# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June primary voters weighed in on what might ordinarily be considered a daunting number of issues: nine citywide measures, and one state measure.

That was nothing.

San Diego voters will face an astounding 12 citywide measures, two countywide measures and 17 - 17! - statewide measures, for a grand total of 31. And that number could still technically go up. (And there are also, you know, races with candidates running against each other.)

The local measures, which this guide covers, range in sexiness from a new stadium to how the city handles purchasing and contracting.

It's a lot to learn, a lot to process, a lot to decide.

You can do it.

Measure A: The SANDAG Tax

What it is: Measure A is a proposal from the San Diego Association of Governments that would levy a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation and infrastructure projects throughout the county.

The measure would raise about $18.2 billion over the next 40 years. Roughly 42 percent of that would go to public transit projects; 14 percent to highway improvements; 30 percent to individual cities to spend on local infrastructure; 11 percent to open space preservation and 3 percent to walking and biking projects.

The measure would legally bind SANDAG to complete some of the projects within 15 years, including the Purple Trolley line from San Ysidro to Kearney Mesa and a new Coaster station at the Del Mar Fairgrounds.

The backstory: The money earned from the tax would pay for some of the $204 billion worth of projects SANDAG has laid out in its regional transportation plan.

Some of the projects in that plan are being funded by a tax that voters approved years ago, Transnet. This measure is separate and would fund separate projects.

It would also help fund a commitment San Diego made to protect endangered species on preserved lands - an agreement it's never really figured out how to pay for.

Separate measures floated by the agency earlier this year pitted public transit projects against local infrastructure. In July, SANDAG's board finally approved a combination of the two to put on the ballot.

The plan has support from Chula Vista Mayor Mary Salas, Councilman Todd Gloria and the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Kevin Faulconer, North County leaders like Poway Mayor Steve Vaus, and a coalition of labor and environmentalists oppose it.

A YES vote would: support raising sales tax by half a cent for the next few decades for transportation and infrastructure.

A NO vote would: not raise taxes for these projects. The transportation projects that would be funded are still part of SANDAG's long-term plan and the agency is still expected to try to move forward with them, but how they're funded would be up in the air.

For more background, check out:
Independent Oversight Promised With Last SANDAG Tax Hike Not So Independent Fact Check: North County Wants Its 'Fair Share' of SANDAG Tax Inside the Fight on the Left Over SANDAG's Big Tax The Line Between Education and Advocacy on SANDAG's Tax Proposal Fact Check: Will a Sales Tax Hike Relieve Traffic Congestion? " Return to top
Measure B: The Lilac Hills Ranch Development

What it is: Measure B is a countywide measure put forth by the developer Accretive Investments. It would approve Lilac Hills Ranch, a 1,700-home development near Valley Center.

The backstory: Lilac Hills Ranch has been trying to work through the traditional county permitting process for nearly a decade. The development required special permission because it would add more than 1,700 homes in a rural area that currently only allows for 110. It's been vehemently opposed by a group of residents, and back in 2009, the county outright denied the project's application.

A new director re-organized the planning department at the county gave the project another chance. It narrowly gained a Planning Commission recommendation, dependent on certain changes to the project being made.

Then, Lilac Hills Ranch hit two roadblocks late last year. The first was that a state watchdog told Supervisor Bill Horn, who was expected to vote in favor of the project, to recuse himself from the vote on the project. Horn owns nearby property whose value would increase if the project were approved. The other was a decision by the California Supreme Court on another large, sprawling development in the Los Angeles area that left all similar projects statewide uncertain as to how they should measure and disclose their potential greenhouse gas emissions.

So the developers decided to go to the ballot to circumvent these obstacles.

But they left some of the conditions the county had imposed out of the plan.

Before the measure was placed on the ballot, county staff wrote a report detailing these differences between the plan.

The county wanted developers to fund a new school to accommodate new residents, improve roads to bring them up to safety standards and fund a new fire station.

The ballot measure doesn't obligate Accretive to do any of those things, though it has separately said it will help the Bonsall school district build a school and would provide some additional money to the county to help fund road improvements - though the county has said it's unclear whether these separate agreements are legally binding or enough to address the issues.

A YES vote would: approve the Lilac Hills Ranch development plan.

A NO vote would: reject the Lilac Hills Ranch development plan. The developer hasn't stopped the traditional county permitting process, so it's unclear what their game plan will be if the voters don't approve the measure.

For more background, check out:
Developer Won't Take No for an Answer on Massive Lilac Hills Ranch Project Developer and County May Seize Private Property for Lilac Hills Project Lilac Hills Ranch Developer to Try Yet Another Way Around 'No' Lilac Hills Initiative Includes Several 'Get Out of Lawsuit Free' Cards for Developer The New School Question Facing Lilac Hills Ranch " Return to top
Measure C: The Chargers' Stadium Plan

What it is: A convadium! It would raise the hotel-room tax in the city of San Diego from effectively 12.5 percent to 16.5 percent to finance construction of a joint stadium and convention center in San Diego's East Village. The measure provides the permit for the facility, outlines only the broad limits of how tall and wide it can be, allows it to put up giant, digital billboards and lays the joint powers authority that would own and manage it and says it would be used by a professional football team, which would have responsibility to maintain the football parts of it. That team, obviously, is the Chargers - but it's illegal to put up a measure that one company specifically will benefit from, so it is left vague. One other point: The city's hotel-room tax is actually 10.5 percent right now. Hotels collect 2 percent on top of that to fund what is called the Tourism Marketing District. This is why we say the city's effective hotel-room tax is 12.5 percent. Measure C replaces the Tourism Marketing District with just 1 percent of the collections and the promise it could get more if there's money left over after other debt and obligations are funded.

The backstory: In January, Chargers President Dean Spanos worked to persuade other NFL team owners to let him move the team to a new stadium in Carson. The other owners, however, chose a different project in Inglewood, where the Rams are now overseeing construction of a large development and stadium. The owners gave the Chargers two things: the right to join the Rams in that facility and the promise of $100 million more to help with construction of a new stadium in San Diego. Determined to put something together in time for the November ballot, the Chargers raced to arrange the team's ideal plan: downtown and fully funded with no chance of the revenue to pay for it not materializing. It was an extraordinarily hurried process and the Chargers did not secure any support for it before the team unveiled it. Then, with the support of some labor unions and local members of Congress, the team launched a signature-gathering effort that successfully put it on the ballot as Measure C.

