Thursday, March 12, 2026, 9:41 am | Randy Thomasson
You can help defeat “socialized medicine” in California!
This bad idea has failed before, so let’s stop government-run health care again!
A “single payer” health care system is one in which a single entity—the government—collects almost all revenue and pays almost all of the health care system’s bills.
As such, AB 1900 would result in tax hikes, long waits for treatment, and rationing of care.
Please contact your California state assemblymember (especially if he or she is a Democrat) to say: “Vote NO on AB 1900 — this will result in higher taxes, long waits, rationing, fewer doctors, and less treatment. Don’t take away my private insurance. Oppose AB 1900.”
EASY ACTION STEPS
1. Find your own California state legislators and their contact information. Simply enter your voter registration address here.
2. When you see the website links for your own legislators, click on your assemblymember’s.
3. On their home page, click the “Contact” button (usually on the upper right).
4. Use their web form to send your message to “Oppose AB 1900.” Also, call if you can (you can leave a voicemail on weekends, and before and after business hours).
MORE INFO
Only fools support the harmful notion of socialized medicine. Because where government-controlled healthcare has been tried, it’s failed.
As Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute wrote on March 4:
“…consider the human cost of single-payer.
“Canadian patients waited a median of 28.6 weeks in 2025 for treatment from a specialist following referral by a general practitioner, according to the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute.
“More than 7 million people are currently on waiting lists for hospital treatment from Britain’s National Health Service.
“Sacramento struggles to run Medi-Cal. How will it manage a $500 billion takeover of the entire health system? “The progressives who support single-payer don’t have a good answer to that question — because there isn’t one.”
“In 2016, Canadians waited an average of five months for medically necessary specialist treatments. That is more than twice the average wait time in 1993. In fact, when compared to 11 similar countries, including the United States, a recent study shows that whether it’s emergency room visits, same or next day appointments when you’re sick, seeing a specialist, or getting elective surgery, Canada’s wait times are the worst.” Genevieve Wood, “3 reasons why socialized medicine is bad for America’s health,” The Daily Signal, 11/20/2018
“The best way to regulate these matters and the best way to achieve results is not just to concentrate on how you pay for everything, but to concentrate on how you keep the costs down. We need an approach that will put the consumer of medical services in the driver’s seat and that will not just help to pay for things. If the costs keep skyrocketing, what good is it to keep throwing money after those higher costs? We need a system that will bring those costs down. And the system that brings the costs down in every other area of our lives is a consumer-policed system of competition where people have the right to make their own choices and can then carry the dollars that they’re going to use in a way that achieves the best results for them.” Alan Keyes, Iowa Republican Party Debate, 12/13/1990
Tuesday, March 3, 2026, 10:05 am | Randy Thomasson
If you’re glad about the U.S. Supreme Court’s action defeating part of the Democrat Party politicians’ transsexuality agenda, I’m happy about it too, without being Pollyannish.
The good news, of course, is that six judges on the U.S. Supreme Court are getting more supportive of God-given parental rights, and that California’s evil law AB 1955 is back where it belongs, under a permanent injunction.
If Newsom & Co. don’t appeal this latest court action, AB 1955, which prohibited parents from being told their own children were acting out as “trans” at school, will “die on the vine” instead of being directly struck down.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s action to “vacate the stay” of a liberal three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals means that constitutional and pro-family Judge Roger Benitez’s permanent injunction against AB 1955 stands.
In December, District Judge Roger Benitez ruled in favor of the Mirabelli plaintiffs, who now also include several parents who oppose such school policies.
Benitez issued a court order prohibiting California school employees from “misleading” parents about their child’s gender status, such as by using different pronouns or names with a parent than the student uses at school. His ruling also prohibited employees from using pronouns or names that differ from the student’s legal ones if the parents object.
The state promptly appealed Benitez’ decision, and in early January, the Ninth Circuit granted the state’s request to stay his ruling pending that appeal.
* * *
The Supreme Court lifted the stay based in part on its assessment of how likely it believes the parent plaintiffs are to succeed on the merits of their case.
“These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children,” its ruling said.
Contrary to the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court majority found that Mahmoud does apply to Mirabelli. It said it considers California’s policies to be an even greater intrusion on parents’ exercise rights than the introduction of LGBTQ+ storybooks in schools it analyzed in the Mahmoud case, and that it doesn’t believe California’s policies are likely to survive the strict scrutiny standard it set in that case.
But the bad news is that AB 1955 is just the tip of the iceberg. Because there are 15 sexual indoctrination laws still requiring the brainwashing of every child in every California “public school.”
See 13 laws here, plus two more at our 2025 legislation archive, which details AB 727 (requires a pro-“LGBTQIA+” group’s phone number on student ID cards) and AB 715 (orders K-12 government schools to purge any scientific teaching about only two sexes and the natural family).
So, as I’ve been urging California parents for 17 years now — if you love your children, get them out of the godless government schools. See how at our special site for parents, Rescue Your Child. Children grow up fast, so please act now!
3. Categorically unfair: Rather than a “progressive” tax (which means the more you earn, the more you’re punished), a flat tax is the only FAIR tax, where everybody pays the SAME RATE (and yes, this means “the rich” will still pay a great amount of tax).
From A Biblical case for Proportional (flat) taxation by Jeff Hammond In a proportional (or flat) tax system, every dollar of income earned that is taxable* is taxed at the same rate. Thus every individual is treated identically by the tax code. There is strong Biblical support for treating people impartially, and in an opposite way, strong condemnation for showing partiality or favoritism. This is because we are supposed to image God, and God is impartial.
Romans 2:11 states clearly that God shows no partiality with respect to salvation, (see also Deut. 10:17, Acts 10:34, Job 34:19, and Eph. 6:9). I agree that this is not conclusive, since it isn’t directly talking about taxation, but it does give us an idea of where God’s heart is for how we treat one another. There is a reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded.
However, there are other passages which take us closer to the heart of the matter. Lev 19:15 says “‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” In this verse, we are told that not only should we not favor the rich, but surprisingly, we should also not favor the poor (see also Ex. 23:3). But why should we think this has applicability to taxation?
A main purpose of Leviticus is to show how the Israelites can live a holy life. Chapter 19 is the pinnacle of how we live holy lives in relation to others, and the commands are given a solid reason—“I am the LORD”–which is repeated throughout the section.
Interestingly, Ch 19 is widely viewed as repeating the Decalogue; clearly Leviticus is summarizing the essence of what Holy Living looks like under God’s moral law. In the middle of this section on Holy Living, comes verse 15, which describes what justice looks like. Do we treat each other according to their just due?
Lev 19:15 helps us understand that a standard for personal holiness will be reflected in a standard for corporate holiness. As John Hartley says in the Word Biblical Commentary, “Since God is just, his people must establish justice in their courts as the foundation of their covenant relationship with him. The inner strength of a nation resides in the integrity of its judicial system.”
While, this is not dealing with taxation, it is dealing with justice in the social setting of the courts—it seems reasonable to conclude that if impartiality is required for the courts, it would be required of government action in general. At least the burden of proof should be on those advocating for a system of partiality, given the extensive Biblical support of impartiality.
RSS 2.0 Feed