Latest news with #CalMatters
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
By stooping to conquer, Sacramento Democrats show their pettiness and arrogance
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Carl DeMaio, if you so choose. The first-term San Diego assembly member is MAGA to his marrow, bringing Donald Trump's noxious politics and personal approach to Sacramento. For Democrats, the mere mention of his name has the same effect as nails applied to a chalkboard. Fellow Republicans aren't too fond of DeMaio, either. Party leaders worked strenuously — and far from successfully — to keep DeMaio from being elected last fall. They accused him of criminal wrongdoing. Allies spent millions of dollars to boost his GOP rival. Republican foes 'cite his relentless self-promotion, his criticism of his party and his tendency to take credit for victories he played little or no part in to help him fundraise and elevate his political brand,' CalMatters wrote in a harsh January profile. None of that, however, excuses the silly and juvenile behavior of the Assembly's majority Democrats last week when the chamber took up a resolution commemorating Pride month. DeMaio, the Assembly's first openly gay Republican member, rose on the floor to voice his objections. Usually lawmakers have around five minutes to offer their remarks without interruption. Not this time. DeMaio complained that the resolution — larded with more than three dozen whereas-es — strayed far afield from a straightforward commendation, endorsing some 'very controversial and extremist positions' opposed even by members of the LGBQT+ community. 'This is not about affirming the LGBT community,' DeMaio said. 'It's about using them as a political pawn to divide us.' You can agree or disagree with DeMaio. You can embrace the resolution and its myriad clauses with all your heart, or not. That's beside the point. About 90 seconds into his remarks, DeMaio was interrupted by the Assembly member presiding over the debate, Democrat Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach, who said he had a 'very important announcement' to make. And what was the pressing matter that couldn't possibly wait a second longer? Wishing another Assembly Democrat a happy birthday. Cheers and applause filled the chamber. DeMaio resumed, only to be interrupted a short time later. Lowenthal deadpanned that he'd forgotten: It had been another Democratic lawmaker's birthday just a few days earlier. More cheers and applause. DeMaio resumed and then was interrupted a third time, so Lowenthal could wish 'a very, very happy birthday' to a third Democratic Assembly member, who was marking the occasion the next day. The response in the chamber, laughter mixed with more whoops and cheers, suggested the hazing by Lowenthal and fellow Democrats was great good fun and oh-so-clever. It wasn't. It was petty. It was stupid. And it bespoke the arrogance of a super-majority party too used to having its way and bulldozing Sacramento's greatly outnumbered Republicans. A few things are worth noting here, seeing as how California is supposed to be governed by a representative democracy. DeMaio's political peers may not be terribly enamored of the freshman lawmaker. But he was the clear-cut favorite of voters in San Diego, who sent him to the Assembly by a whopping 57% to 43% margin. Their views and voices deserve to be heard. Democrats may be California's majority party, enjoying a sizable registration advantage. They hold 60 of 80 seats in the Assembly and 30 of 40 in the state Senate. But the state has nearly 6 million registered Republicans. There are doubtless many more in California who support the party, or at least its policies and broad philosophy, but choose not to formally affiliate with the GOP. They, too, deserve to be heard. A not-insignificant number of California residents feel overlooked, ignored and unrepresented by Democrats and their hegemonic rule over Sacramento. The frustration helped spawn the fruitless and wasteful 2021 attempt to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom — which cost taxpayers more than $200 million — and fuels the perennial fantasy of a breakaway rural state called Jefferson. To a larger point: One-party rule is not good for California. 'When you're competing, you've got to be sort of on your toes,' said Thad Kousser, a UC San Diego political science professor who's researched the difference between states with two vibrant political parties and those ruled by one or the other. 'When you're solidly in control, you don't feel like you need to prove it to voters,' Kousser went on. 'You can write off certain areas of the state. You can ignore legislators in the other party, because you don't think the shoe will ever be on the other foot. 'None of that,' Kousser concluded, 'is good for democracy.' It's been well over a decade since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left office and Republicans wielded meaningful clout in Sacramento. The last time the GOP controlled the Assembly was when Bill Clinton was in the White House. Gerald Ford was president the last time Republicans had a majority in the state Senate. That's not likely to change anytime soon. In the meantime, Democrats don't have to love their fellow lawmakers. They don't even have to like them. But at the very least, Republicans elected to serve in Sacramento should be treated with respect. Their constituents deserve as much.