The Chargers say the measure unquestionably protects the city's general fund from costs associated with the construction and maintenance of the convadium. The hotel tax will be sufficient, the team says, to fund construction and maintenance and unforeseen costs. Opponents dispute that and also say there are related infrastructure, parking and traffic costs that might fall on the city and the measure does not do anything to retire existing city debt on Qualcomm Stadium. The city pays an average of $4.9 million a year on that debt, through 2026.

A YES vote would: approve the plan, but a few caveats: It requires two-thirds support. If more than two-thirds of voters choose yes, then the city and Chargers would begin negotiations to set up the joint powers authority that would oversee construction of the facility. They would design the facility (its design, besides the broad limits, is not determined). If for some reason the facility is not built, the hotel tax would retreat to a 3 percent increase. There's a chance the measure could not get two-thirds of voter support. If it only gets 50 percent, the Chargers have some hope it could be implemented after a recent court ruling indicated that taxes raised by ballot initiative only need support from a simple majority of voters. Some Chargers supporters argue it is important to show the team support so that even if the measure fails to get two-thirds, the team will see the support it did have and keep negotiating.

A NO vote would: reject it. It would force the Chargers to come up with a different stadium plan or follow through on the threat to move to Inglewood. A broad coalition of hotel-industry leaders, politicians, activists in Barrio Logan, construction contractors hostile to labor unions and others argue the tax hike is too much, it's a bad place for a stadium and too many questions are left unanswered or can't be negotiated because the vote will be binding on many points.
For more background, check out:
Op-Ed: The Convadium Is an Opportunity for San Diego to Do a Big Thing. We Should Take It.
Padres Chairman Lays Out Concerns with Chargers' Plans
Op-Ed: The Convadium May Just Be a Con
A Hotel Tax Hike Has Been in the Chargers' Playbook for a Long Time East Village Developers Say an East Village Stadium Would Ruin East Village Assembling the Properties for a Downtown Convadium Not Nearly the Obstacle It Seemed " Return to top
Measure D: The Citizens' Plan

What it is: Called the Citizens' Plan by supporters, this measure would raise the city's official hotel-room tax from 10.5 percent now to 15.5 percent. For smaller lodging businesses, the tax would be 14 percent. It would eliminate the Tourism Marketing District 2 percent levy that is currently collected on top of the 10.5 percent city tax and replace it with an option for hotels to voluntarily contribute to tourism marketing and deduct up to 2 percent from their payments to the city if they do. It would also allow them to deduct up to 2 percent more if they contribute to construction of a convention center. In short, it's a guarantee the city will collect an additional 1 percent from hotel-room visitors - money that will go directly into the city's general fund, which can be used for parks, police, fire and other needs. It prohibits the city from spending money to expand the existing Convention Center. That would have to be overturned by another vote of the people (a vote would likely be needed regardless to authorize a tax hike). The Port could expand the Convention Center with a different financing mechanism. It provides for help expediting the permitting of a stadium downtown and in Mission Valley, and the stadium could be combined with the separate convention center expansion it does allow, though the funding would have to be kept separate somehow. If the Chargers leave the team's current stadium, this measure authorizes the city to sell the land under Qualcomm Stadium to either San Diego State University, UC San Diego, a local community college, the San Diego River Conservancy or any combination of them. If the city sells that much land, it is required to get a vote; this serves as that vote.

The backstory: This measure was put together by attorney Cory Briggs, former City Councilwoman Donna Frye, their allies and JMI Realty, which provided crucial funding, as did former Padres owner John Moores. It was designed as a sort of grand compromise with hotel owners often at odds with Briggs as a way to provide a route to a new convention center off the waterfront, a way to preserve tourism marketing funds that were under legal threat and to set in motion plans for the land under Qualcomm Stadium that many people covet if the Chargers were to leave. Hotel owners other than JMI did not end up supporting the measure. San Diego State's president expressed support for the idea of expanding into the Mission Valley area.

A YES vote would: approve the measure. Briggs and his lawyer, elections attorney Jim Sutton, argue it requires only a simple majority to be implemented. San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith says it would need two-thirds support. If it gets a simple majority, there will likely be a court battle.

A NO vote would: reject the measure.
For more background, check out: The Genius of - and the Problem With - the Briggs Hotel-Tax Overhaul For a Stadium, the Chargers Will Have to Beat Hoteliers, Then Win Them Over " Return to top
Measure E: Removing City Officials

What it is: This measure would make it easier to remove and replace elected city officials who've committed crimes or other wrongdoing.

Measure E would require the mayor, city attorney and City Council members to forfeit their job outright if they are convicted of a felony, found civilly liable for fraud or declared incapacitated by a court.

The measure would also create a new process to remove elected city officials convicted of certain misdemeanors. A court declaration that an elected official is neglecting his or her duties could also merit removal proceedings.

Under those circumstances, three-fourths of the City Council could vote to hold a special removal election, then a majority of voters would need to approve the removal of the public official.

San Diego would become the first city in California to create such a Council-initiated special removal election, according to the city attorney's office. Voter-led recalls would remain intact.

The measure would also require city attorney candidates to be licensed to practice law in California for at least 10 years.

The backstory: San Diego Mayor Bob Filner resigned in late August 2013 amid an onslaught of sexual harassment allegations.

The City Charter only allows for the mayor to be removed through a recall election, which is hard to trigger, so officials had to broker a deal to get him to resign.

A charter review committee, with help from the city attorney's office, drafted this measure in response to the County Grand Jury's recommendation to expand removal options for elected city officials.

A YES vote would: Offer new avenues for removal of elected city officials, and boost the requirements for city attorney candidates.

A NO vote would: Keep the status quo, which requires death, resignation, loss of voter eligibility or a recall to force an official out before the end of his or her term.

For more background, check out:
How SD's Own Laws Protect the Mayor The Most Problematic Pieces of SD's City Charter Fact Check: The Rules of Recall Explainer: The Rocky Road to Recall City Attorney on Filner: 'It Was a De Facto Impeachment' " Return to top
Measure F: Job Security for Deputy City Attorneys

What it is: a measure to increase job security for deputy city attorneys.

