Newspapers Publish Recommendations on Ballot Initiatives, Including Health-Related Measures
The San Francisco Chronicle published its recommendations on how state residents should vote on initiatives on the Nov. 2 ballot, including five health-related measures. In addition, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and San Mateo County Times published some recommendations for health-related propositions on Tuesday's statewide ballot. Summaries appear below.
Proposition 61 is a $750 million measure that would pay for construction, expansion and equipment for children's hospitals. Including interest, the program would cost about $1.5 billion over 30 years (California Healthline, 10/29).
The Chronicle recommends voting "yes" (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/31).
Proposition 63 would increase by 1% the state personal income tax on individuals whose annual incomes exceed $1 million to finance an expansion of mental health services. The measure would raise an estimated $700 million annually to care for people with severe mental illnesses (California Healthline, 10/29).
The Chronicle recommends voting "yes" (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/31).
The Press-Enterprise recommends voting "no" (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 10/28).
Proposition 67 would add a 3% surcharge to residential telephone bills to fund hospital emergency services and training. The initiative would generate an estimated $550 million annually to fund emergency department services (California Healthline, 10/29).
The Chronicle recommends voting "no" (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/31).
The Press-Enterprise recommends voting "no" (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 10/28).
Proposition 71 would raise an average of $295 million annually for a decade to promote stem cell research through the issue of state bonds. The measure would provide funds for a new stem cell research center at a University of California campus, as well as grants and loans for laboratory projects at other colleges. State analysts say the measure would cost a total of $6 billion, including interest (California Healthline, 10/29).
The Chronicle recommends voting "yes" (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/31).
Proposition 72 allows state residents to vote "yes" to uphold or "no" to repeal SB 2, a state law scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2006, that will require some employers to provide health insurance to workers or pay into a state fund to provide such coverage (California Healthline, 10/29).
The Chronicle recommends voting "no" (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/31).
The Times recommends voting "no" (San Mateo County Times, 10/29).
Additional information on propositions 61, 63, 67, 71 and 72 is available online.