![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomA somewhat detailed list of my anticipated positions on the ballot measures and candidates.
This is likely to be of direct interest mostly to those that also reside in California. I am actively soliciting commentary on any of these items--most especially those for which I have not yet posted my intended decision, or for which that decision is marked as "tentative"--and in particular on California Measures 60 and 62 (primaries).
As comments come in, I may edit (mostly append to) the existing entry, if my positions change.
There is a good chance that I will be voting absentee this year, so if you got sumpin' to say, say it soon. :)
I can't find candidate statements for the US Rep or the California Assembly/Senate candidates. Anyone?
Update:
I'm going to leave out candidates for which I have either little information or no particular preference.
Constitutional amendments are marked by a C.
Some personal biases:
Framing question: does anyone have any idea what happens if two apparently contradictory amendments both pass? (Consider Measure 60 and Measure 62, for instance.)
Update: according to the voter's pamphlet p. 17, the answer is "only the provisions of the measure with the higher number of 'yes' votes...take effect". How...unexpectedly rational.
Another framing question: in several cases the "con" position seems to be taken solely by Gary Wesley, an attorney from Mountain View. Anyone know this guy or have any further information about him that doesn't come out in his arguments?
Legislative Constitutional Amendments
Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statutes
62: Elections. Primaries. (C)
Don't know. See the comments on 60, above.
Update: probably No, based on comments from Richard and my response.
63: Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding.
Yes (tentative). Well, this passes the "it's not a constitutional amendment" and the "it provides funding for what it wants to do" and the "this seems like a reasonably worthwhile thing to do" tests. But I feel conflicted about the source of the funds. Saying "stick it to the rich!" is very appealing considering how much the rich/poor gap has been increasing--and even in California, those making > $1e6 are "rich" by my definition. But, you know, if inflation keeps inflating, eventually I'll be making that much money even if my buying power doesn't increase. (Historical income tables from the US Census data: note that it took about 45 years for median income to go up by a factor of 10--a little less than that for mean income.) It would make more sense for the money to come from increasing the tax rate for the top tax bracket, which (I assume) gets adjusted for inflation.
Finally, I tire of this notion that whatever we want to do, we should always get someone else to pay for it: the rich, the poor, our children.
64: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws.
No. If the point were really to stop frivolous lawsuits--which I think is a good idea--then I don't see that it helps to make it harder to file lawsuits. I also suspect that the organizations who are against this measure are the ones that I'm more likely to agree with.
65: Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates (C)
No (tentative). Many of the same objections that apply to 1A, above.
66: Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment.
Yes. As I see it, the purpose to "three strikes" laws is to get dangerous offenders off the street, where "dangerous" is defined (as I see it) as meaning "those that have a history of doing serious damage". The problem with the current system is that the "second strike" or "third strike" felonies need not involve damage to anyone. (I have my own concerns and questions about the utility and morals of putting people in jail, but that's a separate discussion.)
67: Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. (C)
No (tentative). Why the heck is this money coming from phone service, of all things? Furthermore, the argument seems to be "we're not getting paid for all the emergency care that we're giving out". Well, that's a shame. But, well, I hadn't heard that physicians and hospitals were exactly running short on money, especially as the provision of health care has become an increasingly profit-driven business. I'm also somewhat concerned that there's a hidden revenue generator in here that's going to blow up in someone's face (note that there are no caps on the surcharge for cell phones or small businesses). How does this $540M a year compare to the total yearly profits of these individuals and organizations?
68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. (C)
70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. (C)
No. I'm handling these together, as my objections apply to both and they're fundamentally about the same thing: squeezing more money out of Native American tribes.
Look, guys, first of all, we just made new agreements with these folks. Turning around and creating new legislation that invalidates those agreements is Not Cool.
Secondly, and more fundamentally: in theory, these are sovereign nations. Sovereign nations that have, historically, been jerked around by the federal and state governments for the last few hundred years. To the extent that these nations use state resources, I believe that it is reasonable for the state to make agreements with these nations that get compensation for these resources. But these measures seem little short of armed robbery. I'm almost tempted to hope that they pass and that one of the reservations says, basically, "Go to hell" in response to these demands.
69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding.