"Deputy city attorney" is a fancy name for lawyers in the San Diego city attorney's office. They prosecute misdemeanors, represent the city in lawsuits and give legal advice to other city agencies, as well as to the City Council and the mayor.

Right now, a deputy city attorney can be fired without cause during his or her first two years on the job, which is considered a probationary period for new hires. This measure reduces the probationary period to a single year.

The backstory: There are about 150 deputy city attorneys in San Diego, and they lack job protections typical of other civil servants. A decade ago, there was huge turnover in the city attorney's office. This became a campaign issue in 2008, when current City Attorney Jan Goldsmith won.

With Goldsmith's blessing, voters approved 2010's Proposition B, which gave deputy city attorneys more job protections. They can still be fired without cause in their first two years on the job but can only be fired for "good cause" after two years.

Goldsmith also supports Measure F, which is backed by the Deputy City Attorneys Association, which wants to protect its newest members from being fired for political reasons, particularly with the election right around the corner.

Now, supporters of Measure F say two years is too long of a probationary period.

They include the deputy city attorneys union, the San Diego Taxpayers Association, the League of Women Voters of San Diego and City Council President Sherri Lightner.

"This measure makes it harder for politics to influence the office and its makeup," they said in a joint statement.

Mara Elliott, a candidate for city attorney who is the current chief deputy city attorney, also supports the measure. She said it's pretty easy to tell if a new hire will be a good employee.

No one has filed an argument against the measure, nor did anyone speak directly against it during recent City Council meetings.

Councilmember Todd Gloria voted against putting the measure on the ballot, though. He is concerned about ballot printing costs and did not think Measure F was urgent.

A YES vote would: extend job protections to deputy city attorneys after their first year on the job.

A NO vote would: continue to give deputy city attorneys job protections only after two years on the job.
For more background, check out: Cleaning Out the City Attorney's Office Could Come at a Cost " Return to top
Measure G: Changes to the Citizens' Review Board

What it is: Measure G would make some minor tweaks to the portion of the city charter that deals with the Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices, the 23-member volunteer panel that reviews the police department's Internal Affairs investigations.

The backstory: For years, civil rights groups have argued that the CRB lacks teeth, since its role is to review - and not independently investigate - the San Diego Police Department's own investigations. Earlier this year, a group led by Women Occupy San Diego called for an overhaul that would make the CRB more like the county's Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board, which has subpoena power, conducts its own investigations of complaints against the sheriff's deputies and probation officers and publishes summaries of those investigations. The county board also has the ability to hire outside legal counsel while the CRB relies on the city attorney's office for advice, raising questions about conflict of interest. Some of the recommended changes - outside legal counsel and investigative summaries - don't require a public vote and are in the works. Other changes, like how CRB members are selected, are spelled out in the city charter and require a vote.

A YES vote would: change the CRB's name to the Community Review Board on Police Practices, enshrine in the city charter the CRB's authority to investigate deaths at the hands of police and make it easier for the City Council to regulate how the CRB operates. Currently the mayor has sole authority over the CRB and who sits on the board.

A NO vote would: keep things the way they are.

For more background, check out:
Activists Push City to Give Police Oversight More Power Police Watchdog: 'There's a Lack of Transparency' " Return to top
Measure H: Changes to the City's Purchasing and Contracting Process

What it does: This uncontroversial measure resolves a concern of city staff about the City Charter. "The amendments would require contracts for public works, goods, services, and consultants to be awarded through a competitive process, in accordance with rules adopted by the City Council by ordinance." It also, though, removes a requirement that the city advertise certain contracts in a local newspaper 10 days before the deadline for bids. The change would allow the city to simply follow public disclosure rules that already exist.

The backstory: City staff requested the change. Like many uncontroversial changes to the City Charter, it was put on the ballot by the Charter Review Committee and City Council. Nobody is on record opposing it.

A YES vote would: approve the change.

A NO vote would: reject it.
" Return to top
Measure I: San Diego High's Balboa Park Location

What it is: Measure I would allow the City Council to extend San Diego High School's lease on its current location at the edge of Balboa Park.

The backstory: The city charter and state law say schools aren't allowed on city parkland. But San Diego High, the city's oldest high school, was built years before the city charter was drafted and decades before the state law was written.

In 1974, negotiations between the city and school district resulted in a 50-year lease. City Council President Sherri Lightner, the only Council member to oppose sending the measure to ballot, told KPBS the intent of that lease was to give the San Diego Unified School District 50 years to come up with a new location for the school.

Councilman David Alvarez, who graduated from San Diego High and supports the measure, said there isn't sufficient space downtown to build a new high school that could serve the families in his district.

"The honest truth is that if the school district were going to build another school, they needed to get to work on that a long time ago (when there was still land available)," Alvarez told KPBS. Alvarez said he's concerned that a forced relocation would disrupt learning and create instability at San Diego High.

The plan has support from Alvarez, Councilman Todd Gloria, San Diego Unified Superintendent Cindy Marten and school board vice president Richard Barrera. Lightner, the retired chief deputy city attorney who handled the half-century lease issues in 1974 and park conservationists oppose the measure.

A YES vote would: amend the city charter and authorize the City Council to extend San Diego High's lease on the parkland where it currently resides.

A NO vote would: mean San Diego High must relocate after 2024.

For more background, check out:
City Council Moves to Save San Diego High School City Council Moves San Diego High School Issue to the Ballot " Return to top
Measure J: Money for Mission Bay and Other Parks

What it is: Measure J would direct money from Mission Bay Park's commercial leases to regional parks, including Mission Bay Park, Balboa Park and others. The measure, introduced by Mayor Kevin Faulconer, would also give the city flexibility to more quickly pursue certain repair projects in Mission Bay Park and allow the city to seek a $126 million bond for regional parks. Though the measure would require nearly two-thirds of the bond be funneled to Mission Bay, the mayor's office has said repairs for Balboa Park's historic buildings would be prioritized.

The backstory: In 2008, voters approved Proposition C, which requires that 25 percent of Mission Bay lease revenues over $20 million support regional park projects. The majority of the money has gone to Mission Bay Park. But Balboa Park and other regional parks also have many needs, and lack cash to pay for them. This measure would bring more money to those parks while still allocating 65 percent of lease revenues to Mission Bay Park.