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Opinion: Bridging barriers of California's bilingual education: From legislative intent to meaningful action
When it comes to the value of bilingual education in improving educational outcomes for Hispanic youth, the message should not get lost in translation: dual-language academic offerings dramatically enhance these students' English language acquisition, standardized test scores, graduation rates, and college preparation, as reported by CalMatters . Based on overwhelming evidence supporting these benefits, California enacted Proposition 58 in 2016, repealing the restrictions imposed by Proposition 227, which had previously banned bilingual education. Even with Proposition 58, CalMatters says the expansion of bilingual education in California has been slow, despite a desperate need. Such programs in states like Texas had a more rapid implementation, even though California has more English learners than any other state. Why? According to Century Foundation , the primary barrier is a shortage of qualified bilingual teachers, underscoring the necessity of backing such legislation with resources to enable its success. To address this gap, California should create incentives to attract and retain bilingual educators and partner with colleges to create robust teacher training programs. The lack of qualified instructors —a consequence of the previous ban—has created a professional deficit that should be bridged to meet the demand for dual-language programs. This situation mirrors the challenges of de jure versus de facto implementation seen in the civil rights movement in the United States. Simply passing legislation is not enough; achieving meaningful change requires the necessary infrastructure and strong legislative and executive support. For example, according to EdSource , only 16.4% of English learners in California are enrolled in bilingual classrooms, compared to 36.7% in Texas. In response to these challenges, California launched the Global California 2030 initiative. This ambitious plan aims for half of the state's students to be on a path to bilingualism and for 1,600 schools to offer dual-language programs by 2030. While well-intentioned, this initiative faces the same implementation hurdles. As stated in EdSource , Goals without actionable plans can falter, and this initiative is no exception. To make bilingual education more accessible and empower Hispanic youth, policymakers should provide funding for specialized training programs, offer financial incentives, establish targeted recruitment programs, and ensure robust oversight and planning. Without addressing the logistical and practical barriers to implementation, reaching the intended outcomes of policies like Prop 58 can take much longer and be more difficult to achieve. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of California's Hispanic students will miss out on valuable educational opportunities. We owe it to them to ensure that Prop 58 is accompanied by the necessary funding, oversight, and planning to set ESL students up for success. Related
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
New poll reveals majority of Californians oppose this key benefit for illegal immigrants
A majority of Californians oppose providing healthcare coverage for adults who are in the United States illegally, despite the Golden State currently offering it. The Public Policy Institute of California survey revealed that 58% opposed and 41% of those polled were in favor of the policy. The move took effect last year to allow people to enroll in Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid that takes taxpayer dollars, "regardless of immigration status." According to the pollster, a majority of those surveyed used to support the idea from 2015-2023. Illegal Immigrant Healthcare Costs In Blue State Triggers Intense Budget Debate The Medi-Cal program went insolvent this spring, as it required billions in loans to keep it afloat. The governor's office proposed changes like an "enrollment freeze" and a $100 monthly payment for "individuals with certain statuses" on Medi-Cal. However, some of those changes are unlikely to move forward in the Democratic supermajority legislature, according to CalMatters. According to the legislature's budget proposal, Democratic leadership is backing possibly creating a $30 monthly payment instead of $100 for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status" beginning in 2027, which would make some changes to the "enrollment freeze" that could start in 2026. Read On The Fox News App The legislature also proposes scrapping the governor's proposed $2,000 asset limit pitch for Medi-Cal participants and instead would bring it back to $130,000. Newsom Proposes Freeze On Allowing Adult Illegal Immigrants To Join California's Medicaid Program Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, told Fox News