No. It might have got my vote except that, starting in 2009, you don't even have to be convicted of a felony in order to get registered, or even charged of one...just arrested. Nor am I convinced by the arguments that current analysis methods include "no genetic trait information"; as analysis gets cheaper and more convenient, it will. I don't trust this information to not be misused. Not yet, anyway...and certainly not in the current political climate.
71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. (C)
Yes (tentative). I don't like the constitutional amendment aspect, but I do think that this is basic research that needs to be done. I am also glad to see that the amount of money involved is an upper bound, i.e., we're not saying that we're going to borrow $350M/year, but no more than $350M.
72: Health Care Coverage Requirements.
Yes. While I'm one-a-them radicals what would prefer a single-payer health-care system, this seems like a reasonable step. I'm also annoyed by the scare tactics being used by those that oppose it, which seem hauntingly familiar.
Also, if I hear one more time that the government is incapable of providing quality health care, or any more jokes about "the bedside manner of the DMV", I'm going to be strongly tempted to punch the person saying it in the gut, and then introduce him to my father (who was a physician in the US Army for 20 years before retiring, and then went to work for a public state university's hospital--sounds like government to me, huh?). Or maybe the other way around. Point being, folks, that's the system I grew up in, and in my experience, it works fine.
Related posts:
Auros' analysis (more detailed than mine in some respects, esp. on 1A and 65)
Paisleychick's opinions (no analysis, but some useful/fun links)
This is likely to be of direct interest mostly to those that also reside in California. I am actively soliciting commentary on any of these items--most especially those for which I have not yet posted my intended decision, or for which that decision is marked as "tentative"--and in particular on California Measures 60 and 62 (primaries).
As comments come in, I may edit (mostly append to) the existing entry, if my positions change.
There is a good chance that I will be voting absentee this year, so if you got sumpin' to say, say it soon. :)
I can't find candidate statements for the US Rep or the California Assembly/Senate candidates. Anyone?
Update:
I'm going to leave out candidates for which I have either little information or no particular preference.
- US President/Vice President: John Kerry/John Edwards.
I doubt that this will surprise anyone. I'm willing to say more about my reasons if anyone cares, but I'd prefer to focus on the less obvious decisions. - US Senator: Barbara Boxer (D)
Bill Jones (R) authored the flawed "Three Strikes" law we're now hopefully fixing (see below). The American Independent candidate is a kook. The Libertarian candidate wants to ban public schools, and I'm not as convinced as he is of the essential beneficence of the free market; otherwise, I kind of like his approach. The Peace and Freedom candidate is nice, but fuzzy. (No Green candidate this round, oddly enough.) Barbara Boxer at least seems to generally be heading in the right direction. - US Representative, 48th District: unknown; probably John Graham
Update: still no statements from these candidates except the Libertarian (see below for similar). - California Assembly, 70th District: Carl Mariz
Update: Now that I've looked at http://smartvoter.org/svhome/2004/11/02/ca/state/race/caasm70/questions.html, it's pretty straightforward: Mariz is realistic, has a position I like on health care, and isn't running on sound bites; he actually seems to have thought about the issues and about what a voter would want to know about his positions on them. - California Senate, 35th District: unknown
Update: the only candidate that seems to have submitted a statement is a frankly rather scary Libertarian. (Yeah, why don't you tell me about the solutions that the private sector afforded to those without health insurance before the gov'mit got involved.) *sigh* - City of Irvine Mayor: Beth Krom
- City of Irvine Council (<= 3 candidates): Sukhee Kang, Larry Agran, Debbie Coven
There's been an incredible firestorm of advertising going on recently over these four elections. The gist seems to be that the four Republican candidates for these (nominally nonpartisan) offices are accusing the current (Democratic) mayor--who's running for City Council--of some kid of malfeasance in regards to a contract the city awarded. The Democratic candidates are making similar counterattacks, and bringing up incidents from a few years ago when one of the Republican candidates made false accusations and statements.
At this point, I can't tell the truth of the matter without doing some investigation of my own, which I probably am not going to do. So my decision is based on the differences in the things that these candidates want to do (Republicans: be nice to businesses, Democrats: be more accountable to residents) as well as the things that they have done or opposed in the past (the Republicans specifically mentioned opposing the light rail project that would have made it a lot easier to get from the University to the airport, and which the Democrats supported).
