Amendment 2--Trauma Center Funding--failed.

[rmsmith1977]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

So in other words, you don't want to pay $10 per year to save someone else's life, if they can't afford to pay an often-times massive hospital bill?

Do they pay mine?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Mattie

Because the very people this was meant to help listen to this group:

According to reports, opponents include the Georgia Tea Party Patriots. Opponents of the measure argue that the proposed fee is simply another form of government assistance of the state's hospitals.


I agree with you. This is a shame.

Preface: I voted FOR the question. I supported the fee. I was disappointed that it failed.

Now, having said that, your description of the opposition is off target and incorrect. The majority of the opposition that I read was regarding the fee being added to the GA Constitution as an amendment. It would have been the first time that was done, and has some ramifications.

In addition, if the state needs to provide roughly $40 million to trauma care, why hasn't the Legislature done that? $40 million out of a budget of around $17 billion isn't exactly hard to find.

[Columbus1984]

Originally Posted by neil0311

In addition, if the state needs to provide roughly $40 million to trauma care, why hasn't the Legislature done that? $40 million out of a budget of around $17 billion isn't exactly hard to find.

It is when state revenues are down....

[Caleb Longstreet]

Originally Posted by midgeorgiaman

I think it was a victim of overall government distrust. The one thing the proponents were lacking was the actual plan. People like to hear specifics, you know, something you can hold the politicians to. It is great to say, "make GA work", "more trauma centers", and "fewer taxes". It is harder to say how exactly you will create those jobs, where the trauma centers will be and what level, and exactly which tax and by how much.

Folks are so distrustful that "10 dollars for trauma" is so vague that they just said no. These were the talking points that I heard repeatedly from those voting no. They didn't believe it because there was no plan or they thought if the tax brought in 30 million (made up number) then other sources would just cut 30 million and the net gain would be zero. The proponents never got over this.

The man's got quite a point. Vaguely winging taxes usually, no always, guarantees a few things.....that $10 will grow over time, there's hardly any accountability because you never instilled any in the first place, and much like the Social Security feedbag, every politician, left or right, will "borrow" from it as needed (read: grab 30 million here, cut 30 million there)....

You have to SELL the concept in it's entirety. As my Father always said, social programs are great, so long as you know how you are going to pay for them....

This was right up there with the other two proposals, sign on to never ending construction/road programs and let them get funded later to the energy conservation measure....buy someone's grafted constituent a contract and figure out how to "justify the savings" later.

While Atlanta get's taxed pretty hard for resources the rest of the state utilizes, prehaps it's time to help with some of the projects closer to the 5 million or so that make up the metro???

This proposal, while well intended, was shot down because there is a pretty good ground swell of folks in the metro literally hanging on a cliff's edge to get by. Probably not the time to start selling vague concepts with no accountability. In short, they're broke. Doesn't matter about how noble the venue is. At some point, the feedbag (Read: Atlanta's taxpayers) have to shut the kitchen down sometime.....

Look at California. They never met a social program they didn't like. And what was the ultimate result? The WORLD's 6th or 9th (someone get me right on this) GNP is bankrupt. At SOME point, you have to say; "no".....

Besides, "10 measly" dollars doesn't buy you much anyway. Ever see the cost of the facility let alone, the cost of care? Let me tell you who usually ends up in those things. Those with NO insurance who literally burn every darned resource modern medicine can bestow with little or no chance of paying for the service. They'll drag in the 90 year old with a liver as hard as a rock, two packs of smokes in the trousers, the entire mahalia jackson choir singing and screaming while said trauma unit tries to save the person in need of care.

And God help THAT center if he/she dies. Guaranteed lawsuit(s) will abound and said trauma center wll be out of business without MORE necessary funding to keep it alive.....

or,

Some joker going down I-75 that gets hit by a peanut truck with faulty brakes and no insurance and ultimately, dies. His estate gets whacked with a $50,000-$100,000 hero effort bill to which his insurance, settles.....

And you want to open the lid on this??? As the man said, get the plan together, show your funding sources, show the 5 year, 10 year, and 20 year plan and let's discuss then?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Columbus1984

It is when state revenues are down....

Well if having a well funded trauma care network is a priority for the state, then the money can and should be found. The problem is that the state legislators want to take the weasel way out and not do the heavy lifting required to fund a critical state priority, so instead they play games and leave it to a ballot question. That way if it passes, they can claim no part of it, and if it fails, they are blameless.

$40 million out of $17 billion is nothing, and if the legislature had the best interest of the public in mind here, it would either find the money within the existing budget, or pass a surcharge on vehicle registrations, if that's the only way to make it happen.

I'm a libertarian (philosophy not party) and believe in low taxes, but public safety is one of the legitimate functions of gov't, and our reps should have backbone and pass what is necessary, rather than abdicating their responsibility.

[southgeorgia]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Well if having a well funded trauma care network is a priority for the state, then the money can and should be found. The problem is that the state legislators want to take the weasel way out and not do the heavy lifting required to fund a critical state priority, so instead they play games and leave it to a ballot question. That way if it passes, they can claim no part of it, and if it fails, they are blameless.

that pretty well sums it all up.