Digital that the percentage of Californians opposing providing healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants may be even higher. Click Here For More Immigration Coverage "This debate is not about 'Should we provide healthcare to illegals or not?' because that's a false question. The bigger question is, should we provide free taxpayer funding to illegal immigrants and not have enough money and jeopardize services for citizens who are the neediest among us relying on Medicare?" DeMaio said. "That's the real debate. And this poll doesn't even capture that." "The Democrat position is a lot worse than this poll even suggests," he continued. Newsom's office previously attributed the issues with Medi-Cal to broader economic concerns. Lawmakers Reveal Whether Americans Should Pick Up The Medicaid Tab For Illegal Immigrants "Governor Newsom proposed adjustments in the 2025-2026 budget that will allow California to preserve our commitment to immigrant communities, protect coverage for millions of Californians, and preserve the strength of our values and health care system," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Fox News Digital. "To be very clear, these proposals are the results of a $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization." Fox News Digital reached out to the California Latino Legislative Caucus about the poll. The caucus has continuously raised concerns about the impact of Medi-Cal reform on immigrants. On the federal level, the reconciliation bill currently in Congress could also impact states that provide Medicaid coverage to illegal article source: New poll reveals majority of Californians oppose this key benefit for illegal immigrants
Fox News
17-06-2025
- Health
- Fox News
New poll reveals majority of Californians oppose this key benefit for illegal immigrants
A majority of Californians oppose providing healthcare coverage for adults who are in the United States illegally, despite the Golden State currently offering it. The Public Policy Institute of California survey revealed that 58% opposed and 41% of those polled were in favor of the policy. The move took effect last year to allow people to enroll in Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid that takes taxpayer dollars, "regardless of immigration status." According to the pollster, a majority of those surveyed used to support the idea from 2015-2023. The Medi-Cal program went insolvent this spring, as it required billions in loans to keep it afloat. The governor's office proposed changes like an "enrollment freeze" and a $100 monthly payment for "individuals with certain statuses" on Medi-Cal. However, some of those changes are unlikely to move forward in the Democratic supermajority legislature, according to CalMatters. According to the legislature's budget proposal, Democratic leadership is backing possibly creating a $30 monthly payment instead of $100 for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status" beginning in 2027, which would make some changes to the "enrollment freeze" that could start in 2026. The legislature also proposes scrapping the governor's proposed $2,000 asset limit pitch for Medi-Cal participants and instead would bring it back to $130,000. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, told Fox News Digital that the percentage of Californians opposing providing healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants may be even higher. "This debate is not about 'Should we provide healthcare to illegals or not?' because that's a false question. The bigger question is, should we provide free taxpayer funding to illegal immigrants and not have enough money and jeopardize services for citizens who are the neediest among us relying on Medicare?" DeMaio said. "That's the real debate. And this poll doesn't even capture that." "The Democrat position is a lot worse than this poll even suggests," he continued. Newsom's office previously attributed the issues with Medi-Cal to broader economic concerns. "Governor Newsom proposed adjustments in the 2025-2026 budget that will allow California to preserve our commitment to immigrant communities, protect coverage for millions of Californians, and preserve the strength of our values and health care system," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Fox News Digital. "To be very clear, these proposals are the results of a $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization." Fox News Digital reached out to the California Latino Legislative Caucus about the poll. The caucus has continuously raised concerns about the impact of Medi-Cal reform on immigrants. On the federal level, the reconciliation bill currently in Congress could also impact states that provide Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants.
USA Today
17-06-2025
- Health
- USA Today
Why are these health-care websites sharing sensitive info with LinkedIn and Snapchat?
