Thanks for the heads up.
I got it, too. But since the iPhone auto-transcribes quite well, I didn’t even listen to it. Straight to the bit recycler.
Prop 8 - the Dialysis initiative, appears to be drawing a lot of spending by the big dialysis companies in opposition.Article here.
*The dialysis industry has contributed more than $99 million to the No campaign, with DaVita putting up about $61.5 million, Fresenius about $27.7 million and smaller dialysis firms the rest, according to the latest filings with the California secretary of state. The measure’s sponsor, the Service Employees International Union (which is hoping to unionize dialysis workers) has spent about $20 million so far on the Yes on 8 campaign.
The fact that the dialysis companies consider campaign spending of this magnitude to be a bargain should give you a sense of the money at stake. Dialysis is fabulously profitable for the companies. DaVita earned pretax operating profit of about $1.8 billion on $10.1 billion in dialysis revenue last year. Fresenius reported pretax operating profit of $2.3 billion on dialysis revenue of $11.7 billion in North America.
The key to these lavish earnings is the companies’ ability to extract rich reimbursements from private insurance companies covering their patients. And that’s where the gaming of the Affordable Care Act comes in. *
From the article, the companies are gaming the system to rake-in big profits on the backs of insurance companies. The process:
- Dialysis companies fund a non-profit “charity” to help dialysis patients find care,
- Charity direct (“steer”) them away from publicly-funded insurance (Medicare) which has a capped re-imbursement,
- Onto the rolls of private insurance (since no one can be denied) using the “charity” subsidy,
- Private insurance will re-imburse at higher rates than Medicare,
- Profit!
So, these companies are using dialysis patients as pawns to keep the gravy train rolling. I can see why they are fighting and spending hard to defeat this one.
Even if the initiatives in opposition to governmental interests or positions (i.e., 5, 6, and 11) pass, presumably the state AG won’t defend them against the inevitable court challenges, right?
Sounds to me like what you guys really need is Proposition 0: Eliminate the Proposition System in California.
The proposition system in California is really, REALLY important to have. It was instituted by the Progressives when they ran the state in the early 1900s. Prior to the availability of the proposition, all legislative attempts were railroaded (literally) in the direction that the conservative Republicans wanted (“literally” in the sense that the Republicans were in the pocket of the Railroad company executives). Now that the state is firmly in the control of the Democratic Party, the same need exists as a check on the Legislature.
An example of this power in action in a good way was the introduction of auto insurance reform via ballot initiative in 1988. That year, multiple initiatives dealing with auto insurance reform were on the ballot, because the Legislature was either incapable, or unwilling, to deal with the pressing need for reform. While the reform that passed (Proposition 103) may not have been the best answer, it was better than no answer at all.
Both the No on Prop 8 (dialysis) and No on 10 (rent control) campaigns are running advertising with themes that these propositions do nothing for veterans.
Uh, yeah, I guess. Neither does the chicken coop initiative.
I don’t watch television anymore and election season reaffirms that decision. 
It’s probably good for a state to have some sort of ballot initiative procedure, to provide a check against entrenched politicians (getting rid of gerrymandering, for instance). But California maybe does take it too far.
Two requirements I noticed in the proposition: meal breaks cannot be forced to be taken in the first or last hours of a shift, and if there are multiple meal breaks, they must be at least two hours apart.
The law requires:
As of the start of 2020, 43 square feet of floor space per calf, and 1 square foot of floor space per hen;
As of the start of 2022, 24 square feet of floor space per pig.
Actually, the ballot propositions in the 1980s that tried to undo the gerrymandering done by the legislature were all voted down; it took the state legislature to pass a law to require the boundaries be drawn by an “independent commission.”
I wasn’t referring to specifics, there: It’s possible that those two were just bad plans (we had a supposed anti-gerrymandering initiative here in Ohio a few years back that, if you read the fine print, would actually have required extensive gerrymandering). I meant the principle: If the legislature is bound and determined to hold onto gerrymandering, it’s hard to stop them without something like ballot initiatives.
I really must insist that you provide a cite for this.
Prop 6 is the repeal of a massive gasoline tax that hurts poor people the most. That would include a lot of people of color. My corrupt representatives have mislabeled this proposition to benefit greedy government workers.
Many FB posts. Sorry, but I cant link to them, most are a week ago or more.
No, actually, not fixing the roads “hurts poor people the most”, many people and local mechanics have been pointing out a sharp increase in road damages.
So you cannot produce evidence that the opposition to the massive gas tax is about illegal aliens and LGBTQ? But that’s what you wrote? Interesting.
California already has some the highest gas taxes in the USA. What have they been doing with all of that money that they’re collected? It surely hasn’t been going completely to the road maintenance? Why did they mislabel the proposition?
Why not simply call it the “Gas Tax Repeal?” Wouldn’t that be the clearest way to describe it instead of “Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding. Requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees be approved by the electorate.”? This is what rule by Democrats looks like.
Yes, because that’s is what I read. Diatribes about Governor Brown giving all the tax money to fund projects for 'the gays" and “illegals”. All on Facebook. It’s very hard to cite Facebook.
Yes, it has. 100% has gone to roads and transit.
Hard to cite Facebook? What page was it under? I’m really curious who all these horrible people are. Last time I checked, “the gays” use gasoline and might not be happy about the tax as well. I welcome their support for Prop 6.
Again, I’d be curious how you would justify mislabeling Prop 6? It was a grassroots initiative? I gathered signatures myself to get it on the ballot.
As for your cite, it does not state 100% goes to the roads. It also doesn’t mention what has happened to the preexisting high gas taxes which are diverted to the abusive pensions.
I’m gay, and I’m okay with the gas tax. Cheap gas doesn’t do me any good if there aren’t any driveable roads left in the state.
Why year round DST? It wouldn’t get light in the morning until 8:00 to 830am and that would seriously mess with my mornings. I think it taking the change into November is far too long as I am cranky by the dark mornings.
So what it would be lighter for one hour more during my commute home. What sort of outdoor daytime activities am I doing after work? I expect it to be dark in the early evenings in the winter, but not in the morning.
It’s matter of preference obviously. I prefer it the other way. We’ll see what the majority thinks.
Look, I am just saying what some opponents said about it on Facebook.
It isn’t “mislabeled”. “ELIMINATES CERTAIN ROAD REPAIR AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDING. REQUIRES CERTAIN FUEL TAXES AND VEHICLE FEES BE APPROVED BY THE ELECTORATE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.” which is exactly what is does.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article219576845.html
*That California election ballot ‘correction’ you got for Prop. 6 isn’t from the government
With mail ballots set to arrive at California voters’ homes starting this week, the gas tax repeal campaign recently sent out 2 million leaflets that “correct” the ballot title and description for its initiative.
The official ballot title for Proposition 6 — which begins “Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding” — has caused much consternation for its supporters…“The correct title for Proposition 6 should read: Proposition 6: Gas Tax Repeal Initiative,” the mailer states… “It’s inappropriate to craft a fake message from the registrar of voters,” Cate said. “It frankly smells of desperation.”*
Prop 6 does not “repeal the gas tax”. There are about six “gas tax”, and ti does roll back one of those.
No, 100% goes to roads and transit, just like it is supposed to.
Sure, and I expect gay people would vote both ways.
In no way do I think that “the gays” as the FB screeds said, have anything special to do with Prop 6. The point is, that some FB opponents of Prop 6 were saying that Gov Brown was taking all that “gas tax’ money to 'spend on illegals and the gays”.