lawyersmedicalmalpractice.org   SUBMIT


  close
Short explanation: I researched what every candidate has actually done to know who to vote for because I hate voting blindly. I didn't want to go through the trouble, but I did it anyway and here are my findings. ​ Longer explanation: The ballots only tell you their name and the party they belong to, and that's never enough to know who to vote for. You'd have to do research on each candidate to know what the lesser of two or three evils is. Nobody wants to do that, but I did it anyway so that I know who to vote for and here are my findings on each person and issue. Almost nothing was straight forward, and there is never a perfect choice. But there are "least harmful" choices, and sometimes an "okay" one or two. Print this out or save it on your phone for when you vote, if you want. ​ Governor: Gavin Newsom - He was one of the first to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples as mayor, at a time when it was not well-accepted. That shows an ability to predict the immediate future and some courage. The worst dirt I could find on him is that a woman cheated on her husband with him. That's pretty low on the horror show for politicians nowadays. He is a believer in universal health coverage, like Medicare for everyone. He owned wine shops and numerous other small businesses with about 700 employees. He took the issue of health care very seriously as mayor of San Francisco, where an all-embracing health care system for city residents was put into place, and I would expect him to do so as governor. As mayor he reduced the welfare money handed to single homeless adults and used that to build shelters, services, and housing for the destitute in a "Care Not Cash" approach aiming to fix the problem of homeless spending their welfare money on drugs and give them help instead. He had no great successes, when aiming at the right things, but as governor he would have more power than he did as mayor. He’s willing to take politically unpopular positions if he feels it will result in better policy, that is rare nowadays. His ex-wife is dating Trump's eldest son, while he is publically disliked by Trump. He is for early childhood education, has rich experience of complex urban politics in economic scarcity. He is for the High Speed Rail Project, and against the death penalty. ​ John Cox - A lawyer, founded a law firm. Lowered gasoline tax and is against the High Speed Rail Project, which paint an ugly corporations-pocket picture. Wants to end Sanctuary State policy. He is liked by Trump. Wanted to subdivide legislative districts into smaller districts, probably to manipulate election results. On the other hand, he wanted candidates to declare their top 10 donors. His campaign slogan is "Clean Out The Barn", a "drain the swamp" nod. Wants to reduce taxes for the wealthy and cut budgets for government. Against marihuana use except for medical purposes. Owns 3 houses in the state. Against death penalty. \-------------- Lt. Governor: ​ Ed Hernandez - Pro woman. Latino grandson of immigrants, first in his family to graduate college. Eye doctor. Former president of California Optometric Association. Provided free eye care to low-income children and examined the eyes of thousands of school children in their schools. He also has given free care to at-risk diabetic patients. Former member of the California Senate and State Assembly. Former chair of the Senate Health Committee. Strong relationship with current governor. He is for lowering the cost of higher education, renewable energy, reducing overall healthcare costs, addressing the provider shortage in California, re-investing in our K-12 public schools, community colleges, and public universities, increasing access to affordable, quality healthcare. "Officials should be prepared to be held accountable". He thinks of environmental justice during what he thinks is a critical crossroads for climate legislation which deals with local sources of pollution and contamination. As a state legislator, he has supported measures that advance marriage rights, equal housing rights, and equal pay for equal work that is not determined or impacted by race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. Democrat. ​ Eleni Kounalakis - Pro woman. Daughter of a Greek immigrant, first in her family to graduate college. Masters in Business Administration. Millionaire father donates millions to Democrat Party for years. Foreign policy advisor and fundraiser for the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign, 2015–16 Chair of the California International Trade and Investment Advisory Council. 2014 Obama named her U.S. ambassador to Hungary. She is for higher education affordability, says would fight for universal preschool preparation, supports proposition to invest in rebuilding California’s highways, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure. "It is time to seriously address California’s crumbling infrastructure". Democrat. \-------------- Secretary of State: ​ Alex Padilla - Democrat. Engineer from MIT, where he was a member of the governing board. Former re-elected Secretary of State. Former president of L.A. City Council. Son of immigrants. He serves as chair of the Los Angeles Leadership Council for the American Diabetes Association. He required chain restaurants to post calorie information on menus, which then became national policy. Made the first Smoke-free Housing Law. Wrote also the law to criminalize the transfer and possession of smuggled cell phones into prisons to combat low-level organized crime. Helped negotiate the modernization of L.A. International Airport. He also