21 comments

  1. chefdavid says:

    And Here is how they voted:
    http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/search/sr277.htm

    Somehow I am betting Dade’s trauma center Erlanger Hospital located in Chattanooga won’t see a dime of this money. We have things such as mountains and state lines that get in the way of GA hospitals. And I am sure all the money will go to the trust fund like the Hazardous Waste Trust fund:
    http://www.gavoters.com/documents/PreservetheIntegrityoftheHazardousWasteClean-up.pdf
    Say No!

  2. Eureka says:

    Jason,

    I don’t think it is fair to say this is because of the less-than-expected collections from superspeeders. Sen Goggins, doctors and trauma network advocates have been pushing for this for atleast the last couple of years.

    I usually find myself opposed to tax/fee increases, but in this case I think it is a wise move. I think we can all get the idea that Trauma Care is important, but it is also not a money making business for hospitals(whether for profit or non-profit they still have to run in the black). So either we can mandate they provide this level of coverage(and that is a lot more distasteful in my opinion) or we can subsidize the cost to correct market deficiencies.

    In this case, I think subsidizing is a better option than a mandate.

    • Jason says:

      You’re entitled to your opinion, but the super-speeders law was viewed as a more palatable way to fund trauma than a new tax and was seen to be a cure all.

      • Lady Thinker says:

        Since Perdue kept the 400 tolls, maybe some of that money could be diverted? Or money from the pay to drive lanes?

        Twenty-five years ago, a speeding car went off the road in Greene county and struck my nephew who was playing in the yard. Any hospital in any direction was about an hour away. The ambulance got there 45 minutes later, as my aunt and uncle were too shocked and upset to think rationally and drive him to the hospital, where he died.

        I feel more trauma hospitals are needed and I don’t know if there are any new ones now that are closer to my aunt and uncle, but when you are holding your twelve-year-old son’s limp body in your arms, you pray for a miracle. Sometimes one comes, sometimes not.

  3. debbie0040 says:

    It is a tax and it should be defeated. The money is not being spent wiselynow, why give them more? We have needed more funding for trauma care for some time. We needed it in 2007 when the “Go Fish” program passed. It is a matter of priorities. There is money there to fund it if the legislature chooses to. One way is to cut back on state employees, consolidate legal and HR departments, etc

    • Lady Thinker says:

      I agree with your comments too. I don’t feel those in power can responsibily handle the money they have now, and now deal wants in.

  4. Scott65 says:

    I think I could support this if there was a plan as to where the trauma centers would be built, what the projected cost would be, wish list vs practical, etc. Its hard to support “give me the money now…I’ll tell you how I’ll spend it later”…remind you of anything (hint hint DOT…GA400)

    • mountainpass says:

      Good call Scott.
      Also:
      1) is it going to stay at $10 or go up every year?
      2)when will it end?(oh yeah GA400, never)
      3)how much is being spent on the commercials?
      4)who are (yes 2 save lives)?
      5)if this is so important to you, call your representatives and get them to budget for it.
      6)why is the government even involved in this, why not freely let the private sector compete.
      7)wouldn’t a few more emergency helicopters be better anyway?

  5. ChelseaWG says:

    Hi All-

    I want to address some of the concerns I am reading today on behalf of the Yes 2 Save Lives. I first want to start off by informing you guys that the funds generated from this Amendment are estimate to generate $80 million per year and they are protected from politicians. Ballot Amendment 2 is a constitutional amendment meaning that the money raised will be protected in a special trust fund – separate from the general budget. It cannot be used for other purposes and will help our dangerously underfunded trauma network.

    Georgians need to realize that we are all at serious risk because our trauma care network is severely underfunded and fragmented. Many of us travel through rural areas – often on the way to Florida or other states – and are dangerously far from a trauma center. Deaths from trauma injuries are 20 percent higher in Georgia than the national average because access to trauma care is so limited. In fact, we have 16 trauma care center but we need 30 to serve the entire state.

    We can take action to improve our trauma care system by passing this amendment. By passing Amendment 2, funds raised will help train first responders and critical care nurses and doctors, provide the latest life-saving equipment and technology, and upgrade more emergency rooms to trauma centers. It’s also a quality of life issue. When patients do survive, getting the right care in time can make the critical difference for a complete recovery and the ability to lead full and independent lives.

    I hope I was able to shed some more light on why we need this amendment. If you want to read more, please visit http://www.yes2savelives.com.

    -Chelsea on behalf of Yes2SaveLives

    • Jason says:

      Ballot Amendment 2 is a constitutional amendment meaning that the money raised will be protected in a special trust fund – separate from the general budget.

      Where have I heard that before?

    • Jeremy Jones says:

      “Deaths from trauma injuries are 20 percent higher in Georgia than the national average because…”

      I have seen this on your website. Could you please provide a credible source for both the data, and the conclusion?

  6. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    The Super Speeder law, even if successful, was never expected to, nor was it sold that it would, fully fund a trauma network. In fact, without a Cons. Amendment, those who voted for and against it knew it had very little to do with Trauma Care funding and the revenue would just end up in the general treasury, with the intent to fund a network. It was just another revenue stream.

    My suggestion, repeal the SS law, and vote yes for Amend #2

  7. saltycracker says:

    Vote No
    Best said by Jim Wooten in the AJC:

    “Never, ever, under any circumstances should voters agree to enshrine in Georgia’s Constitution a proposal that sets forth a specific-sum tax (which is labeled as “an annual $10 trauma charge” on “certain vehicles”) to begin funding a proposed network of trauma centers — a tax that is, furthermore, sanctified as forever untouchable by those elected to run Georgia. Once more: Elected officials should set priorities and impose taxes to fund those most deserving, spreading the revenue where it will do the most good. If we don’t trust them to do that, we should elect new ones. This proposal, Amendment 2, should be the last of its kind to come out of a Republican-controlled Legislature.”

  8. Jeremy Jones says:

    $80 million per year??

    Let’s assume that figure is accurate.

    I am still awaiting further data, but I scanned the CDC website for some figures to arrive at my conclusions. I am happy to amend once the group provides me with the source of data they are using.

    There were about 1,800 deaths due to traumatic brain injury in Georgia in 2005.

    If this tax saved 100% of them (which it won’t), that means we are valuing each life at about $44,000.

    Since the compared to the national average the death rate is about 20% of the hospitalization number, would that infer, at best, we can expect save 80% of the 1800, or 1,400? That puts the cost per life at about $57,000?

    So, are we willing to spend, on just the buildings and ability, not the actual cost, $57,000 per life saved? I will leave the conclusion up to the voter. I would submit there are areas within our government where we could save many more lives for the same amount of money.

    Just another special interest, started by tugging at emotional situations.

    • Jeremy Jones says:

      I guess the answer depends on whose life it is. We recently held a fundraiser to get treatment for someone with cancer to save his life. Of all of the friends and family, we were able to raise about $10,000. Assuming it was possible to raise the $57,000 for him to get life saving trauma care, this infers his closest friends and family only valued his life at a collective $10,000. Why should we expect the taxpayer to subsidize the other $47,000?

Comments are closed.