Forums » Local & National Politics

All Forums:  Advertisers | Book Club | Community Watch | General Discussion | Politics | Recipes | Support     New Topics & Replies

Non governing government

    • 873 posts
    April 11, 2016 6:21:20 PM PDT
    The constitution defines their role and it ain't telling us every move to make and how to make it!
    • 2563 posts
    April 11, 2016 8:08:53 PM PDT
    Driving alone to work: workforce that drives alone to work California Best 65% Califorina Worst 79% California Mean73% Best US Counties 71%
    Long commute - driving alone: among workers who commute in their car alone, those that commute more than 30 minutes 17% 45% 37% 15%
    Long commutes, commuting alone are the type problems best solved by teenagers. Why? Because teenagers don't know it can't be done. Besides teenagers might notice some other benefits. Such as parents who have more disposable income and more time to do family things. Also, there may still be some teenagers that think they, the teenagers can do something to make living better.
    • 2563 posts
    April 11, 2016 8:20:39 PM PDT
    Besides, teenagers aren't as likely as adults to demand that "government" do the heavy lifting.
    • 1133 posts
    April 12, 2016 6:58:30 PM PDT
    kibbefolks said:
    The constitution defines their role and it ain't telling us every move to make and how to make it!

    I don't see it doing that now.  It's ebb and flow all the time regardless who is in office and at any given point in time of their term it will run the spectrum.  Has always been like that and always will.  The only way to stop govt. from "interfering" in our lives is to abolish it completely-which won't happen nor will that work either.  So, like it our not Govt. is going to tell us what to do.  Just a matter of how we perceive it that dictates our reaction to it.  Change our thinking, and the behavior change will follow.

    • 2563 posts
    April 13, 2016 1:05:55 PM PDT
    This has been posted to a website advocating safer roads.
    I have been trying to get a definition of health from the officials in California's cities and counties.
    Using that definition of health, I ask officials to measure the health of the people in their city or county.

    Using those measures, identify and rank the health issues in their city or county.
    I believe the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's "County Health Rankings" is a template for counties to use.
    Measure of America is similar to RWJ County Health Rankings but slices and dices the data in different ways. MOA measures: health, access to knowledge, and living standards.
    Three items are measured. Physical health is measured in terms of years of potential life lost. Financial health is measured by income. Mental or spiritual health is measured by education level.
    The response from the counties is along the lines of "that's not our job, we don't know whose job it is and it isn't our job to know whose job it is." Especially in the counties that have the poorest vehicle crash statistics. If it isn't recognized as a problem by those in positions to make change, then it isn't a problem.
    Some of the things I find are that rural counties with poorest fatality rates have the poorest crash response times. Worse yet, is that the county should be defining their own problems, rather than waiting for some out of town stranger to point out how the county just over the border does not have similar problems. The attitude of those that I would look to for solutions is that "there are no problems here, go get a life."
    Any suggestions on how to get local government to look at health issues in their jurisdictions?

    • 4977 posts
    April 13, 2016 2:28:28 PM PDT
    You don't like my answer or suggestion but here goes again.
    Definition of health is different for every department. Each has it's own responsibilities and definition of success. Your question is too vague. You don't like that but until you ask a more specific question you are going to continue to get pushed aside. Health to mental health is not the same as health to the clinic, neither are the same to the department trying to address diabetes or smoking cessation or childhood disease prevention and vaccination rates. Measuring health against education level and spirituality is interesting but that isn't a "'definition of health"; that is a comparison between education and spirituality and comparing to being ill. If that comparison works for you, use it.
    As far as response times. You are comparing apples and oranges. If I crash in Marysville the hospital is minutes away. If I crash out on Jasper Lane or Camptonville well obviously the response time is much different. Kern and Modoc counties have a wide range of response times with their large geographical areas. Comparing them to our smaller county is useless. How many miles from Law enforcement? How many miles from the ER? How many stop signs? How much traffic? What is the census of the area?

    What does it matter?
    • 2563 posts
    May 3, 2016 9:03:33 AM PDT
    The fifty state project. The top five issues in each state.
    So far this year they statehouses have passed 19,313 bills to Capitol Hill’s 150. That’s a lot more debating, voting and getting things done.
    Spoiler alert. This is a link to a thumbnail sketch. For the full article, click through this site.
    • 2563 posts
    May 3, 2016 9:12:32 AM PDT
    2Grands said:
    <>If I crash in Marysville the hospital is minutes away. If I crash out on Jasper Lane or Camptonville well obviously the response time is much different. Kern and Modoc counties have a wide range of response times with their large geographical areas. Comparing them to our smaller county is useless. How many miles from Law enforcement? How many miles from the ER? How many stop signs? How much traffic? What is the census of the area? What does it matter?

