Posted on 10/13/2005 8:28:44 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The mechanisms to get the price breaks are roughly the same -- the state Department of Health Services would negotiate drug discounts from the industry and pharmacies on behalf of uninsured Californians. Each proposition is expected to cost the state roughly equivalent amounts of money to administer.
But there the similarities stop. For one, Prop. 79 is backed by labor and consumer groups, while the pharmaceutical industry sponsored Prop. 78. Prop. 78 relies on the voluntary cooperation of drugmakers to negotiate discounts. In contrast, Prop. 79 threatens to ban manufacturers from selling drugs to the state's $4 billion Medi-Cal program if sufficient rebates are not met.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has endorsed Prop. 78, the industry's measure, which is not surprising because it is virtually identical to legislation he supported last year that died in committee hearing. The pharmaceutical industry gathered enough signatures to put Prop. 78 on the ballot as a challenge to Prop. 79.
Voters can vote yes or no on either initiative, or both. If both measures pass, the one with the most votes will become law.
If one thing is clear, it's that voters are confused. In an early September Field Poll, the drugmakers' proposition was favored by a likely 49 percent, compared with 42 percent of voters who said they would vote for Prop. 79. But when voters were told the pharmaceutical industry was behind Prop. 78, also known as "Cal Rx," 44 percent said that knowledge would probably sway them to vote "no" on the manufacturers' proposal.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Medi-Cal. don't they mean the free healthcare and childbirth program for illegal immigrants.
Why, exactly? Prop 79 polls indicate it won't pass. The only way Prop 78 will pass is if enough Republican suckers follow the party line without realizing what they are voting for -- socialized medicine light. The only thing that you are doing by promoting this, is pushing us further into socialism.
I don't understand why any Republican would vote for this. Certainly a conservative wouldn't. Socialists, of course, will be all for both measures.
I plan to vote NO on both. But I'm all ears to hear any true compelling party argument you'd like to offer.
I get the sense that 78 actually has a chance to help people whereas 79 if passed will just get stuck in the courts, bringing lawyers into it. Bringing lawyers who profit from keeping this in the courts won't help anyone. 78 actually could help people b/c it could be implemented right away.
I did as well.
Why no to both? Won't they lower the costs of drugs? I understand 79 may never help b/c of the lawyers and the courts, but 78 could actually help, couldn't it.
Because, according to what I have read, both will cost the tax payers millions.
ditto
Both have a significant impact on taxpayers. That said enough for me.
I haven't seen the tax implications. Do you have a link to some info? I just think 78 has a chance to help decrease the cost of Rx drugs, which apparently are doubling at the rate of inflation.
No, only the voters guide which is sent to all of us.
Doesn't voting no on both keep from helping anyone? People need help paying for these Rx drugs right now. Voting no on both offers no relief. 78 has a chance to help, 79 does not, nor does a no on both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.