Constitutional amendments are marked by a C.
Some personal biases:
- I tend to oppose constitutional amendments on principle. I believe that the purpose of a constitution is to outline fundamental principles on which to base the formation of laws, and to provide a context for the interpretation of those laws. I find that many ballot measures--at least in Oregon and California--are proposed as constitutional amendments for no better reason than to either (a) make them more difficult to get rid of or (b) give them a status that they don't deserve. My friend Alex's politics pages give some excellent examples of ridiculous amendments.
- California's debts are really, really bad right now (the band-aids applied recently merely postponed the problem rather than addressing it). So there are some otherwise really good ideas here that I'm feeling more hesitant about supporting than I would have, say, six years ago.
- I tend to oppose laws that say "we are going to collect money from this specific source and use it for this specific purpose" where the source and purpose have no apparent connection. It removes what is often a necessary flexibility, and often seems to have no other purpose than to increase the number of likely supporters of the law.
Framing question: does anyone have any idea what happens if two apparently contradictory amendments both pass? (Consider Measure 60 and Measure 62, for instance.)
Update: according to the voter's pamphlet p. 17, the answer is "only the provisions of the measure with the higher number of 'yes' votes...take effect". How...unexpectedly rational.
Another framing question: in several cases the "con" position seems to be taken solely by Gary Wesley, an attorney from Mountain View. Anyone know this guy or have any further information about him that doesn't come out in his arguments?
Legislative Constitutional Amendments
- 1A: Protection of Local Government Revenues. (C)
No (tentative). I find this measure confusing, complicated, possibly overly restrictive, almost certainly problematic in that it seems that poorer areas might get screwed, and I don't see a compelling argument for it. - 59: Public Records, Open Meetings. (C)
Yes. It's a constitutional amendment, but the principle is important enough that I'm willing to overlook that. The only significant con-argument is by someone who felt it doesn't go far enough. If true, we can supplement this with further legislation later. - 60: Election Rights of Political Parties (C)
Don't know. I want to make sure that third-party candidates and independents have a real chance to be heard and elected, and I am concerned that the primary elections don't get enough attention for that to happen. On the other hand, I think that the arguments in favor are bullshit...and the arguments against only say that it doesn't go far enough. Finally, of course, it's a constitutional amendment.
Update: probably Yes, based on comments from Richard and my response. This doesn't actually really change anything in current law, but puts the "each party in primary must be allowed representation in general election" clause into the constitution. I don't really think this belongs in the constitution, so if I vote 'yes' it will be as a strategic decision whose purpose is to try to make sure that 62 doesn't take effect even if it passes. - 60A: Surplus Property. (C)
Yes. It's a C, which hurts a bit, but we need to pay down those bonds ASAP. (Although I note that the amount of money involved is not likely to help much, we'll take what we can get.) Again, the only con-argument is that it doesn't mandate the sale of surplus property, which strikes me as extreme.
Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statutes
- 61: Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act.
No (tentative). It's hard to argue against something like "our kids should have better health care", especially for one who (a) is about to become a father and (b) is the son of a pediatrician. But I want answers to three questions.- First, why is this being financed by a bond rather than reallocating existing funds, or raising taxes? (One of those has to happen eventually anyway, in order for the debt to be repaid.)
- Second, why is none of this money going to actual care costs? It all seems to go to infrastructure.
- Third, where are the arguments for what can be done with this money that can't be done otherwise? All the quoted statistics describe how well things are going in children's health care.
- First, why is this being financed by a bond rather than reallocating existing funds, or raising taxes? (One of those has to happen eventually anyway, in order for the debt to be repaid.)
Don't know. See the comments on 60, above.
Update: probably No, based on comments from Richard and my response.
Yes (tentative). Well, this passes the "it's not a constitutional amendment" and the "it provides funding for what it wants to do" and the "this seems like a reasonably worthwhile thing to do" tests. But I feel conflicted about the source of the funds. Saying "stick it to the rich!" is very appealing considering how much the rich/poor gap has been increasing--and even in California, those making > $1e6 are "rich" by my definition. But, you know, if inflation keeps inflating, eventually I'll be making that much money even if my buying power doesn't increase. (Historical income tables from the US Census data: note that it took about 45 years for median income to go up by a factor of 10--a little less than that for mean income.) It would make more sense for the money to come from increasing the tax rate for the top tax bracket, which (I assume) gets adjusted for inflation.