authored the law that prohibits violent felons from possessing, buying, or transferring body armor such as bulletproof vests. Padilla authored key legislation to facilitate the construction of a new convention center and a carbon-neutral sports stadium in downtown Los Angeles. To address concerns about the misuse of genetic information, Padilla authored the California Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act. To reduce the number of injuries and fatalities on our roads, he authored the law requiring safety and performance standards for "driverless" vehicles. Working with seismologists at CalTech, U.C. Berkeley, and the U.S. Geological Survey, Padilla authored a bill requiring the state to create a statewide Earthquake Early Warning System. ​ Mark Meuser - Republican. Lost 2012 State Senate general election. Thinks money donated to campaigns is political speech. Wants political donations to be secret. Regarding voting fraud, he wants to reduce the one that happens in California, which is a historically blue state. Wants to make it faster to process the application to start a new business. "People do not move to California because they want great welfare benefits, they move because they believe that California will give them a chance to see if they can turn their dreams into a reality. Unfortunately, the California Secretary of State is just the first of many government entities that tries to put undue burden on the dreams of hard working Americans". \-------------- United States Senator: ​ Kevin De Leon - Democrat. Vast majority of the time he does the right thing, although he is definitely a little corrupt. ​ Dianne Feinstein - Democrat. Vast majority of the time she does the right thing. She is against torture. She does not seem corrupt, but is a strong supporter of the government spying on all citizens, NSA, Patriot Act, tried to criminalize the strong encryption of electronic communication between citizens unless the government has access to the data unencrypted. \-------------- Proposition 1 Affordable Housing Bond Act: Yes. ​ The already-increased home owner costs that were needed to keep the government running mean that a lot of people can't afford to stay in their homes anymore. It was the lesser of two evils, like usual. This Proposition 1 builds cheap homes for everyone who was displaced. It's a measure to undo some of the necessary evil that came with an imperfect choice. \-------------- Proposition 2 No Place Like Home Act: No. ​ This seems to try to help the mentally ill with housing costs, but even the Leaders of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) are against it because it will cause more people with mental illness to go homeless because the money will be taken from TREATMENT budget and treatment is more important that physical housing when it comes to mental illness. Wealthy developers will become even more rich, as they have set this act to benefit themselves and the bureaucrats who would be running it, at the expense of the mentally ill who already have federal cutbacks coming their way. It also does nothing to address systemic legal barriers used by neighborhoods to keep the mentally ill out. \-------------- Proposition 3 Bonds for Water: No. ​ Water is a problem, and those projects are important. They will have to be built eventually, but then they will be paid by the private or regional interests that want to benefit from this Proposition by shifting the cost right now to the taxpayer. \-------------- Proposition 4 Bonds for Construction at Hospitals for Children: Yes. ​ It would help over 2 million sick children each year, and previous similar projects have been used to add more beds and purchase new technology. It would be even better to improve the entire healthcare system to reduce waste and lower costs, but that is true for almost every single issue in the country and it does not look like it will happen anytime soon. This is needed now, and if healthcare gets fixed later, hopefully, everything will change anyway including this. \-------------- Proposition 5 Homeowners Tax Base Replacement: No ​ This would protect older adults on fixed income and open up homes for younger families, but the price to pay would be reducing local revenue by $100 million per year at first, growing to $1 billion over time. This would be very bad for the school and local services that everybody needs (including older adults). Loss of local revenue would become worse every year due to the negative feedback loop. Besides, seniors already receive protection from Prop. 13. \-------------- Proposition 6 Eliminate Road Repair and Transportation Funding: No ​ This would lower the fuel tax, which would financially help hardworking families who own cars. It would make RUNNING public transportation cheaper, but it would certainly not lower the public's cost to use public transportation, hardworking families who use it included. It would reduce funding for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs now that 89% of counties have roads in poor or at-risk condition and more than 1600 bridges and overpasses are structurally unsafe. Cracked, potholed roads pose a major safety threat to California drivers, and even one incident will cost car-owners more to fix than any savings they would have had from the fuel tax cut. Reliable transportation infrastructure is critical to get Californians to work, spend money at shops, and move goods and services to the market. 