    Well, it matters who crashes. If I were so unfortunate to crash, I would like to have medical support, including evacuation as soon as possible. Yesterday or sooner. If someone else crashes? I don't know how they feel about medical transport. Consider the crash that TN responded to on Willow Glenn. Emergency medicine has a golden hour. The shorter the time to treatment, the better the chances of recovery. For hihgway crashes in the United States the response time ranges from a long time in the Dakotas to a short time in most ciies. Californina counties have extremes in response time. Yuba County compared to Lake County for instance as compared to response times in Marin. Response time including when does the evacuation ambulance or helicopter get there.

    • 2563 posts
    May 3, 2016 9:16:18 AM PDT
    The Yuba Supervisors considered a Community Health Program request for proposals on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. Too many acronyms for me to translate. Any one interested in what our county is doing in the health field? Nothing but questions, questions.
    • 2563 posts
    May 3, 2016 9:22:21 AM PDT
    On further reflection, response time should be measured from the time of the crash to the time the patient is in a MASH type medical facility. A facility dedicated to emergency medicine. A facility with a track record of victim recovery.
    • 2563 posts
    May 3, 2016 9:45:49 AM PDT
    OK, who can explain the Jarvis Gann Prop 13 and the Prop 8 that "clarified" the intent. I'm trying to find out why Yuba County pays YCWA $500k per year. Seems to have something to do with the Assembly deciding that the county has to make the payment as part of Jarvis Gann Prop 13 "fair distribution".
    • 4977 posts
    May 3, 2016 10:20:28 AM PDT
    I would ask Tib Belza and/or Jophn Nicoletti. Both have proven very knowledgeable with YCWA.
    Hal might be able to answer too but I don't know if he's on this forum any longer.
    • 2563 posts
    May 5, 2016 3:15:35 PM PDT
    • 2563 posts
    May 5, 2016 4:32:16 PM PDT
    In an attempt to preempt comments about the credentials of the authors of the article on how to contain the cost of public health. One of the authors is a professor of health economics at Berkeley. The other is a professor of Public Service at New York University.
    • 2563 posts
    May 5, 2016 4:35:40 PM PDT
    2Grands said:
    I would ask Tib Belza and/or Jophn Nicoletti. Both have proven very knowledgeable with YCWA. Hal might be able to answer too but I don't know if he's on this forum any longer.

    Thanks for the references, 2Grands.

    • 6429 posts
    May 6, 2016 12:32:22 PM PDT
    California Proposition 13 (1978)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    Elections in California

    Seal of California.svg

    Federal government[show]

    State government (executive)[show]

    State government (legislative)[show]

    State government (judicial)[show]


    Elections by year[show]

    Los Angeles[show]

    San Diego[show]

    San Francisco[show]

    San Jose[show]

    v ·
    t ·

    This article is part of a series on

    Taxation in the
    United States of America

    Logo of the Internal Revenue Service.svg

    Federal taxation[show]

    State and local taxation[show]

    Federal tax reform[show]

    Portal icon United States portal
    v ·
    t ·

    Proposition 13 (officially named the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation) was an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative power. It was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was declared constitutional under federal law by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the California Constitution.[1] Proposition 13 has been part of the California Constitution for 37 years and 11 months.

    The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

    Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

    The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for in cases of (a) change in ownership, or (b) completion of new construction.

    In addition to decreasing property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds (2/3) majority in both legislative houses for future increases of any state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates and sales tax rates. It also requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote majority in local elections for most local governments proposing to increase special taxes. Proposition 13 received an enormous amount of publicity, not only in California, but throughout the United States.[2]

    Passage of the initiative presaged a "taxpayer revolt" throughout the country that is sometimes thought to have contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency during 1980. Thirteen (13) of thirty (30) anti-tax ballot measures passed that year.[3]

    A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high property taxes.[4] The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics, and it is not popular politically for lawmakers to attempt to change it.[5]

    The Jarvis Gann law as I recall was to stop the Local Governments, County, city, from increasing the house taxes each time the local officials wanted a tax increase in 1978.

