@@ANCIENTWARRI0Rwhere should I look, I'm new to California and from everywhere ive looked this seemed like a valid summary of what this law aims to do and why its being proposed
@@ANCIENTWARRI0R this was my interpretation if it helps, as this is the most confusing prop on the ballot this year. The short answer: Revenge The longer explanation: Prop 34 dubbed the “protect patients now act” is essentially a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The prop guises itself as a way to regulate drug prices and focus on patient care by enforcing non-profit organizations to contribute 98% of their revenue on patient care. Before I continue, you need to know what 340B is, the “drug pricing program.” It’s designed in such a way to allow nonprofit organizations to purchase drugs at a significant discount, bill insurance companies full price and use those profits to expand their mission (such as the AHF). The reality of prop 34 is that, it targets a specific organization, the AIDS healthcare foundation or AHF due to the criteria revolving it. Prop 34 only targets organizations that have spent at least $100 million on non patient related care in the past decade and who also own apartment buildings with at least 500 health and safety violations, which in Californian is only the AHF. AHF has spent around $150 million on ballot initiatives (lobbying) such as in 2018 and 2020 for rent control measures. AHF’s annual budget is around $2.5 billion with the majority of its profits coming from its 62 pharmacies as a result of 340B. This year AHF is contributing to another ballot initiative prop 33, which is yet another rent control measure. (I’m sure you can see the trend by now) voting yes on this prop would effectively remove AHF’s ability to support another ballot initiative in the future. Who’s the main supporter (lobbyist) for prop 34? The California Apartment Association. The very same organization that was against prop 10 in 2018, prop 21 in 2020 and currently prop 33 for 2024. Their goal is to remove one of the biggest contributors of rent control in California. In conclusion, if you believe apartments should have controlled limitations on rent, vote NO on prop 34. If you believe landlords should be able to charge whatever they want, vote YES on prop 34. Side note: I apologize in advance for any grammatical errors or misspelling I may have missed through my proof reading.
@@isaiahthames7056 this was my interpretation if it helps, as this is the most confusing prop on the ballot this year. The short answer: Revenge The longer explanation: Prop 34 dubbed the “protect patients now act” is essentially a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The prop guises itself as a way to regulate drug prices and focus on patient care by enforcing non-profit organizations to contribute 98% of their revenue on patient care. Before I continue, you need to know what 340B is, the “drug pricing program.” It’s designed in such a way to allow nonprofit organizations to purchase drugs at a significant discount, bill insurance companies full price and use those profits to expand their mission (such as the AHF). The reality of prop 34 is that, it targets a specific organization, the AIDS healthcare foundation or AHF due to the criteria revolving it. Prop 34 only targets organizations that have spent at least $100 million on non patient related care in the past decade and who also own apartment buildings with at least 500 health and safety violations, which in Californian is only the AHF. AHF has spent around $150 million on ballot initiatives (lobbying) such as in 2018 and 2020 for rent control measures. AHF’s annual budget is around $2.5 billion with the majority of its profits coming from its 62 pharmacies as a result of 340B. This year AHF is contributing to another ballot initiative prop 33, which is yet another rent control measure. (I’m sure you can see the trend by now) voting yes on this prop would effectively remove AHF’s ability to support another ballot initiative in the future. Who’s the main supporter (lobbyist) for prop 34? The California Apartment Association. The very same organization that was against prop 10 in 2018, prop 21 in 2020 and currently prop 33 for 2024. Their goal is to remove one of the biggest contributors of rent control in California. In conclusion, if you believe apartments should have controlled limitations on rent, vote NO on prop 34. If you believe landlords should be able to charge whatever they want, vote YES on prop 34. Side note: I apologize in advance for any grammatical errors or misspelling I may have missed through my proof reading.
this was my interpretation if it helps, as this is the most confusing prop on the ballot this year. The short answer: Revenge The longer explanation: Prop 34 dubbed the “protect patients now act” is essentially a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The prop guises itself as a way to regulate drug prices and focus on patient care by enforcing non-profit organizations to contribute 98% of their revenue on patient care. Before I continue, you need to know what 340B is, the “drug pricing program.” It’s designed in such a way to allow nonprofit organizations to purchase drugs at a significant discount, bill insurance companies full price and use those profits to expand their mission (such as the AHF). The reality of prop 34 is that, it targets a specific organization, the AIDS healthcare foundation or AHF due to the criteria revolving it. Prop 34 only targets organizations that have spent at least $100 million on non patient related care in the past decade and who also own apartment buildings with at least 500 health and safety violations, which in Californian is only the AHF. AHF has spent around $150 million on ballot initiatives (lobbying) such as in 2018 and 2020 for rent control measures. AHF’s annual budget is around $2.5 billion with the majority of its profits coming from its 62 pharmacies as a result of 340B. This year AHF is contributing to another ballot initiative prop 33, which is yet another rent control measure. (I’m sure you can see the trend by now) voting yes on this prop would effectively remove AHF’s ability to support another ballot initiative in the future. Who’s the main supporter (lobbyist) for prop 34? The California Apartment Association. The very same organization that was against prop 10 in 2018, prop 21 in 2020 and currently prop 33 for 2024. Their goal is to remove one of the biggest contributors of rent control in California. In conclusion, if you believe apartments should have controlled limitations on rent, vote NO on prop 34. If you believe landlords should be able to charge whatever they want, vote YES on prop 34. Side note: I apologize in advance for any grammatical errors or misspelling I may have missed through my proof reading.