Finally, I tire of this notion that whatever we want to do, we should always get someone else to pay for it: the rich, the poor, our children.
No. If the point were really to stop frivolous lawsuits--which I think is a good idea--then I don't see that it helps to make it harder to file lawsuits. I also suspect that the organizations who are against this measure are the ones that I'm more likely to agree with.
No (tentative). Many of the same objections that apply to 1A, above.
Yes. As I see it, the purpose to "three strikes" laws is to get dangerous offenders off the street, where "dangerous" is defined (as I see it) as meaning "those that have a history of doing serious damage". The problem with the current system is that the "second strike" or "third strike" felonies need not involve damage to anyone. (I have my own concerns and questions about the utility and morals of putting people in jail, but that's a separate discussion.)
No (tentative). Why the heck is this money coming from phone service, of all things? Furthermore, the argument seems to be "we're not getting paid for all the emergency care that we're giving out". Well, that's a shame. But, well, I hadn't heard that physicians and hospitals were exactly running short on money, especially as the provision of health care has become an increasingly profit-driven business. I'm also somewhat concerned that there's a hidden revenue generator in here that's going to blow up in someone's face (note that there are no caps on the surcharge for cell phones or small businesses). How does this $540M a year compare to the total yearly profits of these individuals and organizations?
No. I'm handling these together, as my objections apply to both and they're fundamentally about the same thing: squeezing more money out of Native American tribes.
Look, guys, first of all, we just made new agreements with these folks. Turning around and creating new legislation that invalidates those agreements is Not Cool.
Secondly, and more fundamentally: in theory, these are sovereign nations. Sovereign nations that have, historically, been jerked around by the federal and state governments for the last few hundred years. To the extent that these nations use state resources, I believe that it is reasonable for the state to make agreements with these nations that get compensation for these resources. But these measures seem little short of armed robbery. I'm almost tempted to hope that they pass and that one of the reservations says, basically, "Go to hell" in response to these demands.
No. It might have got my vote except that, starting in 2009, you don't even have to be convicted of a felony in order to get registered, or even charged of one...just arrested. Nor am I convinced by the arguments that current analysis methods include "no genetic trait information"; as analysis gets cheaper and more convenient, it will. I don't trust this information to not be misused. Not yet, anyway...and certainly not in the current political climate.
Yes (tentative). I don't like the constitutional amendment aspect, but I do think that this is basic research that needs to be done. I am also glad to see that the amount of money involved is an upper bound, i.e., we're not saying that we're going to borrow $350M/year, but no more than $350M.
Yes. While I'm one-a-them radicals what would prefer a single-payer health-care system, this seems like a reasonable step. I'm also annoyed by the scare tactics being used by those that oppose it, which seem hauntingly familiar.
Also, if I hear one more time that the government is incapable of providing quality health care, or any more jokes about "the bedside manner of the DMV", I'm going to be strongly tempted to punch the person saying it in the gut, and then introduce him to my father (who was a physician in the US Army for 20 years before retiring, and then went to work for a public state university's hospital--sounds like government to me, huh?). Or maybe the other way around. Point being, folks, that's the system I grew up in, and in my experience, it works fine.
Related posts:
Auros' analysis (more detailed than mine in some respects, esp. on 1A and 65)
Paisleychick's opinions (no analysis, but some useful/fun links)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 22 October 2004 19:02 (UTC)Trust me: I am your sister and I would not lead you astray. :)
(Well, much.)
Er, oops.
Date: 22 October 2004 19:02 (UTC)Apparently I would lead you mildly astray.
Life, why do you mock me?
Re: Er, oops.
Date: 22 October 2004 19:11 (UTC)Somehow, Weebl and Bob have never done a whole lot for me. The music helped with this one somewhat, though.
okay, WTF was that?!
Date: 23 October 2004 00:37 (UTC)going nuts
Date: 23 October 2004 01:05 (UTC)No arguments on President and U.S. Senator, naturally.
