The Observation Deck

Bill Call wrote:Actually it's Obamacare that is driving the huge increases in premiums.

Anyway, the explosive growth in the cost of 0 copay and 0 deductible health insurance and the unfunded pension liabilities is driving the explosive growth in spending over the near term. Obamacare will require big penalties for those expensive health plans that will drive a demand for higher wages which will put the system under even more financial stress.

Bill

This is a red herring, from the health care business.

Genetics will bring down the cost of total health care. The test which used to be $5,000 is
now $400 and a person can walk in. Actually I believe it can be reduced even more with a
coupon from Google that is trying to get everyone to "spit in a tube." Having mapped the
human genome they are looking for variations to help with disease.

The doctor I was talking with, a Cleveland Clinic physician optometrist was actually
showing me some amazing work with proteins and protein blockers. He believes that 90%
of eye issues can be corrected at conception, and certainly by birth by counter acting
some of the proteins or triggering others. This is amazing stuff. His comment was 70%
of health care is now gearing up for this, as Obamacare is not paying for endless
treatments. The big perks are in the cures, and maintaining healthy care.

Showed me another case study for a young lady into heavy expensive care for anxiety,
migraines, and other issues that came out of that. After testing, and corrective protein
blocking, no more headaches, no more anxiety, no more treatments. This was a very high
cost low payback client, cured. Medicine costs $0.00 after initial testing and followup.

I have to believe with more cures, and lower expenses policy providers will have to reduce
costs, especially once the right quit paving the way for higher costs through fear and
misunderstanding. If not, single payer is ready to come in and close their doors forever.

But we will leave this for another thread.

.

When the new treasurer made his case for the levy, he said the system would run a deficit this year, but has enough reserves (what some might call a slush fund) to cover the deficit. He reported a like scenario for 2014, and 2015, deficits that could be covered by this wad of reserves. Not until 2016 will the reserves be depleted.

So why do we need a levy that will start the income in 2014 when they already have enough to get through after 2016? The simple answer is we don't. The Board rushed to get this on a poorly attended election thinking no one would ask why they have to maintain a large reserve. I think some level of reserves is prudent, but when so many people are in economic distress, we should sacrifice some of those unused reserves. I would likely support a levy next year, to start drawing in 2015; but that is not what they have put on the ballot.

Will

Do you have any quotes on that topic?

The schools and the city have generally pushed for levies in the spring.

Look at the history.


.

The best attended elections are typically in the Fall, in part because there are candidates on the ballot, and we all know the date of the election.

The next best attended elections are typically the primary elections where there are candidates on the ballot, because the candidates publicize the date of the election, and the voter's know that, at least in Lakewood, the winner of the democratic primary will win the fall election, so we want to have a voice in who that candidate will be.

The least best attended elections are typically the primary elections where there are no candidates on the ballot. Many of us don't know the date of the election, and don't have a lot of motivation to vote for what are often minor issues.

Politicians are aware of this, and like to put levies and bond issues on these sparsely attended elections, so the can get them passed with a relatively small number of zealous supporters. Your feelings that levies and bond issues are typically on the Spring ballot just reflects that the politicians choose to put them there to make it easier to pass them.

My personal feeling is that one election a year is enough. It costs us a lot to conduct a primary election, and the beneficiaries are the political parties, who can cull the field of candidates without spending any of their money. Let the political parties conduct their own selection process at their own expense, and the people will decide at the November election. I have never seen a public issue, such as a levy, that was such an emergency that it could not wait to be decided on the November ballot.

Will Brown wrote:The best attended elections are typically in the Fall, in part because there are candidates on the ballot, and we all know the date of the election.

The next best attended elections are typically the primary elections where there are candidates on the ballot, because the candidates publicize the date of the election, and the voter's know that, at least in Lakewood, the winner of the democratic primary will win the fall election, so we want to have a voice in who that candidate will be.

The least best attended elections are typically the primary elections where there are no candidates on the ballot. Many of us don't know the date of the election, and don't have a lot of motivation to vote for what are often minor issues.

Politicians are aware of this, and like to put levies and bond issues on these sparsely attended elections, so the can get them passed with a relatively small number of zealous supporters. Your feelings that levies and bond issues are typically on the Spring ballot just reflects that the politicians choose to put them there to make it easier to pass them.

My personal feeling is that one election a year is enough. It costs us a lot to conduct a primary election, and the beneficiaries are the political parties, who can cull the field of candidates without spending any of their money. Let the political parties conduct their own selection process at their own expense, and the people will decide at the November election. I have never seen a public issue, such as a levy, that was such an emergency that it could not wait to be decided on the November ballot.

With all due respect, you still haven't answered Jim's question regarding levy history.

Ryan Salo wrote:Jim,

Thank you for your perspective. I am not anti teachers nor anti children. I just want to make sure that we spend money the best that we can. I have been emailing Mr. Patterson and Mr. Penton over the past few weeks requesting different information. I have also been reflecting on my experiences with the school district both as a parent and as a student years ago. For the most part we have an amazing group of teachers and administrators doing their best to educate the children in the city. Their job is getting more and more challenging with state and federal requirements and with more and more esl children and kids without any parental involvement. I honestly (obviously based on my questions) was heavily leaning towards voting against the levy. My perspective was that we need to reign in labor costs, which I believe we need to do. According to Jeff Patterson the teachers have taken a pay freeze for 3 of the last 4 years and they are paying for more of their benefits. The district has also let 80 employees go so far in the past few years. Thankfully the remaining staff has done a wonderful job making up for the loses. I now agree with you Jim that this levy is not where we should pick a fight. We need to really apply pressure when we negotiate the 2014/2015+ contracts.

The bottom line is we are in a contract already with the teachers, any additional cuts will directly affect the students. They may still get the core items, but all of the extras are what make the lakewood schools so amazing. I support this levy.

Hi Ryan--

Before this levy is just a distant (successful) memory, I wanted to thank you for starting this thread and your diligence in pursuing this subject.

Watching you-- reading your posts in this thread as you reported in-- as you went from a person who sounded very much like he was going to vote against the levy, to a person who wholeheartedly supported it, was very enlightening.

Going to Mr. Patterson and Mr. Penton was a good and necessary idea; their straightforwardness with you, and overall, is one of thing things that is so great about our District right now.

Yes, as you point out, there are things that need to be addressed-- like the next contract with the teachers-- but not voting for the levy was not the way to get that done. I too have issues with elements of our School District (as you know) but also, could say exactly what you have said:

For the most part we have an amazing group of teachers and administrators doing their best to educate the children in the city. Their job is getting more and more challenging with state and federal requirements and with more and more esl children and kids without any parental involvement.

It is really important that as parents and citizens we can sort out what needs to happen when. It is critical that the Board and Administration are transparent, because they need us to understand, and to support them, and to take issue with them if we feel that it is important to do so. That is our role. Our current administration is up to the job, but as you have proven, sometimes you have to ask. They have a lot going on. We have to stay in there as parents and citizens and continue to pay attention, and we don't have the luxury of just tuning in when there is a levy, or a bond. Though these are excellent times to pay attention, it is way too late if that's the only time you check in.

All of this to say thank you. You did a great job of navigating these issues and this thread-- it means a lot when someone says, "I started out with an obvious point of view and in the course of this discussion I CHANGED MY MIND AND HERE'S WHY." Thank you.

Betsy Voinovich