(I’ll be on KALW Your Call at 10AM on Tuesday morning to talk about the recent legislative session. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

As legislative deadline draws near, bills aplenty

by Brian Leubitz

It’s that time of year again. The season for quickie news stories proclaiming one new law or another. With the legislative deadline coming at the end of the month for bills to get out of the Legislature, we will be seeing plenty more in the next few days. In fact, I’ll be on KALW’s Your Call on Sept. 2 at 10AM to talk about a few of the noteworthy bills. But before we get there, let’s take a look at a few already on the move.

Senate Bill 270 by Senators Padilla, de León and Lara, passed off the California State Assembly Floor yesterday on a 44-29 vote, after falling three votes short of passage earlier this week.

The bill now advances to the State Senate for final confirmation where it is expected to be taken up before the legislature adjourns on August 31.

“The State Assembly spent a great deal of time debating the merits of this issue over the last several months, and especially this week,” said Mark Murray, Executive Director of the bill’s sponsor, Californians Against Waste. “In the end, it was the reports of overwhelming success of this policy at the local level that overcame the political attacks and misinformation from out-of-state plastic bag makers.”

Moving to community colleges, you may have heard a bit about the mess that was CCSF’s accreditation process. Earlier this week, the accreditation commission had to acknowledge, after their attorneys failed to properly redact the information, that they did not take the recommendation of their site visit committee. That committee recommended probation, rather than the far more harsh “show cause” status. That set alarm bells off across the City and state, with the SF City Attorney suing the commission and a new law:

A bill that seeks to make the accreditation system for California’s 112 community colleges more transparent landed on the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown this week after receiving unanimous support from the state Senate and Assembly.

Brown has until Sept. 30 to veto or sign into law Assembly Bill 1942, which would require an accrediting agency to report accreditation decisions to the Legislature, such as last summer’s vote by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges to revoke City College of San Francisco’s accreditation.(SF Examiner)

One of the biggest complaints about the SF situation has been the fact that the commission has been so opaque. Few could actually understand the process, partially because they intentionally tried to make it that way. This bill, approved unanimously in both chambers, is a good step forward.

Finally, on the “sharing economy” front, Uber and Lyft dropped their objections to AB 2293, Asm. Bonilla’s insurance requirement bill. Bonilla dropped the requirement for drivers without paying customers to $200,000 from $500,000 while keeping the requirement at $1million when passengers are in the car. Without the objections from two sharing companies, the bill should sail through the Governor’s office.

Would require unambigious affirmative consent

by Brian Leubitz

The Assembly passed Sen. Kevin de León’s SB967 yesterday, requiring two-sided affirmative consent on college campuses.

A bill doing so, SB967, passed the Assembly on a 52-16 vote Monday as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. It now heads back to the Senate for what is expected to be a final vote on amendments.

The bill by state Sen. Kevin De Leon, D-Los Angeles, changes the definition of consent for campuses investigating sexual assault cases by requiring “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each party to engage in sexual activity. That marks a shift from the popular sexual-assault prevention refrain, “no means no.” (CBSLA)

With rising awareness of sexual assaults across the country, this is a positive step forward. While opponents have tried to belittle this as something out of an awkward high school health class video, the truth is far from that. Sure, date rape drugs are already illegal, but in an environment like a college campus, information is key. You can’t always get into the head of a college freshman, but this legislation makes that two-way disclosure a greater part of the conversation.  

Leno bill requires anti-theft software

by Brian Leubitz

Gov. Brown signed Sen. Leno’s SB 962 today addressing the growing epidemic of smartphone theft in California. SB 962 requires all smartphones sold in California to come pre-equipped with theft-deterring technological solutions to render the devices useless if stolen. The bill is the first of its kind in the nation prompting every consumer to enable a kill switch as the default setting during the initial setup of a new smartphone. Sen. Leno then went full Colbert in his assesment of the bill:

“California has just put smartphone thieves on notice,” said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. “Starting next year, all smartphones sold in California, and most likely every other state in the union, will come equipped with theft deterrent technology when they purchase new phones. Our efforts will effectively wipe out the incentive to steal smartphones and curb this crime of convenience, which is fueling street crime and violence within our communities.”

On a more serious side, this bill, in some ways, is just legislating what has been happening already. However, many lower end phones may not have seen this feature for several years. It isn’t any huge issue to add it at this point, but this makes it the law in the state.  And because this is California, phone makers will just end up making all phones comply with this law.

This was quite a controversial bill, but ultimately, Leno and SF DA George Gascón built a coalition that could get this law passed. It is a big step in not only protecting property, but also encouraging public safety in general.

Due to the expansion of Medi-Cal under ObamaCare, my wife and I am now covered by that program.  But because both of us are over 55, Jerry can steal our house after we die to cover Medi-Cal’s expense of paying for our healthcare.  A 1993 law gives states the option to take back all the money spent by Medi-Cal for the healthcare of recipients over 55 by billing the estate after the recipient (and spouse) die.  Because California is taking advantage of this option, Medi-Cal for older people is effectively a long term loan.  

