| Argument Against | This - 216 | Next Proposition (217) |

Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 216

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

There they go again.

Insurance companies, HMOs and other giant health corporations want to divert your attention from their fraudulent medical practices and their excessive profits. That's why they resort to their usual scare tactics: government! taxes!

But their deceptions, tricks and phony statistics won't work this time because voters know the facts.

Only Prop. 216 . . .

. . . is backed by 836,000 California voters, 25,000 California Nurses Association members, Ralph Nader and other leading consumer advocates, and by thousands of families who know firsthand the tragic costs of HMO greed-driven cutbacks.

. . . WILL COST TAXPAYERS NOTHING. The official Legislative Analyst confirms that penalties on HMO practices that reduce quality care will cover 100% of all enforcement costs.

. . . REDUCES GOVERNMENT by establishing a self-funded, independent, nonprofit consumer watchdog group to monitor HMOs.

. . . BLOCKS ARBITRARY PREMIUM INCREASES and specifically prohibits passing on costs of safeguarding quality care.

. . . SAVES CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES BILLIONS in lost productivity by protecting employee health; experts estimate a $14 billion benefit to California's economy with Prop. 216.

. . . is REAL CONSUMER PROTECTION with SHARP ENFORCEMENT TEETH. Amendments require a tough two-thirds vote by state lawmakers, preventing sabotage by HMO and insurance lobbyists in Sacramento.

The health industry is spending tens of millions against Prop. 216. They've even imported campaign consultants from Washington, D.C. What are they afraid of? 216 will force them to provide safe health care. 216 puts patients first, before profits. The giant HMOs are desperate because the facts--and informed voters--support Prop. 216.

Executive Director, Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights

Founder, University of California Wellness Newsletter

Co-Chair, California Committee of Small
Business Owners

| Argument Against | This - 216 | Next Proposition (217) |