Prop. 3 Children's hospital bond act

Officially asks for:
-authorizes 980 million dollars to build, redecorate, remodel, expand, furnish, and equip children's hospitals
-designates that 80% of funds go to hospitals that focus on children with leukemia, heart disease, cancer, etc.
-requires that these hospitals provide care to a high volume of children
-20% is required to go to University of California general acute care hospitals

argument for:
What is more essential then investing in hospitals where over one million times each year California children are treated traumatic injuries and illnesses like cancer, sickle cell anemia, and cystic fibrosis? What is more essential then funding neonatal care and organ transplants for children?

against:
No accountability, this money will go to already rich hospitals in the UC system and others that are benefiting from a previous 750 million dollar proposition that they haven't even finished spending. The bill says it's for children specifically but actually 80% of the money can go to hospitals as long as they also take care of children as patients.

my take:
The wording is so forced that it sounds deceitful. The words children and cancer are mentioned within two words of each other about 99 times in the for argument. It sounds like scare tactics for greedy people with no morels. They say the other argument is wrong but give no reasons why. You won't earn my vote with that bullshit.

final word:
It will probably pass because people are short sighted and once they see child cancer they will vote for it but I will vote no on 3 until they clean up and talk straight.