Open primaries: My current inclination is "no" from a fundamental standpoint. Political parties are (supposed to be, I think) groups of like-minded individuals, or at least uneasily allied individuals, who band together to increase their political clout. I see no good reason why members of one party should be allowed to influence which candidate another party puts forth in the general election, and I worry in particular about "spoiler" situations where members of one party go help choose a weak candidate for the other party so they'll lose. Moreover, if only the two top vote-getters from a particular primary advance to the next round, chances are these will be from the two major parties -- or even two candidates from the same main party. I would find it vastly preferable to have minor-party candidates selected by their party within a closed primary, and then assured a spot on the general election ballot.
I see the problem minority political parties face in this country as the flip side of the problem faced by the major parties: lack of unity and vision, lack of a clear mandate. At the present time the major parties seem like rather loose coalitions of a bunch of voters who often have little in common but who have agreed to ally with each other for the moment. The minor parties are those who have broken away in order to pursue a particular agenda, and as a result of having a more specific focus they don't get enough votes. If a minor party is going to break away and make stuff happen, they'll have to either (1) organize very tightly at the grass roots and pull enough votes away from the major parties to make a difference, or (2) find some eccentric billionaire donors who want to throw their influence around and shake things up a bit. (George Soros comes to mind.)
The fragmentation and lack of purpose really seems to be getting worse. Didn't we have no fewer than nine -- maybe even ten? -- candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination at one point? And no fewer than 135 candidates for California governor in the Gray Davis recall elections, many of whom had to collect as few as 65 signatures to get on the ballot? The threshold doesn't seem that high to me somehow; the problem is nobody can get their act together, and the big parties seem to be getting by solely on name recognition and pre-existing political machinery.
Anyway, enough of that for now. The proposal is 20 pages long and I'm going to have to read through all of it if I want to think about voting yes on this issue, since I find the "for" and "against" arguments more or less uninformative.
a few other issues
Date: 23 October 2004 01:36 (UTC)Prop. 63: I agree that mental health services probably need a serious overhaul (just read some of
Props. 68 & 70: You've summarized my positions exactly. I read the arguments for and I read the arguments against, and then I thought of how the Indians might see it: It's poetic justice, after those hundreds of years of oppression, that they should be running casinos and letting the white man's vices ruin him.
Prop. 71: I also agree that stem cell research should go forward, but see above re: accountability. Ultimately it's using public funds to finance research done, probably in large part, by private companies, and there is specific mention that the state will get a percentage of profits from "patents, royalties, and licenses resulting from the research activities funded under the measure." It's good in that it funds itself, but it's bad to the extent that profit and not scientific interest becomes the driving motive for the research. There is no mention in the quick summary of medical ethics; in the text it appears that there will be an ethics "working group" which can make recommendations but which will ultimately have no decision-making authority. That's gonna bother a lot of moderate-conservative voters who may not be comfortable with stem-cell research. There are provisions for having all announcements of grants, etc. decided in "open meetings" (remember that other measure?) but it still isn't clear (from the cursory examination I've given it) how that increases the accountability of the institute to the public.
While I see a lot of potential for great stuff coming out of stem-cell research, I worry that our society may not be ready for it yet. Of course, it may be that we can't really do much better and that we're on our way towards it whether we like it or not -- in which case it may be best that it be done in an atmosphere which has some measure of transparency, if not actual accountability, instead of by totally private entities.
Re: okay, WTF was that?!
Date: 23 October 2004 09:10 (UTC)Re: going nuts
Date: 23 October 2004 23:34 (UTC)Which of course suggests that perhaps the Right Answer is to let anyone be in the general election that gained at least 5% of the vote, or something like that...but that's not what we're being asked to vote on. :) So I think I'll probably be voting 'no' on this.
So do you have any idea where to find candidate statements for the US Rep and California house/senate candidates?
Measure 59
Date: 23 October 2004 23:53 (UTC)Measure 63
Date: 24 October 2004 00:03 (UTC)What do you know about how mental patients are treated? What aspects of this would you expect to be addressable through legislation or constitutional amendment?
(A thorny issue that would have to be addressed first: how are we defining "mental patient" this week?)
