Anyone following Proposition 8 in California?

Whatev

All I know is that the "No on 8" campaign is not just flashing red flags, they're practically covering the state in red flags, and spending so much money that I'm skeptical of their claims. Moreover, I was called by one of the "Yes on 8" groups who explained that the fear mongering that the No campaign is doing is a bunch of lies; no, independent clinics aren't going to be forced out of business... so long as they maintain basic cleanliness and conform to regulations that have been in place for years (like every other business). I've read horror stories about the largest company in the state letting the clinics descend into filth and decay because patients have no alternatives, and they are the main backers behind the "No" effort, so I'm further persuaded to vote Yes.

These ballot measures make me so happy my state doesn't have the same ballot initiative process.

Just out of curiosity why did state lawmakers refuse to take action?

As is all too common in political threads, there is no attempt at presenting the issues in a clear manner. Just the circle of trolling.

"A YES vote on this measure means: Kidney dialysis clinics would have their revenues limited by a formula and could be required to pay rebates to certain parties (primarily health insurance companies) that pay for dialysis treatment. "

Honestly, this sounds like something meant to benefit the health insurance companies, not the voters or people who need dialysis.

R2, there are some units that are bad but this is an insane and catastrophic solution... marginally profitable units in areas which desperately need them are going to be closed by the boatload.

It's going to fuck over lots and lots of people.

California has become a slave to moronic ballot propositions.

It was actually put on the ballot by unions. And presumably that's the only reason the Democratic Party is supporting it. It really has nothing to do with dialysis or patient care -- it's just a ploy by the SEIU because the two major dialysis companies won't let them unionize their workers.

So ironic, r8. For many decades LA was the least unionized big non-Southern city. Harry Chandler and L B Mayer fought the unions; getting in some of those entertainment unions such as SAG is like getting in the House of Lords. But the Bay area was always heavily unionized . Then the more liberal elements set about creating an infrastructure of public service unions that is very hard to puncture. California needs to take lessons from Margaret Thatcher. Even Governor Reagan opposed right to work.

R8 - if the Democratic Party is supporting this why didn't they pass the legislation that would have had the same impact?

The "No on 8" campaign is funded by the largest providers of dialysis in the country - - Fresenius and Da Vita. The idea that either of them would exit a geographic area with even a mid-sized patient load is preposterous. Dialysis is insanely expensive -- one patient per clinic per day keeps the lights on, pays everyone's salary and still turns a profit. Prop 8 ensures they cannot cut corners just to increase profitability.

Exactly, r10. What was to stop them?

R11, you are totally uninformed. There are MANY marginally profitable units which could and would easily be closed down without a second thought. These large companies can and will invest their resources in other, more profitable areas.

Large dialysis companies may not exit California altogether but Prop 8 will destroy the lives of many, many patients and employees.

The silence on the part of Prop 8 supporters as to why Democrats didn't pass the legislation makes me think there is a part of this story that the supporters are leaving out.

It didn't pass.

Shockingly CA voters were surprisingly intelligent. Didn't repeal their gas tax, didn't pass prop 8, didn't pass rent control... smarter than the average bear overall

Rent control was the wrong vote.

And they passed way too many bond issues that they can't afford.