From Libertarian Wiki

Prop. 72 confuses me. It says "Measure creates mandatory employee health care benefits ...". Does this mean "Prop. 72 creates ...", or does it mean "Chapter 673, Statutes of 2003, which Prop. 72 would nullify, creates ...". Paul Studier 17:17, 16 Jul 2004 (PDT)

I agree, Paul. The wording is poor. However, since Chapter 673 initiates mandatory raises in employee benefits, Prop 72 should be the limiting factor putting the measure to a vote of the people before implementation. (68.123.233.174)

To get Chapter 673, go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html and enter 673 under chapter and 2003 under year. From this bill: The bill would require employees and dependents of large employers to be covered beginning January 1, 2006, while it would require employees of medium employers to be covered beginning January 1, 2007, subject to certain conditions. So it appears that a YES would be the vote not to mandate coverage. Paul Studier 19:13, 18 Jul 2004 (PDT)

I reverse myself. A NO is a vote against the mandate. Paul Studier 01:26, 19 Jul 2004 (PDT)

Moved from Talk:CA 2004 Propositions

---

I put a Yes or No on every proposition except 72. I agreed with Fred on every proposition that he took a position on.

Prop. 72 confuses me. It says "Measure creates mandatory employee health care benefits ...". Does this mean "Prop. 72 creates ...", or does it mean "Chapter 673, Statutes of 2003, which Prop. 72 would nullify, creates ...".

Paul Studier 16:51, 16 Jul 2004 (PDT)

Regarding Prop 72: Tom Elias has a commentary in today's Ukiah Daily Journal where he says prop 72 will repeal that mandatory health coverage requirement for businesses. You can read it at http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/Stories/0,1413,91~3080~2290420,00.html

That's the impression I got from the news articles I've read but the summary of the proposition sure doesn't sound like it when you read it. Fred from Humboldt

More Confusion?

I'm even more confused now after going to www.stopthehealthtax.org/

These are the NO on 72 folks. They say that Prop 72 will create a massive health care bureacracy but repeals SB2 which I believe is the mandatory health coverage requirement forced on some businesses earlier on. Without spending a lot of time reading the page, the best I can figure is maybe it repeals the old law but creates a new state run health care program, which actually would jive with the wording. Fred from Humboldt

The legislature passed a law mandating coverage. This prop. was put on the ballot to confirm what the legislature did. A look at Yes On Prop. 72 should unconfuse you, these people want the government mandated coverage. Paul Studier 19:10, 16 Aug 2004 (PDT)