Related Posts
Anyone heard about LSC?
Additional Posts in Consulting
Whatâs your personal vision for 2050?
How is everyone planning for potential layoffs?
Forgot to turn on cabin pressure....
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Pro
Whichever side Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Avalon Bay Apartments, Equity Residential or Davita is on, I'm voting the opposite. These corporations all develop "poor mouth" when they might have legislation that cuts into their not so razor thin margins to which I call bullshit.
Agree 100 percent
Vote NO on Prop 23. It would severely harm dialysis patients and nephrology (kidney doctor things) if passed, including forced shutdown of various dialysis community clinics, and the nonpartisan incremental estimate to overall state budget is in the âlow tens of millions of dollarsâ annually.
Tl;dr same cheap tactic tried two years ago, please vote NO, especially as someone whose family has an understandably vested interest in keeping our local dialysis clinics open
Prop 23 is a scare tactic from SEIU in turn. Nephrologist provision sounds great, except thereâs a known shortage of nephrologists across California, plus other provisions in the prop can increase likelihood of clinics closing (the ârequire approval to closeâ provision sounds great, but itâs a minor stall tactic thrown in at best, you canât actually keep a clinic operational and serving patients by mandate alone). Source: Family has also been in (and/or needed) nephrology and dialysis for 30 years.
Pro
The infection reporting and certification of following procedures would be a good thing, but they don't really need a physician onsite at all times to monitor that program and certify compliance like a CPA. Also, it would slow closure of low income dialysis locations without a review.
Most of it is the SEIU and Davita fighting about unionization like two+ years ago.
Yeah. The requirement to have a physician onsite is the thing giving me pause about âyesâ ...
I'm undecided on this prop. I've tried to frame it as: is there a reason or demonstrated need for the added regs/oversight?
If yes - safety/hygiene has been an issue. Then, seems reasonable to not reduce safety for sake of affordability- even if it gives an advantage to bigger clinic chains.
If no - there are not demonstrated safety concerns, then there is no need to pass the prop and it looks more like a play on aafety/fear being lobbied by the big chain clinics to take on market share.
I haven't looked too hard, but haven't been able to answer the question yet.
That's helpful info... but it only hopes for a correlation of under-paid = health/safety risk. It doesnt really answer the question of safety.
I think in another reply on here, someone brought up the desire to see infection or complaint reports.
Always vote no by default. It is better not to change a law when you do not understand the intended changes and have some concept of the potential unintended consequences.
And VOTE NO ON PROP 16! DO NOT ALLOW California to delete the following words from the State Constitution:
âThe government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.â
Iâll just leave this here
Likely voting yes as well. The heavy support by DaVita for a no vote is questionable.
We had this exact convo at dinner on Sunday with friends - davies funding it is sketchy - they will likely lose margin but i am for what is being proposed - we will be voting yes I think
Vote No!!! It is backed by people who know what theyâre talking about (ie American Nurses association)