A YES vote would: throw more Mission Bay lease revenue - and likely, bond money - at regional parks other than Mission Bay and maintain a revenue stream for all regional parks through 2069.

A NO vote would: keep things the way they are, with Mission Bay Park receiving a steady stream of money, and regional parks receiving less. Mission Bay's arrangement would end in 2039 with a no vote.

For more background, check out:
San Diego Explained: Balboa Park's Problems A Tale of Two Parks The Big Questions on Balboa Park's Big Day " Return to top
Measure K: Forcing a November Runoff

What it is: Measure K would require that the two candidates who get the most votes in a June primary election for City Council, mayor or city attorney face each other during the November general election. Currently, if a candidate in the June primary gets more than 50 percent of the vote, she wins the office outright. This would ensure the top two vote-getters face off in November, no matter what.

The backstory: Liberal leaders last year said the city should change its law that let candidates win during June primary elections if they win more than 50 percent of the vote. In recent years, Republicans had won races in June, depriving Democrats of a chance to take them on in November when increased voter turnout increased their chances of success. Plus, they argued: Doesn't it make more sense to make city decisions the same way we make state decisions, and when more voters show up to have a say? In 2012, 1.2 million San Diego County voters participated in the November election; earlier that year, 548,000 San Diego County voters showed up for the June primary.

This summer two independent groups asked the City Council to put the issue on the November ballot. The Council agreed, with all five Democrats voting to put the issue on ballot and all four Republicans voting against it.

A YES vote would: require that the top two finishers in a June primary election advance to a runoff in the November general election.

A NO vote would: maintain the current system, where a candidate can win an election in June if he or she gets one vote beyond the 50 percent threshold.

For more background, check out:
Labor, Dems Want to Stop Letting Candidates Win Outright in Local Primaries Op-Ed: The Democrats Can't Hang on Election Day Op-Ed: San Diego's Undemocratic Primaries Are Ripe for Reworking Op-Ed: San Diegans Deserve a Thoughtful Collaborative Effort on Election Reform City Councilman Chris Cate on Why He Opposes Measure K Former Assemblyman Jeff Marston on Why He Supports Measure K " Return to top
Measure L: Voting on Initiatives and Referendums in November

What it is: Currently, when citizens collect enough signatures to put an issue to the voters, or to ask voters to overturn a previous City Council decision, that item goes on the ballot for the next election, whether it's in June or November. This would make those initiatives automatically appear on the November ballot, unless the City Council intervenes and votes to put them on the June ballot instead.

The backstory: This is in many ways a companion item to Measure K, and comes with the same basic argument: It's better to make major decisions when more people vote than when fewer people vote. And like that measure, the practical effect of the change would benefit local Democratic causes, if recent history is any guide. For instance, conservatives qualified pension reform for the June ballot in 2012 and won with the help of a right-leaning electorate. Two years later, business groups collected signatures hoping to overturn a decision made by Democrats on the City Council to pass new development restrictions in Barrio Logan. It also won in June, with a right-leaning electorate. This measure would ostensibly put both of those items on the November ballot instead, where they might have fared better with a larger, more liberal turnout.

A YES vote would: send all citizens' initiatives and referendums to November elections, unless the City Council votes to send them to a June election instead.

A NO vote would: leave things as they are, with citizens' initiatives and referendums on the ballot for the next closest election, whether June or November.
" Return to top
Measure M: Raising the Cap on Affordable Housing Units

What it is: State law requires that voters approve any rent-controlled homes that are developed, built or acquired by a public agency. This measure would give the city permission to do so for an additional 38,680 homes reserved for low-income people. It wouldn't spend any money on any low-income homes or approve any specific projects - it would just pre-emptively give the city permission to make way for that many additional rent-controlled homes.

The backstory: In 2002, voters gave the city permission to build, develop or acquire up to 10,500 homes for low-income people. The city is now about 3,000 homes away from reaching that limit, so it is again asking voters to lift the cap on the number of rent-controlled homes it can provide. But instead of lifting the cap by just 5,000 homes, as it did 14 years ago, the city is now asking voters to dramatically increase its capacity to provide low-income housing. The measure would let the city build up to 49,180 total homes reserved for people earning below the area's median income. The city didn't pluck that number from thin air. It comes from a regional assessment of the number of homes for low-income people the city is going to need by 2020. That assessment said the city needs 38,680 such homes, so the city simply added that number to the existing limit to reach the otherwise-odd total of 49,180 units.

A YES vote would: increase the number of rent-controlled homes the city is allowed to build, develop or acquire.

A NO vote would: maintain the current limit on the number of rent-controlled homes the city is allowed to provide.

For more background, check out:
Raise the Roof on Affordable Housing? San Diegans Will Vote " Return to top
Measure N: Taxing Marijuana Businesses

What it is: If California voters approve Proposition 64, which would make it legal for adults to use marijuana, this citywide measure would impose a sales tax on businesses that sell marijuana for recreational use. The tax would begin at 5 percent and increase to 8 percent in 2019 - the City Council would then be able to adjust the tax in future years, but it could never go above 15 percent. The revenue would go into the city's general fund.

The backstory: Councilman Mark Kersey proposed the measure this summer, arguing California's potential legalization of marijuana would require increased city spending on things like code enforcement and public safety. The state measure would levy its own 15 percent sales tax on marijuana, but Kersey said the city needed to make sure a local tax would take care of local expenses related to regulating the drug. Industry advocates, however, warned against setting the rate too high, which could make it harder for legitimate businesses that go through the city's permitting process to compete with black-market sellers. The city's independent budget analyst estimates a 5 percent tax could raise around $22 million a year, based on Denver's experience since it started selling recreational marijuana. But that number is dependent on unknowable variables, like how easy the city makes it to open a recreational marijuana dispensary, the price of recreational marijuana and its availability in neighboring cities. The city's budget analyst also anticipates that the city could spend about $650,000 a year on new administrative positions related to the tax increase.

A YES vote would: impose a new sales tax on recreational cannabis businesses, ranging from 5 percent to 15 percent depending on future City Council actions - but only if voters approve a statewide proposition legalizing marijuana in the first place.

