What the Press is Saying
"Chasing businesses out of the state and putting low-income employees out of work isn't the way to fix the system. Californians should vote no on Proposition 72."
Los Angeles Times - Editorial
October 9, 2004
"Proposition 72 takes the same broken system and adds new costs and new mandates on top of it. Worse, it gives a dangerous new incentive for growing companies to leave the state..."
Sacramento Bee - Editorial
October 3, 2004
"Proposition 72, a referendum on the mandate rushed through the California Legislature in the final days of a session and signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis just before he was recalled last year, represents a seriously flawed attempt at health-care reform. It has all the makings of a disaster. It introduces an enormous new mandate on small and medium-sized businesses. It does nothing to directly address the biggest underlying cause of the health-care crisis: skyrocketing premiums."
San Francisco Chronicle - Editorial
October 3, 2004
"Everyone agrees the travails of California's uninsured need to be addressed. But Proposition 72 is not the answer. It deserves a No vote."
San Diego Union Tribune - Editorial
October 5, 2004
"California needs to get to work on a solution to the uninsured problem. But Proposition 72 isn't the answer."
San Jose Mercury News - Editorial
September 5, 2004
"California already is well known as a hostile environment for business. Approval of Proposition 72 would make matters much worse. Most of the ballot decisions in November deserve some thoughtful consideration, but not 72. This one deserves only one conclusion. It's 'no.'"
Long Beach Press Telegram - Editorial
August 27, 2004
"There are an estimated six million uninsured Californians. At best, Proposition 72 will cover one million of them. It is irrational to threaten the existing employment base and add to the number of uninsured, unemployed and under-employed Californians."
Bakersfield Californian - Editorial
September 14, 2004
"California's finances finally are getting healthy. What the state doesn't need now is to inject into the body political fiscal bacillus."
Orange County Register - Editorial
September 15, 2004
"Even worse, Proposition 72 does little to cut the excessive costs inside the health care system. It just forces the companies to eat them. This is the opposite of a true solution. Vote 'no' on Proposition 72."
Fresno Bee - Editorial
October 5, 2004
"Proposition 72, if passed, would continue to put more burdens on California employers. It ultimately would serve to drive businesses from state, deter new ones from setting up shop here and cause the loss of jobs. How much more can California businesses take?"
Santa Barbara News-Press - Editorial
September 30, 2004
"Proposition 72 would take a bad situation and make it much worse…Proposition 72 would add new costs and new mandates on top of a broken health care system. Worse, it would give a dangerous new incentive for growing companies to leave the state."
Modesto Bee - Editorial
October 8, 2004
"...The downsides of Proposition 72 outweigh its benefits."
Santa Rosa Press Democrat - Editorial
September 20, 2004
"...In addition to the fact that it will cost thousands of jobs because business and schools simply can't afford it, is that the state of California government is a mess, and makes a mess of virtually every institution over which it has control."
Sonoma Index Tribune - Editorial
September 21, 2004
"Proposition 72 will tax California employers and employees more than $7 billion to create a government-run healthcare scheme operated by a immense new bureaucracy. There are no cost controls, no guarantee of choice of health plan or doctor or hospital for workers and their families."
Vacaville Reporter - Editorial
September 22, 2004
"SB 2 (Prop 72) moves a large portion of healthcare into the public sector, and the financial impact on the state is of an unknown, but significant magnitude that likely would stifle the economic growth. There are other ways there are other ways to expand healthcare coverage."
Victorville Daily Press - Editorial
September 16, 2004
"Opponents say it (Prop 72) could have drastic economic consequences, as restaurants, retailers and other businesses respond by shedding jobs, shuttering operations, forgoing new part-time hires, adding Prop 72 surcharges to produces and services or even moving out of the state."
San Francisco Business Times
September 10, 2004
"Although our state is shimmying toward a health-care crisis because of ever increasing costs, shifting the burden of that crisis squarely onto the backs of the state's business community could reap disastrous results."
San Luis Obispo Tribune - Editorial
September 12, 2004
"Proposition 72 doesn't seem like a good proposition at all to some nonprofits, who are worried that being forced to pay for part-time workers health insurance could drive them under."
San Francisco Business Times
August 13, 2004
"Health insurance measure has small businesses feeling queasy…Many employers fear such a law (Prop 72) would cripple them in what they already consider to be a business-unfriendly state."
The Daily Breeze, Los Angeles
August 1, 2004
"Small employers, whacked by soaring health care costs, are fighting back as rising premiums threaten entrepreneurship. In November, California voters will be asked to repeal the new California law through a referendum forced on the ballot by small-business and trade groups."
USA Today
June 4, 2004
"Perhaps the greatest insult of all is that the proposal requires workers to pay up to 20 percent of the costs of this care, which could lead many employers who pay for all or most of the insurance now to instead bill their workers at the level established by the government as the standard."
Daniel Weintraub in the Sacramento Bee
May 23, 2004
| 
