California voters defeat initiative to control dialysis profits

Healio.com ^ | 11/10/2018 | Healio.com

[aimhigh]

Voters in California turned down a union-backed ballot initiative by a majority on Nov. 6 that would have restricted profits of dialysis providers operating in the state.

With all precincts reporting, 4,278,882 voters, or 61.6%, had voted against Proposition 8, and 2,671,513 voters, or 38.4%, had approved the measure, according to results released from the California Secretary of State.

[aimhigh]

The 100,000-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU)-United Healthcare Workers West labor union, which spent $20.3 million to get the measure on the ballot, said in a statement that it would reorganize and try to get the ballot initiative reintroduced, as well as get it on the ballot in other states.

[TaxPayer2000]

Perhaps we need a measure on the ballot to limit Union profits...

[PAR35]

Now, who could spot any possible consequences of that?

[wild74]

That was what I was thinking

[Fhios]

It probably failed because it had connections to the SEIU. Big time unions pushing political agendas aren’t popular. I say we have Students with unpaid student loans ... make a good Job for people not paying their student loans off. Or perhaps rotating the unemployed. lotta room to work with there

[Brilliant]

They are trying to kill off the sick people so that their insurance doesn’t need to cover it.

[exDemMom]

This makes no sense.

Limiting the profits of a health clinic leads to limiting the wages of healthcare workers. Healthcare workers whose wages are limited are less able to afford union “representation.” Some of them could even decide they do not want the union.

How does this benefit the union? Or was the purpose of this simply to harm a business, a goal which unions seem to care about above all else?

Anyway, I voted against this. There is no way the state should dictate how much profit a particular business can earn.

[Freee-dame]

A law was passed in the early 70’s requiring dialysis to be fully paid by medicare. Perhaps this has led to some negligence in the quality of care given. There are so many people needing this life-saving treatment that, in some places, it is difficult even to find an opening. When you die, your place is immediately taken by the next person waiting.

[GeofferyAT]

I visit this site daily, never post just read. The articles and responses are great. However, as a dialysis patient this article hits home. Yes for those who qualify medicare covers cost of dialysis. Quality of care in most places has not gone down, if anything in the last 10 years it has got a lot better. The dialysis machines and filters have improved greatly. California did right (which is a big surprise) in rejecting that ballot initiative. One thing of note, ever since Obama-care was passed the reimbursement rates for the treatment have gone down for medicare patients,that has hurt dialysis clinics who have a majority of patients covered by it. The union thugs need to drop this and try not to bring it to other states it will just hurt the patients and the staffs of the clincis.

[JoeFromSidney]

My first wife spent the last five years of her life on dialysis. I'm grateful I had that additional time with her. The fact that someone made a profit on her care doesn't upset me in the least.

[ridesthemiles]

The 100,000-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU)-United Healthcare Workers West labor union,”””

That is only the California member count. They are nationwide.

Can anyone explain why they are even interested in this kind of a law???

[Califreak]

http://www.seiu-uhw.org/archives/25556

Dialysis workers in California have been trying to form a union with SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) since 2016, and DaVita has fired five employees and disciplined an additional 18 workers following their advocacy of SB 349 and the union campaign since October 2016.

Dialysis patient care advocates filed a ballot initiative today for the November 2018 election in California that seeks to improve patient care by placing minimum safety requirements on the 570 dialysis clinics in the state and limiting the amount dialysis companies can charge patients.