A NO vote would: reject a new sales tax on recreational marijuana businesses.

For more background, check out:
Pot Tax Headed to Voters Kelly Davis contributed to this guide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ultimate Guide to the Local Ballot Measures - Voice of San Diego

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June primary voters weighed in on what might ordinarily be considered a daunting number of issues: nine citywide measures, and one state measure. That was nothing. San Diego voters will face an astounding 12 citywide measures, two countywide measures and 17 - 17! - statewide measures, for a grand total of 31.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/politics/ultimate-guide-local-ballot-measures/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sustainable development goals - United Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Full list of the 17 proposed sustainable development goals and summaries of their targets

# data[].attributes.headline
The Question That Will Decide the Election?

# data[].attributes.subject
The Question That Will Decide the Election?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many millions of Americans have much more at stake in 2016 than $11 a month. How will their interest sway the election?

A couple of maps compiled by the Center for Equitable Growth offer some clues:

Medicaid Expansion Particularly Benefits Poor Regions of the United States

Washington Center for Equitable Growth

Not all states have taken part in the Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the ACA also recognized the right of states to opt-out from the Medicaid component of the law, a right that 16 states have exercised, and another five continue to discuss. Most of the states that have expanded Medicaid would be expected to go blue in 2016 anyway. But not all: Ohio, for example, without which no GOP nominee has ever won the presidency; Indiana, for another, the reddest state in the Midwest; and Arkansas, Kentucky, Nevada, North Dakota, and West Virginia.
Affordable Care Act Subsidy Benefits Are Concentrated In The South

Washington Center for Equitable Growth

Unless the Supreme Court strikes down subsidies in the federal exchange in the pending case of King v. Burwell, ACA insurance subsidies are paid everywhere in the country. As the next map shows, eligibility for subsidy is concentrated in the red states. Not all of those eligible claim the subsidy. Many of those who do receive subsidies might be expected to vote Democratic in 2016 even if healthcare were not an issue. But some Republican-leaning voters will feel the hit-and especially in a tightly balanced state like Florida, that hit could have real consequences.

The early stages of a presidential contest are very much an elite sport, played by and for people who do not much worry about their insurance coverage. As the game broadens and widens, however, it will involve an ever-greater number of people for whom the risk of loss of health coverage will be an overwhelming consideration. It would seem an obviously urgency for Republicans to relieve as much of their anxiety as they can. Yet few Republicans perceive that urgency and even fewer are acting on it.

I'm going to put down a marker here. The next presidential election, like the last, will be decided by whether Democratic-leaning groups show up at the polls in large numbers-and maybe, at the margins, by whether the last few single percentage points of undecided voters choose "change" or "more of the same." For those economically stressed toss-up voters-for the younger voters who sometimes show up and sometimes vote-the tipping point issue won't be foreign policy. It won't be ethics. It won't be healthcare. It won't even be the overall performance of the economy, which will be better, but still unwonderful. It will be that single haunting question, "Will I lose my insurance?"

If they don't hear a clear and convincing "No," they're going to assume the answer is "Yes"-and most likely, vote accordingly.

David Frum is a senior editor at The Atlantic. In 2001-02, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Question That Will Decide the 2016 Election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many millions of Americans have much more at stake in 2016 than $11 a month. How will their interest sway the election? A couple of maps compiled by the Center for Equitable Growth offer some clues: Medicaid Expansion Particularly Benefits Poor Regions of the United States Not all states have taken part in the Medicaid expansion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Committee for Economic Development of The Conference Board

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Harnessing Market Forces for Better Quality, Access, and Innovation

Candidates should:

Improve the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by:

Replacing ACA's premium subsidies with a "fixed-dollar" refundable tax credit usable only to purchase health insurance and available to all Americans.

Eliminating the individual and employer mandates and the tax deduction for employer premium contributions.

Offering a broad variety of insurance plans on the insurance exchanges.

Allowing insurance plans to be marketed across state lines.

Allowing consumers to purchase insurance through a variety of access points including private exchanges or individual brokers.

Restructure Medicare through greater use of market incentives to drive higher quality and lower costs.

Enact reforms that shift health care away from fee-for-service and towards approaches that reward providers for keeping individuals healthy.

Why Candidates Should Support These Policies
Every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care. The US health care system has achieved wonders, but its cost has continued to rise unsustainably, thereby burdening households, government, and businesses. Households feel the high cost in their pocketbooks. On the business side, high health care costs crowd out productive investment and reduce hiring. Government health care spending crowds out vital public investment and adds to the public debt. Health care spending is the fastest growing item in the federal budget after interest payments.

Providing refundable tax credits for health insurance to all Americans would ensure that every consumer could afford a basic health insurance plan and access care. Consumers who chose more extensive health insurance plans would need to cover any cost above the value of the tax credit out of their own pockets. Insurance plans and providers would have every reason to offer low-cost, high-quality plans. Consumers empowered by choice and motivated by cost savings will drive producers to find ways to increase quality while reducing price.

This approach does not eliminate regulation. While plans could adjust premiums for risk, they would not be allowed to refuse coverage to anyone, or to charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions. Plans that care for more costly patients would be rewarded, but every American would have access to coverage and would have a large market of eager insurers appropriately pursuing them as a customer.

Can such a system work in practice? We know it can, because it already does. The Medicare Advantage program provides a model for balancing market forces with appropriate regulation. It is popular with seniors and rewards insurers - all thanks to market forces with appropriate regulatory guidance.

Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would lower costs through more competition. Natural markets for the delivery of health care might be either larger or smaller than states. With markets expanded across state lines, households would be able to choose from a wider array of plans offering greater value at a better price. Allowing insurance companies to sell their plans nationwide will lower costs and increase options for companies and individuals.

Shifting away from fee-for-service approaches will encourage more innovative, affordable care. The current structure rewards providers for the number of services that patients receive rather than for quality. Providers simply face less incentive to adopt cost-saving practices. A system that compensates providers based on outcomes will drive better coordination, result in fewer duplicated services, and ultimately provide higher quality care at a lower price for consumers. Capitated prepayment is the simplest and most effective approach. .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harnessing Market Forces for Better Quality, Access, and Innovation Candidates should: Improve the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by: Replacing ACA's premium subsidies with a "fixed-dollar" refundable tax credit usable only to purchase health insurance and available to all Americans. Eliminating the individual and employer mandates and the tax deduction for employer premium contributions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE POSITIONS

Hillary Clinton supported allowing Americans to enroll in Medicare when they turn 55, increasing funding for autism and Alzheimer's disease research and treatment, and legalizing prescription drug imports from Canada.