33% of funds will go to building parks to help improve the health of children and adults so that when they get older it doesn't cost us as much to fix all the problems they will have from obesity. Also goes to help train ex-cons and help them get jobs so that they don't resort to crime again, which ends up costing us even more in the long run in police resources, damages, and prison and legal system costs. \-------------- Proposition 7 Daylight Savings Time: Yes ​ Hawaii and Arizona stay on standard time all year. Part-year Daylight Savings Time was started during World War II in order to save energy, in 1949. This Proposition would allow us to vote to change or get rid of Daylight Savings in the future. Changing clocks twice a year increases our use of electricity by 4%, increases the amount of fuel used by cars and costs $434 million. Medical studies show that the risk of heart attacks and strokes increases during the days following a time change, those patients cost us money. Either way this doesn't change daylight savings time, it only allows us to vote to change it in the future if we want. \-------------- Proposition 8 Regulation and Price Control of Kidney Dialysis Clinics: Yes ​ This one was the biggest challenge, it was buried deep in misinformation, ulterior motives, and fear-mongering. This is not the most important issue, or the most talked-about, but it's the best funded campaign. The most money is always spent when rich businesses feel threatened. Dialysis clinics currently earn revenues of $3 billion a year, and they have unsurprisingly spent $111 million campaigning against this proposition. “My guess is that this shows how much money is involved in providing dialysis that the clinics can afford this level of contribution,” -Shaun Bowler, political science professor at UC Riverside. $20 million have been spent by other groups campaigning in favor of this proposition, which tries to limit dialysis companies’ revenue, requiring them to refund patients or insurers any revenue that exceeds 115% of what it costs to provide drugs and medical supplies, maintain facilities, train, and pay staff wages/benefits. ​ At its heart, this is unions and dialysis workers trying to unionize, dialysis companies resisting, and unions doing this to pressure them. It's doing the right thing, for the wrong reason. But the important part is whether the proposition itself is worth passing. In California, 90% of dialysis patients pay with Medicare/Medi-CAL and the complication rate is relatively high, 4400 dialysis patients have died from infections in California during the past five years and the state Department of Public Health documented 1400 deficiencies in dialysis clinics last year alone. There are many false arguments put forth by both sides to confuse the easily-distracted, but here are all the valid ones: ​ For: A less amazing profit margin would make dialysis companies care more about malpractice and the negative repercussions that come with shady management. In other words, not every bad repercussion will be "worth it" to them anymore. Provides incentive for dialysis clinics to run with less waste, which is a problem in the entire health industry and must be addressed ASAP. When insurance companies are charged less for dialysis the overall cost of insurance should decrease, and we can fight insurance companies to lower the price for everyone as a result. ​ Against: Clinics will have lower profits, so they might reduce the quality of patient care instead of reducing waste or negligence. ​ These are companies and their priority is shareholders, not patients. Allowing the healthcare field to become "just one more business" like fast food has caused no end of problems. Emerson Padua, a dialysis technician for 22 years, traveled to Sacramento to lobby state lawmakers in favor of legislation that would have forced providers to increase staffing at their clinics: "Companies like Davita, which runs half of the state’s clinics, provide insufficient protection to patients and workers in their clinics. They move in to profit from the highest population that needs it. Dialysis clinics have stopped providing patients with lidocaine cream as well as the anti-diarrheal and nausea medicine they need during the procedure, asking them to purchase it elsewhere with prescriptions from their doctors." He might be doing this because he really cares about patients, or maybe he's just angry at his employers. Whatever the reason, it's the right thing to do. ​ So this is corporations making the most money possible, at the expense of the patients and workers. The workers want to unionize because of that, and that's the real reason behind this proposition. The companies already offer the lowest patient care quality possible, because of their mindset. Capping the profit they are allowed to make is a good start at fixing the state of healthcare. ​ Dialysis companies paid a Berkeley Research Group to analyze the issue and publish their findings. Big red flag, especially if you know the current deplorable state of conflict-of-interest research. (Charles Ferguson, author of Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America, criticized large academic regulatory consulting firms such as "Berkeley Research Group, the Analysis Group, the Brattle Group, Criterion, Compass Lexecon, and Charles River Associates" for focusing primarily "on helping companies avoid or influence legislation, public debate, regulation, prosecution, class-action lawsuits, antitrust judgments, and taxes.) Their unsurprising findings were that Proposition 8 would cause about 83% of clinics to lose money below operating costs. That seems unlikely in a $3 billion a year blooming business where new clinics are being built as of this writing. The industry is trying to scare voters by saying they’ll have to close clinics if this