Why are these health-care websites sharing sensitive info with LinkedIn and Snapchat? This story was originally published by The Markup, now a part of CalMatters. Sign up for their health care websites around the country, meant to provide a simple way to shop for insurance, have been quietly sending visitors' sensitive health information to Google and social media companies, The Markup and CalMatters found. The data, including prescription drug names and dosages, was sent by web trackers on state exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act to help Americans purchase health coverage. The exchange websites ask users to answer a series of questions, including about their health histories, to find them the most relevant information on plans. But in some cases, when visitors responded to sensitive questions, the invisible trackers sent that information to platforms like Google, LinkedIn, and Snapchat. The Markup and CalMatters audited the websites of all 19 states that independently operate their own online health exchange. While most of the sites contained advertising trackers of some kind, The Markup and CalMatters found that four states exposed visitors' sensitive health exchange, Nevada Health Link, asks visitors about what prescriptions they use, including the names and dosages of the drugs, to help them find their best options for health insurance. When visitors start typing, it suggests specific medications, including antidepressants, birth control and hormone therapies. As visitors answered the questions, their responses were sent to LinkedIn and Snapchat, according to tests conducted by The Markup and CalMatters in April and May. Spend your money smart: Sign up for USA TODAY's Daily Money newsletter. On the other side of the country, Maine's exchange, sent information on drug prescriptions and dosages to Google through an analytics tool. It also sent the names of doctors and hospitals that people had previously visited. Rhode Island's exchange, HealthSource RI, sent prescription information, dosages, and doctors' names to Google. Massachusetts Health Connector, another exchange, told LinkedIn whether visitors said they were pregnant, blind, or disabled. After being contacted by The Markup and CalMatters, Nevada's health exchange stopped sending visitors' data to Snapchat and Massachusetts stopped sending data to LinkedIn. Additionally, The Markup and CalMatters found that Nevada stopped sending data to LinkedIn in early May, as testing was happening. The Markup and CalMatters discovered the sharing after finding that California's exchange, Covered California, told LinkedIn when a visitor indicated they were blind, pregnant, or a victim of domestic violence. Experts said state health exchanges' use of advertising trackers was troubling if not entirely surprising. Such tools can help organizations to reach visitors and tailor ads for them. Google Analytics allows website operators to better understand who is coming to their site and to optimize ad campaigns. The LinkedIn and Snap trackers, like a similar offering from Meta, help companies target their social media ads. Nevada uses the trackers to help target marketing at uninsured residents, according to Russell Cook, Executive Director of the state agency that operates Nevada's exchange, Silver State Health Insurance Exchange. But health care services need to be especially careful with those tools, said John Haskell, a data privacy attorney who has previously worked as an investigator for the Department of Health and Human Services. 'It doesn't surprise me that organizations that have these massive tech stacks that rely on third party-resources don't have a full understanding of what the configuration is, what the data flows are, and then once they go to somebody, what that data is being used for,' Haskell said. 'It's something that needs to be addressed.' How was state exchange data tied to users' identities? After The Markup and CalMatters reported on Covered California's sharing of health data with LinkedIn, the exchange removed its trackers and said it would review its data practices. The news triggered a class-action lawsuit and questions from federal lawmakers. The Markup and CalMatters then examined websites operated by 18 states other than California, as well as Washington, D.C., to see what information they shared as users navigated them. The sites were established under the Affordable Care Act, which requires states to offer health insurance either through their own exchanges or one operated by the federal government. To test them, The Markup and CalMatters first ran the sites through Blacklight, a tool we developed to reveal web trackers. We then reviewed network traffic on the sites to see what data the trackers received when visitors filled out forms. The results showed that 18 used some sort of tracker. Some were filled with them. Nevada, for example, used nearly 50. By contrast, Blacklight found no tracker of any kind on Washington, D.C.'s exchange. Popular websites use on average seven trackers, according to Blacklight scans of the 100,000 most trafficked sites on the web. Many of the sites used trackers in relatively innocuous ways, like counting page views. The four exchanges The Markup and CalMatters found sharing sensitive health data sent varied responses to questions about the tracking. Cook said in a statement that trackers