Prop 34 is very stupid, and should not be on the ballot, which is explained in this video but not clearly. A healthcare "provider" is an entity, like a hospital, that "provides" care to patients. In California, if healthcare providers serve low income patients, they are eligible to buy prescription drugs at a discount rate. The same providers are then able to charge "payors" (payor = who pays for the healthcare, like a health insurance carrier like Blue Cross) full price. Said another way, a hospital serving low-income patients can buy a drug at a discount, give it to a patient, then charge that patient's insurance full price for the drug. When providers do this, they gain a profit. Prop 34 says that: Providers in California that match a very specific set of rules, if they make a profit from the above process, MUST use that profit on "patient care." In theory, if a provider doesn't use it on patient care, the provider can use the funds on whatever it wants - lobbying, paying CEOs, political advertising, marketing their services (TV commercials, etc). On the surface that sounds good - forcing healthcare providers to actually spend their profits on patients, rather than political lobbying. Except the insane thing about Prop 34 is that it only applies to healthcare providers that operates "multifamily homes." Wtf? Why would a healthcare prop target providers that own homes? Which providers own homes? As far as anyone can tell, the ONLY healthcare provider this prop would apply to is the "AIDS Healthcare Foundation" in California. Let me say that again: This proposition for healthcare reform only applies to one small provider in California. The important political angle here is that the AHF has spent their profit from drug sales on political lobbying, to get the OTHER prop (prop 33) on the ballot. So prop 34 claims to improve healthcare reform, but appears to be literally targeted at one healthcare provider to prevent it from using profits to lobby for more rent control. Regardless of what you think about healthcare reform and low income housing reform, this is a nonsense proposition that never should have made it to the ballot.
I'm vote NO I wasn't sure at first but landlords are holding our medi-cal system hostage. Idk voting NO even if it affects me too much money being spent
@@chaoticallysay2625 I never heard of the guy they are going after and some of it sounds shady but when the large apartment owners spend that much money, and they are the only ones to kick in millions, I decided to vote against it. It seems like theyre spending so much money to get their way and not for what is right.
Landlords are mostly not billionaires that's bs coming from the left. As for this prop am still undecided as I don't know who else supports or opposes it.
That's exactly what this is. Some rich people upset at other rich people, because the other rich people used government funds for Healthcare on housing instead. This bill does virtually nothing but punish that behavior done by exactly one group. This is lawfare. Voting yes is chill but voting no means that things remain the same.
Fuck this bot, although I agree this Justin guy is a bot posting this everywhere and ruining the voting nature of us. How can we trust industry plants such as this? It makes me question whether the comments I read are legit or just some preconceived notion cooked up by someone coding it into a bot that comments the same message everywhere. People like this poison the well of intellectual thought when considering what to vote for. I agree with the bot don't get me wrong but I'd be damned if I let some BOT tell me how and what to think
Yes = lawfare against aids foundations to punish them for doing housing stuff instead of medical stuff. No = do nothing and nothing happens or changes.
I'm sorry CalMatters, you normally have great explanations of ballot measures but I'm afraid this one really falls short. The RUclips video from ABC10 titled "2024 Ballot Prop 34 Explained" provides a much clearer explanation of this deceptive ballot measure. I know it's hard to fit the whole explanation in 1m 38s, but I think the video should have been a bit longer to be able to provide full context.
Thank you! came to comments to find a better explanation. That video helped me understand it so much better. Sounds like drama, not sure how i swing on this one.
From my understanding: Rich man in video CEO Aids Foundation. Hes been trying to remove limits from rent control, we have limits on building built after 1995 cannot be rent controlled. Aids foundation big player in supporting rent control. Landlord lobby going after rich man and Aids Foundation so they cant advocate for politics this prop would only realy apply to Aids Foundation. Vote yes for Land lord Lobby vote no for Aids Foundation.
Wtf? The would you support LANDLORDS LOBBY ASSOCIATION??? It's literally a group of COMPANIES that own housing causing the housing crisis. You literally said it yourself, the rich guy from the AIDS foundation is trying the "remove limits from rent control" which mean make RENT CONTROL STRONGER. We do NEED STRONGER RENT CONTROL BC IT KEEP LANDLORD FROM RAISING YOUR RENT 200% EVERY FUCKING YEAR. No offense but if you're gonna put it in simple terms, MAKE IT RIGHT. VOTE YES ON 33 (by the AIDS guy). Vote whatever the fuck you want on 34.
Ah so this entire proposition is from Land Lord Lobby, who want to retaliate against the Aids Foundatiom CEO, because he wanted to remove rent control limits? If that's the case then I'm voting "No". 😒
Voting no just because I’m so sick of that commercial with the woman in the wheelchair squawking about voting yes. That ad plays 15 times a fucking day I can’t take it anymore
Prop 34 would prohibit any taxpayer-funded healthcare group that benefits from a federally subsidized drug discount program from using those funds for politics. I would think it’s better to use the funds on patient care and not politics.
@@Toothless92040 you’re saying that this prop applies to “ANY” taxpayer funded healthcare org. That’s not accurate. It only applies to those that spend $100 mil, which just so happens to only apply to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which landlords hate.
@@Toothless92040 hey I totally agree. But if we want such a law, it must be applied fairly to ALL organizations. I will not support this narrow proposition that targets one group that a certain landlord lobby hates. I will not vote for any proposition that is written solely to retaliate against someone’s political opponent.
Since I turned 18 I have lived under rent controlled properties and it is the best it has always given me power so no landlord can take advantage VOTE YES ON PROP 33 As a former AHF employee proposition 34 only seeks to affect the AHF a non profit that not only provides low to free health care and also housing among other life necessities for the community, it is a revenge initiative since AHF is the main seeker to pass rent control prop 33 the building owners united to create prop 34 this people only want to continue building properties that no one can afford and raise rent as they please with no one controlling them VOTE NO ON PROP 34
I'm voting No here. IMO this should not be on a state ballot. This being a Federal program, it should be managed and audited by the Federal agency appropriating these funds. The state should not be involved in its accounting. The funds should be used for what they are intended for. If the evidence proves that this a misused subsidy, the subsidy should be withdrawn and the entity penalized. Does everyone recall the $26k subsidy for businesses with employees during covid? There was a lack of validation before cutting checks. The program was mismanaged which led to it's abuse. The tax payer bears the burden of it all.
