November Ballot Intiatives
Here's a Montague's guide on voting for today's initiatives.
Vote 'NO' on Propositions 73-78. Vote 'YES' on 79 and 80, but especially 79.
73 takes away rights from minors and as an individual younger than 18, I'm looking out for my homes out there.
74-76 both do some pretty shady things to teachers, and we can't afford to loot the already sub-par California education.
77 is an unecessary redistricting initiatives that would only result in wasted money. In-depth explanation later.
78 really steams me. It's total BS by the drug companies. I'll also this explain in-depth later.
79 is good and actually will expand access to drugs for those in poverty.
80 is ....interesting. Ideally, it would lead to better use of energy, but its risky and theres no guarantee it will work. Still, if functioning properly, the benefits would be great.
Mhmm, I don't expect Schwarzenegger to gain too much ground from this special election. Stupid Republican.
Alritey, I'm pretty much done.
Since I briefed my supervisor on 77 and 78, I'll paste those here if you want to read more.
I remember having so much fun researching these, I wish I had time to do indepth analysis of the others too. Oh well. Excuse how the recommendations are addressed to the county, I'm too lazy to change it.
Proposition 78
"Cheaper prescription drugs for California act" 1129. (SA05RF0065).
Summary:
Proposition 78 proposes that eligible consumers under the Cal Rx Program (administered by the Department of Health Services) be able to apply for and subsequently obtain a card that would qualify the holder for discounts on drug purchases upon presentation at the pharmacy.
The Cal Rx Program would only be open to families with an income up to 300% of the federal poverty level (roughly 28,000 for an individual, 56,000 for a family of four). The new drug discount program would be available mainly for persons who do not have other forms of health insurance coverage through either private health insurance or enrollment in certain other state health programs; Medicare enrollees remain a possible exception.
Participants would enroll in Cal Rx by paying a $15 fee annually to pharmacies. The Department of Health Services would review applicants and mail the card to eligible participants.
Eligible consumers would receive discounts through two ways. First, pharmacies that voluntarily participate in the program would agree to sell prescription drugs at an agreed-upon discount negotiated in advance with the State. Second, the state would receive rebates from the drug makers and pass the rebates onto the consumers. The Department of Health Services would negotiate with drug makers to implement drug discount programs. An outreach program would be conducted, to the extent of funding available.
The estimated cost to the State for administration and outreach of this program is extensive. The Department of Health Services would incur start-up costs as well as ongoing costs to implement Cal Rx. Establishing a new program would require funds for various necessities including but not limited to: new information technology systems, operation of a website, operation of a call center for applications, process of application, and coordination of drug discount programs. The overall cost is estimated to be from the millions to the low tens of millions annually; variables such as outreach funding, number of needy consumers, and private donations prevent a solid estimate. The overall cost would be handled by the state General Fund.
The initiative requires the drug companies pay rebates to the states on at least a quarterly basis. The initiative also requires the State to reimburse rebates for pharmacies within two weeks after a pharmacy has been filed by a pharmacy because of a consumer’s drug purchase. The funding gap between when the rebate comes to the state and when the state has to pay the pharmacies is known as float cost.
Comparisons
Pro: The supply of medicine for Medi-cal patients will not be in danger from shortage. Drug companies will be more satisfied because they will not have to give up as much money when compared to Proposition 79. Proposition 78 would be put into effect faster than Proposition 79 because it does not require as much money and coverage. The extremely poor people will get covered by Proposition 78.
Con: The state will, in many cases, be obligated to pay out rebates to pharmacies before it actually collects the rebate funds from a drug maker. Moreover, any disputes that will likely arise over the actual amounts owed for rebates could further slow payments of rebate funds from drug makers to the state.
The initiative never states that there would be a punishment for drug companies that fail to comply with reduction of prices. The approach of voluntarily discounts has failed before, as seen in the case of the Golden Bear State Pharmacy program. The program was designed to offer seniors voluntary discounts on prescription medicine. While 500 drug manufacturers were invited to participate in this program, only 14 agreed, thus leading to the termination of the program. There is no incentive for companies to comply with the Cal Rx program and if so, the prices of drugs will continue to be high.
