Hi Baha Jon thanks so much for your input with ballot it is very valuable .
But I disagree on the prop 35 I would say YES and my reason is
Proposition 35 “the next important step” to ensuring more communities have access to the dental providers and services they need, noting that in California, fewer than half of the children enrolled in Medi-Cal and just one quarter of adults on Medi-Cal visited the dental office in 2023. Meanwhile, reimbursements remain too low for many dental services.
“[Prop 35] will secure new funding to increase dental reimbursement rates, dental student loan repayments and workforce development programs,” she said. “It does this without raising taxes — and it will prevent the state from redirecting these funds for other purposes.”
Specifically, the passage of Prop 35 would increase the Medi-Cal Dental budget by at least 10% (approximately $300 million annually) to improve reimbursement rates, increase funding for health care workforce development and secure up to $10 million annually for dental student loan repayments through the CalHealthCares program, which has awarded over $48 million in loan repayments to 187 dentists or dental students since the program launched in 2018-19. Prop 35 will also reduce emergency response times by funding first responders and paramedics.
Even though I don’t accept Medi-cal in my office I support this measure
Hi Sepi, thanks for the well laid out thoughts! I do support the MCO tax and the very importation funding it provides for Medi-Cal, and that would remain even if Prop 35 were to fail. The spending, and who gets it, just wouldn't be rigidly locked in (no matter the fiscal situation of the State nor the changing needs in the future). This is my issue with it. It is generally not a good government move to do this sort of "ballot box budgeting" because if everyone did it for their current funding sources, government would have no ability to move budget dollars as needed so we wouldn't be able to adapt as needs arise (nor cut back if the money isn't there). Thanks again for the engagement!
Thanks for reading, love to hear your thoughts on any of the measures, or you're welcome to just yell at me here!
Hi Baha Jon thanks so much for your input with ballot it is very valuable .
But I disagree on the prop 35 I would say YES and my reason is
Proposition 35 “the next important step” to ensuring more communities have access to the dental providers and services they need, noting that in California, fewer than half of the children enrolled in Medi-Cal and just one quarter of adults on Medi-Cal visited the dental office in 2023. Meanwhile, reimbursements remain too low for many dental services.
“[Prop 35] will secure new funding to increase dental reimbursement rates, dental student loan repayments and workforce development programs,” she said. “It does this without raising taxes — and it will prevent the state from redirecting these funds for other purposes.”
Specifically, the passage of Prop 35 would increase the Medi-Cal Dental budget by at least 10% (approximately $300 million annually) to improve reimbursement rates, increase funding for health care workforce development and secure up to $10 million annually for dental student loan repayments through the CalHealthCares program, which has awarded over $48 million in loan repayments to 187 dentists or dental students since the program launched in 2018-19. Prop 35 will also reduce emergency response times by funding first responders and paramedics.
Even though I don’t accept Medi-cal in my office I support this measure
With respect
Sepi
Hi Sepi, thanks for the well laid out thoughts! I do support the MCO tax and the very importation funding it provides for Medi-Cal, and that would remain even if Prop 35 were to fail. The spending, and who gets it, just wouldn't be rigidly locked in (no matter the fiscal situation of the State nor the changing needs in the future). This is my issue with it. It is generally not a good government move to do this sort of "ballot box budgeting" because if everyone did it for their current funding sources, government would have no ability to move budget dollars as needed so we wouldn't be able to adapt as needs arise (nor cut back if the money isn't there). Thanks again for the engagement!