November 2014 ballot propositions (Sacramento, Madera: health, deals, business)

[Ms_Intrepid]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Intrepid and Mutt, you are both really good debaters and writers. You're both pretty darn effective at making your points.

I just wanted to add one little thing about trial lawyers - I don't know that those who are backing this prop are greedy or not. There's no doubt that they would reap benefits from it.

I guess I just wanted to say that if the result of their greed means that those who have suffered because of malpractice get a more reasonable settlement amount, then let them have at it. Let's "use" them and their campaign money. I don't care if they become rich over it. That's a by-product I can live with.

To make it clear, I am not against a higher malpractice cap. If it was just that I would vote yes on prop 46, that sounds fair. Even so, let the lawyers benefit why not, help those victims.

However because of the drug testing requirements my yes becomes a no because now it is directly impacting my access to healthcare, the cost of it and access to needed medication. Because of that I rather the insurance companies profit as a by product of that than the lawyers.

At the end of the day the thing most important to me first is MY access to affordable healthcare and the doctors of my choice.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Ms_Intrepid

To make it clear, I am not against a higher malpractice cap. If it was just that I would vote yes on prop 46, that sounds fair. Even so, let the lawyers benefit why not, help those victims.

However because of the drug testing requirements my yes becomes a no because now it is directly impacting my access to healthcare, the cost of it and access to needed medication. Because of that I rather the insurance companies profit as a by product of that than the lawyers.

At the end of the day the thing most important to me first is MY access to affordable healthcare and the doctors of my choice.

I agree that the max settlement amounts should be lifted, but I voted no on this prop yesterday (dropped off my absentee ballot) because they added in all that stupid baloney that would have cost the state a ton of money, and been a nightmare of bureaucracy.

I didn't see anything that would affect my ability to get needed medication though. And I don't see how it could affect your access to healthcare.

I'm not clear on how the cost of healthcare would go up because of this bill, either. I suppose the state would charge the hospitals for the mandatory tests? How exactly do you think this could affect the cost of healthcare - specifically?

Like I said, I already voted no, because I think the hospitals will deal with testing their doctors, and creating a huge state department to deal with mandatory testing is an expense I don't want to think about.

But, seriously, how do you think your access to healthcare would be affected, how specifically would it become more expensive to you, and why wouldn't you have access to needed medication, if this law was to pass?

[CA4Now]

Now, I'm leaning back toward voting yes on 45.
The health insurance industry is spending a lot of money to defeat it:

"The biggest donors are Kaiser, which so far this year has put up $14.3 million; WellPoint (the parent of Anthem Blue Cross), nearly $12.7 million; and Blue Shield of California, nearly $9.7 million. They account for 98% of the total raised. The Kaiser and Blue Shield contributions should draw your particular attention. Unlike WellPoint, those entities are nonprofits. Every dollar they spend on this campaign is a dollar that could be diverted from patient care."

The 5 rules on how to kill a consumer-friendly initiative - LA Times

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Now, I'm leaning back toward voting yes on 45.
The health insurance industry is spending a lot of money to defeat it:

"The biggest donors are Kaiser, which so far this year has put up $14.3 million; WellPoint (the parent of Anthem Blue Cross), nearly $12.7 million; and Blue Shield of California, nearly $9.7 million. They account for 98% of the total raised. The Kaiser and Blue Shield contributions should draw your particular attention. Unlike WellPoint, those entities are nonprofits. Every dollar they spend on this campaign is a dollar that could be diverted from patient care."

The 5 rules on how to kill a consumer-friendly initiative - LA Times

I don't watch any TV commercials, rarely hear any radio commercials, don't read the papers, don't read online editorials, and I throw away all political junk mail. I vote based on what I read in the voter's pamphlet.

What this prop says is that the insurance commissioner would have to approve rate hikes. I don't like that. Never heard any advertisement one way or another, so wasn't influenced at all by the big insurance companies.

In glancing at the article you linked to, which is written as an editorial and got on my nerves very quickly, I saw that it says that the insurance commissioner already has this power.

Okay, great, no need for a new law then.

Another thing I read in the voter's pamphlet, is that "employer large group health plans" are exempt under this prop.

Big NO on my radar.