Donald Trump supported repealing Obamacare, reforming healthcare based on "free market principles," and easing regulations on overseas drug providers.

Jill Stein supported a "Medicare For All" single-payer public health insurance program and said she believes healthcare should be a human right.

Gary Johnson opposed government-mandated health insurance.

Hillary Clinton

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform on healthcare

"

Ensure the Health and Safety of All Americans

Democrats have been fighting to secure universal health care for the American people for generations, and we are proud to be the party that passed Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Being stronger together means finally achieving that goal. We are going to fight to make sure every American has access to quality, affordable health care. We will tackle the problems that remain in our health care system, including cracking down on runaway prescription drug prices and addressing mental health with the same seriousness that we treat physical health. We will fight Republican efforts to roll back the clock on women's health and reproductive rights, and stand up for Planned Parenthood. And we will tackle the epidemics of substance abuse and gun violence, which each claim tens of thousands of lives every year.

For too many of us, health care costs are still too high, even for those with insurance. And medical debt is a problem for far too many working families, with one-quarter of Americans reporting that they or someone in their household had problems or an inability to pay medical bills in the past year. Democrats will also work to end surprise billing and other practices that lead to out-of-control medical debt that place an unconscionable economic strain on American households. We will repeal the excise tax on high-cost health insurance and find revenue to offset it because we need to contain the long-term growth of health care costs, but should not risk passing on too much of the burden to workers. Democrats will keep costs down by making premiums more affordable, reducing out-of-pocket expenses, and capping prescription drug costs. And we will fight against insurers trying to impose excessive premium increases. Democrats will fight any attempts by Republicans in Congress to privatize, voucherize, or "phase out" Medicare as we know it. And we will oppose Republican plans to slash funding and block grant Medicaid and SNAP, which would harm millions of Americans.

We will keep fighting until the ACA's Medicaid expansion has been adopted in every state. Nineteen states have not yet expanded Medicaid. This means that millions of low-income Americans still lack health insurance and are not getting the care they need. Additionally, health care providers, clinics, hospitals, and taxpayers are footing a higher bill when people without insurance visit expensive emergency rooms.

Democrats believe your zip code or census tract should not be a predictor of your health, which is why we will make health equity a central part of our commitment to revitalizing communities left behind. Democrats believe that all health care services should be culturally and linguistically appropriate, and that neither fear nor immigration status should be barriers that impede health care access.

Democrats also know that one of the key ingredients to the success of these health centers is a well-supported and qualified workforce in community-based settings. We will fight to train and support this workforce, encourage providers to work with underserved populations through the National Health Service Corps, and create a comprehensive strategy to increase the pool of primary health care professionals.

Meanwhile, they charge Americans thousands of dollars for new drugs-often at much higher costs than in other developed nations. Democrats are committed to investing in the research, development, and innovation that creates lifesaving drugs and lowers overall health costs, but the profiteering of pharmaceutical companies is simply unacceptable.

We will crack down on price gouging by drug companies and cap the amount Americans have to pay out-of-pocket every month on prescription drugs. We will prohibit anti-competitive "pay for delay" deals that keep generic drugs off the market, and we will allow individuals, pharmacists, and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from licensed pharmacies in Canada and other countries with appropriate safety protections. Democrats will also fight to make sure that Medicare will negotiate lower prices with drug manufacturers.

We should also do more to educate our youth, as well as their families, teachers, coaches, mentors, and friends, to intervene early to prevent drug and alcohol abuse and addiction. We should help state and local leaders establish evidence-based, age-appropriate, and locally-tailored prevention programs. These programs include school-based drug education programs that have been shown to have meaningful effects on risky behavior; community-based peer mentorship and leadership programs; and after-school activities that deter drug use and encourage life skills.

Supporting Those Living with Autism and their Families
Democrats believe that our country must make supporting the millions of individuals with autism and those diagnosed in the future and their families a priority. We will conduct a nationwide early screening outreach campaign to ensure that all children, and in particular children from underserved backgrounds, can get screened for autism. We will expand services and support for adults and individuals transitioning into adulthood, including employment and housing assistance. And we will push states to require health insurance coverage for autism services in private insurance plans as well as state marketplaces so that people with autism are not denied care.

"

Tim Kaine

Donald Trump

The 2016 Republican Party Platform on healthcare

"

Restoring Patient Control and Preserving Quality in Healthcare

Any honest agenda for improving healthcare must start with repeal of the dishonestly named Affordable Care Act of 2010: Obamacare. It weighs like the dead hand of the past upon American medicine. It imposed a Euro-style bureaucracy to manage its unworkable, budget-busting, conflicting provisions. It has driven up prices for all consumers. Their insurance premiums have dramatically increased while their deductibles have risen about eight times faster than wages in the last ten years. It drove up drug prices by levying a $27 billion tax on manufacturers and importers and, through mandated price cuts for drugs under Medicare and Medicaid, forced pharmaceutical companies to raise prices for everyone else. Its "silver plans," the most common option on the government insurance exchanges, limit people's access to their own doctor through narrow networks and restrict drug coverage, forcing many patients to pay for extremely costly medicines for their chronic diseases.

We agree with the four dissenting judges of the Supreme Court: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." It must be removed and replaced with an approach based on genuine competition, patient choice, excellent care, wellness, and timely access to treatment. To that end, a Republican president, on the first day in office, will use legitimate waiver authority under the law to halt its advance and then, with the unanimous support of Congressional Republicans, will sign its repeal. The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare based on Congress' power to tax. It is time to repeal Obamacare and give America a much-needed tax cut.

In its place we must combine what worked best in the past with changes needed for the future. We must recover the traditional patient-physician relationship based on mutual trust, informed consent, and confidentiality. To simplify the system for both patients and providers, we will reduce mandates and enable insurers and providers of care to increase healthcare options and contain costs. Our goal is to ensure that all Americans have improved access to affordable, high-quality healthcare, including those struggling with mental illness.

