davis_square | Ballot Questions 1-3

Entry tags:

local politics

Ballot Questions 1-3

It's Election Day. Some time back I'd posted some quick summaries of the three statewide ballot initiatives;

ron_newman asked me to post them here closer to election time, and, well, you can't get closer. This is slightly modified from my original analyses.

Question 1 is popularly called the Right to Repair law. Currently, independent auto shops do not get 100% of the data needed to completely diagnose problems with the current fleet of cars, and without legislation cannot count on most manufacturers to let them purchase or rent that data. I had heard that Toyota was an exception to this manufacturer bloc in this regard.
This question, if passed, would require auto manufacturers to provide the same data to independent shops as it does to dealerships, for (presumably the same) fair market value, and require industry-wide standards. The industry is paying close attention to what happens here, because we'd beat California for once. They're also spending a lot of money to oppose the bill, citing large costs that they claim would need to be passed on to consumers, and saying it's based on using old on-board computer systems to get across the diagnostic knowledge, which would then be locked in and prevent on-board computer updates. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has asked Toyota how much providing this extra information adds to the price of a car, but honestly (as a layman) I'd be surprised if it broke three figures. Personally I'm siding with the local repair shops, and suspect the manufacturers are blowing a certain amount of smoke.

A vote for Question 1 means that independent auto repair shops will be able to purchase the same critical data needed for car repairs without car owners being forced to go to a dealer for certain repairs. A vote against means no change to current law.

Question 2 is a Right to Die law. Currently, someone who is diagnosed with a life-threatening incurable illness and is given no more than 6 months to live must stay until the bitter end. This bill, if passed, would give a very limited set of circumstances that would allow a person to ask their doctor for a medical dose that would be self-administered (though witnessed) that would allow them to end their lives. They need to be of sound mind (though they do not need to see a psychiatrist), be deemed incurable by their doctor, and ask for it themselves without coercion. It makes no provision for people who have been heavily injured, which is probably deliberate. The state will keep a very close eye on doctors to see if any are enthusiastically writing prescriptions for end-of-life pills
This one will have a lot of conflicting emotion driving the vote. I already know of some people who have disputed how well the bill is written, in a spirited though not bitter fashion. I see both sides of that fence, to be honest.

A vote for Question 2 means that Massachusetts will become one of the few states allowing terminally ill patients the right to die at a time and place of their choosing, providing all appropriate hoops are jumped through. A vote against means no change to current law.

Question 3 is a medical marijuana law. Currently, marijuana is not legal under any circumstances in Massachusetts, though small amounts are now civil penalties and usually ignored. The proposed bill would allow for legal non-profit dispensaries and growers of cannabis, or personal cultivation if it were deemed too difficult to get to a dispensary. A doctor's prescription would be required; evaluation for difficulty getting to a dispensary would be done on a case-by-case basis. There are lots of qualifiers here too, like the maximum of a 60 day supply. Also, the bill does not list chronic pain as a qualifying condition for a prescription.
One provision I do not care for states that if a doctor prescribes marijuana, insurance companies (and government entities) would not have to reimburse for any medical marijuana purchase. I highly dislike the precedent of a category of prescribed treatment that insurance is allowed to not pay for.
The bill also explicitly states that commonwealth law does not trump federal law, and federal law still says the stuff is illegal. However, as more and more states adopt medical marijuana laws, it is likely that, at some point in the nebulous future, the federal government will decide to stop prioritizing marijuana laws. It is a step toward long-term decriminalization, but only a step. I am personally in the legalize-but-tax camp, though pot smoke gives me migraines that I'd rather avoid.

A vote for Question 3 would allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for certain ailments, for patients to go to non-profit clinics to purchase the plant at full retail value, and allows hardship cases to grow their own, within limits. A vote against means no change to the law.

Many of you likely have your minds made up already on these referenda, and that's fine. Just don't forget to vote.

If you are stressing over the national election and various Senate and House runs, I suggest going to The New York Times website. Fivethiryeight (on the NYTimes site) in particular lists Presidential and Senate races; in 2008, while still an independent blog, the people there called 49 out of 50 states correctly for the Presidential race. Whether the accuracy level remains the same will remain to be seen, but Nate Silver does have very good statistical models. I'm not saying it'll be 100% accurate, just that the analyses might calm your beating heart.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Please vote in favor of the death with dignity and the marijuana initiatives.

It shouldn't even be possible to deny a sick person the right to end their life. The opposition says "doctors aren't always right". Yes that's true, but that should be the individual who gets to weigh that possibility in light of all circumstances. I know the opposition means well (people do bad things with good intentions all the time) but we live in a society of liberty, this right shouldn't even require a vote.