Proposition 78’s eligibility requirement is very limiting and only lets in half the number of consumers as Proposition 79. Many uninsured and needy people will be left out of the program.
The program, if passed, would be liable to termination at any time. There is a provision in Proposition 78 that allows the discount program to close if there are too few contributing manufacturers. The chances of Cal Rx’s termination is at an uncomfortable level and if it fails, the prices of prescription drugs will skyrocket for consumers.
The discounts set by Proposition 78 are based on “lowest commercial price” set by drug companies. These discounts, estimated to be 15-40 percent, are lower than the discounts offered by Proposition 79. This is not a significant discount when considering how impoverished the people of California are.
Recommendation to County: My personal recommendation to the county is to take a position against this ballot. Proposition 78 is a meaningless and will not have many positive results. The problem is that too many people in California cannot afford prescription medicine. Proposition 78 does not solve this problem. Very few people would be able to receive the help offered by Cal Rx because of the extremely strict eligibility rules. There will still be masses of people who cannot afford prescription medicine. Furthermore, the very few people who will benefit by Proposition 78 have no guarantee that the benefits will last. By having a cooperative refusal to volunteer for Cal Rx, the drug making companies can very easily avoid giving discounts on prescription drugs; there is no punishment for doing so. The companies have no motivation to provide discount and will have the power to raise prices even high if the program disbands due to a lack of participation. Historically speaking (Golden State Bear Pharmacy), it can be seen that a voluntary program does not work. If Proposition 78 passes, the problem of expensive prescription drugs will not be solved at all. Very few people will get to use the limited discounts and it is unlikely the discounts will last. The County should take a stance against Proposition 78 due to its ineffectiveness at helping people.
Proposition 77
Redistricting 1072. (SA04RF0037, Amdt. #1-NS)
Summary: This measure amends the California Constitution to change the way boundaries of districts of the state Legislature, Board of Equalization, and the U.S. House of Representatives from California are determined. Currently, the California Constitution requires the Legislature to adjust the boundary lines of the state Legislature (Assembly and Senate), Board of Equalization, and the U.S. House of Representatives to district every ten years. Redistricting plans would be included in legislation and become law after the passing of the bill by the Legislature and signing of the bill by the Governor. In the past, if the Legislature and Governor do not agree on redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court would perform the redistricting.
This new measure requires that a three-member panel of special masters develop the redistricting plan instead of the California Supreme Court. The panel would be composed of retired federal and/or state judges who have never held partisan political office. This panel would be selected by legislative leadership from a list of nominations prepare by the Judicial Council The panel would have to hold public hearings with respect to the plans. A panel would be required to develop a redistricting plan for use following the measure’s approval and then following each future federal census.
The measure states that the Legislature must make funding available from the Legislature’s budget to support the work of the special masters, including employment of counsel and independent experts in the field of redistricting and computer technology. Funding for the special masters would be limited to half of the amount spent by the Legislature on redistricting in 2001 (the precise amount spent in 2001 is unavailable and would be adjusted due to inflation; generally, the cost is in the millions). For the first redistricting plan under the measure, the funding would be provided from the General Fund.
The measure also adds 3 key new requirements regarding the drawing of district boundaries. First, regarding state offices, population differences among districts cannot exceed 1 percent. Secondly, the Board of Equalization districts must be comprised of adjacent legislative districts. In addition, the plan must minimize the splitting of counties and cities into multiple districts. Last, when drawing boundaries, the panel could not consider information related to political party affiliations and other specified matters.
Once the special masters unanimously approve a redistricting plan, the plan would be used for the next primary and general election. The Secretary of State would place the plan on the ground election ballot for the voters to consider. The voters approve the plan, it would be used until the next redistricting is required. If the voters reject the plan, a new plan would be prepared pursuant to the provisions of the measure.