If AIDS healthcare foundation is not spending all their money on healthcare, does this mean patients are not receiving the care they need or AIDS healthcare foundation has been receiving a surplus, more than enough for both healthcare and providing low cost housing to those in need? Why would AHF be receiving more than they need and be spending that on apartment buildings in which tenants are living in squalid or delapitdated conditions and suing the AHF? Would like to hear directly from AHF staff. I know the intent of this proposition is payback against the AHF from wealthy landlords. Voting No on prop 34
You want to tell me that after all these decades there is an issue with lobbyists negotiating the cost to patients with government covered medical insurance?
This is the most confusing proposition I’ve ever read. From rent control to federal drug revenues...I just can’t wrap my mind around it. I’ll just vote no.
I used chat gpt to explain the prop like im 5 years old and I got this "In short, it’s saying: If you’re a big healthcare provider, you have to use most of your money to help patients, and if you break the rules, you could lose your ability to help people at all. And there’s a program that will always be there to help people get their medicine."
🆘️ In California, we are voting for propositions and measures that have 4️⃣7️⃣0️⃣ NEW TAXES built into them! Please look at the CA voters guide here on Y.T. from the Reform California Organization. They address each one and advise if it would raise our taxes. VOTE EARLY 🗳
This video was so confusing and the end was cut abruptly, we can’t even read what yea or no means. They are doing this on purpose!!! I’m sick of the government trying to play us. I’m going to look for other videos
This sounds like some Game of Thrones plot. I'd like to see a mockumentary of this story. Sounds like one should either vote YES on both Prop 33 and Prop 34 OR NO on both Prop 33 and Prop 34. Voting "Yes" on one and "No" on the other sounds counter-intuitive / hypocritical (in this particular case). Is voting supposed to be this exciting and engaging?!
Your last sentence is not how it's stated on the ballot. Voting Yes on the ballot means leave things the way they are. Voting No means allowing the 98% expenditures. It's a tricky ballot
Can somebody please explain to me in layman’s terms if I am voting against this wealthy man who seems to be a little shady. should I put a yes or a no? It’s a little confusing.
(304b) sounds like it makes Drug Prices cheaper for HealthCare/Insurers. 98% of the profits is supposed to be spent in the Payee/Provider arena only(Patient Care) So affectively if they can't use Medication Prescription Profits the way want.. They will not pay into Rent Control and initive they have backed before. They made it about the M.A.G.A movement. But forgot to tell you the organization opposite of maga is weaponizing rent control. Rent is already to high.. I'm sure the fear of m.a.g.a and higher rent will get you to vote for them.... They will get richer regardless. Voting Yes on 34 is an attempt at accountability by Prescription Drug Providers to be honest. And.... Well... Not be drug dealers for profit. It's a penalty for drug dealing in 304b
If you want to vote against this wealthy man who seems shady then vote “Yes”. That shady man is taking advantage a drug pricing program from the government to earn money by buying drugs cheap and selling them to patients at full retail price. So voting yes forces him to now spend those earnings on direct patient care.
I work to pay taxes that pay for jails and prisons. There are costs for facilities, food, and I am sure other stuff. Why shouldn't incarcerated persons work? Wouldn't they have to work to provide for their food, shelter, and utilities if they were not incarcerated? Maybe there could be the option of education or work.
Check out what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has to say sbout prop 34 and then hopefully vote yeas on it. Watch Carl DeMaio's video on prop 34 snd the rest of the props.
💥BOMBSHELL REPORT from the Transparency Foundation calculates that the total higher costs paid by Californians versus national averages comes to upwards of $28,037 per year! It includes national averages for housing, utilities, food, gas, transportation, healthcare, insurance, childcare, and taxes. Let's vote 🆘️ Red down the ballot‼️
33 and 34. Yes Yes or No No If 33 rent control passes, the foundation did a good thing and helped pass better policies for housing, then great and thank you, but we need you less now and you should clean up your own house now even though it is in retaliation from greedy landlords. If 33 rent control fails then the foundation should continue to push for better housing policies and not suffer from retaliation that may no longer allow for it to pursue good policies. Housing effects your health!
I’m confused. How does this relate to rent control? I received a text that stated: Richard, this is Chris with No on Prop 34. Rent control is opposed by the MAGA movement and we need your help to fight back. Please take some time to watch this short video and let us know if you are with us and will vote No on Prop 34! Do we have your support? (Then it gave me a RUclips video link which I didn’t click just incase something fishy is going on)
Michael Weinstein is a big rent control person. He has been using money from his Aids foundation to put rent control initiatives on California ballot paying per signature. The landlords put prop 34 up to make him use all of his money on healthcare so he cannot use it to go after landlords.
Michael Weinstein is the President of AIDS Health Foundation. He is also a big rent control person. He has spent millions of his foundation money putting rent control initiatives on California ballot. Pro 34 is a measure from realtors that would stop Weinstein from using foundation money for anything other than healthcare and not for anything else especially rent control.
I did too. VERY misleading text. What the text is indirectly saying is that since Weinstein helps provide low income health care AND is a landlord, the landlord association has made Prop 34 specifically for him to drain his money by prohibiting him from making ANY profit from his healthcare endeavors, a sort of "punishment" for him trying to fight for rent control. The actual proposition has NOTHING to do with rent control.
In short, the AHF (AIDs Healthcare Foundation) is well known non-profit organization that helps people who have the illness or live with someone who has it. They are a well known proponent of rent control, since many people with AIDs within America tend to be generally poorer and vulnerable (e.g. many past addicts). These people need the stability of affordable rent and medicine to keep themselves safe as well as the community. Prop 34 is targeted to basically dismantle AHF since they’re the biggest proponents of affordable rent and rent control. Prop 34 forces AHF to use less than 2% of their revenue on operating costs and at least 98% on medicine alone. AHF is not just about providing treatment, but other support as well that keep America safe and reduce AIDs/HIV. If corporate landlords dismantles AHF, they remove a major political opponent and can more easily push for higher rent for more profits. In other words, it’s a two-fer. It would greatly reduce the efficacy of AHF who are doing important work in keeping American communities safe. In addition - it would give corporate landlords free rein to continue raising prices despite the fact that more and more Americans are struggling.
