Here's an informative article to familiarize yourself with the multitude (yes, for most people, 7 IS a LOT!) of ballot questions tomorrow. Hopefully it will help you as much as it is me.

http://www.seventy.org/nycu/2003/IcebergAhead.html

Iceberg Ahead?

We all know about the Mayor's race and the City Council races, but did you know that this is going to be the most crowded ballot in recent memory 17 judicial offices will be filled, 28 judges are seeking retention, several municipal offices are on the ballot and there are two proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and seven Municipal ballot questions.

In a couple of cases, the currently proposed Charter amendments are bona fide or at least arguable reforms which do require amendment of the Charter. In others cases, the proposal is probably going to yield a benefit to our citizens, but without a detailed cost-benefit analysis (including administrative and transaction costs related to implementation) we don’t know if Philadelphians will see an overall benefit or burden (or how the benefits and burdens will be distributed). Finally, in one case we are very concerned that amendment of the charter could result in unforeseen short term costs, protracted litigation, an unfunded mandate and a fiscal sinking.

Anyone who saw the movie Titanic knows that icebergs and ice fields are a common phenomenon in the Northern and Southern seas. On the surface, an iceberg may look harmless or even beautiful, but beneath lies a destructive force which can rip through a ship’s hull (or a city’s budget) like a can opener. Below you will find the text and official links for the seven Municipal Ballot questions proposing amendment of the Home Rule Charter.

Can you see the iceberg in what is a generally harmless ice field?

The statements following each question are not definitive positions on these ballot questions, but should provide a starting point for public discussion:

A) BILL NO. 030220

Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to create an Insurance Public Advocate who will represent the interests of Philadelphia insurance consumers with the goal of lowering insurance rates in Philadelphia?

This new office may or may not be an effective advocate for the residents of Philadelphia, but this question presents no hidden danger other than a relatively small expense and an addition to the existing bureaucracy. This legislation preceded the Mayor’s appointment of a Consumer Advocate.

B) BILL NO. 030016-A

Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to provide for one non-voting member of the Board of Pensions and Retirement, appointed by the President of Council, who other than the power to vote shall have all rights, powers and duties of other members of the Board, including, but not limited to, the right to attend any executive session of the Board?

This gives the Council non-voting representation on the Board of Pensions and Retirement, but the lack of voting power limits council’s effort to wield power in this area.

C) BILL NO. 020810

Shall the Home Rule Charter be amended to require that no contract with an agency that receives funds from the City, or that has a publicly nominated Board of Directors, or that operates under authority granted by ordinance, shall be valid unless it includes a provision authorizing the City Auditing Department to audit the agency's affairs during the term of the contract?

This increases the power of the City Controller, but we don’t know if the additional work and costs associated with this reform will be justified by the results. Current auditing procedures for these agencies may be more than adequate.

D) BILL NO. 030098

Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to allow for a bid preference for Philadelphia-based firms in order to promote more business and job creation opportunities for Philadelphia-based firms in the awarding of contracts with the City of Philadelphia, as provided by ordinance of City Council.

This will increase the costs of goods and services for our taxpayers, but the benefits of job creation and additional tax collection from local firms may or may not exceed the additional cost of doing business resulting in a net benefit.

E) BILL NO. 030115

Shall the Home Rule Charter be amended to exempt contracts involving expenditures of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less from the open bid procedure as required by Sections 8-200(2)(a) through (2)(e)?

This is a technical change to keep pace with inflation (second such amendment in the Charter’s history) and will give the administration time savings, more flexibility and less administrative process in awarding small contracts.

F) BILL NO. 030178

Shall Section 5-300 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to declare that because health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity, the City of Philadelphia Health Department shall prepare a plan for universal health care that permits everyone in the City of Philadelphia to obtain decent health care?

Universal health care is a principal we all support, everyone should have necessary medical care. Relevant and unanswered questions are:

1) How much will preparing the mandated plan cost? – this is a major undertaking, involving a very complex subject and the provision of services to a significant portion of approximately 1.5 million people about ¼ of whom live below the poverty limit and a substantial percentage of whom have no health insurance;

2) What constitutes “decent” health care?;

3) Who would qualify as a resident of Philadelphia? – would people from around the country or even around the world come here to take advantage of our altruistic medical utopia?

