Should
legislation requiring
health care coverage for employees, as specified, working
for large and medium employers be approved?
A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects legislation that:
- Provides for individual and dependent health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers;
- Requires that employers pay at least 80% of coverage cost; maximum 20% employee contribution;
- Requires employers to pay for health coverage or pay fee to medical insurance board that purchases primarily private health coverage;
- Applies to employers with 200 or more employees beginning 1/1/06;
- Applies to employers with 50 to 199 employees beginning 1/1/07. Applies to employers with 20 to 49 employees if tax credit enacted.
Significant
expenditures fully offset, mainly by employer fees, for a state
program primarily to purchase private health insurance coverage.
Significant county health program savings. Significant
public employer health coverage costs. Significant net state revenue
losses. Overall unknown net state and local savings or
costs.
- A YES vote of this measure means:
- Certain employers would
be required to provide health
coverage for their employees
and in some cases dependents
through either (1) paying a fee
to a new state program primarily
to purchase private health
insurance coverage or (2)
arranging directly with health
insurance providers for health
care coverage. The state would
also establish a new program to
assist lower-income employees
to pay their share of health
care premiums.
- A NO vote of this measure means:
- The state would continue
to allow employers to choose
whether to provide health
insurance for their employees
and dependents. The state
would not establish a new program
to provide assistance to
low-income employees in paying
premiums for health care
coverage at their workplace.
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 72:
- Prop. 72 keeps private health
coverage within reach of working
families. It requires large
and mid-sized companies to
pay for private coverage, caps
employee share of premiums,
and sets coverage standards.
Doctors, nurses, and consumers
agree: With premiums rising
and employees losing health
insurance, Prop. 72 provides
needed protection.
Full Text of Argument In Favor
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 72:
- Proposition 72 creates a
government-run healthcare scheme
funded by an estimated
$7 billion in new taxes on employers
and workers by 2007.
You could get forced from your
existing plan into the government
system and lose access to
your doctors and hospitals.
Educators, charities, taxpayers,
doctors say "NO on 72."
Full Text of Argument Against
- Contact FOR Proposition 72:
- Anthony Wright
Health Access
1127 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-442-2308
awright@health-access.org
http://www.YesonProp72.com
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 72:
- Californians Against Government Run Healthcare
1201 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814-3938
info@noprop72.org
http://www.noprop72.org
|
|
Official Information
Secretary of State
Campaign Finance Information
Legislative Analysts's Office
Nonpartisan Information
Easy Voter Guide
League of Women Voters - Analysis
Other organizations
League of Women Voters - Background
Events
League of Women Voters
Televised Forums
- Peninsula TV, Channel 27
Tuesday, october 5th - 8 PM
- Peninsula TV, Channel 30
Saturday, October 23rd - 11 PM
LWV Pros & Cons Public Meetings
- Come to a meeting in your community where League experts discuss all state ballot propositions giving a nonpartisan analysis. Consult your Smart Voter county page for dates, times and locations.
News and Analysis
KQED-FM: Forum Talk Show
- Proposition 72
- with Larry Mantle host of AirTalk on KPCC
10/27/04. (Opens in new window)
California Connected
LA36 (Los Angeles Cable TV)
- Voter Minute
- a video guide (with transcript) to help you decide (Windows Media Player; opens in new window)
Google News Search
Partisan Information
FOR Prop 72
AGAINST Prop 72
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
