|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
If you haven’t seen enough “No on F” signs in town, or read all the editorials against Measure F (e.g., The Palo Alto Weekly’s “No, no, no on Measure F,”) let my voice join the chorus on this local Nov. 6 ballot measure
This was sponsored and funded by the SEIU (Service Employees International Union – e.g., city and government workers) and the United Healthcare Workers West), this dastardly measure would require Palo Alto city officials to permanently monitor and supervise all hospital and medical clinics and individual patients bills. The measure implies patients will pay less for medical services and if they pay too much they will get money back.
That’s a lie. If a patient has any insurance at all, any so-called rebate will go directly to their insurance company, and there is no mandate that the insurer would refund any money to the patient.
Measure F would cost the city millions to monitor health care. Specifically (and please read the following carefully), Measure F “would require cities to appropriate sufficient funds to implement, administer and enforce this regulator program. The city’s new obligations would include receiving and maintaining cost records from the health care providers foreach patient foreach year (italics mine); evaluating the costs; determining required billing reductions or rebates; evaluating petitions for additional costs; issuing notices of violation and receiving payment of fines,” according to a report from the League of Women Voters.
Stanford Health Care reps say this will cost them millions of dollars and force the hospital to cut back on services and programs. And Measure F would also apply to Palo Alto Medical Foundation, all dentists in town, independent solo practitioner doctors, psychiatrists and optometrists in the city.
And the city is supposed to evaluate the charges to each and every patient. How? Of course, we taxpayers will inevitably pay whatever costs the city incurs.
Yes, health care costs are escalating and need to be controlled, but Measure F is absolutely no way to solve this problem. So no, no, no, no, no, no.
Leave our clocks alone!
Proposition 7 on the state ballot, if approved, would make daylight savings time permanent in this state. Most of us probably enjoy the wonderful light summer evenings we experience with daylight savings time, and those will continue. But making DST permanent is a bad idea.
If we have daylight savings time last all year round, have you thought about what happens on winter mornings? During summer months, it begins to get light at 5 a.m. but right now, sunrise is closer to 7 a.m. If we had daily savings time in the winter months, sunrise will occur as late at 8:10 a.m.
How does this affect our kids, who would have to walk or bike to school in the dark? Would school starting times change to a 9 a.m.? If so, what would parents do if their jobs still begin at 8 a.m? And California’s time would be an hour off from the rest of the country (except Arizona) so people flying out on EST or CST would arrive in California’s DST an hour later (e.g., not 10:30p.m. but 11:30 p.m.) Telephone callers would have to remember California businesses are on a different clock – and call an hour later.
Some people complain it’s too hard to turn their clocks forward in the spring and push them back in the fall. Get over it, I say to them. If it takes a day or two to adjust, just do it. Our spring, summer and fall months of DST are wonderful, but let’s keep falling back in the late fall to standard time.
Our clocks aren’t broke, so let’s not fix them. Vote No in Prop 7. Please,