Although the next redistricting plan will not be developed until after the 2010 federal census, this measure requires that a redistricting plan be developed for use at the next primary election following the measure’s approval. This additional redistricting plan would result in one-time state costs, which would probably total a few million dollars.
The measure’s limit on redistricting costs, if passed, is expected to save the state a few million dollars per redistricting effort. However, because redistricting plans have to be approved by voters, it would cost the state and counties each time a plan was placed on the ballot. These costs primarily would be related to preparing and mailing election-related materials. Since the approval of the plans could be consolidated with existing elections, the increased costs of the measure would probably be minor.
Comparison
Pro: The current system allows legislators to draw district lines that eliminate competition to preserve the incumbent and preserve the current partisan balance; this Proposition claims to solve the problem.
Also, this Proposition would lead to more moderate legislators due to the more competitive elections.
Furthermore, taking the process of redistricting out of the hands of politicians will lead to districts that are more responsive to voters.
Proposition 77 claims to solve corruption, polarization, and anti-democratic problems of redistricting.
Con: The current California Constitution procedures for redistricting appropriately give elected legislators the authority to make decision on behalf of the people they represent. The proposed special masters would not be elected and will not directly represent the people’s best interests.
It opens the door to constant revisions.
Redistricting is also meant to de-politicize but redistricting is inherently political and so tense situations may arise from harmful expectations.
While some people may not like it, the current partisan balance in the state Legislature is closely matched to the balance of total votes by party in the state (60% Democrat, 40% Republican).
Recommendation (County):
My recommendation to the county on Proposition 77 is to take a stance against it. The problems it claims to solve would still exist if passed. The main reason why people are supporting this proposition is because they think the bipartisan nature of the redistricting process is unfair. However, the statistics show that the votes would not change if this initiative was to pass. Also, Proposition 77 would have a non-representative body (masters) doing the redistricting, which is undemocratic. Furthermore, Proposition 77 allows for many revisions would only draw out the redistricting process. There is no solvency with Proposition 77 and it would only create more problems. The money used for Proposition 77 would be wasted and the County cannot afford to support this.
Vote 'NO' on Propositions 73-78. Vote 'YES' on 79 and 80, but especially 79.
73 takes away rights from minors and as an individual younger than 18, I'm looking out for my homes out there.
74-76 both do some pretty shady things to teachers, and we can't afford to loot the already sub-par California education.
77 is an unecessary redistricting initiatives that would only result in wasted money. In-depth explanation later.
78 really steams me. It's total BS by the drug companies. I'll also this explain in-depth later.
79 is good and actually will expand access to drugs for those in poverty.
80 is ....interesting. Ideally, it would lead to better use of energy, but its risky and theres no guarantee it will work. Still, if functioning properly, the benefits would be great.
Mhmm, I don't expect Schwarzenegger to gain too much ground from this special election. Stupid Republican.
Alritey, I'm pretty much done.
Since I briefed my supervisor on 77 and 78, I'll paste those here if you want to read more.
I remember having so much fun researching these, I wish I had time to do indepth analysis of the others too. Oh well. Excuse how the recommendations are addressed to the county, I'm too lazy to change it.
Proposition 78
"Cheaper prescription drugs for California act" 1129. (SA05RF0065).
Summary:
Proposition 78 proposes that eligible consumers under the Cal Rx Program (administered by the Department of Health Services) be able to apply for and subsequently obtain a card that would qualify the holder for discounts on drug purchases upon presentation at the pharmacy.
The Cal Rx Program would only be open to families with an income up to 300% of the federal poverty level (roughly 28,000 for an individual, 56,000 for a family of four). The new drug discount program would be available mainly for persons who do not have other forms of health insurance coverage through either private health insurance or enrollment in certain other state health programs; Medicare enrollees remain a possible exception.
Participants would enroll in Cal Rx by paying a $15 fee annually to pharmacies. The Department of Health Services would review applicants and mail the card to eligible participants.
