politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I’m really curious how Californians feel about Prop 34. It’s kind of bizarre to see a prop that is actively targeting a single organization, even if that org is super sketchy. I felt icky voting on it, for or against.
Not in CA so not following that... but looking it up:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_34,Require_Certain_Participants_in_Medi-Cal_Rx_Program_to_Spend_98%25_of_Revenues_on_Patient_Care_Initiative(2024)
"requiring health care providers... to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care"
I removed the qualifications to simply boil it down to the ask here... mathematically is this even possible?
I don't think any business model survives on 2% overhead.
https://www.wphealthcarenews.com/understanding-the-complexities-of-overhead-in-a-physician-practice/
"Most physicians believe that their practice’s overhead is somewhere between 40% and 50% of their charges. The truth is that in today’s medical practices, it is actually between 60% and 70%.
The reasons? In the past 15 years, health insurance costs for employees rose over 200%. Reimbursements from third-party payers decreased substantially. Technology has become much more expensive. Documentation for malpractice purposes has caused physicians to do more paperwork. The billing process to third-party payers has become much more complicated. Physicians have been forced to hire more staff. With all of these changes, some physicians have taken a 50% cut in pay – or more."
The thing is, there’s only one org that meets the threshold for it and that’s the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which throws a lot of money at props in California and has some questionable stuff about being a landlord. From calmatters.org:
In THAT case, it seems specifically designed to put them out of business... Which I guess would be the basis of the vote...
You'd think the regulatory agencies would have a better way of dealing with it.
It’s nuts, right? That’s why it felt icky. My husband and I talk through all the stuff on our ballots together and we really went back and forth on this one. Ultimately we did vote for it, probably because we kept reading that the AHF had funded at least half of all the other props we were voting on, most of which had nothing to do with healthcare. But I’m still not sure that was the right vote. I’ll be curious to see how it shakes out.
I’m also watching prop 36 because I see all these signs for it in my neighborhood, but I’m against it.
I voted for it, going back now I think I would vote against.