If you think this prop is actually about spending money on patients, you haven't paid attention to anything. Please don't vote, seriously! If you didn't understand prop 34 you shouldn't be telling others about it.
The government will choose who is worthy of help: surgeries, medications, cheap help! Look up The McKenzie Group. Your eyes will be open IMMEDIATELY!!!!!
@@matt9675 the public oversight means government oversight. Private vs public. Private is better. Entities separate from the government. Government should not intervene in the private market. Even healthcare. Repeal Obamacare/Affordable care act 100%
@@milkcrate805 government works on behalf of the people, as elected by the people. Private entities work with their own interests (profits) chiefly in mind. Regulations protect the people from reckless private sector behavior.
@@matt9675 you never took economics. Private industry allows companies to compete. With competition, you get this: better innovation, employment opportunities (people to work for company creating jobs), benefits for those employees, diversity in respect to fields of treatment, lower costs due to competing, choice of service for the customer, opportunities for government funds/partnerships if agreed upon. Forcing all healthcare under influence or control of the US government is a mistake and leads to unaffordable heathcare plans for middle class families. Middle class is the backbone of our nation and economy and culture. No one is advocating for taking away Medicare. But the healthcare system needs less, not more, government intervention. Also, rights to the states, not federal gov.
@@matt9675 right to the states: which means if you vote for this California, you get what you asked for… and you deal with the repercussions for middle class families
@@milkcrate805 No way, this guy is a slumlord and uses some of the money to help himself not others. Vote yes so all the money goes to help people with their medical costs!
@@DPitt-ty4sd Why would lobbying for more rent control, which helps rentees pay lower rents, make him a slumlord? I feel like I'm missing something basic here.
@@svetlanaklinova4876 it’s literally not. That is why there are zero oppositions. I don’t know who is spreading this misinformation. No where does this amendment discuss paying fair wages. All it amend is giving the prisoners right to refuse work just like any human being. In fact, it explicitly allows lower wage pay to continue.
@@stanley19430 First, don’t trust official sources about opposition. Yt doesn't allow to provide the direct info. Second, prison is not a sanatorium. If people commit crimes, they lose their rights.
@@fernando536 this is not about homeless or tens, this is democrats in Sacramento trying to have less votes to raise property taxes, the bill has nothing to do with housing, just because it says it is is like all bills are something else just fooling voters
These examples of explanations are absolutely horrible. There should be a law written up against the way they write these propositions.
I AGREE... this is crazy!
horrible and confusing explanation of it
I agree I looked elsewhere to really understand this.
@@ANCIENTWARRI0Rwhere should I look, I'm new to California and from everywhere ive looked this seemed like a valid summary of what this law aims to do and why its being proposed
@@ANCIENTWARRI0R this was my interpretation if it helps, as this is the most confusing prop on the ballot this year.
The short answer: Revenge
The longer explanation: Prop 34 dubbed the “protect patients now act” is essentially a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The prop guises itself as a way to regulate drug prices and focus on patient care by enforcing non-profit organizations to contribute 98% of their revenue on patient care. Before I continue, you need to know what 340B is, the “drug pricing program.” It’s designed in such a way to allow nonprofit organizations to purchase drugs at a significant discount, bill insurance companies full price and use those profits to expand their mission (such as the AHF). The reality of prop 34 is that, it targets a specific organization, the AIDS healthcare foundation or AHF due to the criteria revolving it. Prop 34 only targets organizations that have spent at least $100 million on non patient related care in the past decade and who also own apartment buildings with at least 500 health and safety violations, which in Californian is only the AHF. AHF has spent around $150 million on ballot initiatives (lobbying) such as in 2018 and 2020 for rent control measures. AHF’s annual budget is around $2.5 billion with the majority of its profits coming from its 62 pharmacies as a result of 340B. This year AHF is contributing to another ballot initiative prop 33, which is yet another rent control measure. (I’m sure you can see the trend by now) voting yes on this prop would effectively remove AHF’s ability to support another ballot initiative in the future. Who’s the main supporter (lobbyist) for prop 34? The California Apartment Association. The very same organization that was against prop 10 in 2018, prop 21 in 2020 and currently prop 33 for 2024. Their goal is to remove one of the biggest contributors of rent control in California.
In conclusion, if you believe apartments should have controlled limitations on rent, vote NO on prop 34. If you believe landlords should be able to charge whatever they want, vote YES on prop 34.
Side note: I apologize in advance for any grammatical errors or misspelling I may have missed through my proof reading.
@@isaiahthames7056 this was my interpretation if it helps, as this is the most confusing prop on the ballot this year.
The short answer: Revenge
The longer explanation: Prop 34 dubbed the “protect patients now act” is essentially a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The prop guises itself as a way to regulate drug prices and focus on patient care by enforcing non-profit organizations to contribute 98% of their revenue on patient care. Before I continue, you need to know what 340B is, the “drug pricing program.” It’s designed in such a way to allow nonprofit organizations to purchase drugs at a significant discount, bill insurance companies full price and use those profits to expand their mission (such as the AHF). The reality of prop 34 is that, it targets a specific organization, the AIDS healthcare foundation or AHF due to the criteria revolving it. Prop 34 only targets organizations that have spent at least $100 million on non patient related care in the past decade and who also own apartment buildings with at least 500 health and safety violations, which in Californian is only the AHF. AHF has spent around $150 million on ballot initiatives (lobbying) such as in 2018 and 2020 for rent control measures. AHF’s annual budget is around $2.5 billion with the majority of its profits coming from its 62 pharmacies as a result of 340B. This year AHF is contributing to another ballot initiative prop 33, which is yet another rent control measure. (I’m sure you can see the trend by now) voting yes on this prop would effectively remove AHF’s ability to support another ballot initiative in the future. Who’s the main supporter (lobbyist) for prop 34? The California Apartment Association. The very same organization that was against prop 10 in 2018, prop 21 in 2020 and currently prop 33 for 2024. Their goal is to remove one of the biggest contributors of rent control in California.