passes, the reality is there’s going to be no shortage of patients and the demand will be so high that they won’t leave. ​ SEIU-UHW union spokesman Sean Wherley said the ballot initiative campaign isn’t a bargaining chip, but an effort to improve care sparked by dialysis workers who came to the union with complaints about the state of the clinics where they worked. “Most people aren’t familiar with dialysis, how poor the quality of care is and how much of a cash cow these patients are to providers,” Wherley said. That part is true, but the claim that the union cares about the public's health is laughable. This is clearly them doing the right thing for the wrong reason. But it's still the right thing. ​ Healthcare in this country is a business that is completely out of control, rather than a service. Change must come, and it can only come in the form of regulations or a complete overhaul. Either way, this is as good a place to start as any. \-------------- Proposition 10 Rent Hike Control on Residential Property: Yes The high cost of rent hurts seniors, families and anyone with a low or fixed income. This proposition will protect them because it allows local communities to decide the rent increase guidelines. Opponents say 3 things: 1) "Rent control reduces the amount of rental property available because landlords will stop renting and does not encourage more building". What are landlords going to do with their property other than rent it out? Sell it for someone else to rent it out. This is obviously a lie meant to make people afraid of having fewer places to live. 2) "It doesn't promote the building of new residential structures to rent." This is saying that landlords who use the money to make more and more places to rent out will have less money. This is saying that landlords making less money means landlords will make less money. Yes, in order to protect the consumer. 3) "This proposition allows the creation of new local bureaucracies with power to regulate rents on all types of residential property." Yes, things that need running need people to run them. People are bad at running things. So do we want no regulations in anything and therefore no bureaucracies at the expense of zero protection to the consumer? No, because everyone is a consumer of many things and corporations have proved that they cannot be trusted with the well-being of their consumers. We have to choose who's in charge: bad corporations or bad bureaucracies. Bad bureaucracies are a lesser evil, and one that is both a less powerful foe and easier to defeat than bad corporations. \-------------- Proposition 11 Private-Sector Ambulance Employees Are on Call During Work Breaks: No. ​ Those workers are people, human beings. Work breaks are something "we the people" fought for against greedy employers and won. We have days off too, which we had to fight for as well. Being "on break" does not mean "as long as there is no work to be done", it means a law-given "humane break from work". Is it more profitable to work employees to the bone without breaks or days off? Yes, of course. But it's against the law except in pockets where it's still somehow allowed, such as private-sector ambulance employees. This would change that. \-------------- Proposition 12 New Standards for Confinement of Certain Farm Animals; Bans Sale of Certain Non-Complying Products: Yes. ​ In 2008 California voters approved the ban of egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs, and calves raised for veal in a manner that did not allow them to “turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their wings or limbs.” The law took effect in 2015, but like usual, the stupidly-vague language allowed shrewd loop-hole finders to circumvent it. This proposition wants to fix that. By 2020, comply with specific standard measurements by square feet, the way it was meant to be since 2008 or not be allowed to be sold in California regardless of where it comes from and designates the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health jointly responsible for the measure's implementation. ​ Like getting rid of child labor, this means increased costs for the producers, obviously. Likewise, this also most likely means the producers will increase prices and the consumer will pay more for the improved product. Likewise, this also means means people running the thing in order to enforce it and using public funds to pay them to do the job, obviously. Volunteers would have gladly done it for free, but that's not how they wrote it. Either way, animals being housed inhumanely in small cages for their entire lives was abolished in 2008 and this makes sure that it's actually done. Like with most laws, better than nothing. This also reduces the risk of people being sickened by food poisoning and factory farm pollution by preventing overcrowding of animals in small spaces. ​ The animal slaves we use for food, can we be less monstrous toward them? Yes, that means higher costs, just like getting rid of slavery did. Maximum cruelty toward people and animals coupled with complete disregard for the environment is the only combination that allows maximum profits. Outside of that, everything is a compromise between greed, ethics, and morality. \-------------- Non-partisan yes/no votes: They all check out to be relatively honest and benign, I'd recommend YES to all except Haller, Miller, and McKinster. \-------------- Superintendent: Tony Thurmond \-------------- Water District: Mick Gallagher \-------------- This was exhausting and time-consuming. I hope you spread it so people know what they're actually voting for without all the tricks, lies, and deceit.