11-4-14 Election; here’s what we think……..

vote by mail\

State Propositions:

Prop 1:  NO    (More thievery of Trinity River water)

Prop 2: NO    (Gov. Brown’s rainy day fund…problem is it’s still raining for most of us )

Prop 45: YES   (regulates health insurance companies by giving Insurance Commissioner power to veto excessive increases, similar to the current process for auto insurance rates)

Prop 46: NO   (Bad prop. supposed to deal with malpractice damages; but it screws doctors over)

Prop 47: NO  (We agree with the victimless crimes part of the Proposition (simple drug possession), but it goes way beyond that by reducing penalties for crimes with victims such as forgery, fraud and firearm theft)

HUMBOLDT COUNTY ELECTIONS:

Prop P: YES  (protect our organic farmers and our economic base) see our posts:

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/ken-miller-cuts-through-the-bs-about-p/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/how-about-we-let-dow-and-monsanto-poison-our-food-with-agent-orange-and-roundup/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/they-failed-measurably-to-protect-us-from-pesticides-but-trust-em-on-gmos-right/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/public-enemy-nuisance-1/

Measure Z: NO – see our post-

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/tax-measures-and-the-hypocritical-conservative-double-standard/

Measure Y: YES  (Jacoby Creek school bond)

CITY of EUREKA:

Measure R: YES – see our posts:

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/bad-news-for-measure-r-haters-the-data-isnt-going-your-way/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/measure-r-skeptics-take-note-seatacs-15-minimum-wage-law-is-working/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/owen-and-fullerton-are-desperately-trying-to-protect-the-walton-family-from-measure-r/

Measure Q: NO  – see our posts:

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/the-measure-q-conundrum/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/the-measure-q-shuffle/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/measure-q-terror-campaign-pulls-no-punches/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/measure-o-good-ol-boy-pot-of-gold-with-no-accountability/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/crimewave-wheres-the-measure-o/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/without-measure-o-money-eureka-wont-be-able-to-continue-not-filling-these-positions/

Measure S: YES  (Eureka school bonds )

 

Eureka City Council:

5th Ward : Natalie Arroyo

3rd Ward : Kimberly Walford-Bergel

 

Arcata City Council:

Paul Pitino

Sofia Pereira

Juan Daniel Fernandez

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “11-4-14 Election; here’s what we think……..

  1. Don’t agree with you on Q – I’m with the progressives who understand the essential need for this Linda, Kim, and Natalie. Richard S. has changed my mind on Z – I’m with you on that. I’ve been leaning with you on P on the basis of a great presentation given by micro farmer Roger Smith to the HCDCC, but Ian Ray has made a herculean effort supporting P on Sohum and this fence sitter has been pushed back onto the academic side of the issue. Largely on the basis of working-class farmer economics in Humboldt.

    Also – I’m going with my brother’s recommendation on 46. Having had to pee in a cup for many of my working class jobs, not sure why we can’t expect Doctors to do the same.

    http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/no-on-p/

    Like

    • Wrong on Q LJ. Just a little critical thinking and review would show you that Measure O has been mismanaged without accountability in the exact ways people fear Measure Z will be used.

      Measure Q, even with new council members, will be squandered in a similar fashion.

      Like

  2. Oops – that was the bad news – forgot to mention the good news. We strongly agree on Kim, Natalie, R!

    Accentuate the positive!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Tell me it ain’t so.
    Lib Jon publicaly not supporting a HCDCC endorsed candidate.
    “no Mark in Arcata”
    I can see this circular firing squad next month at the HCDCC meeting.

    Like

  4. Please reconsider your position on Prop 46. It’s not trial lawyers against doctors; it’s patient safety and justice at the expense of malpractice insurance companies that profit in the billions.

    The effects of the 1975 MICRA law 250K cap have now reduced the value of many of your family members to essentially zero as you can not obtain a lawyer in any wrongful death malpractice case for them.

    Hundreds of thousands of Americans die yearly as the result of preventable medical negligence. Common hospital malpractice errors include: incorrect medication/dosage, surgical mistakes, preventable infections, diagnosis failures, birth delivery mistakes, anesthesia errors and under/over treatment. Americans are given twice the drugs Europeans are and we are not any healthier or live any longer for it.