In conclusion, if you believe apartments should have controlled limitations on rent, vote NO on prop 34. If you believe landlords should be able to charge whatever they want, vote YES on prop 34.
Side note: I apologize in advance for any grammatical errors or misspelling I may have missed through my proof reading.
this was my interpretation if it helps, as this is the most confusing prop on the ballot this year.
The short answer: Revenge
The longer explanation: Prop 34 dubbed the “protect patients now act” is essentially a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The prop guises itself as a way to regulate drug prices and focus on patient care by enforcing non-profit organizations to contribute 98% of their revenue on patient care. Before I continue, you need to know what 340B is, the “drug pricing program.” It’s designed in such a way to allow nonprofit organizations to purchase drugs at a significant discount, bill insurance companies full price and use those profits to expand their mission (such as the AHF). The reality of prop 34 is that, it targets a specific organization, the AIDS healthcare foundation or AHF due to the criteria revolving it. Prop 34 only targets organizations that have spent at least $100 million on non patient related care in the past decade and who also own apartment buildings with at least 500 health and safety violations, which in Californian is only the AHF. AHF has spent around $150 million on ballot initiatives (lobbying) such as in 2018 and 2020 for rent control measures. AHF’s annual budget is around $2.5 billion with the majority of its profits coming from its 62 pharmacies as a result of 340B. This year AHF is contributing to another ballot initiative prop 33, which is yet another rent control measure. (I’m sure you can see the trend by now) voting yes on this prop would effectively remove AHF’s ability to support another ballot initiative in the future. Who’s the main supporter (lobbyist) for prop 34? The California Apartment Association. The very same organization that was against prop 10 in 2018, prop 21 in 2020 and currently prop 33 for 2024. Their goal is to remove one of the biggest contributors of rent control in California.
In conclusion, if you believe apartments should have controlled limitations on rent, vote NO on prop 34. If you believe landlords should be able to charge whatever they want, vote YES on prop 34.
Side note: I apologize in advance for any grammatical errors or misspelling I may have missed through my proof reading.
Prop 34 is very stupid, and should not be on the ballot, which is explained in this video but not clearly. A healthcare "provider" is an entity, like a hospital, that "provides" care to patients. In California, if healthcare providers serve low income patients, they are eligible to buy prescription drugs at a discount rate. The same providers are then able to charge "payors" (payor = who pays for the healthcare, like a health insurance carrier like Blue Cross) full price. Said another way, a hospital serving low-income patients can buy a drug at a discount, give it to a patient, then charge that patient's insurance full price for the drug. When providers do this, they gain a profit.
Prop 34 says that: Providers in California that match a very specific set of rules, if they make a profit from the above process, MUST use that profit on "patient care." In theory, if a provider doesn't use it on patient care, the provider can use the funds on whatever it wants - lobbying, paying CEOs, political advertising, marketing their services (TV commercials, etc).
On the surface that sounds good - forcing healthcare providers to actually spend their profits on patients, rather than political lobbying. Except the insane thing about Prop 34 is that it only applies to healthcare providers that operates "multifamily homes." Wtf? Why would a healthcare prop target providers that own homes? Which providers own homes?
As far as anyone can tell, the ONLY healthcare provider this prop would apply to is the "AIDS Healthcare Foundation" in California. Let me say that again: This proposition for healthcare reform only applies to one small provider in California. The important political angle here is that the AHF has spent their profit from drug sales on political lobbying, to get the OTHER prop (prop 33) on the ballot.
So prop 34 claims to improve healthcare reform, but appears to be literally targeted at one healthcare provider to prevent it from using profits to lobby for more rent control. Regardless of what you think about healthcare reform and low income housing reform, this is a nonsense proposition that never should have made it to the ballot.
well said sir
Now I get it
Great explanation brother. Great system of "democracy" btw..
When the billionaire landlords put in 30 million dollars to get a proposition passed something isn’t right.
That would be one billionaire, and he's shady as shit!
I'm vote NO I wasn't sure at first but landlords are holding our medi-cal system hostage. Idk voting NO even if it affects me too much money being spent
@@chaoticallysay2625 I never heard of the guy they are going after and some of it sounds shady but when the large apartment owners spend that much money, and they are the only ones to kick in millions, I decided to vote against it. It seems like theyre spending so much money to get their way and not for what is right.
News alert: that’s how EVERY PROP works
Landlords are mostly not billionaires that's bs coming from the left. As for this prop am still undecided as I don't know who else supports or opposes it.
Whenever I read a confusing proposition description on a ballot, it suggests to me that it's usually rich people weaponizing democracy.
Those rich are pelosi, newscum, biden, and the fake black woman kamala
This guy explains it very well: ruclips.net/video/oQ08yUa6H7I/видео.html&ab_channel=HowToADU
That's exactly what this is. Some rich people upset at other rich people, because the other rich people used government funds for Healthcare on housing instead. This bill does virtually nothing but punish that behavior done by exactly one group. This is lawfare. Voting yes is chill but voting no means that things remain the same.
Fuck this bot, although I agree this Justin guy is a bot posting this everywhere and ruining the voting nature of us. How can we trust industry plants such as this? It makes me question whether the comments I read are legit or just some preconceived notion cooked up by someone coding it into a bot that comments the same message everywhere. People like this poison the well of intellectual thought when considering what to vote for. I agree with the bot don't get me wrong but I'd be damned if I let some BOT tell me how and what to think
Im still confused
California Prop 34 | Prescription drug revenue for healthcare
CBS 8 San Diego
Yes = lawfare against aids foundations to punish them for doing housing stuff instead of medical stuff.