    The law was held as Constitutional and still is in effect today removing my house tax from the whim of greedy county officials. If I move out, from my home as listed in 1978, the Prop 13 Jarvis Gann protection is lost , with no recovery.
    • 2563 posts
    May 6, 2016 7:42:23 PM PDT
    For an article from RCRC printed in SacBee. The article makes the case for separate funding for firefighting and managing forests. RCRC is the Rural County Representatives of California
    This could become another "Fire Tax" imbroglio.
    • 2563 posts
    May 6, 2016 8:00:40 PM PDT
    cleanup, thanks for the reference to Prop 13 at post 116. All good points.
    I see some unintended consequences. Prop 13 was clarified by Prop 218. But Prop 218 has open questions that need to be addressed. For instance, CSA 14 in the Wheatland area of Yuba County attempted to raise their CSA fees for road maintenance. But there was a protest, so the request was denied.
    The Fire Tax was an attempt to manage forests. But there are poliiical overtones of money shuffling. The Fire Tax still has opposition, Especially from the Howard Jarvis Tax Association.
    • 6429 posts
    May 6, 2016 11:25:43 PM PDT
    There was another Prop 13 in 2005 or 5 that was for safe water grants, levee work, in the Billions that was the source of the Millions that Yuba County/ TRLIA got part of.
    • 2563 posts
    May 30, 2016 3:56:29 PM PDT

    To me, there is a disconnect between what the 535 Congress Critters are saying and what local elected officials are saying about "healthcare". Healthcare in parenthesis to indicate that healthcare is not defined.

    What I hear from California Supervisors, County Supervisors, is a very clear message. "We ain't gonna participate in any United Nations Agenda 21 plot to overthrow democracy. So to save democracy, we the Supervisors, as the first line of defense are going to kill this Affordable Care money grab before it has a chance to corrupt the youth of this great nation."

    Notice the quote marks to indicate what I, Dick Boyd, think the Supervisors are saying. Maybe that isn't what the Supervisors are saying. Maybe I am the only one hearing this negative message.
    • 2563 posts
    June 1, 2016 8:52:53 AM PDT
    slight uptick in death rate nationally.
    • 2563 posts
    June 5, 2016 9:10:03 PM PDT
    Show some initiative

    James Madison may have had a sceptical regard for referendums (“Let the people fail to decide”, May 21st). But Thomas Jefferson was more insightful:

    “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

    David Cameron’s principal shortcoming, and that of the many politicians who default to plebiscites when they lack the courage to decide, is the failure to educate.

    • 2563 posts
    June 5, 2016 9:15:11 PM PDT
    Or in California, the appearance of education. Not real education, but the selling of a specific point of view.
    For instance Jarvis/Gann message that government is bad, government is evil, government can't do anything right, ever.
    Why does Yuba County transfer about $500 k per year to YCWA?
    • 2563 posts
    June 25, 2016 7:16:16 PM PDT

    A Tennessee woman slipped into a coma and died after an ambulance company took so long to assemble a crew that one worker had time for a cigarette break.

    Paramedics in New York had to covertly swipe medical supplies from a hospital to restock their depleted ambulances after emergency runs.

    A man in the suburban South watched a chimney fire burn his house to the ground as he waited for the fire department, which billed him anyway and then sued him for $15,000 when he did not pay.

    In each of these cases, someone dialed 911 and Wall Street answered.

    The business of driving ambulances and operating fire brigades represents just one facet of a profound shift on Wall Street and Main Street alike, a New York Times investigation has found. Since the 2008 financial crisis, private equity firms, the “corporate raiders” of an earlier era, have increasingly taken over a wide array of civic and financial services that are central to American life.

    Well, tried to take over...and found out there is not enough profit in civic services. So Wall Street defaults. The torch drops and on one picks it up.
    • 2563 posts
    August 10, 2016 9:57:51 PM PDT
    • 2563 posts
    August 14, 2016 12:28:03 PM PDT
    WASHINGTON — In nearly eight years in office, President Obama has sought to reshape the nation with a sweeping assertion of executive authority and a canon of regulations that have inserted the United States government more deeply into American life.

    Once a presidential candidate with deep misgivings about executive power, Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history.

    Blocked for most of his presidency by Congress, Mr. Obama has sought to act however he could. In the process he created the kind of government neither he nor the Republicans wanted — one that depended on bureaucratic bulldozing rather than legislative transparency. But once Mr. Obama got the taste for it, he pursued his executive power without apology, and in ways that will shape the presidency for decades to come.

    The Obama administration in its first seven years finalized 560 major regulations — those classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having particularly significant economic or social impacts. That was nearly 50 percent more than the George W. Bush administration during the comparable period, according to data kept by the regulatory studies center at George Washington University.
    • 2563 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:19:34 PM PDT

    12) In the United States today, tobacco costs society north of $300 billion dollars. $170 billion goes to medical care and more than $156 billion is attributed to lost productivity due to death and secondhand smoke exposure.

    What will be on California's ballot regarding cigarette tax? Prop 56?

    $2 more tax per pack? Who could oppose this increase? And on what grounds?
    • 4977 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:40:53 PM PDT
    Don't smoke, never have. Don't understand why people do.
    I don't think cigarettes should be taxed to fund care. If you want to choose to to smoke, that's your decision.
    When the government funds programs via taxes, there's always folks that get jobs and positions as political favors. As less people smoke, there's less money. The government then comes after us for more taxes.
    We're seeing the same thing with the gas taxes. Taxed and fee'd to death, increased mileage and electric vehicles promoted, now there isn't enough money to take care of the roads (or is there?).

    Another thing that happens is funding programs get connected to legislation that has nothing to do with certain funding actions. Pork spending. A Bill might be a very good thing until one party or the other attaches nonsense funding (like a bridge to nowhere). Then the politician opposes the Bill, is claimed to be against helping this or that, when in reality they were against the Pork added to the original Bill. Then if you want something done, you have to support something else.
    The taxes never go down due to all the political favors and the new money needed comes from us in the form of fees, permits, taxes, and so on.
    • 2563 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:43:28 PM PDT
    Who would oppose Prop 56 $2 per pack increase in tax? \
    Who would support passage?

    12) In the United States today, tobacco costs society north of $300 billion dollars. $170 billion goes to medical care and more than $156 billion is attributed to lost productivity due to death and secondhand smoke exposure.

    What will be on California's ballot regarding cigarette tax? Prop 56?

    $2 more tax per pack? Who could oppose this increase? And on what grounds?

    HJTA because all taxes are evil?
    Paid for by No on 56 – Stop the Special Interest Tax Grab. Major Funding by Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, with a Coalition of Taxpayers, Educators, Healthcare Professionals, Law Enforcement, Labor, and Small Businesses.

    Local supervisors because they sell cigarettes at their day job? And increases in cigarette costs means fewer sales.

    BOE because passage might mean more work that isn't compensated.
    Even though Philip Morris points out that Prop 56 spends up to $147 million per year on overhead and bureaucracy.

    Please make the effort to read both positions. Note who supports each point of view.
    • 4977 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:53:47 PM PDT
    Trump doesn't owe favors because of his wealth. He's the one that was buying politicians! The establishment is scared stiff of him because he'll blow up the good 'ol boy network in Washington DC. Hillary is a career politician that is very intertwined in the corrupt system and is corrupt herself.
    • 2563 posts
    August 16, 2016 8:25:03 PM PDT
    2Grands said:
    ... I don't think cigarettes should be taxed to fund care. If you want to choose to to smoke, that's your decision....
    To me, someone's decision to smoke is like someone's decision to punch me in the nose. As long as the punch gets no closer than a quarter inch to my nose, go for it. As long as the decision to smoke doesn't bother me, go for it.
    However. if someone does smoke, I don't expect to have to pay for whatever illness they acquire. I don't expect to pay support for their widow and orphans should they die early. I don't expect to pay for lost work days.
    Smokers made the decision to smoke. In my opinion, they should pay the costs of smoking. As I see things, they should pay as they go. Charge enough in the price of cigarettes to cover medical expenses, survivor costs and lost work.
    Every time they buy a pack of cigarettes, they will be riminded that money is collected to pay for medical treatment, lost work and early death. Then maybe they will find it easier to make the choice to not smoke. Maybe smokers will find a different use of their money. Something that gives them more pleasure. Something that does not require me to put money in the pot.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my point of view.
    BTW, I was once a smoker. Until the birth of our son. He was born with breathing problems.
    Anything worse than being preached to by a reformed smoker? How about a sermon from a reformed drunk?
    • 4977 posts
    August 16, 2016 10:13:29 PM PDT
    You make great points. The point is as the pool of smokers dwindles, our government will tax elsewhere rather than scale back funding.
    Congrats on quitting smoking; they say it is harder than heroin to give up.
    • 2563 posts
    August 17, 2016 9:48:07 AM PDT
    2Grands said:
    You make great points. The point is as the pool of smokers dwindles, our government will tax elsewhere rather than scale back funding. Congrats on quitting smoking; they say it is harder than heroin to give up.


    I would like to have seen sunset provisions on Prop 56. There are provisions for audits to make sure the money goes ro places specified in the proposition. If the program works, as people stop smoking, there will be less demand on the health system. No tobacco tax coming in, but no tobacco sick people to spend the money on either.

    There may be a realization in the health community that specific illnesses should be funded by the things causing the illness.

    As market forces come into play, the sales of cigarettes will diminish. Recipients who are spending the "tobacco tax" should keep that in mind for long term planning. The money will run out when people stop buying cigarettes.

    One of the financial decisions is how to spend tne tax money with the understanding at some point, the money stops. If it is just tobacco related illness, hopefully the illness stops before the money runs out. Then there is a short period of time with money coming in, but less money going out to treat tobacco related illness.

    Two sides to the coin. One side is where the money comes from. The other side is where it goes. The money comes from cigarettes. The money goes to treat tobacco sick people.

    But if the illness persists after the money runs out, the money to treat the sickness has to come from some other souice. If the illness stops before the money runs out, there is the temptation to spend the money on something else. Other than the things spelled out in the Proposition. Spending as if there will be more money available next year.

    Yuba County decison on spenfing Prop 10 First Five tobacco tax to finance building construction illustrates the point. In my opinion, there should have been more effort by Yuba County to identify some other source of money for new construction. Granted, if you squint your eyes, a new medical center does benefit children under five. But a new building probably benefits all age groups more than it benefits youngsters. In my opinion, tobacco tax money was diverted from the intended recipients, young children, and spent on a new building.

    Prop 99 is another related tobacco tax. Tobacco taxes are looke on as "free money".

    The Master Settlement Agreement is looked on as "free money". Decision makers soon learn that no one is minding the store and the money gets diverted into building a new courthouse, or training programs for computer technicians, or new buildings, or monitized for immediate cash flow.                                                     

    • 2563 posts
    August 17, 2016 9:57:08 AM PDT
    2Grands said:
    Congrats on quitting smoking; they say it is harder than heroin to give up.

    Thanks, I had strong motivation and family support. I dont know about the heroin thing. Sugar? Give up sugar? That would be hard.

    • 2563 posts
    August 17, 2016 10:00:27 AM PDT
    Another comment about Yuba County decisions on where to spend First Five money. I would think the output, child health, would have been measurably improved. Infant mortality? Pretty much the same. Identified at risk populations? Pretty much the same now as before the tax was enacted. To me, the measure of performance seems to be how much money was spent. Not how well people are.
    • 2563 posts
    August 30, 2016 3:04:04 PM PDT
    Mr. DeMocker, thank you for the response.

    1a. I am looking for externalities. In the sense of E.O. 12866. Benefits as well as costs. A search of the 812 study for "external" returns five hits. One of which is the single mention of externalities.

    1b I am looking for confounding factors. Things that might skew health statistics. For instance, smoking. What are the relative costs and benefits of stop smoking programs compared to clean the air programs? Are clean the air programs a subsidy to smoking? Is EPA trying to clean the air to the point where even smokers are not bothered by bad air?

    The fourth and last ! on page 4-25 of the second prospective 812 studies discusses tax interaction and comments "...policy makers face a significant challenge...".

    2. I am trying to rank the costs and benefits as reported by other federal health programs. Researcher Xin Xu of CDC, Centers for Disease Control, as reported in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine (subscription required) claims that "...of the $170 billion spent on smoking related health care, more than 60 percent was paid by government sources...". The report states "...These findings indicate that comprehensive tobacco control programs and policies are still needed to continue progress toward ending the tobacco epidemic in the U.S. 50 years after the release of the first Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health...::

    3. I am trying to identify the "policy makers". Thank you in advance for helping to identify "policymakers".


    9953 Gary Drive

    Browns Valley, CA 95918

    530 639 2360

    -----Original Message-----
    From: DeMocker, Jim
    Cc: jcitron ; eorozco
    Sent: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 6:19 am
    Subject: RE: FRAQMD at 938 14th Streetm Marysville??

    #AOLMsgPart_2_d069d9a0-46e8-4999-ae41-e6cd3df378de td{color: black;} @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face {font-family:Perpetua; panose-1:2 2 5 2 6 4 1 2 3 3;}@font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}.aolReplacedBody p.MsoNormal,.aolReplacedBody li.MsoNormal,.aolReplacedBody div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}.aolReplacedBody a:link,.aolReplacedBody span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline;}.aolReplacedBody a:visited,.aolReplacedBody span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline;}.aolReplacedBody span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D;}.aolReplacedBody .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}@page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}.aolReplacedBody div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

    Dear Mr. Boyd—

    I can help with part of your Question 4. The 812 studies and supporting technical reports are available in PDF format through the following link à

    If I can answer any questions about the most recent 812 study found at the linked page –or the earlier studies available through a link at the bottom of that page—please let me know.


    Jim DeMocker, Director

    Office of Air Policy and Program Support (OAPPS)

    WJCN 5442-C / 202.564.1673 /
    • 2563 posts
    September 3, 2016 8:59:33 AM PDT
    Master Settlement Agreement
    Which health investments have the greatest return on investment?

    Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, A Broken Promise to Our Children: The 1998 State Tobacco Settlement 11 Years Later (2009). According to this report, states in Fiscal Year 2010 will collect $25.1 billion in revenue from the tobacco settlement and tobacco taxes, but are spending just 2.3 percent of it — $567.5 million — on tobacco prevention and cessation programs (the states also receive $62 million in federal grants for tobacco prevention, for total funding of $629.5 million). In the past year, states have cut funding for tobacco prevention by $103.4 million – more than 15 percent.•Understanding the State Tobacco Settlements, Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids series of fact sheets.
    •Tobacco Settlement Payments to the States, Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids series of backgrounder fact sheets.

    Is John Snow;s death map to remove the pump handle on the list of cost effective health measures?
    • 2563 posts
    September 3, 2016 9:34:55 AM PDT
    2Grands said:
    snip  IS GM responsible if I run lights, drive too fast, pull out in front of you?

    Is General Motors responsible for bad drivers?


    No. General Motors is not repsonsible for bad drivers. No one is responsible for bad drivers. Not even the bad drivers.

    Then what are GM's  safety responsibilities? To make ignition swithches that don't fail? To install air bag inflators that don't kill people? To fix recall problems? Especially safety recalls. What are GM's responsibilities regarding designing cars for bad drivers? Back up cameras for those who don't look behind the car before they get behind the wheel? Or for those who don't know how to adjust their rear view mirrors? To make car interiors that don't injure and kill wnen crashes happen? Interlocks to prevent starting an engine with shift lever in any position except park, foot on brake to engage starter? Or shift? Make it harder for kids to start the engine. Alarm system if driver attempts to lock doors with passengers in car? Clutch to floor to engage starter? Over fide switch to use starter motor to porpel car? Self locking doors? Rear door controls to keep kids from opening them? Anti lock brakes? On board diagnostics? Tire pressure monitors? Designed by genius to be operated by idiots? Or designed by idiots to be operated by genius?

    • 1526 posts
    September 3, 2016 9:40:52 AM PDT
    Bought a new car with all the bells and whistles. Kind of fun, really, as long as it doesn't talk to me.
    • 102 posts
    September 4, 2016 11:19:27 AM PDT
    Why don't you run for local office Dick Boyd? In general, stable people do not run for office so we are stuck with the detritus of society making decisions for us
    • 1133 posts
    September 4, 2016 11:25:54 AM PDT
    So if the govt. knows of a potential health threat/crisis they should not report it to the Public or do anything to prevent it?
    • 2563 posts
    September 4, 2016 11:37:43 AM PDT
    America’s Shocking Maternal Deaths
    Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

    Credit Elisa Talentino
    The rate at which women die during pregnancy or shortly after childbirth has fallen sharply in many nations as maternal care has improved. The United States — and particularly Texas — is a glaring exception.

    In Texas, for instance, according to a study in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, the maternal mortality rate doubled from 17.7 per 100,000 live births in 2000 to 35.8 in 2014. Compare that with Germany, which had 4.1 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2014.

    In California, the rate fell from 21.5 in 2003 to 15.1 in 2014, but in the remaining 48 states and the District of Columbia the rate increased from 18.8 in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014. The United States as a whole had the second-highest maternal mortality rate among 31 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Only Mexico had a higher rate.

    A Heavier American Toll
    Unites States maternal mortality rates are among the highest of members of the O.E.C.D.

    48 states
    and D.C.
    Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, 2014.*
    *Canada figure is from 2012, the latest available.
    Sources: Obstetrics & Gynecology (U.S. rates); Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
    By The New York Times
    A big part of the problem is the inequality embedded in America’s health care system. The 2010 Affordable Care Act made health insurance more available, but millions of families still cannot afford the care they need. And lawmakers in many states and many Republicans in Congress have repeatedly shortchanged reproductive health programs because of ideological opposition to contraception and abortion.

    The maternal mortality rate’s surge in Texas defies easy explanation. Such increases typically happen during war, natural disasters and severe economic distress. State Republican lawmakers sharply reduced spending on women’s health care in 2011 in an effort to eliminate government funding of Planned Parenthood. The cuts, which took effect at the end of that year, don’t account for all of the increase, but they certainly don’t aid maternal health.

    The biggest killers during and after pregnancy in Texas are cardiac problems and overdoses involving prescription opioids and illegal drugs, according to a recent report by a task force created by the Texas Legislature. It also found that black women in Texas had much higher maternal mortality rates than white and Hispanic women.

    Pregnancy-Related Deaths
    Researchers estimated maternal mortality trends in the United States, accounting for gaps in data collection. In Texas, the rate spiked after 2010, while it fell in California.

    Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.
    Other 48 states and D.C.
    Texas data begins in 2006, when it revised its death certificate.
    Source: Obstetrics & Gynecology
    By The New York Times
    Texas lawmakers could address some of these problems by investing more in health clinics in minority communities and in mental health and addiction treatment. Expanding Medicaid to cover 1.2 million more poor people would also be very helpful. Texas is one of 19 states that have refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, despite the law’s generous terms, with the federal government picking up nearly all of the cost for low-income families.

    Texas can also learn from California, which has organized doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and public interest groups in a collaborative to focus on maternal mortality. The group has developed state-of-the-art treatments for causes of maternal mortality like hemorrhages and pre-eclampsia, a condition characterized by high blood pressure and organ damage.

    But even California could go further. Despite some improvement, its maternal mortality rate far surpasses that in nations like Germany and Britain, where the rate is 6.7 per 100,000. One reason for Britain’s low rate is a mandatory system of confidential reviews, in place since 1954, of every maternal, newborn and infant death to determine what went wrong and how doctors and hospitals can improve. That’s easier in Britain’s single-payer, government-run health system, but it should not be impossible for state governments to develop something along these lines.

    One of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals was to reduce global maternal mortality by three-fourths between 1990 and 2015. The world missed that target but still reduced the mortality rate by 45 percent. Set against that progress, America’s record is unconscionable.

    Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

    A version of this editorial appears in print on September 4, 2016, on page SR8 of the New York edition with the headline: America’s Shocking Maternal Deaths. Today's Paper|Subscribe
    • 2563 posts
    September 4, 2016 11:41:36 AM PDT
    But even California could go further. Despite some improvement, its maternal mortality rate far surpasses that in nations like Germany and Britain, where the rate is 6.7 per 100,000. One reason for Britain’s low rate is a mandatory system of confidential reviews, in place since 1954, of every maternal, newborn and infant death to determine what went wrong and how doctors and hospitals can improve. That’s easier in Britain’s single-payer, government-run health system, but it should not be impossible for state governments to develop something along these lines.
    • 2563 posts
    September 25, 2016 7:09:51 PM PDT
    • 2563 posts
    October 9, 2016 2:25:24 PM PDT

    What is the medical profession telling the public?

    1. First, Do no harm?

    2. Doctors are like anyone else. Available to the highest bidder?

    3. Go ahead and smoke and get sick. More business for the medical profession can't be all bad?

    4. If people want to take poison, that is up to them. The Hippocratic oath that doctors swear to uphold only prohibits doctors from administering poison?

    5. The public is on its own. Politics are so powerful that the medical profession dare not take a position on tobacco for fear of retaliation by lobbyists?

    6. Doctors can say anything at any time without fear of being contradicted by their medical peers?

    What is the public hearing?
    • 2563 posts
    October 9, 2016 4:30:43 PM PDT
    • 2563 posts
    October 9, 2016 4:33:17 PM PDT

    Tobacco Companies Persist with Outrageous Claims about Prop 56

    Oct 06, 2016

    Practicing Doctors, Medical Professionals Denounce Misleading Ads

    Read an analysis of the false claims here

    SACRAMENTO – California doctors and other medical professionals are denouncing a new lie-filled, tobacco industry-funded ad that continues to propagate dishonest claims that have been extensively and independently discredited.

    The tobacco-bankrolled campaign against Prop 56 recently unleashed a new wave of ads featuring a retired obstetrician, who runs a paid consulting business and is a Republican Party leader.

    The latest lie-laced ad comes straight from the industry’s playbook of smoke and lies and contains more of the same discredited claims opponents have made throughout the campaign. Tobacco companies have spent at least $56 million against Prop 56. These same powerful out-of-state corporations have spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to defeat tobacco taxes in California in the last ten years.

    Physicians across the state also released an open letter to Dr. Arnold Zeiderman, the physician in the tobacco ad, expressing their “disappointment in [his] appearance in a misleading ad for the tobacco industry-funded No on Prop 56 campaign” and calling on Dr. Zeiderman to “reconsider [his] role as spokesperson for the tobacco industry and join with the rest of the California healthcare provider community in protecting kids, saving lives, keeping people from smoking, and supporting Prop 56.”

    “This is one retired doctor, reciting talking points that have been widely discredited, in an ad paid for by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds. Compare that to the sweeping, unprecedented coalition of respected doctors, pediatricians, women’s health advocates, and more support who Prop 56 because they know it will protect children and save lives,” said Dr. Jeanne Conry, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist. “It comes down to a very simple question. Who do voters trust: Tobacco companies who spend billions marketing deadly products to kids and millions lying to Californians, or caregivers, medical professionals, business groups, cancer groups and teachers?”

    Leading medical, education, children’s advocacy groups, California newspapers and more have lined up to expose Prop 56 opponents’ misleading and flat-out false claims. Editorials from the state’s largest and most influential newspapers, the Los Angeles Times, Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, and San Francisco Chronicle, explicitly warn voters not to fall for these ads.

    Among Prop 56 supporters: The American Academy of Pediatrics, California, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American College of Physicians, CA Services Chapter, American Heart Association, American Lung Association in California, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Academy of Preventive Medicine, California Medical Association, and many more.

    “The truth is, Proposition 56 will help California’s children and communities not only by curbing tobacco use, but also by reducing and offsetting the huge toll tobacco has on our health system,” said Dr. Conry. “If it wasn’t a matter of life and death, it would be outright laughable for an industry that sells only one type of product – one that they know kills people – to portray me as a special interest. Particularly when Big Tobacco is the gold standard of greedy special interests.”

    California taxpayers spend $3.5 billion-per-year to treat tobacco-related illnesses through Medi-Cal. The money raised by Prop 56 will help to offset some of these costs. Tobacco’s reckless statements take direct aim at access to healthcare for more than 13 million Californians covered by the Medi-Cal program, including one-third of the state’s population and half of its children.

    The opposition campaign has been repeatedly slammed for its claims that Prop 56 doesn’t do enough to help smokers – which is both false and ridiculous coming from companies that relentlessly market their products to youth and communities of color, spending $9 billion every year to get people hooked. Tobacco taxes are widely known as the best way to reduce smoking. In every state that has significantly raised its tobacco tax, smoking rates have gone down. According to the US Surgeon General, this is especially true among kids.

    “Tobacco companies aren’t giving us enough credit if they think we believe that they are spending millions on attacking Proposition 56 because it doesn’t do enough to curb smoking,” said Dr. Conry. “The reality is that Proposition 56 will reduce smoking and prevent children from ever starting. Proposition 56 will make a meaningful impact on California’s healthcare system, and, most importantly, a meaningful impact on the health of Californians.”
    • 2563 posts
    October 10, 2016 12:44:13 PM PDT
    • 2563 posts
    October 10, 2016 12:48:13 PM PDT
    Subject: Chromium contamination in all 50 states


    Last month, we got word that hexavalent chromium, the chemical made famous by Erin Brockovich, has been found at unsafe levels in the drinking water of 200 million Americans across all 50 states.1

    This isn't déjà vu: Erin Brockovich's famous case against a gas and electric company was settled in 1996, but decades later, the same carcinogenic chemical she discovered in the small town of Hinkley, Calif., is contaminating water in countless other cities and towns.

    Join me in urging the Environmental Protection Agency to set a strong national safety limit for hexavalent chromium in drinking water.

    Hexavalent chromium is used in a number of industrial processes, but the biggest culprit behind this contamination is the electric power industry.

    And in 2009, the industry reported they released 10.6 million pounds of chromium and chromium compounds into the environment.2

    With numbers like that, it's no wonder chromium has seeped into our water.

    Yet despite numerous scientific studies pointing to its danger, no federal limit on hexavalent chromium in drinking water has been set. Help change that by taking action.

    This story should have ended in the 1990s. But instead, two decades later, the problem now affects all corners of the country. That's in part because of the chemical industry's powerful lobbying.

    In 2010, the EPA completed but never officially released a draft risk assessment of hexavalent chromium, and concluded it was "likely to be carcinogenic to humans."

    But the American Chemistry Council, an influential lobbying group, asked the agency to wait for industry-funded studies.3

    The EPA did wait, and then in 2012, the risk assessment was suddenly and quietly halted.

    With a chemical linked to cancer, delays followed by more delays are simply unacceptable.

    Tell the EPA to prioritize public health and our basic right to safe drinking water.

    Thanks for taking action,

    Emily Rusch
    CALPIRG Executive Director

    1. Tafline Laylin, "Chromium-6: 'Erin Brockovich' chemical threatens two-thirds of Americans," The Guardian, September 20, 2016.
    2. Ibid.
    3. Ibid.

    Support CALPIRG. Contributions by people just like you make our advocacy possible. Your contribution supports a staff of organizers, attorneys, scientists and other professionals who monitor government and corporate decisions and advocate on the public’s behalf.

    Join us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter

    California Public Interest Research Group, Inc., 1314 H St., Ste. 100, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 448-4516

    If you want us to stop sending you email then follow this link -- unsubscribe.

    • 2563 posts
    October 27, 2016 11:54:28 AM PDT
    Sorry about the cross post. In case you missed it:

    This story by RACHEL ABRAMS and HIROKO TABUCHI in the NY Times 10/26/16 is about a safety recall program.

    Governments, apparently, are not required to notify buyers that a car has a reported safety defect.

    Possibly governments rely on the fiction of constructive notice?

    Some car dealerships, apparently, do not have to repair a car that has a safety defect.

    The result? People die.

    Constructive notice? Please, government, don't tell me you told me unless you tell me in words that I understand.

    Why are people still dying from exploding air bags, defective ignition switches, roadside hazards?

    Who in government knows how to use VINs to track car ownership?

    Typical answer from government? "That's not my job."