SB 1124, a bill to fix the problem, has made its way through most of the legislature.  If it passes, which is expected this week, Jerry has threatened to veto it to protect the state from the financial ruin of losing the $15 million it expects to collect by stealing the homes of other older Medi-Cal recipients who die over the next year.  That $15 million is 1/100 of 1% of the state’s budget!  At the end of this diary, I will ask you to contact Jerry Brown’s office and tell him to sign, not veto, SB 1124.  But first, a few important details.

My wife and I signed up for Medi-Cal late last year with coverage to start on January 1 of this year.  It was not until several months later that I read online that in California Medi-Cal is a long term loan program.  Even if we remain healthy, the state will deduct the monthly fee for the managed care program that administers Medi-Cal.  I even found a PDF of a brochure produced by the California Department of Healthcare Services (DHCS) that explained the details of how “estate recovery” works.  I prefer the term legal theft to the Orwellian “estate recovery.”

At no point in the process of signing up were we notified that it was perfectly legal to steal our home from our children after we both die.  When I called the Medi-Cal customer service line to ask about how to resign from Medi-Cal, they told me I was wrong and that the state could not and would not bill my estate.  Mentioning the DHCS brochure I had in my possession made no difference in that assertion by the customer service rep and his supervisor.

In April, California Senator Ed Hernandez, chair of the Senate Health Committee, introduced SB 1124, which limits so-called “estate recovery” to that which is mandated by Federal law, which is long-term care.  The bill also prohibits collection from the estate of a surviving spouse of a Medi-Cal beneficiary. I started an on-line petition in support of the bill and, with the help of Moveon and the Courage Campaign, have gotten almost 1500 people to sign the petition.  

Nearly every person I have ever talked to about Medi-Cal “estate recovery” is just as shocked as I am.  Some of the things they have said and/or written to me about “estate recovery” include “unconscionable,” “unfair,” “appalling,” and an “ill-conceived asset-stripping scheme.”  

Some of the people who signed the petition have told me their stories.  Here are some:

One woman is delaying gall bladder surgery rather than sign up for Medi-Cal.  She turned 55 earlier this year, is on disability and cannot work, and will pay off her home mortgage later this year.  Because her income is too low for the subsidies for private insurance that middle income people get, she is hoping to pay full price for health insurance when the open enrollment period for Obamacare begins in November.  

Others tell me that the process of signing up takes a long time, is cumbersome, and, like me, that nobody told them about “estate recovery” when they did sign up.  And, like me, they found out about it later through their own research.  There have even been cases where the family and beneficiaries first find out about Medi-Cal “estate recovery” after the recipient dies.

Another woman explained that she had chosen to move back into her father’s home when he became very ill so she could take care of him.  His healthcare was covered by Medi-Cal.  She was able to work in addition to caring for him but put all her extra money into paying taxes, maintenance, and upkeep for the house.  She has no money saved, but had assumed that she would be able to continue to live in the house after he dies.  There is a hardship exemption, but it will not apply because she can work.  Thousands of her dollars will be lost when he dies and the state steals his home that she will no longer inherit.  

Most ridiculous of all, a 62 year old man, who is an unemployed librarian with an MA in library science, broke his finger.  It is all discolored from the injury.  Rather than sign up for Medi-Cal so his finger could be taken care of by a doctor, he splinted it with a popsicle stick.  He does not want to lose his house.

So far, SB 1124 has gotten overwhelming support in the California legislature.  In the Senate, it passed the Health Committee 7-1, Senate Appropriations 6-1, and the full Senate 30-5.  It has also passed the Assembly Health Committee 18-0 and Assembly Appropriations 12-0.  The next step is a vote by the entire Assembly which is also expected to approve the bill as well.  As I said previously, the governor’s staff have said that they are recommending that SB 1124 be vetoed.

To overcome the opposition of the governor and his staff, I need you to act NOW by contacting Jerry Brown’s office and state your support for SB 1124.  Here is the contact information (mail, phone, fax, email):

Governor Jerry Brown

c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2841

Fax: (916) 558-3160

Email Jerry Brown

Please act right away.  

And please sign my petition in support of SB1124 at:

Online petition

Originally published in beyondchron.org

California leaders agree to $3M for legal aid for undocumented children

While three million dollars is really just a drop in the bucket for the  the many undocumented children and their legal expenses, it sends a strong statement:

Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Kamala Harris and Legislative leaders announced legislation Thursday that sets aside the money for non-profits that provide legal help to unaccompanied minors currently in California.

*** **** ***

“These young people have legal rights and responsibilities, but they cannot fully participate in complex immigration proceedings without an attorney,” Harris said. “It is critical that these children, many of whom are fleeing extreme violence in Central America, have access to due process and adequate legal representation.” (SF Chronicle / Melody Gutierrez)

While Rick Perry is sending the national guard to the border, California leaders are doing what they can to help these children. It is a positive step, and shows that America (and California specifically) is still a caring nation.