Marijuana-prohibition doesn't work.

I really honestly don't think the opposition means well. My impression is that the opposition is based on people who for religious reasons think it is always wrong to end your own life, but who understand that they can't win based on that argument, so are trying to trick people using other arguments that they're making up or stretching implausibly. It's sleazy.

Edit: Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of *individuals* who oppose this question and mean well, personally. I mean the organized opposition.

Edited 2012-11-06 17:40 (UTC)

I'm glad for your edit, because I've heard at least one disability advocate with an informed good-will argument against Question 2, involving how our negative perceptions of people with disabilities can lead people to make poor (and possibly irrevocable) decisions.

I was going to say, I don't think Second Thoughts (http://www.second-thoughts.org) is sleazy and religious at all.

I voted for Question 2, but I respect the concerns of the organized disability advocates, and don't think it at all fair to describe them or their arguments as 'sleazy'.

(I know nothing about any other organizations who have opposed this, other than the Mass. Medical Society, which I also would not describe as 'sleazy'.)

While I support the sentiment of Q2, I feel that it is way too weak. 6 months is a very short time, and self-administered suicide gives people with locked-in syndrome pretty much no option (as far as I can tell). (Maybe they can control a robotic arm that administers the pill? Sounds like a hacker lab project.)

ETA: Actually, I'm not clear on whether Q2 does prohibit someone else from putting the pill in the patient's mouth.

Edited 2012-11-06 13:37 (UTC)

If Q2 passes it opens up the possibility to organize to get it reasonably expanded in the ways you want. If Q2 fails, it closes off that possibility at least for a while.

this is my hope, honestly, because i agree it doesn't actually provide the intended benefit (?) for some of those who most might need/want it. but i would much prefer it to pass than to not pass (my own soapbox, of course)

Yeah, I'll vote for it anyway -- it will do some good as is, and hopefully will inspire other states.

Here's the valid link for Q1; Q2 and Q3 links analogous: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/quest_1.htm

Thanks, fixed.

From reading elsewhere, it sounds like the only difference between Q1 and current law is the phase-in date; the compromise passed by the legislature would require this access in 2018, while Q1 would require it in 2015.

It also expands the categories of vehicles included in the bill to motorcycles and one other type - trucks maybe? (From my icon you can see why this matters to me ;)

I wanted to chime in about Ballot Question #1 the Right to Repair and provide some additional context.

This ballot question was initiated before compromise legislation was negotiated, passed and signed by the Governor. Massachusetts already has a "right to repair" statute on the books that was passed & signed on July 3, 2012 and takes effect today, November 6, 2012.

The compromise legislation was developed with both the Right to Repair Coalition and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, among some other advocates, at the table. The final bill was agreed upon by all parties, and once it was signed into law, it made the ballot question obsolete, or so most of the coalition had thought. In fact, the members of the Coalition and the Automakers, along with legislators, held a press conference (http://www.globalautomakers.org/media/press-release/automakers-dealers-and-massachusetts-r2r-coalition-launch-effort-to-educate-voters) in September to inform voters to skip the ballot initiative (http://skipquestion1.com/). Meaning, don't bother to vote for or against it because it's moot.

However, AAA of Southern New England and AAA of Pioneer Valley, have come out asking voters to vote Yes on quesiton 1. They claim the compromise legislation, that they supported as members of the coalition, has loopholes and doesn't cover telematics. Specifically, "the ballot question would allow vehicle owners to control information from telematics, an emerging technology that allows vehicle manufacturers to send and receive repair information to vehicles via mobile communicati (http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/triple_aaa_clubs_endorse_right.html)ons." The auto makers alliance claim there this is a new technology and that they have concerns about public safety, privacy for customers and intellectual property, which is why it wasn't included in the compromise legislation.

I'm not generally one to believe everything big corporations have to say, but given the compromise reached with all parties at the table, I don't necessarily agree with the OP's assessment that the car makers are "blowing smoke" on this one. I think this issue is a lot more complicated than manufacturers blowing smoke or not.. telematics is a new technology, so it makes sens that the negotiators left it out of the original legislation. I don't know the inner workings of the negotiations, but you know statute is a living thing, it can and will be changed as needed.

Anyways, I'm not trying to say you should or shouldn't vote for this ballot initiative, but I wanted to at least provide more context. I hope this is helpful.

Also, a quick disclosure. I worked for a State Representative for 3 years during the time this legislation was being negoatiated. I didn't work on this directly, but I have some understanding of the negotiations that took place.

Also, also, have fun voting!

Thank you, this was very informative.

