inability to track or control spending), and an overall budget deficit is projected for the current year. And this doesn't even count the huge infrastructure deficiencies and deferred maintenance. [0] http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6563825-181/19-billion-error-adds-to http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6563825-181/19-billion-err...

jxramos 10y ago
Another thing I'm finding out is that states have been playing accounting gimmicks and moving funds about accounts that should not have been mixed up as they were... tens of thousands of local government entities issue bonds, and some employ dubious accounting techniques “that obscure their true financial position,” according to a 2015 report of the Volcker Alliance https://www.city-journal.org/html/zeroing-government-fraud-14955.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/zeroing-government-fraud-1...