Eligible consumers would receive discounts through two ways. First, pharmacies that voluntarily participate in the program would agree to sell prescription drugs at an agreed-upon discount negotiated in advance with the State. Second, the state would receive rebates from the drug makers and pass the rebates onto the consumers. The Department of Health Services would negotiate with drug makers to implement drug discount programs. An outreach program would be conducted, to the extent of funding available.
The estimated cost to the State for administration and outreach of this program is extensive. The Department of Health Services would incur start-up costs as well as ongoing costs to implement Cal Rx. Establishing a new program would require funds for various necessities including but not limited to: new information technology systems, operation of a website, operation of a call center for applications, process of application, and coordination of drug discount programs. The overall cost is estimated to be from the millions to the low tens of millions annually; variables such as outreach funding, number of needy consumers, and private donations prevent a solid estimate. The overall cost would be handled by the state General Fund.
The initiative requires the drug companies pay rebates to the states on at least a quarterly basis. The initiative also requires the State to reimburse rebates for pharmacies within two weeks after a pharmacy has been filed by a pharmacy because of a consumer’s drug purchase. The funding gap between when the rebate comes to the state and when the state has to pay the pharmacies is known as float cost.
Comparisons
Pro: The supply of medicine for Medi-cal patients will not be in danger from shortage. Drug companies will be more satisfied because they will not have to give up as much money when compared to Proposition 79. Proposition 78 would be put into effect faster than Proposition 79 because it does not require as much money and coverage. The extremely poor people will get covered by Proposition 78.
Con: The state will, in many cases, be obligated to pay out rebates to pharmacies before it actually collects the rebate funds from a drug maker. Moreover, any disputes that will likely arise over the actual amounts owed for rebates could further slow payments of rebate funds from drug makers to the state.
The initiative never states that there would be a punishment for drug companies that fail to comply with reduction of prices. The approach of voluntarily discounts has failed before, as seen in the case of the Golden Bear State Pharmacy program. The program was designed to offer seniors voluntary discounts on prescription medicine. While 500 drug manufacturers were invited to participate in this program, only 14 agreed, thus leading to the termination of the program. There is no incentive for companies to comply with the Cal Rx program and if so, the prices of drugs will continue to be high.
Proposition 78’s eligibility requirement is very limiting and only lets in half the number of consumers as Proposition 79. Many uninsured and needy people will be left out of the program.
The program, if passed, would be liable to termination at any time. There is a provision in Proposition 78 that allows the discount program to close if there are too few contributing manufacturers. The chances of Cal Rx’s termination is at an uncomfortable level and if it fails, the prices of prescription drugs will skyrocket for consumers.
The discounts set by Proposition 78 are based on “lowest commercial price” set by drug companies. These discounts, estimated to be 15-40 percent, are lower than the discounts offered by Proposition 79. This is not a significant discount when considering how impoverished the people of California are.
Recommendation to County: My personal recommendation to the county is to take a position against this ballot. Proposition 78 is a meaningless and will not have many positive results. The problem is that too many people in California cannot afford prescription medicine. Proposition 78 does not solve this problem. Very few people would be able to receive the help offered by Cal Rx because of the extremely strict eligibility rules. There will still be masses of people who cannot afford prescription medicine. Furthermore, the very few people who will benefit by Proposition 78 have no guarantee that the benefits will last. By having a cooperative refusal to volunteer for Cal Rx, the drug making companies can very easily avoid giving discounts on prescription drugs; there is no punishment for doing so. The companies have no motivation to provide discount and will have the power to raise prices even high if the program disbands due to a lack of participation. Historically speaking (Golden State Bear Pharmacy), it can be seen that a voluntary program does not work. If Proposition 78 passes, the problem of expensive prescription drugs will not be solved at all. Very few people will get to use the limited discounts and it is unlikely the discounts will last. The County should take a stance against Proposition 78 due to its ineffectiveness at helping people.