placed by his Nevada agency were 'inadvertently obtaining information regarding the name and dosage of prescription drugs' and sending it to LinkedIn and Snapchat. Cook acknowledged such data was 'wholly irrelevant to our marketing efforts' and said it had disabled tracking software pending an audit. Jason Lefferts, a spokesperson for Massachusetts Health Connector, said in a statement that 'personally identifiable information is not part of the tool's structure and no personally identifiable information, not even the IP addresses of users of the tool, has ever been shared with any party in any way via this tool." But LinkedIn's tracker documentation makes clear that it correlates the information it receives with specific LinkedIn accounts so companies can use the data for features like retargeting website visitors. The company's documentation also states it later obscures this information and eventually deletes it. Spokespeople for the Rhode Island and Maine health exchanges said that they pay a vendor, Consumers' Checkbook, to run a separate site that allows visitors to explore what plans are available to them through their states' exchanges. It was from these sites that sensitive information was shared to Google. Consumers' Checkbook's sites are at different web addresses than the exchange sites, but are prominently linked to on the exchange sites and display identical branding like the state health exchange's logo, making it unlikely that an average visitor would realize they were no longer on a state-run domain. Christina Spaight O'Reilly, a spokesperson for HealthSource RI, said the company uses Google Analytics to study trends but not to serve ads, and 'disables Google Signals Data Collection, ensuring that no data is shared with Google Ads for audience creation or ad personalization, and no session data is linked to Google's advertising cookies or identifiers.' HealthSource RI's terms of use mention the use of Google Analytics, she noted. A spokesperson for made similar points, saying that the agency 'does not collect or retain any data entered into the tool.' Consumers' Checkbook declined to comment beyond the exchanges' statements. All of the exchanges said that individually identifiable health information, like names and addresses, wasn't sent to third parties. But the point of the trackers is to enhance information sent about a user with data the platforms already have on that user, and every tracker found by The Markup and CalMatters logged details about individual visitors, such as their operating system, browser, device, and times of visit. In response to requests for comment, the tech companies whose trackers were examined uniformly said they do not want organizations sending them potentially sensitive health data, and that doing so is against their terms of use. Steve Ganem, Director of Product Management for Google Analytics, said that 'by default any data sent to Google Analytics does not identify individuals, and we have strict policies against collecting Private Health Information or advertising based on sensitive information.' A spokesperson for LinkedIn, Brionna Ruff, said that advertisers are not allowed 'to target ads based on sensitive data categories,' such as health issues. A spokesperson for Snapchat owner Snap said the same, noting that sending purchases of supplies like prescriptions would run afoul of the company's rules about sensitive data. A Google Analytics information page specifically discusses how organizations that use the company's tools should comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which protects health data. The page notes that 'Google makes no representations that Google Analytics satisfies HIPAA requirements.' 'It is important to ensure that your implementation of Google Analytics and the data collected about visitors to your properties satisfies all applicable legal requirements,' the page reads. More incidents State exchanges aren't the only health sites that have sent medical information to social media companies. In 2022, The Markup revealed that dozens of hospital websites shared information with Facebook's parent company, Meta, through a tool called the Meta Pixel. The hospitals faced scrutiny from Congress and legal action. Another Markup investigation found trackers logging information about online drugstore visitors purchasing HIV tests and Plan B. In 2023, a New York hospital agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or response to a series of incidents, the Department of Health and Human Services said in 2023 that use of social media trackers to log health information could violate HIPAA, although recent court decisions have narrowed how the law can be applied against companies that use those trackers. Some plaintiffs have used state laws, like those in California, to argue that they should be compensated for having their health data sent to third parties without consent. Others have argued that this kind of tracking runs afoul of wiretapping or even racketeering laws. 'Organizations aren't investing enough time and resources into properly vetting everything,' said Haskell, who advises clients to be very careful about the information they track on their sites. 'When organizations are saying, 'we didn't understand that there's a certain configuration of this tool that we're using,' well, I can't really not put that on you.'
