Home | About | Donate

Nurses Scolded: Not OKAY to Play Hardball with Democrats


I don't know what you mean. Here's what the LA Times (June 26, 2017) quoted of Rendon:

“Often we fine-tune a bill when it goes from one house to another through the committee process. This was so grotesquely beyond that,” Rendon said in an interview Monday. “This was essentially a $400-billion proposal without a funding source. That's absolutely unprecedented...This was not a bill, this was a statement of principles.”

That's about as clear as it gets. Lara wrote the easiest part of the bill, then punted it to the Assembly to put together the most difficult part, financing. When the Senate Appropriations Chair does that, it's the legislative equivalent of a slap in the face. To put it in perspective, Paul Ryan didn't send his latest "healthcare" bill to the Senate absent financing, did he?

Additionally, there are a whole lot of other issues Rendon has already agreed with his lower house colleagues to consider in the Assembly schedule. What Lara did is basically tell him to ditch the Assembly schedule to spend the rest of the legislative session developing financing language--a huge, politically challenging undertaking--for a bill that 1) his committee had the jurisdiction and responsibility to develop; 2) the Assembly might not have time to pass; and 3) if it did, wouldn't even go into effect if it did pass and was signed by the governor. If you don't know what I mean by 3, just read section 100670(a) of the bill.

That's not the end of it though. Just because a bill is tabled, doesn't mean it can't be brought up for consideration again. I posted a few examples of this a few weeks back from previous healthcare bills. Absolutely nothing is stopping the president of Nurses United and Lara from developing financing language and appealing for reconsideration. Lara is the damn committee chair who is supposed to be doing this. Why isn't he (maybe he is, but I haven't seen anything to indicate it)?

Finally, if the president of Nurses United is so confident, why not skip the horrible sellouts in the Assembly altogether and put the bill on the ballot? She can just drop the Pollin numbers in and see what happens, right? It'd be interesting to see the Legislative Analysts Office analysis of it, that's for sure. Plus, the bill will come through the voters anyway, for popular approval of new taxes, alterations of existing propositions, and/or a ballot measure in opposition to the bill. In truth, I think we both know why she's not doing this and is wasting her time yelling at Rendon.




Reminiscent of Barack Obama, actually... Elected Democrats are apparently some of the only people on the planet who can't understand how universal health care works.


Thx for the correction.


Let's put SB 562 on the ballot and work around the sellouts in the Assembly. We'll use the numbers in the Pollin report for financing and see what the Legislative Analysts Office thinks. Surely the numbers in the report, which don't include transition costs, are concrete. I mean, the author of SB 562 didn't recommit his bill and include those numbers--he floated a 15% payroll tax increase--because he was skeptical maybe.

The president of Nurses United can push the ballot measure, the union can fund commercials, and we'll put it to the people. Who says we'll need to alter prop 98? Sellouts. Who says we'll need to adjust the Gann limit? Sellouts. Who says Tom Price, a guy working to gut Medicaid as we speak, won't approve waivers for single payer? Sellouts. And what about those idiots who say Congress needs to adjust ERISA too. Why wouldn't a Republican Congress do that? Only sellouts would even ask that question. Let's put the truth to a popular vote and cut the sellouts out of it!


Of course the official party works to undercut the nurses: the nurses have a union.

For many years, but in a particularly visible fashion since 2007 and 2008, the Democratic has worked hard to remove any progressive, liberal, socialist, labor, or economic egalitarian elements from positions of party power. They have done this pretty thoroughly, but have not been able to do it completely because a very large percentage of Democratic voters, even in 2017, favor such policies.

When we get questions that are phrased like "How will the Democrats win?" and not "How can the Democratic Party be retaken and reformed?" or "How can we create an actual representative party outside of the Democratic Party?", we should be able to observe a couple things that we might reasonably find important:

  • The writer or speaker would silence or avoid the severe breaches of democratic and representative process and even of criminal law within high officialdom
    *Therefore, it may be inferred that the writer or speaker is not principally trying to advance an egalitarian policy agenda.

And none of this means that the Republicans have gotten any better, now does it?


Do you think you have established yourself as being serious? You say silly things all the time. As I said to your buddy KC, there were lots of ideas on how to improve the bill and Rendon (who pretends to support single payer) could have worked to improve that bill or to put a better bill in place. Do serious people like you overlook the corruption of Rendon, Bauman and Brown? Is there a logical reason for that? Just so you know, you can’t just declare yourself to be a serious person, especially when you say such silly things all the time. You establish that with others based on how you act and based on what you say. You haven’t done that, and it is kind of pathetic to always see you coming to KC’s defense like you do, poorly too. He’s a big boy and can defend himself, and you don’t help him. Bug someone else.

If you do want to defend your friend, can you explain why he said himself that he supported the bill he now calls “never serious”? Please, twist yourself into another logical knot, you serious person you.


KC, I have detailed Rendon’s corruption, Bauman’s corruption, the state party’s corruption in installing Bauman too. I have detailed Bauman’s actions and his record as a pharma lobbyist, lobbying against a proposition that would have saved the state money. I have tried to get you to address Brown opposing this bill and single payer in general, him making arguments against single payer that he himself addressed a couple decades ago when he argued in favor of single payer and I have also shown that he too has gotten millions from big pharma, insurance interests, and groups lobbying against single payer. You are avoiding addressing this and pretending it means nothing when you know better, and I don’t know who you think you are fooling by doing that.

Also, you now say that bill was never serious, but previously voiced support for the bill. You haven’t addressed that. You tried to pretend you didn’t have connections to the Democrats doing this when you clearly do. Why you think anyone should trust you given all of this is beyond me, but BWilliamson really, really likes you.


So Rendon and those getting lots of money (bribes) from big pharma, insurance companies, and groups lobbying against single payer, are going to do the heavy lifting you are talking about, right? Cause if their corruption really isn’t a thing, if it had no impact on what he did, if Brown’s opposition to single payer was not a factor, if Bauman being a big pharma lobbyist and installed by state party super delegates is of no concern, they should be the very people pushing for the things you addressed. If it is only the nurses and other single payer activists pushing for those things, it will be telling, right? Who better than the state party chair and the Speaker of the State Assembly to lobby for these things, to push the process forward? That’s why they are in those positions. Want to bet they don’t?

Also, if you support the next attempt at a single payer system in the state, will you once again pretend it was never serious when those same groups do roughly the same thing? Probably.


You said it was never serious.


I already explained myself repeatedly. That you don’t want to accept my explanation is your problem, not mine. I suspect what’s wrong for you is my interpretation of events makes more sense than your easy excuse to yell “sellout!” Since you have accused me of being in hook with Democratic leaders, I wonder if you are affiliated with the crew that initiated the worst legislative strategy for a major bill I’ve seen. That you and your folks couldn’t bother with even developing draft financing language speaks volumes. Hell, you peeps couldn’t even bother to develop consistent numbers between the legislative analysis and the report your crew paid for, the Pollin report.

So, why don’t you folks skip the sellouts and add some financing language to the bill and take it to the people? It’d sure be interesting to see the LAO’s analysis. Nothing is stopping you.