We will return to the states their historic role of regulating local insurance markets, limit federal requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid, and call on state officials to reconsider the costly medical mandates, imposed under their own laws, that price millions of low-income families out of the insurance market. To guarantee first-rate care for the needy, we propose to block grant Medicaid and other payments and to assist all patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, to obtain coverage in a robust consumer market. Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and wellbeing of women, and we stand firmly against it.

To ensure vigorous competition in healthcare, and because cost-awareness is the best guard against over-utilization, we will promote price transparency so consumers can know the cost of treatments before they agree to them. We will empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools in order to expand coverage to the uninsured. We believe that individuals with preexisting conditions who maintain continuous coverage should be protected from discrimination. We applaud the advance of technology in electronic medical records while affirming patient privacy and ownership of personal health information.

Consumer choice is the most powerful factor in healthcare reform. Today's highly mobile workforce needs portability of insurance coverage that can go with them from job to job. The need to maintain coverage should not dictate where families have to live and work. We propose to end tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance and allow consumers to buy insurance across state lines. In light of that, we propose repealing the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act which protects insurance companies from anti-trust litigation. We look to the growth of Health Savings Accounts and Health Reimbursement Accounts that empower patients and advance choice in healthcare.

Our aging population must have access to safe and affordable care. Because most seniors desire to age at home, we will make homecare a priority in public policy and will implement programs to protect against elder abuse.

Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare
America's healthcare professionals should not be forced to choose between following their faith and practicing their profession. We respect the rights of conscience of healthcare professionals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and organizations, especially the faith-based groups which provide a major portion of care for the nation and the needy. We support the ability of all organizations to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage consistent with their religious, moral, or ethical convictions without discrimination or penalty.

We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children. We support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their minor children and urge enactment of legislation that would require parental consent for their daughter to be transported across state lines for abortion. Providers should not be permitted to unilaterally withhold services because a patient's life is deemed not worth living. American taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortion. As Democrats abandon this four decade-old bipartisan consensus, we call for codification of the Hyde Amendment and its application across the government, including Obamacare. We call for a permanent ban on federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage.

Better Care and Lower Costs: Tort Reform
Medical malpractice lawsuits have ballooned the cost of healthcare for everyone by forcing physicians to practice defensive medicine through tests and treatments which otherwise might be optional. Rural America is especially affected as obstetricians, surgeons, and other providers move to urban settings or retire in the face of escalating insurance premiums. Many Republican Governors have advanced the legal reforms necessary to reverse that trend. We support state and federal legislation to cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits, thereby relieving conscientious providers of burdens that are not rightly theirs and addressing a serious cause of higher medical bills.

Advancing Research and Development in Healthcare
American medicine is poised to enter a new era of technological advance. Federal and private investment in basic and applied biomedical research holds enormous promise, especially with diseases and disorders like autism, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. Just as we today take for granted wonders that seemed impossible a few decades ago - MRIs and CAT scans, robotic surgery, and in utero treatment - patients a decade hence will have care and treatment that will make much of today's medicine look primitive. Modern miracles involving genetics, the immune system, cures for deadly diseases, and more are in the research pipeline. This is the consequence of marrying significant investment, both public and private, with the world's best talent, a formula that has for a century given the American people the world's best healthcare. We are determined that it should continue to do so, especially as we confront new dangers like Ebola, Zika, Chikungunya, and antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

To continue our headway against breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and other killers, research must consider the needs of formerly neglected demographic groups. We call for expanded support for the stem cell research that now offers the greatest hope for many afflictions - through adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells - without the destruction of embryonic human life. We urge a ban on human cloning for research or reproduction, and a ban on the creation of, or experimentation on, human embryos for research. We applaud Congress' ban on the FDA approval of research involving three-parent embryos. We believe the FDA's approval of Mifeprex, a dangerous abortifacient formerly known as RU-486, threatens women's health, as does the agency's endorsement of over-the-counter sales of powerful contraceptives without a physician's recommendation. We support cutting federal and state funding for entities that endanger women's health by performing abortions in a manner inconsistent with federal or state law.

Putting Patients First: Reforming the FDA
The United States has led life sciences and medical innovation for decades, bringing millions of high-paying jobs to our country and helping Americans and people around the world live longer, healthier lives. Unfortunately, the continuously increasing burden of governmental regulation and red tape is taking its toll on our innovative companies, and their pipeline of new life-saving devices and drugs to our nation's patients is slowing and diminishing. The FDA has slowly but relentlessly changed into an agency that more and more puts the public health at risk by delaying, chilling, and killing the development of new devices, drugs and biologics that can promote our lives and our health. The FDA needs leadership that can reform the agency for our century and fix the lack of predictability, consistency, transparency and efficiency at the agency. The FDA needs to return to its traditional emphasis on hard science and approving new breakthrough medicines, rather than divert its attention and consume its resources trying to overregulate electronic health records or vaping. We pledge to restore the FDA to its position as the premier scientific health agency, focused on both promoting and protecting the public health in equal measure, so we can ensure that Americans live longer, healthier lives, that the United States remains the world leader in life sciences and medical innovation, that millions of high-paying, cutting-edge device and drug jobs stay in the United States, that U.S. patients benefit first and most from new devices and drugs, and that the FDA no longer wastes U.S. taxpayer and innovators' resources through bureaucratic red tape and legal uncertainty. We commend those states that have passed Right to Try legislation, allowing terminally ill patients the right to try investigational medicines not yet approved by the FDA. We urge Congress to pass federal legislation to give all Americans with terminal illnesses the right to try.

"

Mike Pence

Jill Stein

The 2016 Green Party Platform on healthcare

"

F. Health Care

The Green Party supports single-payer universal health care and preventive care for all. We believe that health care is a right, not a privilege.

Our current health care system lets tens of thousands of people die each year by excluding them from adequate care, while its exorbitant costs are crippling our economy. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world without a national health care system.