Measure 71
Date: 24 October 2004 00:18 (UTC)As for the relative toothlessness of the ethics working group: how do you think that it will improve things for stem cell research to go on without such a working group?
In the absence of legislation preventing it, and as long as there are suggestions that it is a lucrative and productive research direction, stem cell research is going to go forward. (Stopping stem cell research is not a choice that we're given here.) The choice that we are being given here is to either (a) promote this line of research, and give the California state government some influence over its direction and what is done with it by its ability to allocate money, or (b) let existing research efforts--presumably mostly funded by Big Pharma--continue on as they have been.
Measures 68 & 70
Date: 24 October 2004 00:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 October 2004 00:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26 October 2004 15:28 (UTC)I think that "art" is funnier if you have a thing for art films. I do. :) (And yes, that is The Seventh Seal. I thought that you were around for one of those viewings.
(no subject)
Date: 26 October 2004 19:31 (UTC)I have an inconsistent thing for art films; some of them I like a lot, some of them just leave me cold.
Seventh Seal: no, 'fraid not. Been curious about it for a while, but it's never made it to the top of my queue.
If'n you're interested...
Date: 29 October 2004 15:21 (UTC)Re: If'n you're interested...
Date: 29 October 2004 15:44 (UTC)...I still have reservations about 1A. (Thanks to your analysis and discussion, however, they're now much more informed reservations. :) )
...67 (phone tax->emergency rooms) still hurts. Part of the problem here is that our government can't decide whether health care is properly part of its responsibility or not. If government controlled health care directly, then it could just say "don't close the emergency rooms". If government had no influence over health care, then it couldn't require hospitals to accept patients to emergency care regardless of ability to pay.
As it is, basically this is a bribe to hospitals in the *hopes* that it will keep hospitals from closing emergency rooms. (Anyone know how the funding model of a hospital works? I should call my dad about this...) And my gut feeling is still that hospitals are sufficiently profit-generating machines now that giving them tax money is just silly.
Sorry I missed out on the discussion last night. Might have been more of a technical headache than it was worth to try to set up the videochat thing, though.
Anyway, thanks again.
hospitals and profits
Date: 29 October 2004 16:38 (UTC)In the discussion last night, I did bring up the idea of allowing things to get worse -- "heightening the contradictions", as political operatives say -- so as to shock people into finally accepting something more like the Canadian system. The two problems are that a) there's a large constituency that is impervious even to evidence in front of their own eyes, and b) I don't like the idea of literally sacrificing people's lives for that kind of cause. :-/
(no subject)
Date: 29 October 2004 16:39 (UTC)I'm a little confused by your answer to 63 being a "yes" given that your argument was "well, funding mental health is good" but then you gave a whole lot of arguments against it. After reading your arguments against I feel like "well, you convinced me!" but you seem not to be convinced. I definitely agree with the "specific source" argument - funding mental health good, funding it by a tax on the rich bad. Especially since the MORE funding is needed the LESS will be available (i.e. during recessions when more people are jobless suicide and depression tends to go UP). I mean, clearly during a recession EVERYTHING gets cut, but it seems like this would take a disproportionately large hit of the rich people tax is the only source of funding. It seems to me like the thinking on this one was "well, there are only 26,000 people who will be affected by it so only 26,000 people will vote against it" which I don't think gives a lot of credit to the rest of us for actually thinking about the ramifications.
Ok, that was less coherent than it might have been. I'm sleep depped. Not trying to convince you so much as understand your reasoning better.
(no subject)
Date: 29 October 2004 16:59 (UTC)What you're seeing in 63 is how conflicted I am about it. I may yet vote "no" on this one. The reasons for voting "yes" are pretty much summed up in the first sentence; the "no" arguments go on for a while, which is part of why it sounds like I'm arguing "no" more. If I were filling out my ballot right now, I'd probably vote "no"...but I want to think about it some more. Your points are well made.
Re: hospitals and profits
Date: 29 October 2004 17:02 (UTC)It's just not obvious to me that this is actually going to help. I should probably read the legislation more closely, though.
Re: hospitals and profits
Date: 29 October 2004 17:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29 October 2004 17:17 (UTC)Re: hospitals and profits
Date: 29 October 2004 17:22 (UTC)As for the mental-health thing...gah. As