AARP opposes Prop 78, endorses competing Prop 79

[Ernesto]

"There is a danger if Proposition 78 passes that we will see little or no real benefit," said AARP state director Tom Porter. "Discounts will be provided only as it suits the drug manufacturers."

The campaign behind the proposition is led by the lobbyist Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America - or PhRMA - and is almost entirely bankrolled by more than $70 million in drug industry contributions. The California Chamber of Commerce previously endorsed Proposition 78.


http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/13636787p-14479207c.html

[jbnow]

1. The linked site needs registration

don't know what propositions are...

[Ernesto]

2. so register, it's free............

[jamesinca]

3. Here is the 78 & 79 as I understand them

78 was written for the drug industry, and is supported by them. If 78 passes, then it will allow the drug industry the luxury of selling in bulk to the state of California if they feel like it.

If 79 passes it will require the drug industry to sell in bulk to the state of California, or not do business here.

This would apply only to the programs run by the government, like Medi Cal, Medicaid, Medi Care etc.... All other people not in those programs would still be buying at the retail rates, not the bulk or wholesale rates.

This is how I understand it, if the drug companies wanted to sell in bulk and actually cared about giving a break to the state or those on fixed incomes, they would have done it by now. 79 requires them to do it. It requires them to do it in the 5-6 largest economy in the world. That is not a market they care to lose, and they don't want to sell in bulk to it either.

[Sugarbleus]

4. Haven't read my booklet yet....so, in your opinion

Is it NO on both? Or yes on one of them? And why..from your point of view.

Thanks, SB

[jamesinca]

5. No on 78, yes on 79

78 is backed by $98,000,000 of pharmaceutical money. 79 is backed by the AARP and 149 other groups that are sympathetic to the poor and elderly.

No on 78, yes on 79.

From what I understand, if they both pass then the one with the most votes is the one that is enacted.

Nix the 6!!!
Nix the 6!!!
Nix the 6!!!

Vote no on the first 6 ballot measures, 73-78.

Vote yes on 79 and 80.

78 will allow the drug companies to set the price for medications where ever they want to, and to sell to the state of California at that price. In an era of budget shortfalls and rising cost of health care this will potentially drive up the cost of health insurance and force those on fixed incomes to spend even more of their income on medications and health care because the state can not keep up. But 78 will be a financial windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

The drug companies argue that people may be denied medications here in California if Sacramento does not agree to their product or if a form is not filled out correctly. That is true, but that has always been true about the system. Non- formulary medications are denied, unless the physician can justify why. I believe (unable to support the statement)that 1/3 of prescription request are currently denied by the state. With further justification by the Physician, these medications may be allowed. As far as the paperwork goes, they will get it filled out and turned in on day one I bet. Here is why, California is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world. It is about half of the U.S. economy, it is roughly the same sized economy as England, Japan and Germany, give or take a few billion dollars. California is 12% of the U.S. population. That paperwork assignment will not be turned over to a 19 y.o. college sophomore who is working on an internship for the summer. It will be turned over to the best people that the industry has. The backers of 78 only have one argument, unchecked capitalism. That is what they want and that is what they are pushing. These are the same people that told Canada to quite selling to Americans or they would not supply them with anymore medications.

79 does what I think Paul Wellstone once said: "We want a global economy that works not just for the large multinational corporations but works for working people, human rights, the environment and farmers. And we will fight for it, we will fight for it, we will fight for it!"

[Sugarbleus]

6. Thank you SO much, Jamesinca!!!

We've been discussing these two over the last couple days. Your explaination makes the issues MUCH clearer.

I'm considering your advice on the SIXs as well..

While hoping the state goes for the right drug/pharma plan for our citizens, I was checking the news and CaliforniaHealthline.org tonight. OMG, the "dual" beneficiaries of Medicare+Medicaid (the POOREST of the poor) are about to get SCREWED ROYALLY. CUTS "clawbacks" etc, up the whazoo!!

My head nearly spun 360 degrees on my neck reading this stuff!! What the hell country do I live in????????!!!!

I'll get busy on the ballot issues. In the meantime I'm getting ALL the medical services I can get before I go back to being "virtually" uninsured again! :wow:

Thanks again Jamesinca

[CountAllVotes]

10. yes you are correct; Unions say YES 79, NO 78

However, I do not trust these bastards. The union says to vote YES on 79 and no on the rest of them.

I say to hell with ALL OF THEM. I'm highly inclined to vote NO on all of these bullshit "propositions".

You gropenator can kiss my ass and shove these faux propositions up yours!

:argh:

:kick:

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I am doing yes on 79 and no on 78

after readyng my voter guide today....

heck 79 is the only one I am voting yes for

[mitchtv]

8. Although I haven't read it , I believe 80 should be

a yes also. It appears to re regulate Power companies.I will study it but my local D club endorses 80.

[jamesinca]

9. The state party is endorsing 79, 80

The rest of the ballot initiatives they ask that you vote no on. I have been phone banking and precinct walking off and on over the last month because of this election. There are a lot of people that will vote against Arnold's initiatives, but we need to get them out to the polls in November. The republicans and Arnold are depending on a low voter turn out to win this, this special election was timed for it. None of the measure are so important that they could not wait till the regular vote in June. But that would have a larger turn out and Arnold would get his head handed to him without a doubt.