Welcome to the Virtual UU Meeting House
Proposition 72
Health Care Coverage Requirements.
Should legislation requiring health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers be approved?
- Official Summary, Pros & Cons
- Other Resources : Organizations , Articles, Reports, Links
- UU Commentaries
- Other California Ballot Propositions
Virtual UU Meeting House discussion: come on in, and read what people had to say.
Official Summary and Arguments
A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects legislation requiring health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers. Fiscal Impact: Significant expenditures fully offset, mainly by employer fees, for a state program primarily to purchase private health insurance coverage. Significant county health program savings. Significant public employer health coverage costs. Significant net state revenue losses. Overall unknown net state and local savings or costs.
Official
Voter Information Guide (pdf)
Source: California Secretary of State / Elections and Voter Information
Campaign
Finance Information
Source: California Secretary of State / Cal-Access
A YES vote on this measure means:
Certain employers would be required to provide health coverage for their employees and in some cases dependents through either (1) paying a fee to a new state program primarily to purchase private health insurance coverage or (2) arranging directly with health insurance providers for health care coverage. The state would also establish a new program to assist lower-income employees to pay their share of health care premiums.
A NO vote on this measure means:
The state would continue to allow employers to choose whether to provide health insurance for their employees and dependents. The state would not establish a new program to provide assistance to low-income employees in paying premiums for health care coverage at their workplace.
Arguments FOR Proposition 72
Prop. 72 keeps private health coverage within reach of working families. It requires large and mid-sized companies to pay for private coverage, caps employee share of premiums, and sets coverage standards. Doctors, nurses, and consumers agree. With premiums rising and employees losing health insurance, Prop. 72 provides needed protection.
Arguments AGAINST Proposition 72
Proposition 72 creates a government-run healthcare scheme funded by an estimated $7 billion in new taxes on employers and workers by 2007. You could get forced from your existing plan into the government system and lose access to your doctors and hospitals. Educators, charities, taxpayers, doctors say "NO on 72."
For Proposition 72
Interfaith Unites for Health Care
The California Council of Churches and the Center for Religion and Civic
Culture website offers resources for church congregations, including multi-language
study guides, fact sheets, letters to parishioners, pledge cards, endorsement
forms, flyers, etc.
California Teacher's Association
Against Proposition 72
Californians Against Government Run Healthcare
California Farm Bureau Federation
Nonpartisan
Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports
Both gambling measures failing but voters favor funding stem cell research and requiring businesses to pay for health coverageLos Angeles Times, September 24, 2004, as posted by NewsBank
Proposition
72 a life or death issue
Press-Telegram News, September 19, 2004
Unhealthy
consequences: Retailers, eateries say Prop. 72 could be fatal
San Francisco Business Times, September 12, 2004, as posted by MSNBC
News
Prop
72 Will Help Insure Workers
The Californian, September 8, 2004
How
Healthy is Labor Today?
San Francisco Chronicle, September 6, 2004
Bizarre
Alliances Form Prop. 72 Opposition
LA Times, August 16, 2004
Last updated on September 30, 2004
UU Commentaries
For Proposition 72
Commentary 1: "The 'Exodus' That Might Lead to the Promised Land"Gov. Schwarzenegger says that, “Achieving improved health care access and affordability for all working Californians is a positive goal,” but says that Proposition 72 is not the best way to do so. But it's not a perfect world, and whatever its shortcomings, Prop. 72 is better than nothing.
Which is what 6.5 million working people and their families in California have for health coverage: nothing. The Governor claims that the law will create an “exodus” of jobs from California, but the greatest impact of the bill will be on hotels, restaurants, and other businesses that are unlikely to move out of state. This ignores the larger political context for health care reform: if Proposition 72 succeeds, other states will look at similar laws in order to relieve the budget strains caused by demands on public health systems by the working poor. If that happens, the “exodus” won't happen: we'll already be in the Promised Land.
The scare tactics employed by the opposition also claim that people with good coverage will be forced into health insurance plans run by “bureaucrats.” Not only is this untrue, but it attempts to turn one of the innovative virtues of Prop. 72 into a vice. The law will offer employers the option of joining a statewide purchasing pool, but no one will be forced to participate.
No, Prop. 72 may not be perfect, but don't make the same mistake as Arnold, by making the perfect the enemy of the good. Until a more comprehensive health care policy comes along, it will relieve a lot of unnecessary suffering because of the lack of health care coverage.
Many interfaith groups are working to gain passage of Proposition 72. This campaign is an opportunity to build alliances for the longer struggle to achieve a more just distribution of health care resources in our country.
Rev. Silvio Nardoni
Affiliate Minister of the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa
Monica
"When will our consciences grow so tender that we
will act to prevent human misery
rather than avenge it?"
— Eleanor Roosevelt
Against Proposition 72
No commentary was received prior to our deadline. Please add your opinion and voice to the discussion below.
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and
social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
— World Health Organization, 1948
In October 2003, the Governor signed The Health Insurance Act (SB 2). SB2 requires companies with 200 or more employees to buy health insurance for workers and their families by 2006. Firms with 50 to 199 employees are required to buy coverage for their employees starting in 2007. A YES vote on Proposition 72 will approve the Health Insurance Act, while a NO vote will repeal it.
SUPPORTERS SAY that too many workers are uninsured, and their numbers are growing. SB2 will insure over a million California workers and their families. Uninsured residents are a costly burden to public agencies and a threat to public health. SB 2 will give the state clout to bargain for cheaper insurance and health care costs. Opponents exaggerate SB 2's costs and other impacts on business and the state economy.
OPPONENTS SAY the cost of this bill is too high. SB 2 will severely impact businesses and their ability to compete. With the state's finances in deep trouble, they say this is no time to take on a costly new program. Workers who are shifted to a government-run program could end up with lower coverage and fewer choices.
Could not connect to MySQL because: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2)