No, no, analysis appreciated, and that includes the small window into negotiations. My own thought is that the law can be modified to allow for updated technology in the vehicle, and probably with minimal fuss given the chance. Given the costs of technology, I do not see why it would be so expensive for manufacturers to provide the information (for a fair price) to repair shops--that's why I said blowing smoke.

*wry smile* I'd love working for a state rep or senator.

You're probably right about the manufacturers blowing smoke about technology costs. I don't doubt they'd charge whatever they think they can get and then some :P

As for the working for a state Rep or Senator, there might be some turnover in come February when committee assignments come out. But I will warn you, the pay is, well, not spectacular, especially in the House :P The staf jobs aren't really long-term by design, but it was a great experience and a heck of a lot of fun.

Any pay beats no pay; besides, it would continue what I was studying as an undergrad.

I'm voting against #1 because when the legislature brings both parties to the table and works out compromise law that accounts for concerns on both sides, that's lawmaking at its best. A one-sided ballot initiative before voters is a much poorer way to make law.

For me, this concern trumps whatever opinion I have about the substance of #1.

Just as an fyi: please read the actual text of Q2.

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/full_text.htm#two (http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/full_text.htm#two)

There are a few provisions in this which are concerning.

Section 3.4: If the patient is a patient in a long-term care facility at the time the written request is made, one of the witnesses shall be an individual designated by the facility.

The potential for 'let's intimidate the sick' type of situations worries me.

section 9: ...a qualified patient shall have made an oral request and a written request...

There are no provisions for alternate communication methods.

Edited 2012-11-06 17:05 (UTC)

I have, in fact, read the actual text.
Regarding section 3.4, I suspect that the reasons for that provision are to ensure that the people running the facility are not neglecting their duties toward their clients, and to handle other liability issues. Someone in a nursing home will in many cases have limited contact with the rest of society, and may be limited in their choice of witness.
Turn it around, though: what if someone enters hospice and intends on asking for the right to die, but the place refuses to designate somebody as a witness?

I do see your point. However, Section 19 actually addresses the coercion part. There are jail times listed as possible penalties, and it lists the crime as a felony.

Regarding section 9, that actually requires going back to section 1 (3): “Capable” means having the capacity to make health care decisions and to communicate them to health care providers, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating if those persons are available. (emphasis added)

Sign language, languages not understood by the doctor, and generally-incomprehensible speech are covered by this. It does, on reflection, require that you are able to sign your own name and initials; I do wonder how they would handle that for a full quadriplegic.

Presumably, people who are unable to communicate have their decisions made by whoever holds medical proxy, which is a different kettle of fish.

Most transgender folks can tell you there's already a category of medical care insurance isn't required to cover. In fact, insurance policies explicitly exclude anything related to trans issues.

(Also, try getting an abortion when you're a federal employee, since those insurance plans aren't allowed to cover abortions, but I digress).

Oh, I know. And I want those items covered. I feel it's a bad idea to have even more categories of medically-necessary-but-not-covered-by-insurance items, but it's still better to have the option for the item than not.

Side question: does the ACA mean that federal employees will get abortion coverage as part of expanded female health coverage? It's not something I've seen addressed, but I figure you might know.

Quite Frankly, I can't imagine that insurance companies can legally pay for medical marijuana.

While the state can allow for prescriptions and distribution, it remains a FDA schedule 1 drug (which, by definition, means there is no medically accepted use -- inaccurate, but also a separate problem that needs to be addressed). It is still a federal crime to sell or purchase, and paying for it would be a federal crime. One cannot enforce a clause of a contract when that clause requires an illegal action.

I would love to see THC and marijuana reclassified to schedule 2 or 3, but that seems to be a lost cause, at least in the short term.

Well, I do not disagree with your reasoning. However, having a trigger clause that would require them to pay at such time as marijuana becomes legal to sell would be nice.

Just a side note about Nate Silver: I've had conversations with a number of statisticians and they're not terribly impressed with his analysis. They agree in principal with what he's doing, but consider him to be a hack statistician. Plus, his model is proprietary and not open to inspection, and he seems to have pushed the "tight race" narrative to help his employer, the New York Times sell advertising. For good analysis, Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium, and Votamatic do a much better job. I recommend them over Nate. Also, electoral-vote.com is an excellent site.

Well... currently Nate Silver gives Romney less than a 10% chance of winning. I admit I do now know how he weighs his statistics; I do know that there's one state where the last several polls have all gone for the Democrat by a few points but he's listing it as more likely to go to the Republican.

I'm willing to be shown wrong about his methods and analysis, but he did an excellent job in 2008 as an independent. I haven't heard of The New York Times telling people to fudge data just to sell newspapers, though I will admit it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ballot Questions 1-3

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Broken links

Re: Broken links

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject