When I was growing up in San Diego, medical tourism across the border was really common, just because services were cheaper. If California were to add an out-of-state surcharge, similar to out-of-state student tuition, that might discourage medical tourism.
My future ex-wife worked in billing a Scripps in San Diego. This is the top medical chain in the area and is world class. This was in the 80s.
My recollection is different. The medical care for elective surgeries is mucmore expensive in the US. It was the very wealthy business owners and narcos who would get treated there. The cartel guys would occasionally bring in a shit load of cash and there was a special protocol for that.
Sorry: I wasn’t clear. San Diegans would go to Mexico for dental work, prescriptions, and that sort of thing. It was meant as an example of people crossing a border for medical care, not of people coming to California for medical care.
Oops. My bad. That’s still true today. That same ex-wife just went down there a couple months ago for dental work from Santa Barbara.
Dental work and plastic surgery are very common medical tourism things.
States require proof of residency all the time. This isn’t a new problem. The strictest version would be a filed form 540 (state income tax) from the previous year. This could be the gold standard, with other options for folks who need an exemption; the exemptions could come under higher scrutiny.
Except many states (9) have no income tax. (I live in one of them.) So, you can’t use that as a standard when it doesn’t exist for almost 20% of the country.
Aren’t we specifically talking about California, though?
Oh, sorry, yes, you are right. Most often discussions about identification required for voting end up occurring at the national level, as that is a hot topic, but it’s true that (at least right now) every state handles its own requirements, and in the context of the California gubernatorial election all that matters is what requirements California has. And in that case, state income tax documentation might serve to confirm voter identity.
Voter identity? I think we were talking about universal healthcare.
You can’t have healthcare unless you bring a copy of your voting record notarized by the Franchise Tax Board to the DMV. Access for all!
I guess it would work for both though, potentially.
I voted today, for Becerra (among other offices and ballot measures). I voted for him because he seemed the Democrat most likely to beat Steyer. I wish Mahan had a better chance, but he’s a young-ish guy (44 this year) so he’ll have other chances.
Now I see that Becerra has leapfrogged ahead of Steyer by one whole percentage point and is now the leading Democrat. I guess we can look forward to even more attack ads against Becerra for the next 3 weeks and 4 days.
Yeah, those are pretty nasty.
Matt Mahan is my favorite also, but unfortunately he is rather low in the polls at the moment. I can’t decide whether I should vote for someone who does not stand a chance. I have my ballot and will want to make a decision fairly soon.
I’m in the same boat. I want to vote for Mahan. He is who I want to lead this state. I’m going to wait at least another week or two for developments. I hate that the polls will play any part in the way I cast my vote.
It’s the reason why ranked choice voting for high office would make some sense. Especially with a jungle primary like California’s where there is an incentive for many candidates to stay in the race hoping for a fractured vote miracle.
And yet a jungle primary like California’s runs a high risk of putting 2 candidates of the minority party into the general election. Given that potential outcome I don’t see the sense in doing things this way.
I’d quibble with high risk and just say some risk. I’m not sure that has ever happened relative to the district where a given party is a minority. That is to say two Democrats have emerged in areas (like CA generally) where they are the majority and I wouldn’t be surprised if two Republicans emerged out of a primary in a red district. But I don’t think we’ve yet had two minority party candidates get out of a primary in any given race. Yet.
But it’s certainly A risk. I’m not actually 100% sold on jungle primaries. But if we’re are going to have them, ranked choice voting would help reduce that risk.
Just to note that Becerra is still rising, now (almost) two polling points above Steyer, who has been basically flat for the past 3 weeks.
But with no clear front-runner, they are sparring among themselves in debates and political ads over who is most committed to a government-run model. No candidate has outlined how California would fund comprehensive health coverage for its 40 million residents, leaving voters unable to discern which candidate has a concrete plan for the nation’s most populous state.
So Steyer, Porter, and sorta kinda Becerra support something CA cant have and is pretty much impossible.
Vermont, which remains the only state to pass a single-payer healthcare law, reversed course when leaders there couldn’t identify a funding source.
To enact single-payer, California would need permission from the federal government to redirect billions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare, and other funding that currently flows to the system — approval not likely to come from the Trump administration.
I am not sure who to vote for, I would like Mahan, but he seems to be a sure loser.