No = do nothing and nothing happens or changes.
I came here trying to understand this prop but now I'm even more confused
I'm sorry CalMatters, you normally have great explanations of ballot measures but I'm afraid this one really falls short. The RUclips video from ABC10 titled "2024 Ballot Prop 34 Explained" provides a much clearer explanation of this deceptive ballot measure. I know it's hard to fit the whole explanation in 1m 38s, but I think the video should have been a bit longer to be able to provide full context.
Thank you! came to comments to find a better explanation. That video helped me understand it so much better. Sounds like drama, not sure how i swing on this one.
thank you!
From my understanding: Rich man in video CEO Aids Foundation. Hes been trying to remove limits from rent control, we have limits on building built after 1995 cannot be rent controlled. Aids foundation big player in supporting rent control. Landlord lobby going after rich man and Aids Foundation so they cant advocate for politics this prop would only realy apply to Aids Foundation. Vote yes for Land lord Lobby vote no for Aids Foundation.
Thanks for putting it into simple terms. Much easier to understand
Whats the incentive o build more housing if there is not enough profit for the endeavor
Wtf? The would you support LANDLORDS LOBBY ASSOCIATION??? It's literally a group of COMPANIES that own housing causing the housing crisis. You literally said it yourself, the rich guy from the AIDS foundation is trying the "remove limits from rent control" which mean make RENT CONTROL STRONGER. We do NEED STRONGER RENT CONTROL BC IT KEEP LANDLORD FROM RAISING YOUR RENT 200% EVERY FUCKING YEAR. No offense but if you're gonna put it in simple terms, MAKE IT RIGHT. VOTE YES ON 33 (by the AIDS guy). Vote whatever the fuck you want on 34.
@gdiaz8827 currently there are over 3 million vacant housing units... building more housing does not solve this problem...
Ah so this entire proposition is from Land Lord Lobby, who want to retaliate against the Aids Foundatiom CEO, because he wanted to remove rent control limits?
If that's the case then I'm voting "No". 😒
Voting no just because I’m so sick of that commercial with the woman in the wheelchair squawking about voting yes. That ad plays 15 times a fucking day I can’t take it anymore
lol that is so fkin true🤣
😂😂😂😂😂 you got me dying over here 😂😂😂it's so true tho
Are you 5.
You shouldn't be voting if you aren't taking this seriously. Lol
kind of an argument to vote yes, just so the ads are guaranteed to go away lol
I see the one about voting no 😭 I'm so tired I'm voting yes on it
After watching this I have even more questions.
Prop 34 would prohibit any taxpayer-funded healthcare group that benefits from a federally subsidized drug discount program from using those funds for politics. I would think it’s better to use the funds on patient care and not politics.
Nope. It's not "any" group. The prop was worded in such a way that only targets a group that landlords hate
@@f-86zoomer37 are you saying the video is wrong?
@@Toothless92040 you’re saying that this prop applies to “ANY” taxpayer funded healthcare org. That’s not accurate. It only applies to those that spend $100 mil, which just so happens to only apply to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which landlords hate.
@ okay, so why not just have that be your reply? However, I think the $100 million should be spent on the aids patients and not on politics.
@@Toothless92040 hey I totally agree. But if we want such a law, it must be applied fairly to ALL organizations. I will not support this narrow proposition that targets one group that a certain landlord lobby hates. I will not vote for any proposition that is written solely to retaliate against someone’s political opponent.
I got an ad from the yes campaign and don't live in California, not even in the US😂
You can still vote here. No id is required, what’s stopping you?
I’m just gonna leave this blank
I’m voting NO because there seems to be more commercials Asking people to vote yes which means they have the bigger agenda the bigger pockets
😂
It's literally just being bankrolled by the landlord lobby, and the law only affects the organization of a guy they hate. Vote no.
California Prop 34 | Prescription drug revenue for healthcare
CBS 8 San Diego
@@miryamishot yes it’s precisely a retaliatory ballot measure
right?!? It's super frustrating when information is so scattered and inconclusive we have to make a judgement call to vote.
Since I turned 18 I have lived under rent controlled properties and it is the best it has always given me power so no landlord can take advantage VOTE YES ON PROP 33
As a former AHF employee proposition 34 only seeks to affect the AHF a non profit that not only provides low to free health care and also housing among other life necessities for the community, it is a revenge initiative since AHF is the main seeker to pass rent control prop 33 the building owners united to create prop 34 this people only want to continue building properties that no one can afford and raise rent as they please with no one controlling them VOTE NO ON PROP 34
I'm voting No here. IMO this should not be on a state ballot. This being a Federal program, it should be managed and audited by the Federal agency appropriating these funds. The state should not be involved in its accounting. The funds should be used for what they are intended for. If the evidence proves that this a misused subsidy, the subsidy should be withdrawn and the entity penalized. Does everyone recall the $26k subsidy for businesses with employees during covid? There was a lack of validation before cutting checks. The program was mismanaged which led to it's abuse. The tax payer bears the burden of it all.
If AIDS healthcare foundation is not spending all their money on healthcare, does this mean patients are not receiving the care they need or AIDS healthcare foundation has been receiving a surplus, more than enough for both healthcare and providing low cost housing to those in need? Why would AHF be receiving more than they need and be spending that on apartment buildings in which tenants are living in squalid or delapitdated conditions and suing the AHF? Would like to hear directly from AHF staff. I know the intent of this proposition is payback against the AHF from wealthy landlords. Voting No on prop 34
You want to tell me that after all these decades there is an issue with lobbyists negotiating the cost to patients with government covered medical insurance?
ruclips.net/video/K1cJqB0X_BA/видео.htmlsi=cJZNJnuEP7jM5G5P
That ☝️ company is known to "advise" our government. A good watch.
