Proposition 35 is essentially the most impenetrable measure on the Nov. 5 poll. It includes a tax on managed-care organizations, Medi-Cal reimbursement charges for medical suppliers, federal healthcare funding and the state finances.
For that cause alone, voters ought to reject it. The typical particular person, irrespective of how clever, can’t turn out to be knowledgeable sufficient in a month to forged a rigorously thought of vote. We elect a full-time Legislature, and permit it to rent top-notch staffers, to make choices about this sort of granular coverage.
But it surely’s additionally value rejecting Proposition 35 due to what it could do. It could make everlasting a brief tax on managed healthcare insurance policy beginning in 2027, and require that the entire proceeds be used on Medi-Cal providers and better reimbursement charges to specified healthcare suppliers. Presently, lawmakers use a number of the income from the tax to reduce the burden of Medi-Cal program prices on the final fund.
Asking voters to dictate how the state spends its income is ballot-box budgeting. It’s unhealthy coverage as a result of it strips lawmakers of the flexibility to alter state spending from 12 months to 12 months relying on present wants.
Proposition 35 is framed as a feel-good measure that will profit some 15 million Californians who’re enrolled in Medi-Cal however generally wrestle to search out docs to deal with them as a result of reimbursement charges are so low. And it in all probability would, as a result of it ensures greater Medi-Cal charges for healthcare suppliers. But it surely comes at a price. The state’s Legislative Analyst says the measure will increase state costs — as a lot as $12 billion within the subsequent three years, and an unknown quantity sooner or later. That’s cash that couldn’t be used for different applications and providers that profit all Californians.
Proposition 35 is supported by the California Medical Assn., Deliberate Parenthood, the California Hospital Assn. and nearly each group that represents the healthcare suppliers, in addition to a protracted checklist of enterprise teams.
There is no such thing as a organized opposition nor an argument towards it within the voter info information. That is unlucky as a result of numerous outstanding folks and organizations do oppose it — and with good cause.
That features Gov. Gavin Newsom, the League of Women Voters, the California Budget & Policy Center and community health organizations that have been left off the checklist of service suppliers assured greater funding in Proposition 35. They’re anxious that state help for group well being applications and different worthwhile providers can be lower off.
State Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama Metropolis), chair of the Finances Subcommittee for Well being and Human Providers, additionally opposes the proposition, saying it ties the fingers of legislators who “may by no means take a look at this income stream and resolve what’s finest in that second for California.”
Moreover, Proposition 35 may jeopardize future funding. The managed healthcare tax income is matched by the federal authorities. If the federal funding formulation adjustments, California may lose out on extra funds for Medi-Cal if there’s a cap on the tax in place.
The present tax will expire in 2026, however there’s no cause to assume the Legislature gained’t renew it at a stage that’s applicable, and allocate its income in a method that meets the wants of the state and public at the moment. Vote no on Proposition 35.
