California Propositions 45 and 46

[explanade]

These have to do with health care but I'm seeing and hearing a lot of ads against them, warning of politician determining your health care and being manipulated by "special interests."

I don't recall seeing pro ads, though I skip ads on my Tivo in general. But hear them on the radio and occasionally see them on sports channels.

Prop 45 requires rates to be approved by the CA Insurance commissioner. It appears to have the backing of most consumer watchdog groups while the opposition are the insurers and various health care provider organizations:

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Pr...itiative_(2014)

Prop 46, which appears to have the same groups for and against, would raise the non-economic damages of malpractice suits from $250k to $1 million and also provide random drug testing of doctors, with doctors testing positive to be reported to some state body as well as receive suspensions:

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Pr..._Doctors_(2014)


Like I said, the only ads I've heard are from the against side and one of the claims is of course that it would raise health care costs in the state.

[rodi]

Prop 46 is interesting to read who's against it. Why would sheetmetal workers be against it?

CA was an early adopter of medical malpractice tort reform. Unfortunately, they didn't have any inflation for the max collection. If malpractice results in a healthy limb being surgically removed (for example), the limit of $250k for non-economic damages seems pretty low.

As far as the drug testing - I have no issue with drug testing medical professionals. I have an extended family member who worked as a nurse until about 5 years ago. She also was addicted to pain meds and opiates. She lost her license over this. She was taking drugs on the job for more than a decade. She's sober now - but her life would have been a lot better if her addiction had been exposed sooner to the start of it. (She has a lot of lost years in terms of "being there" for her family.) I don't think she was a rare case... access to drugs is one of the issues.

[yakers]

I think this article from the LA Times is useful in understanding the process:

http://fw.to/u3QXb1X

[explanade]

Well the insurance company executives may live in California so technically, they are against the measure, though they probably aren't against higher health insurance premiums.