This is the most confusing proposition I’ve ever read. From rent control to federal drug revenues...I just can’t wrap my mind around it. I’ll just vote no.
Exactly how they want it........confusing so they can push the BS through.
NO
I had to rewatch the video a few times but I get it now 👍🏼. Thank you.
Is everyone confusing this with prop 33, which is the one for rent control?
California Prop 34 | Prescription drug revenue for healthcare
CBS 8 San Diego
How would this potentially affect contraception/abortion access in California?
LOOK at the sponsorship?! I’m voting NO
VOTE NO ON ALL NEW TAXES!!!
Watch Carl DeMaio Reform California
For an amazing easy to read Voter Guide
For all of California and more.
This isn't a tax, don't share your worthless thoughts
So vote no on this ?
Vote no on this. Should not be on the ballot.
I used chat gpt to explain the prop like im 5 years old and I got this
"In short, it’s saying: If you’re a big healthcare provider, you have to use most of your money to help patients, and if you break the rules, you could lose your ability to help people at all. And there’s a program that will always be there to help people get their medicine."
I voted no btw, i don't trust it
Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was a much better explanation than the other 3 I listen too.
That’s a “no”!
YES! Spend the money on patient care.
Huh? We voting yes or no?
We voting no. This prop should not even be on the ballot. It's so dumb
No on 34
🆘️ In California, we are voting for propositions and measures that have 4️⃣7️⃣0️⃣ NEW TAXES built into them! Please look at the CA voters guide here on Y.T. from the Reform California Organization. They address each one and advise if it would raise our taxes.
VOTE EARLY 🗳
vote no
Voting yes!
Please don't vote again. You clearly don't understand anything about this proposition. It should not be on the ballot.
No on 33 yes on 34!
Obviously no on 34, regardless of what you think of healthcare reform and affordable housing. You were tricked because you weren't paying attention
Check out what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has to say about props 34.
“How they are?” How are they???
This video was so confusing and the end was cut abruptly, we can’t even read what yea or no means. They are doing this on purpose!!! I’m sick of the government trying to play us. I’m going to look for other videos
I was following until I got to the end..
I didn't get it.
Vote no
Nope, vote YES
@@svetlanaklinova4876 vote no, listen to citizens, not illegals.
@@milkcrate805 I listen re for m california
@@milkcrate805 true title is: not allow use our tax for politic
@@svetlanaklinova4876 lower corporate taxes, abolish income tax. Increase deregulation.
If you're confused about a proposition then the other side is already winning.
Yes on 33 and yes on 34 👍🏽
This sounds like some Game of Thrones plot. I'd like to see a mockumentary of this story. Sounds like one should either vote YES on both Prop 33 and Prop 34 OR NO on both Prop 33 and Prop 34. Voting "Yes" on one and "No" on the other sounds counter-intuitive / hypocritical (in this particular case). Is voting supposed to be this exciting and engaging?!
Your last sentence is not how it's stated on the ballot. Voting Yes on the ballot means leave things the way they are. Voting No means allowing the 98% expenditures. It's a tricky ballot
Can somebody please explain to me in layman’s terms if I am voting against this wealthy man who seems to be a little shady. should I put a yes or a no? It’s a little confusing.
(304b) sounds like it makes Drug Prices cheaper for HealthCare/Insurers.
98% of the profits is supposed to be spent in the Payee/Provider arena only(Patient Care)
So affectively if they can't use Medication Prescription Profits the way want.. They will not pay into Rent Control and initive they have backed before.
They made it about the M.A.G.A movement. But forgot to tell you the organization opposite of maga is weaponizing rent control. Rent is already to high.. I'm sure the fear of m.a.g.a and higher rent will get you to vote for them....
They will get richer regardless. Voting Yes on 34 is an attempt at accountability by Prescription Drug Providers to be honest. And.... Well... Not be drug dealers for profit.
It's a penalty for drug dealing in 304b
@yaright4709 thank you.
@@miguelsanchez-n9wvote yes if you want to vote against the wealthy man** that dude is just spamming the same thing to all posts haha
Vote yes! His foundation should be spending his money on patient care ... instead he spends it on political campaigns unrelated to AIDS
If you want to vote against this wealthy man who seems shady then vote “Yes”. That shady man is taking advantage a drug pricing program from the government to earn money by buying drugs cheap and selling them to patients at full retail price. So voting yes forces him to now spend those earnings on direct patient care.
I work to pay taxes that pay for jails and prisons. There are costs for facilities, food, and I am sure other stuff. Why shouldn't incarcerated persons work? Wouldn't they have to work to provide for their food, shelter, and utilities if they were not incarcerated? Maybe there could be the option of education or work.
This is Measure 6
Umm idk what he just explained and if it's about one guy than it's simple NO
Dolores Huerta opposes this…..So vote yes!
Check out what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has to say sbout prop 34 and then hopefully vote yeas on it. Watch Carl DeMaio's video on prop 34 snd the rest of the props.
I'm voting yes
💥BOMBSHELL REPORT from the Transparency Foundation calculates that the total higher costs paid by Californians versus national averages comes to upwards of $28,037 per year! It includes national averages for housing, utilities, food, gas, transportation, healthcare, insurance, childcare, and taxes. Let's vote 🆘️ Red down the ballot‼️
I vote YES
No vote
I'm thinking no
California Prop 34 | Prescription drug revenue for healthcare
CBS 8 San Diego
vote no
I still understood nothing…
This didn’t explain much
No
33 and 34.
Yes Yes or No No
If 33 rent control passes, the foundation did a good thing and helped pass better policies for housing, then great and thank you, but we need you less now and you should clean up your own house now even though it is in retaliation from greedy landlords.
If 33 rent control fails then the foundation should continue to push for better housing policies and not suffer from retaliation that may no longer allow for it to pursue good policies. Housing effects your health!
Yes on 34
Please don't share your ignorant opinion ever again
@ I don’t need to, It pass already 🤭
I’m confused. How does this relate to rent control? I received a text that stated:
Richard, this is Chris with No on Prop 34.
