Proposition 35 is probably the most impenetrable measure on the Nov. 5 poll. It entails a tax on managed-care organizations, Medi-Cal reimbursement charges for medical suppliers, federal healthcare funding and the state price range.
For that cause alone, voters ought to reject it. The common particular person, regardless of how clever, can’t grow to be professional sufficient in a month to solid a rigorously thought-about vote. We elect a full-time Legislature, and permit it to rent top-notch staffers, to make choices about this type of granular coverage.
Nevertheless it’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 companies and better reimbursement charges to specified healthcare suppliers. At present, lawmakers use among the income from the tax to minimize 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 dangerous coverage as a result of it strips lawmakers of the power to vary state spending from 12 months to 12 months relying on present wants.
Proposition 35 is framed as a feel-good measure that may profit some 15 million Californians who’re enrolled in Medi-Cal however typically wrestle to search out docs to deal with them as a result of reimbursement charges are so low. And it most likely would, as a result of it ensures greater Medi-Cal charges for healthcare suppliers. Nevertheless it 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 companies 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 an extended record of enterprise teams.
There isn’t a organized opposition nor an argument towards it within the voter info information. That is unlucky as a result of various outstanding individuals 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 record of service suppliers assured greater funding in Proposition 35. They’re anxious that state help for neighborhood well being applications and different invaluable companies could be lower off.
State Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama Metropolis), chair of the Price range Subcommittee for Well being and Human Providers, additionally opposes the proposition, saying it ties the palms of legislators who “might by no means take a look at this income stream and resolve what’s finest in that second for California.”
Moreover, Proposition 35 might jeopardize future funding. The managed healthcare tax income is matched by the federal authorities. If the federal funding formulation modifications, California might 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 received’t renew it at a degree that’s acceptable, and allocate its income in a approach that meets the wants of the state and public at the moment. Vote no on Proposition 35.