I just got home from a California trip. I saw so many ads about Proposition 8. I was not able to get anyone to explain the prop clearly to me, as I am aware of the media bias, agenda and misrepresentation. I asked people and all I heard in response was the usual drivel about money, evil capitalists, Trump is an idiot, etc, but never got a clear grasp. Google searches have not satisfied my understanding.

Basically it's about the cost of Dialysis. Obviously free medical is costing too much and sooner or later socialism runs out of other people's money.

Can the CA residents clearly define this issue and why a Prop is needed or wanted by CA government? Is this the beginning of telling private businesses what they can earn, or must profits be regulated in a socialist government?

It's a money grab by one company to eliminate their competition.

A big NO vote here.

Same thing with 11, AMR wants no competition and a direct pipeline by law to $$, so a big NO there too.

Just to clarify another - prop 6 - we had previously eliminated confiscatory gas and vehicle registration that the govt. slipped in in a midnight star chamber meeting, so they did it again under the cover of darkness. The govt. says if 6 passes - we're all gonna die!!
So, a big YES on that one. No soup for you!

Maybe this won’t answer your question, but as a fiscally conservative native Californian who some might consider libertarian leaning, most CA ballot items are easy. The thought process goes like this:

Is it a bond? Any bond, for any supposed reason, the answer is not only No, but <expletive deleted> NO!

Is it a tax? Almost any tax, same answer. I do look at who is getting taxed and what the rationale is, but it rarely changes the answer.

Is it more regulation? (Other than a regulation on government limiting their powers, usually to tax.) Same answer.

The one that has me laughing is prop 12 (supposedly tighter regulation on animal raising). I was all ready to vote now and be done when I saw that the arguments against seems to be from animal rights fruitloops who think it is a Trojan horse. Darn, I’ll have to go read it more carefully.

But back to your question on 8, that one was a no brainer for me and required no thought so I have no recollection. Let’s pull out the booklets and see what it was about. Oh yeah, this was <expletive added> NO! My read was that this is the government trying to get in the middle of business that it is none of its business and screw up a market. Sounds like Venezuela style price controls. Not only NO, but Heck NO!, unless one wishes to substitute something stronger than Heck.

I used to joke that a neutron bomb in Sacramento could do this state a lot of good, but that truth is that there are too many voters in CA who think that those Commie Scum in the CA government don’t go far enough. If they all fell over dead with a massive karma attack tomorrow, they’d likely be replaced by folks even worse. Three years, seven months and a handful of days until the youngest finishes high school, not that anyone’s counting. Please keep some little corner of Free America sane...

I don't believe in Propositions on ballots. I vote No on all of them regardless of what they represent.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig: most CA ballot items are easy.

Yep, when I lived there, ANYTHING that costs a single penny gets a thumbs down from me. I don't care what it represents- libraries, police, more ambulances, schools, etc. Because any money taken by CA government will be plundered and stolen by politicians and lobby groups with pensions needing funding.

quote:

Originally posted by Snapping Twig:
Same thing with 11, AMR wants no competition and a direct pipeline by law to $$, so a big NO there too.

Hmmm, did you read the same information I did? My read of the Voter Information Guide and everything else I’ve seen was that it allows (for private ambulance companies) employees to be “on call” for an emergency during breaks. This has been the industry standard.

As someone who worked in a restaurant while in college and grabbed my dinner in five to seven minutes then got back to work before all the mandated breaks screwed up restaurant service, anything that keeps government out of the way is a good thing. Not a single one of the servers I’ve spoken with since the law was changed like the new mandated breaks. It screws up their flow, requires handing off customers in mid meal, etc. The idea of making the many required breaks necessitate scheduling another crew and ambulance seems really silly to me.

Seems to me like you would expect cops or firefighters to catch a break when the job allows. Why it should be any different for EMTs/Paramedics, I don’t know. I’d expect they are big boys and girls too.

That said, I agree 1000% on 6 & 8.

I heard the ads on Prop 11, thought it sounded good, but yeah it’s all paid for by AMR. They should just pay their EMT’s better.

As for the dialysis prop: I don’t understand it because everyone with chronic renal failure requiring dialysis is on Medicare which pays for their dialysis.

can't explain bit it's a big NO from me.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by Snapping Twig:
Same thing with 11, AMR wants no competition and a direct pipeline by law to $$, so a big NO there too.

Hmmm, did you read the same information I did? My read of the Voter Information Guide and everything else I’ve seen was that it allows (for private ambulance companies) employees to be “on call” for an emergency during breaks. This has been the industry standard.

As someone who worked in a restaurant while in college and grabbed my dinner in five to seven minutes then got back to work before all the mandated breaks screwed up restaurant service, anything that keeps government out of the way is a good thing. Not a single one of the servers I’ve spoken with since the law was changed like the new mandated breaks. It screws up their flow, requires handing off customers in mid meal, etc. The idea of making the many required breaks necessitate scheduling another crew and ambulance seems really silly to me.

Seems to me like you would expect cops or firefighters to catch a break when the job allows. Why it should be any different for EMTs/Paramedics, I don’t know. I’d expect they are big boys and girls too.

That said, I agree 1000% on 6 & 8.

Yes, I read it thoroughly and spoke to paramedics. They already have breaks, psychological counseling, training, etc. IOW, everything 11 is saying it will provide is already there.

So then... what's the catch?

AMR doesn't want to give paid breaks and wants $$ through legislation.

So, a very hail and hardy NO vote from me.