Another thing it says is that the fiscal impact to the state would likely not exceed the low millions of dollars annually in most years.

What? Translation: This will cost the state millions of dollars annually.

Another big NO from me.

I don't care who is saying what about the reason for this law, or whose money is being spent on either side. I read the props and make my decision accordingly.

I don't like this law. Don't like the cost. Don't like that big health groups are exempt. What's up with that?

I highly suggest not reading all the rhetoric out there. A lot of those guys are really good at taking away common sense from people.

Millions of dollars, big guys exempt, one guy who will be under lots of pressure and tempted with major bribery from big money insurance companies = No Way Ho-Zay.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

What this prop says is that the insurance commissioner would have to approve rate hikes. I don't like that.

We already have an insurance commissioner. He's an elected official. He currently has the power to approve and set rates in the auto and property/casualty insurance fields.

The measure would allow him to approve health insurance rates. It's a power that insurance regulators have over health insurance in 35 other states and the District of Columbia.

Never heard any advertisement one way or another, so wasn't influenced at all by the big insurance companies.

Me, either; I also toss them.

In glancing at the article you linked to, which is written as an editorial and got on my nerves very quickly...

It's not an editorial. It's written by a columnist in the Business section of the LA Times. Many of his columns expose consumer fraud.

I saw that it says that the insurance commissioner already has this power.

He doesn't. His hands are tied, to an extent.

I highly suggest not reading all the rhetoric out there. A lot of those guys are really good at taking away common sense from people.

Who's reading the rhetoric? The info I've posted on this thead is from the voters pamphlet and the newspaper.

[CA4Now]

It looks as if you have an individual health insurance policy or are covered by an employer who has fewer than 50 employees, Prop 45 will be of benefit.

According to George Skelton, "Basically under Prop. 45, the state insurance commissioner would approve rates for small group medical coverage — companies with 50 or fewer employees — and individual plans. The measure would not affect large group plans, those covering more than 50 employees."
http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...16-column.html

[DriveNotCommute]

Election day approaches. I'm interested in any thoughts that lead to changes of opinions over time. My own opinions are still incomplete but at least I have a slightly clearer idea than I did a few weeks ago.

Prop 1 - Undecided, leaning no. Borrowing costs is at the cheapest level it's ever been. The project itself is good since it is infrastructure that we need; that is, if we can find a valley somewhere to flood or fields to bulldoze that isn't filled with endangered species. High possibility of flipping to yes depending on what new info I read.

Prop 2 - Undecided, leaning no. I like the concept but rainy day funds are useless if they're going to be misspent, as in used too late when it's needed or used too early when it isn't needed. You can tell my faith in Sacramento leans somewhere in the "skeptical" range.

Prop 45 - Undecided, leaning no. I read that LA Times op-ed about this being a consumer-friendly move and in my view, it will depend on who this commissioner will be in the future. Too many variables but still thinking it over with help from expressed opinions in this thread.

Prop 46 - Leaning No. I might have been ok with doubling it but not quadrupling it. If potential maximum damage goes up, insurance rates will be recalculated and then go up. Doctors would be under even more pressure to make decisions that bias toward increasing revenue. First, this only affects the pain and suffering portion of compensation. If a malpractice event is bad enough to warrant a million dollars in damages, wouldn't it likely be a criminal event as well? Plus, an avenue for million dollar compensation already exists.

Prop 47 - Undecided, defaulting to no. Still haven't found enough rational arguments about this topic. The direct text for this is very long, I need more time to read it through.

Prop 48 - No. I don't have any background on why just the 2 named tribes should get exceptions for not only property but also environmental review. If they get exceptions, this will just open the gates for demand for more exceptions later.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

Prop 48 - No. I don't have any background on why just the 2 named tribes should get exceptions for not only property but also environmental review. If they get exceptions, this will just open the gates for demand for more exceptions later.

I agree with this. We already voted for this some time back and now they're just pushing for it again. No exceptions or, as you say, it will open the door for more exceptions. No more casinos. There are plenty already.

[sithlord72]

Lol, every prop is to continue the left winging of California. That state is a disaster.

[jbunniii]

My default vote on ballot initiatives is NO. I see no reason to vote differently with this batch.