Proposition 3 authorizes the sale of $980,000,000 in bonds, which will be guaranteed by the State General Fund, for the purpose of granting funds to California’s 13 children’s hospitals. These grants would be paid over 30 years in amounts of $64,000,000/year. These grants will go to both public and private children’s hospitals; 80 percent of them will go to private hospitals while 20 percent will go to public, University of California hospitals.
A “Yes” vote means that the government would sell $980 million in bonds to expand, remodel and provide updated equipment for Children's Hospitals in California.
- It will allow hospitals to keep up with the increasing costs of caring for terminally ill children, with minimal impact on the taxpayers
- It will increase bed space and accessibility for children in need of care
- It strikes a perfect balance between the public interest in better health care and the local interests of various children’s hospitals by granting money to public and private hospitals proportionally
- Restricting children’s health care on the basis of the parents’ ability to pay would punish the children for their parents’ mistakes, which is contrary to basic principles of justice
- It funds the hospitals through a tax-free method of raising money, which will have a minimal impact on California’s economy
- Without this money, hospitals will not be able to build planned expansions of their children’s wings and will have to turn away more children desperately in need of care
A “No” vote means that California would not sell bonds to fund to expand, remodel and provide updated equipment for Children's Hospitals in California.
- Its costs will increase the already ballooning debt which California must pay
- It is unnecessary, given that 350 million dollars from a similar proposition in 2004 are still unspent
- It disproportionately allocates money to private hospitals, some of which encourage practices which the State has already deemed incompatible with public support
- It is not the Government’s job to prop up private enterprises, even non-profit ones
- If the Government can fund these hospitals, then by extension it can control them in ways which are not beneficial for either the hospitals or the children
- There are potential issues of religious freedom implicated in this bill which, if challenged with litigious action, could drain the money already given
Comments
Prop 3 is UNCLEAR FOR A REASON!
I have worked as a pharmaceutical rep/ speciality rep for 7 years. I left the business b/c of SO MANY UNETHICAL practices by the industry as a whole, including hospitals. I tried to be there for patients. The truth is that many Pharmaceutical, Medical Supply, & Medical equipment companies gain quite a bit from such a broad & open proposition that lacks specifics. Private Universities work on the bottom line and not for patients' best interests. I found that private university hospitals to be the most uncaring, money grubby, & most lacking of ability to provide complete/ comprehensive care to incoming patients. The horror stories that many of us veteran reps share would shock the public & SHAME SO MANY CELEBRATED PRIVATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS! I can tell you for a fact that when a close friend's father had a heart attack I recommended a community hospital over 40 minutes away b/c I knew that if something happened to him they would not stop and say "Wait a minute before we continue does he have insurance? Will his insurance cover this?". The celebrated private university hospital is only 18 minutes from her house.
Why are there no specifics on this proposition? B/C IT ALLOWS GRANTS for anything. I know a major university in the South East would not allow a doctor to give a 17 yr old XIGRIS b/c it is indicated for adults (18 Yrs +), when really it was b/c the drug cost over $10,000 to administer; FYI he gave it to her over hospital admin protests & she lived but technically she was a pediatric patient w/o insurance so obviously these hospitals are NOT UNBIASED in how they treat our children.
I would support this for research that is completely unaffiliated w/ private corporations; meaning the companies only provide the drug/ therapy and have no say in the study, its set-up, & no say in who conducts it BUT it doesn't have rules for the best interest of the "kids" that they are using to play on our heart strings.
What if?
This of course pulls at the hart a bit if you also imagine it one of your own kids. AND YOUR POOR! in this country! its still seen as a crime. seems to me though no matter where you go the doctors and hospitals still charge someone? SO? do the tax payers pay for it. did i feed my kid high fructose corn syrup till his arteries clogged and why do i now have to pay for it? OR? if my Son got cancer and because i was poor he gets to just suffer and die. what obligation do we have to each other to maybe help.
I would pay a bit of my money to take care of a sic kid. thats being human and one of US as a whole. I'm gonna say yes! even if he is the kid of a dumb A-s.
Where is the 350 Million?
Where is the 350 Million? There is no G'ment watching over this bond. Love the kids, seems like a shield for the real reasons.
Facebook
YouTube
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Twitter
Newsvine
Propeller
Mixx
Xanga
LinkedIn