4) Even if this is viewed as a philosophical statement from the City of Brotherly Love, how can we be sure a judge or appellate judges will not interpret the phrase “the City of Philadelphia is obliged to ensure that every resident is able to realize this fundamental right” quite literally.

G) BILL NO. 030342

Shall the Home Rule Charter be amended to provide for the use of cooperative purchasing agreements with other public agencies?

Cooperative purchasing agreements seem to present the opportunity for purchasing savings presuming the transaction costs of the various agencies working together are less than the prices currently paid for separate orders of goods and services.

If you chose Ballot Question F, you qualify for lookout duty in that you identified a potential danger below the surface.

For the record, Seventy is not taking a position at this time on any of these ballot questions – we’re handicapped at this point by the same lack of information as the general public. Our objective is a full and informed public debate of all of these issues. It’s the responsibility of the media and Members of City Council to ensure that the public has the information it needs to make knowledgeable decisions on November 4th. The Mayor’s race is very important and it’s great that the coverage has been intense and comprehensive, but the man elected Mayor of Philadelphia in November will occupy the office for a four year term. In contrast, these ballot questions could alter the Charter for generations, because once an amendment is made, it is extremely difficult to undue (e.g. the U.S. Constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol took almost 14 years to repeal).

Based on the density of the ballot, this ship probably should not have sailed (aside from the Municipal ballot questions voters are going to have the option of casting up to 59 votes), but now that it has, we need to carefully navigate our way to the next port – and not steam full speed ahead in the dark of the night.

Pennsylvania Questions Present Voters with Clear Alternatives

In contrast to the Municipal Ballot questions, the two state constitutional questions do not present any danger of hidden costs or unexpected consequences. The central and important question posed is whether criminal defendants should have the same right to confront witnesses under the State and Federal Constitutions (at the present time defendants have a greater right of confrontation under the Pennsylvania Constitution).

1) Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to provide that a person accused of a crime has the right to be "confronted with the witnesses against him," instead of the right to "meet the witnesses face to face"?

2) Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to provide that the General Assembly may enact laws regarding the manner by which children may testify in criminal proceedings, including the use of videotaped depositions or testimony by closed-circuit television?


Prepared by the Committee of Seventy, October 2003.

The Committee of Seventy two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 770 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Phone: (215) 557-3600 Fax: (215) 557-3608 Website: www.seventy.org E-Mail: info@seventy.org

__________________
[ PHILLYTIM.NET ]
ROCK AND ROLL HAS ARRIVED & THE STREET SHACKLES ON THIS CITY ARE GONE!

Says who? I, for one, do not support universal health care.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

Why don't you support universal healthcare? Could you imagine how much less stress, collectively, this county would have without the worries of healthcare? I would have no problem paying a 2-3% healthcare tax, in exchange for no longer having to pay monthly co-pays for healthcare. Of course I'm probably naive to think it would be easy, but it sounds like it would be so much better. I guess those against it would think that the haves would be subsidizing the have-nots, but I just don't see it this way. In fact, if there were a small (2-3% tax), all working people would pay the tax.

The government already does over and above its call of duty. Why add to it? They've proved inept at almost everything else they F-ed with. Look at Canada. Their health care sucks. Our service will decrease with universal healthcare.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

Zog,

Your facts are incorrect about Canada- for the vast majority of Canadians, their present system of universal health coverage provides them with affordable coverage that most would otherwise be unable to afford.

While I don't see the U.S. adopting a similar plan anytime soon, we do need to do more to assure that low and middle income Americans have access to quality healthcare.

I serve as pastor of a small urban church, and I cannot count on both hands the number of senior citizens in my congregation who have to choose each month between getting needed medical care or prescriptions, and other needed items like clothing, groceries or repairs to their homes or cars.

Healthcare is a huge issue that we here in America fail miserably with when it comes to our middle and lower income citizens, and seniors.