Proposition 77
Redistricting 1072. (SA04RF0037, Amdt. #1-NS)
Summary: This measure amends the California Constitution to change the way boundaries of districts of the state Legislature, Board of Equalization, and the U.S. House of Representatives from California are determined. Currently, the California Constitution requires the Legislature to adjust the boundary lines of the state Legislature (Assembly and Senate), Board of Equalization, and the U.S. House of Representatives to district every ten years. Redistricting plans would be included in legislation and become law after the passing of the bill by the Legislature and signing of the bill by the Governor. In the past, if the Legislature and Governor do not agree on redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court would perform the redistricting.
This new measure requires that a three-member panel of special masters develop the redistricting plan instead of the California Supreme Court. The panel would be composed of retired federal and/or state judges who have never held partisan political office. This panel would be selected by legislative leadership from a list of nominations prepare by the Judicial Council The panel would have to hold public hearings with respect to the plans. A panel would be required to develop a redistricting plan for use following the measure’s approval and then following each future federal census.
The measure states that the Legislature must make funding available from the Legislature’s budget to support the work of the special masters, including employment of counsel and independent experts in the field of redistricting and computer technology. Funding for the special masters would be limited to half of the amount spent by the Legislature on redistricting in 2001 (the precise amount spent in 2001 is unavailable and would be adjusted due to inflation; generally, the cost is in the millions). For the first redistricting plan under the measure, the funding would be provided from the General Fund.
The measure also adds 3 key new requirements regarding the drawing of district boundaries. First, regarding state offices, population differences among districts cannot exceed 1 percent. Secondly, the Board of Equalization districts must be comprised of adjacent legislative districts. In addition, the plan must minimize the splitting of counties and cities into multiple districts. Last, when drawing boundaries, the panel could not consider information related to political party affiliations and other specified matters.
Once the special masters unanimously approve a redistricting plan, the plan would be used for the next primary and general election. The Secretary of State would place the plan on the ground election ballot for the voters to consider. The voters approve the plan, it would be used until the next redistricting is required. If the voters reject the plan, a new plan would be prepared pursuant to the provisions of the measure.
Although the next redistricting plan will not be developed until after the 2010 federal census, this measure requires that a redistricting plan be developed for use at the next primary election following the measure’s approval. This additional redistricting plan would result in one-time state costs, which would probably total a few million dollars.
The measure’s limit on redistricting costs, if passed, is expected to save the state a few million dollars per redistricting effort. However, because redistricting plans have to be approved by voters, it would cost the state and counties each time a plan was placed on the ballot. These costs primarily would be related to preparing and mailing election-related materials. Since the approval of the plans could be consolidated with existing elections, the increased costs of the measure would probably be minor.
Comparison
Pro: The current system allows legislators to draw district lines that eliminate competition to preserve the incumbent and preserve the current partisan balance; this Proposition claims to solve the problem.
Also, this Proposition would lead to more moderate legislators due to the more competitive elections.
Furthermore, taking the process of redistricting out of the hands of politicians will lead to districts that are more responsive to voters.
Proposition 77 claims to solve corruption, polarization, and anti-democratic problems of redistricting.
Con: The current California Constitution procedures for redistricting appropriately give elected legislators the authority to make decision on behalf of the people they represent. The proposed special masters would not be elected and will not directly represent the people’s best interests.
It opens the door to constant revisions.
Redistricting is also meant to de-politicize but redistricting is inherently political and so tense situations may arise from harmful expectations.
While some people may not like it, the current partisan balance in the state Legislature is closely matched to the balance of total votes by party in the state (60% Democrat, 40% Republican).
Recommendation (County):
My recommendation to the county on Proposition 77 is to take a stance against it. The problems it claims to solve would still exist if passed. The main reason why people are supporting this proposition is because they think the bipartisan nature of the redistricting process is unfair. However, the statistics show that the votes would not change if this initiative was to pass. Also, Proposition 77 would have a non-representative body (masters) doing the redistricting, which is undemocratic. Furthermore, Proposition 77 allows for many revisions would only draw out the redistricting process. There is no solvency with Proposition 77 and it would only create more problems. The money used for Proposition 77 would be wasted and the County cannot afford to support this.
posted by Anonymous at 3:59 PM
0 comments