    All Californian families are now denied any justice and accountability when a family member without job income(children, retirees, ect) dies as a result of medical errors due to the 1975 MICRA law which malpractice insurance companies backed and that capped the non-economic “pain and suffering” award to 250K with no adjustment for inflation. Except in rare punitive damage cases this is the only award available.

    Malpractice attorneys will not take these wrongful death cases because the MICRA law also limits the attorney award to about 30%(BPC 6146) or about $75K of any maximum $250K award and attorney and medical expert costs in a case will quickly exceed $75K, search on “caps harm California” and “protectconsumerjustice org how micra came to be”.

    Governor Brown who signed MICRA into law said 17 years later that MICRA did not lower health care costs and only enriched insurers and placed negligent or incompetent physicians outside the reach of judicial accountability. Ralph Nader has reminded Governor Brown’s of this earlier statement and has asked him to support Prop 46.

    The MICRA cap and low non-economic damage caps in many other states have enabled malpractice insurance companies to earn billions in profits by essentially eliminating their monetary liability in these cases. It’s no wonder malpractice insurance companies have spent tens of millions to defeat Prop 46 which doesn’t even eliminate the cap, only adjusts it for inflation.

    California malpractice insurance companies profit an incredible 70 cents for every dollar collected in malpractice premiums which leaves plenty of room for an increase in malpractice payouts without a rate increase to doctors.

    22 other states do not have a non-economic damage cap and medical insurance rates are not any higher in those states nor are there shortages of physicians.

    Since 1988 Prop 103 has regulated doctors malpractice insurance premiums and can not be increased unless justified with the Insurance Commissioner.

    California drivers do not have a law that eliminates their liability if they kill a jobless person in a car accident and neither should negligent medical professionals and their insurance companies. When there isn’t accountability there isn’t a deterrent to avoid repeating negligence.

    Prop 46 also includes testing doctors for drug and alcohol which is done in the transportation industry, the military and in other public safety related occupations. Certainly it is in the public’s interest for doctors to be thinking clearly when they have our lives in their hands.

    Overprescribing of prescription narcotics is now a national epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control cited 475,000 emergency room visits and 36,000 deaths from prescription narcotic overdoses in a recent year, at a price tag of $72 billion in avoidable health care expenditures.

    Prop 46 will also require physicians to check the state’s existing and secure DOJ CURES prescription drug database before prescribing narcotics and other addictive drugs to curb doctor-shopping drug abusers, to prevent over-dose deaths and to reduce harmful behavior and health care costs.

    PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 46 for Public Safety and Patient Justice.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Lib Jon is an associate member of HCDCC who has to follow the same bylaws as voting members, except when they “suspend the bylaws”.

    As such Lib Jon is subject to termination for being a fraud Dem by not supporting the endorsed Dem (Mark Wheetley) in this election.

    Shame of you, Jon.

    Like

  6. It was a mistake. I’ve done my due diligence to remove my endorsement. I am subject to the bylaws as an associate member. Mark Wheetley is not a member and is free to endorse who he likes when he likes.

    Things like doing ones due diligence in having the public endorsement or non-endorsement is considered. I don’t think it has ever been a question that if any member did their work to try to remove themselves from an endorsement list, that would not be a violation of the by-laws. Thank you TE.

    Mark W. is an HCDCC endorsed candidate and as such I cannot speak out publicly against him.

    I do love the “shame on you” card when conservatives play it.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Anon 2:57. You are right. I’m hoping there will be a review of this year after the election. Richard would have to be on that list too.

    Like

  8. Why don’t we have JP explain what a DINO is.

    Mark Wheetley is a lifelong Democrat who works for Dept. of Fish & Game.

    Yet somehow he’s not enough of a Democrat for Richard Salzman and Lib Jon?

    Like

  9. Mark Wheetley is a citizen, not a member of the HCDCC. He can endorse whomever he chooses.

    Just like Congressman Jared Huffman and Congressman Mike Thompson.

    Or maybe you want to call our Congressmen DINOs also?

    Still waiting for your definition of a DINO.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s