Skip to main content

View Diary: AB 52 current status. Target Ted Lieu! NOW!! (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The staffer in Lieu's office said the bill would (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plubius

    cost the state $50 million dollars.

    That seems like a ridiculous amount of money, but I don't really know anything about it.

    •  You just made some real news (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Plubius, neroden

      I hope that you'll diary it both here and at Calitics.  I'd like to send the link to Dave Jones for comment.  That's the first real bit of news that I've heard.  Wow.

      Ted Lieu may be about to make a career-ending (though that will be delayed by three years) mistake.

      In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

      by Seneca Doane on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 02:11:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure I follow. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane
        •  The $50 million figure is out there, I know, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          that Lieu's office cites it as a potential reason to vote against AB-52 is news.  It's about $16 million per year.  Lay that against health insurance expenses for California households.

          Let's calculate: 37 million state population, probably about 2.6 per family, lots in group rather than individual coverage.  Let's be really conservative and say that one one million households  would be affected by this legislation.  Then we do the math.  Do we think that the prospect of discouraging unreasonable increases in health insurance premiums will not save them at least $16 for household?

          That, in effect is their implicit argument.   Don't spent $16 million per year to save Californians way more than $16 million per year.  Yeah, I'd call this "news."  (By this logic, imagine what we could save by getting rid of the justice system!)

          If Lieu blocks this, he's toast.

          In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

          by Seneca Doane on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 03:45:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't get the name of the staffer. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        But presumably the cost estimate is a matter of public record somewhere.

          •  Bingo (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar, Seneca Doane

            There's the reason it's on suspense. Administrative costs to the state.

            •  So Lieu in effect might hesitate to have CA spend (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden

              $16 million or so annually in administrative costs to save consumers potentially how much money in unreasonably high premiums?  Have they done the math?

              In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

              by Seneca Doane on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 03:30:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane

                I agree, but really all they are thinking about is what this is going to cost the state, and what you get for that expenditure, vs what some other program(s) will cost the state vs the benefits of that one/those.

                It's a competitive budgetary environment. Lots of demand for bills / programs and not much $$ coming in. They have to pick and choose. I don't have any idea what else is under consideration in suspense. I do know billions are likely to be cut from education, for example, if the revenue trigger comes down this fall and it is sure looking that way. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

                That's the thing ... We hear about and get asked to lobby for individual things in isolation, but we rarely seem to get the bigger picture. If we get bill X (not this bill specifically but just making a general comment), what do we lose to pay for it? I think this one is good, but the committee does have to weigh them against one another because there just isn't the money for everything.

          •  People often don't click links, so (0+ / 0-)

            In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

            by Seneca Doane on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 03:28:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site