Prop 46 tries to do too many things.
When an initiative does that because long discussions led to a compromise, it can be the result of democracy done well. But in this case, it appears that initiative backers want one result (higher medical malpractice limits) and are trying to use other arguments (drug-testing of doctors, requiring the checking of a prescription database) to attract voters. That's a cynical ploy. And worse, it looks like at least some of the provisions are bad policy. Vote No -- tell the backers to try again at the legislature or bring individual issues to the voters.
For more info, see Ballotpedia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
"...it appears that initiative backers want one result (higher medical malpractice limits) and are trying to use other arguments (drug-testing of doctors, requiring the checking of a prescription database) to attract voters. That's a cynical ploy."
It might "appear" so (weak language for political analysis) but this is wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but I know Harvey Rosenfield, who is not a man to engage in cynical ploys. If your child is injured by a medical mistake, the current limit holds you to $250,000 for a lifetime of pain and suffering. That means that is the maximum that plaintiffs can recover in California for--in some cases--caring for their injured child for the rest of his or her lifetime. It is terrible that Jerry Brown signed that limit into law in the 70s. This is our chance to restore justice for victims of medical malpractice whose case has been proven in a court of law. Since a small percentage of physicians are responsible for the majority of malpractice payments (See http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7497#15) The drug testing clearly applies here--and is not some "ploy."
Post a Comment