Rent control is opposed by the MAGA movement and we need your help to fight back. Please take some time to watch this short video and let us know if you are with us and will vote No on Prop 34! Do we have your support?
(Then it gave me a RUclips video link which I didn’t click just incase something fishy is going on)
Same. Lol
Michael Weinstein is a big rent control person. He has been using money from his Aids foundation to put rent control initiatives on California ballot paying per signature. The landlords put prop 34 up to make him use all of his money on healthcare so he cannot use it to go after landlords.
Michael Weinstein is the President of AIDS Health Foundation. He is also a big rent control person. He has spent millions of his foundation money putting rent control initiatives on California ballot. Pro 34 is a measure from realtors that would stop Weinstein from using foundation money for anything other than healthcare and not for anything else especially rent control.
I did too. VERY misleading text. What the text is indirectly saying is that since Weinstein helps provide low income health care AND is a landlord, the landlord association has made Prop 34 specifically for him to drain his money by prohibiting him from making ANY profit from his healthcare endeavors, a sort of "punishment" for him trying to fight for rent control. The actual proposition has NOTHING to do with rent control.
In short, the AHF (AIDs Healthcare Foundation) is well known non-profit organization that helps people who have the illness or live with someone who has it.
They are a well known proponent of rent control, since many people with AIDs within America tend to be generally poorer and vulnerable (e.g. many past addicts). These people need the stability of affordable rent and medicine to keep themselves safe as well as the community.
Prop 34 is targeted to basically dismantle AHF since they’re the biggest proponents of affordable rent and rent control. Prop 34 forces AHF to use less than 2% of their revenue on operating costs and at least 98% on medicine alone. AHF is not just about providing treatment, but other support as well that keep America safe and reduce AIDs/HIV.
If corporate landlords dismantles AHF, they remove a major political opponent and can more easily push for higher rent for more profits.
In other words, it’s a two-fer. It would greatly reduce the efficacy of AHF who are doing important work in keeping American communities safe. In addition - it would give corporate landlords free rein to continue raising prices despite the fact that more and more Americans are struggling.
Vote yes if you want that 98% of money to where it needs to go. Vote no if you want everything to stay the same.
If you think this prop is actually about spending money on patients, you haven't paid attention to anything. Please don't vote, seriously! If you didn't understand prop 34 you shouldn't be telling others about it.
@ enlighten me.
@@baconcult. Find my other comment on this video and read it.
Why wouldn't they sped all there money on medicine that's what health care is its not buy a house for me care.
Im voting no
VOTE NO on this!!! VOTE NO!!!!!!! Republican greed hard at work…VOTE NO
Yes
No
The government will choose who is worthy of help: surgeries, medications, cheap help! Look up The McKenzie Group. Your eyes will be open IMMEDIATELY!!!!!
No
I'm confused still... which one benefits him huh what 😅
No
DEFINITELY VOTE NO
I like the other guy better. This guy sucks and clearly is trying to push something
A vote for yes is a vote for accountability ... vote yes!
Remember to Vote “No” if you don’t want government control
By "government control" you mean public oversight.
@@matt9675 the public oversight means government oversight. Private vs public. Private is better. Entities separate from the government. Government should not intervene in the private market. Even healthcare. Repeal Obamacare/Affordable care act 100%
@@milkcrate805 government works on behalf of the people, as elected by the people. Private entities work with their own interests (profits) chiefly in mind. Regulations protect the people from reckless private sector behavior.
@@matt9675 you never took economics. Private industry allows companies to compete. With competition, you get this: better innovation, employment opportunities (people to work for company creating jobs), benefits for those employees, diversity in respect to fields of treatment, lower costs due to competing, choice of service for the customer, opportunities for government funds/partnerships if agreed upon.
Forcing all healthcare under influence or control of the US government is a mistake and leads to unaffordable heathcare plans for middle class families. Middle class is the backbone of our nation and economy and culture. No one is advocating for taking away Medicare. But the healthcare system needs less, not more, government intervention. Also, rights to the states, not federal gov.
@@matt9675 right to the states: which means if you vote for this California, you get what you asked for… and you deal with the repercussions for middle class families
not useful at all.
A pretty biased explanation lol
YES 😊
Vote no
Hell yes!
Vote no
@@milkcrate805 No way, this guy is a slumlord and uses some of the money to help himself not others. Vote yes so all the money goes to help people with their medical costs!
@@DPitt-ty4sd Why would lobbying for more rent control, which helps rentees pay lower rents, make him a slumlord? I feel like I'm missing something basic here.
@@DPitt-ty4sd vote no 200%
No
At least other "prop in a minute " videos TRY to seem objective
So woke so liberal
vote no unless u like taxes
Vote YES only on 3, 34, 36
I think you are spot on. But prop 6 seems a yes. Literally no opposition.
@@stanley19430 nope. But yt dels my comments
@@stanley19430 It's a tax hike. We’ll pay raises to prisoners for doing tasks they should be doing anyway. Like doing laundry & cooking food
@@svetlanaklinova4876 it’s literally not. That is why there are zero oppositions. I don’t know who is spreading this misinformation. No where does this amendment discuss paying fair wages. All it amend is giving the prisoners right to refuse work just like any human being. In fact, it explicitly allows lower wage pay to continue.
@@stanley19430 First, don’t trust official sources about opposition. Yt doesn't allow to provide the direct info. Second, prison is not a sanatorium. If people commit crimes, they lose their rights.
Why is a Guatemalan on your ad?! She is her in the US on a mercy visa to receive medical care. You are shameless
No on 5 ,, it’s a property tax increase
Then dont complain about homeless, tents, etc.
@@fernando536 this is not about homeless or tens, this is democrats in Sacramento trying to have less votes to raise property taxes, the bill has nothing to do with housing, just because it says it is is like all bills are something else just fooling voters