I did it backwards.
First, I voted.
Then I studied the issue.
That’s like driving into the garage and then opening the garage door.
Unless you are seriously into “garage-door repair”, plus I imagine, some automobile “bodywork” as well, that is a really bad idea.
And so, I retroactively admit, was this.
(Note: I had no idea I would get three posts out of the “California Initiative System.” You just never know where the ideas will be coming from. Now, here I am, with a possibly-legendary-though-it-is-too-soon-to-tell “‘Cal-Prop.’ Trilogy.”)
Today, it is “Proposition 8.”
Oyoyoyoyoyoyoy!
(Additional Note: This post toowas written {this time, the day} before the election results came in. If I remember, I will inform you how it turned out. Although I have a strong feeling I already know.)
This is “Proposition 8” (carefully worded by its proponents so that it sounds no-brainerly like, “Why not?”):
“Regulates Amounts Outpatient Kidney Dialysis Clinics Charge for Dialysis Treatments”
Thatfeels like a “Yes”, doesn’t it? You don’t want clinics gouging their dialysis patients. Unfortunately, or otherwise, depending on your position, that was not my introduction to “Proposition 8.”
My introduction to “Proposition 8” was, instead, a commercial opposing “Proposition 8”, featuring a forlorn-looking man, staring directly into the camera, claiming that if “Proposition 8” passes,
“I’ll die!”
Thatalters the equation, doesn’t it? Who in their right and compassionate mind votes against
“I’ll die!”?
I mean, if a mere vote will keep this guy alive, then absolutely –
“No on 8!”
And I am done thinking about it. I mean, thisone’s a breeze, easier even than voting for increased “elbow room” for egg-laying hens.
I righteously fill in the circle denoting “No on 8”, and its off to the more contentious initiatives, like “Proposition 11”:
“Allow ambulance providers to remain on call during paid breaks.”
Okay, let’s think about that.
On the “No on 11” side, if you are still “On Call” during them, can you really call that a “break”? On the other hand, if they are paid “breaks”, shouldn’t you remain “On Call”, in case somebody needing an ambulance can’t wait till you finish your coffee?
There are two reasonable sides to this argument, unlike the “Slam-dunking”,
“I’ll die!”
To which the callous alternative seems to be,
“Fine.”
The question, “Why would anyone want dialysis patients to die?” never entering my mind because the “No on 8” guy in the ad appears genuinely upset.
Such thoughts only come to me later, along with the equivalent of “Buyer’s Remorse” about a precipitous “Rush to Judgment”, voting an unequivocal “No” on this “undebatable initiative.”
I hear about an intense “Turf War” between “Union” (“Yes on 8”) and “Non-Union” (“No on 8“) factions in the dialysis clinic industry. I hear about the high profits, earned by currently unregulated dialysis corporations (especially one called DaVita.) And I hear about the “No on 8” side spending more than six times as much as the opposition – $110 million to defeat “Proposition 8.” (Which is why I saw more “I’ll die!” TV ads than “No, you won’t; you’ll pay less for dialysis” ads.)
All this, besides the “Yes on 8” accusations of “unsanitary conditions” at the unregulated facilities, including the discovery of cockroaches – which I immediately see as the “Yes on 8” response to “I’ll die!”, but with vermin –
All the new information gets me thinking,
Maybe this “Prop. 8” is less clear-cut than I originally imagined.
I mean, a side spending a hundred-and-ten-million bucks to avoid regulation?
It looks like they are really against regulation.
On the other hand, there’s,
“I’ll die!”
The problem is, all this newly received information gets me thinking these things…
Too late.
Because I have already voted.
Who knows? After assiduously studying the issue, I may still have decided “No on 8.”
Or not.
What stays withme from this experience, however, is not the issue.
It is the “No on 8’s” shameless appeal to manipulative emotion.
Which made me vote “No on 8” without giving it much thought. Or, more honestly, any.
I do not like myself for doing that. But who I am really annoyed at are the people who made me.
“Nobody can make you…”
Yes, they can!”
Shameless appeals to manipulative emotion?
They work, damn it!
Although, I warn you, political ad makers,
I would not try that again.
………………………………….
Who am I kidding?
I am a pushover for “I’ll die!”
When I saw "Proposition 8" my first thought was the anti-gay-marriage proposition of some years back. So I only now realize that California starts its proposition numbering afresh each election with "1". And yet, so many years later, "Proposition 13" still means the original vote that froze property taxes and keeps schools bankrupt.
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to make a Proposition that all Proposition numbering will be sequential - or at least that numbers that become famous can't be reused. Then the numbers can fight it out over which ones are successful enough to be taken off the table.
wg
PS: How's the smoke where you are?
There was a similar situation for me in the Massachusetts Question 1 campaign. This initiative was modeled on a similar California question that limited the number of patients that could be assigned to registered nurses in a list of specific cases. To me, it just made sense that there should be some limit and the numbers written into the proposal didn't seem excessive to me. The nurses had sponsored the bill and 86% of them agreed. What could be wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteThen, as the hospitals weighed in, it became apparent that there was a lot of opposition. Even some nursing associations were against it. The big argument was that California had done it and patients were suffering for it. Then they started showing people who were going to lose care because hospitals were going to be forced to shut down and costs were going to rise to huge levels. The measure lost 70% to 30%.
I believe there was a lot of exaggeration in the ads but I couldn't prove it. But one thing was that this was too complex a proposal for a simple yes/no vote. What if we delayed the implementation so hospitals could ease into it? What if the ratios of nurses to patients were adjusted? How could the costs go up AND hospitals have to close at the same time? This is something that the legislature should have investigated, debated and handled but they took no action (as was mentioned in the question). So, what we need is a new ballot question - Question X, Should the Legislature do their damn job or should we throw the bunch of them in jail for wasting the money we give them?