Peace,

John

What facts? I have, as of yet, stated any facts. Here are the facts: Canadians wait months for health care, Canadians close to the border, come to the US to get better health care, Doctors come to America to practice so they can excel, people who can afford better health care can not get it because Canadian law doesn't allow it. Those are the facts, Jack.

I never said I was against any form of government sponsered health care. We are talking about Universal Health Care. The key word being UNIVERSAL. As in everyone. That's what I'm against. Anyone from the age of 18 to 65 that is able bodied and minded does not deserve nor should they receive any gov't sponsered health care.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

actually, health insurance is a large part of the reason that health care is so muffed up. paying 2-3% for healthcare isn't that easy. i mean, just b/c the government runs the sys won'tmake it cheap. if its like their education system, it will be expensive and work poorly. one of th emajor reasons healthcare, or at least prescription drugs, jave runaway costs is there is no real price. people who have insurance have no incentive to shop around for the best price. so while they could something for less than half at wal-mart, they pay full price at CVS b/c it's all a co-pay to them. people go to the dr. for everything b/c it's only a small co-pay. there is no real price to let them know how much resources they are using. blob and peacemover are right. in some respects the canadian health sytem is better, in others its worse, for surgeries and such the system is malfunctioning but for getting basic healthcare it's working. moreover, the rest of the world is living off R & D bought and paid for by american consumers. i work for a pharma co. and i know the costs and profit margins. we operate like a generic cereal maker in socialized countries. if it weren't for the us market we would not have much of an R & D dept. moreover, making the system one payer means we ALL get bad healthcare if the provider is bad. insurance distorts prices in the market. without meaningful prices the market cannot function. what health care is seeing is a shortage. consumers are being charged low prices and thus demanding more. insurance companies are turning around and socking it to companies and those consumers who don;t use the system much. hospitals and doctors are forced to charge higher rates to people without insurance to pay for bills to pay med mal insurance and th elike. universal health care is not a great answer and has potentially grave repercussions. the problem is throughout the health care industry and cannot be pegged on any one party, except maybe the government rules that have distorted the market place.

Zog,

I was by no means saying universal health care is a viable solution to America's health care crisis. There may be limitations to some health services that Canadians receive, but by enlarge, all Canadians receive at least a basic level of primary health coverage, which is a lot more than we can say here in America!

How we treat middle and lower income seniors in particular here in our nation is DISGRACEFUL.

Health insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical executives enjoy their nice golden parachutes on the backs of seniors on fixed incomes- many of whom may have to decide whether to buy medicine or groceries this week. The hypocrisy must end.

Peace,

John

The people of Iraq were in a crisis before we went in. The people of Cambodia were in crisis when Pol Pot was in power. The people of Russia were in crisis under communism. American's are not in crisis.

Health care should be wealth based for children and seniors. It should have co-pay's associatied with it for office visits and perscriptions.

Some Reps don't want any health care, but the Dems are just as much to blame for this. They want it all. No co-pays, everyone covered, pharma co's forced to charge less, hospitals forced to charge set fees. It is ridiculous. The cost of something like that is too great.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

Zog,

Affordable co-payments are a reasonable expectation, but many seniors have minimal or no coverage. I know because I talk to the people in my church and community- a middle class Philadelphia neighborhood.

I am not saying we need total coverage with no deductible. I AM saying that all seniors and children should have access to affordable basic health care.

Presently, this is not the reality in our nation.

Even with the meager amount that medicare and SSI covers (which falls far short of the actual healthcare costs), seniors and lower middle class families- (many of whom do not have health insurance and are what would be classified as 'working poor') with young children cannot afford the fees even for doctor visits, and vital prescriptions.

So what do they do? They go to our emergency rooms for medical problems that could be addressed at the doctor's office, or they go without needed medical care, then become a burden on the system when they become seriously ill and need hospitalization.

The healthcare system here in America is grossly inadequate for middle and lower income seniors and families. If you are not convinced, go to visit some middle and lower income residents and ask them about their health care- your eyes will be opened. Unless of course you choose not to see- like the vast majority of our legislators, who have turned a blind eye for years, with the exception of the occasional bone they toss out to temporarily quell the discontent.

Peace,

John