Under a universal, comprehensive, national single-payer health care system, the administrative waste of private insurance corporations would be redirected to patient care. If the United States were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer plan, as in Canada and many European countries, the savings in administrative costs would be more than enough to offset the cost of additional care. Expenses for businesses currently providing coverage would be reduced, while state and local governments would pay less because they would receive reimbursement for services provided to the previously uninsured, and because public programs would cease to be the "dumping ground" for high-risk patients and those rejected by health maintenance organizations (HMOs) when they become disabled and unemployed. In addition, people would gain the peace of mind in knowing that they have health care they need. No longer would people have to worry about the prospect of financial ruin if they become seriously ill, are laid off their jobs, or are injured in an accident.

The Green Party supports a wide range of health care services, including conventional medicine, as well as the teaching, funding and practice of complementary, integrative and licensed alternative health care approaches.

Greens recognize that our own health is also intimately tied to the health of our communities and environment. To improve our own health, we must improve the quality of our air, water and food and the health of our workplaces, homes and schools.

The Green Party unequivocally supports a woman's right to reproductive choice, no matter her marital status or age, and that contraception and safe, legal abortion procedures be available on demand and be included in all health insurance coverage in the U.S., as well as free of charge in any state where a woman's income falls below the poverty level. [See section A.1. Women's Rights in this chapter]

We recommend the following actions:

1. Single-Payer Health Care

Enact a universal, comprehensive, national single-payer health plan that will provide the following with no increase in cost:

a. A publicly funded health care insurance program, administered at the state and local levels, with comprehensive lifetime benefits, including dental, vision, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, medication coverage, and hospice and long-term care;

b. Participation of all licensed and/or certified health providers, subject to standards of practice in their field, with the freedom of patients to choose the type of health care provider from a wide range of health care choices, and with decision-making in the hands of patients and their health providers, not insurance companies;

c. Portability of coverage regardless of geographical location or employment;

d. Cost controls via streamlined administration, national fee schedules, bulk purchases of drugs and medical equipment, coordination of capital expenditures and publicly negotiated prices of medications;

e. Primary and preventive care as priorities, including wellness education about diet, nutrition and exercise; holistic health; and medical marijuana.

f. More comprehensive services for those who have special needs, including the mentally ill, the differently abled and those who are terminally ill;

g. A mental health care system that safeguards human dignity, respects individual autonomy, and protects informed consent;

h. Greatly reduced paperwork for both patients and providers;

i. Fair and full reimbursement to providers for their services;

j. Hospitals that can afford safe and adequate staffing levels of registered nurses;

k. Establishment of national, state, and local health policy boards consisting of health consumers and providers to oversee and evaluate the performance of the system, ensure access to care, and help determine research priorities; and

l. Establishment of a National Health Trust Fund that would channel all current Federal payments for health care programs directly into the Fund, in addition to employees' health premium payments.

The Green Party calls for comprehensive, humane, and competent care of all people with AIDS/HIV.

An all-out campaign must be waged against AIDS/ HIV and other blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis. The AIDS epidemic has not been adequately addressed at the local, state, federal, or international levels. All people in all countries, including those with AIDS/HIV, have a right to medical care, protection from discrimination, and confidentiality. Drug corporations have a strong profit motivation to make this disease a manageable one (like diabetes) with guaranteed sales of very expensive drugs, in the billions of dollars every year. Drug companies have not emphasized research that targets a cure. While new drugs have dramatically saved lives, many have side effects so debilitating that the quality of life is poor, if not intolerable during the extended lifetime of the patient. But even these need to be produced generically to stop the devastation resulting from corporate refusal to provide these drugs to the millions dying throughout the world who cannot afford these basic lifesaving drugs. Drug researchers should have a cure for AIDS as their ultimate goal.

We recommend the following actions:

a. Increased funding for AIDS education and patient care.

b. Increased funding for comprehensive sex education that includes AIDS education.

c. Increased funding for research focusing on a cure, methods of prevention, and on bolstering the immune system.

d. Improved technology, facilities, laboratories, researchers, staff and personnel to cure AIDS/HIV. A "Manhattan Project" for a cure is required.

e. Complete sharing of information among researchers, funding agencies (including corporations), and the public on AIDS/HIV before awarding the next research grant.

f. More research into better methods of prevention of HIV infection. While we support condom use, better condoms are also required. We support more vaccine research as well as research on prevention methods such as microbicides. People must be provided the means and support to protect themselves from all sexually transmitted diseases.

g. Equal access to AIDS education, treatment and medications for all affected. Accordingly, funding and accountability should be increased.

h. Allowing all prisoners affected with AIDS/HIV in all countries to have the same access as free citizens to education, treatment, preventive measures (including condom use), and medical care.

i. A uniform international definition of AIDS.

j. Protecting the confidentiality of all people diagnosed with AIDS/HIV or tested for HIV.

k. More careful and timely approval of effective AIDS drugs by the FDA.

l. Production of affordable and available versions of patented medicines in all countries.

m. Targeting the young for age-appropriate education about AIDS/HIV and appropriate methods of prevention. We support sex education and the distribution of condoms in schools.

n. Prevention awareness and access to condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. We condemn HIV-related discrimination.

o. Make drug treatment and other programs available for all addicts who seek help.

p. Expand clinical trials for treatments and vaccines.

q. Speed-up the FDA drug approval process.

r. Providing housing for homeless and poor people with AIDS/HIV.

s. Providing treatment for homeless people with AIDS/ HIV.

t. Support for needle exchange programs and for programs to help drug addicts.

u. No mandatory screening for AIDS/HIV; anonymous screening must be available.

v. Lifting the ban prohibiting HIV positive people from entering the U.S. as visitors or as immigrants.

"

Ajamu Baraka

Libertarian ticket

The 2016 Libertarian Party Platform on healthcare

"

2.10 Health Care

We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

"

Bill Weld

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2016 presidential candidates on healthcare - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE POSITIONS Hillary Clinton supported allowing Americans to enroll in Medicare when they turn 55, increasing funding for autism and Alzheimer's disease research and treatment, and legalizing prescription drug imports from Canada. Donald Trump supported repealing Obamacare, reforming healthcare based on "free market principles," and easing regulations on overseas drug providers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tired of media reports of fundraising and poll results instead of policy issues? At OnTheIssues.org, you can see the view of every candidates on every issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Issues Archive - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During her 2016 campaign for president, Hillary and her team laid out a comprehensive progressive vision for America's future.