Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) State run insurance is a dangerous game. It gets politically entrenched and often results in more expense (beauracracy etc etc) than for-profit companies that make profit margins of a few %. You probably haven't heard of it yet but FL is sitting on a 40+ Billion time bomb because of their states venture into homeowners insurance where they are FKING the poor to subsidize the rich....but have just been damn lucky not to have a bad hurricane season yet. Remember this post please....it's going to happen in the next 10 years or less to a high level of probability. If you want something closer to home, read up on CA's workers comp fund.
2) Agree on the prison thing.
3) Everyone is losing manufacturing jobs but lets face it, CA is damn expensive. I've read articles (and with your background you have to have heard these) that some places have suggested loosening residency requirements because firemen, police etc. cannot afford to live in some of the areas.
That is one unfortunate thing about a state health care system, is that it has the possibility to be politically entrenched. At the same time, it is possible that it can be run efficiently. I would like to find data comparing costs of the VA and the private sector. The only study I managed to find was one in 1999 whose conclusion was that the VA was not more inefficient. It could work, but it also could be a whole host of problems.
As for Fl. I did not know about that. I would like to research that.
I have heard about the loosening the residency requirements.
I love my state. Once I'm more financially secure, and education funding (I'm a teacher, but am not able to find a job in CA) improves in CA, I would like to come back.
That is one unfortunate thing about a state health care system, is that it has the possibility to be politically entrenched. At the same time, it is possible that it can be run efficiently. I would like to find data comparing costs of the VA and the private sector. The only study I managed to find was one in 1999 whose conclusion was that the VA was not more inefficient. It could work, but it also could be a whole host of problems.
As for Fl. I did not know about that. I would like to research that.
I have heard about the loosening the residency requirements.
I love my state. Once I'm more financially secure, and education funding (I'm a teacher, but am not able to find a job in CA) improves in CA, I would like to come back.
Good luck with your teaching.
If you want to learn more re: FL property insurance you can do a search here using my user name and key words like Citizens.
They are now the largest property insurer in the state of FL and when you take into consideration exposure to risk they dwarf 2nd place as they have all of the most exposed crap because they are below a reasonable price.
They even ADMIT they are underpriced but the legislature won't vote for a price increase.
Pure politics and an utter redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest in a state that spent a great deal of effort portraying themselves as the protector of the little guy from the 'evil insurance companies"....and the dummies fell for it hook, line and walker.
Hey. You said California is popular because it's a welfare state, but you won't say that Texas and Florida are popular for those reasons. Obviously, you believe that welfare benefits are the main reason people move to California. If that isn't ridiculous, I don't know what is.
Ridiculous? California has 12% of the nation's population and 33% of the welfare recipients. California has roughly double the population of New York but five times as many on welfare. These are not opinions but cold hard numbers. That sure makes California a destination and haven for drones that find it easier to be supported by the efforts of others rather than to work for a living.
Ridiculous? California has 12% of the nation's population and 33% of the welfare recipients. California has roughly double the population of New York but five times as many on welfare. These are not opinions but cold hard numbers. That sure makes California a destination and haven for drones that find it easier to be supported by the efforts of others rather than to work for a living.
You have to wonder how many of those people are on welfare of some type and working cash jobs? Or staying unmarried so the "single mom" gets benefits while the dad works.
I've lived here in LA for almost six decades, and here's something else you might not be aware of.
Several years ago, the state legisalture which has been dominated by Democrats for well over thirty years, passed a law which stated that in lieu of California's highest-in-the-nation payouts for welfare, anyone who moved here from another state had to serve a six-month waiting period before applying for benefits, and it was signed into law by the governor, either Gray Davis or Ah-nold--I'll have to look it up.
Suffice it to say that that law was promptly shot down by one of those famed 'bleeding heart' liberal judges that we've also been hearing about for decades.
On top of that, this is also a very tough state for real estate investors, primarily because the eviction laws are so pro-renter that there's a lot more vacant real estate in this state than there should be considering the rock-bottom prices they currently command.
Jerry Brown wouldn't acknowledge the problem when he took office. He played fantasy games. Now he has no choice but to deal with reality. Let's watch...
I hate to be a hardasz but we need more working people and companies that have jobs and less people using social programs. If that means cruely cutting off "the most vulnerable" and forcing them to go elsewhere I'm ok with it. Unfortunately that is only part of the problem with CA's budget.
I've lived here in LA for almost six decades, and here's something else you might not be aware of.
Several years ago, the state legisalture which has been dominated by Democrats for well over thirty years, passed a law which stated that in lieu of California's highest-in-the-nation payouts for welfare, anyone who moved here from another state had to serve a six-month waiting period before applying for benefits, and it was signed into law by the governor, either Gray Davis or Ah-nold--I'll have to look it up.
Suffice it to say that that law was promptly shot down by one of those famed 'bleeding heart' liberal judges that we've also been hearing about for decades.
On top of that, this is also a very tough state for real estate investors, primarily because the eviction laws are so pro-renter that there's a lot more vacant real estate in this state than there should be considering the rock-bottom prices they currently command.
I was born and raised in LA, and moved to Alaska just over 20 years ago after LA County passed their firearm ban law (without a grandfather clause) and turned me into a criminal overnight. I could either cough up my firearms, or leave. I chose the latter.
I cannot say that I am surprised nothing has changed since Governor Moonbeam was last Governor.
Leaving California was the best decision I have ever made.
In order to raise taxes, thus fill the state coffers with money that was otherwise lost during the recession, we need a 2/3 vote. The right pushed for this. So instead California made cuts. The cuts made were more in education than in prisons. Again, more of the right pushing their agenda. The proposal was to have low level criminals released. Instead we decided to raise college tuition and cut funding (hurting a HUGE economic engine).
I do agree we need to make cuts. I agree that people should put more money into their pensions. However, increases in taxes should be put on the table. I don't understand why it is not. Why are large landowners paying so little in property taxes?
It would be great if people had a tempered approach to the budget crisis. This no tax increase mentality is what will doom California.
In order to raise taxes, thus fill the state coffers with money that was otherwise lost during the recession, we need a 2/3 vote. The right pushed for this. So instead California made cuts. The cuts made were more in education than in prisons. Again, more of the right pushing their agenda. The proposal was to have low level criminals released. Instead we decided to raise college tuition and cut funding (hurting a HUGE economic engine).
I do agree we need to make cuts. I agree that people should put more money into their pensions. However, increases in taxes should be put on the table. I don't understand why it is not. Why are large landowners paying so little in property taxes?
It would be great if people had a tempered approach to the budget crisis. This no tax increase mentality is what will doom California.
How is it the Republicans can "push their agenda" when the Democrats have controlled both Houses in the State legislature for the last 30 years? If California made these so-called "cuts," as you claim, they would not be more than $16 billion in debt.
As expected, Democrats are spending the State into oblivion just like they are doing to the nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you want something closer to home, read up on CA's workers comp fund. 
