Do the Six Tucson Council Members Represent All the Citizens of Tucson?

The Tucson City Council wants to mount a court challenge to stop the new law that redically changes how council elections are held in Tucson.  This is the same council that made no attempt to prevent the law from becoming law.  The excuses as found in the Arizona Daily Star, Sunday August 3, 2009, are: 

“Romero said the city was busy balancing its budget in the past several months and didn’t know about the vote on the bill until the day it occurred. In addition, Romero said the city’s opposition wouldn’t have made a difference.” 

“Councilwoman Karin Uhlich also said the city was busy balancing its budget,…”

What  incredibly lame excuses!  Remember, this is the same council that has turned Tucson into a laughingstock due to Rio Nuevo. 

These people actually oppose non-partisan elections and will use tax money to fight to overturn the new law.  Let’s recap:

• These are the same people who wasted millions on Rio Nuevo.
• They felt it was more important to fund social programs than to fully fund the TPD.
• They promised to rid the city of the water admin fee to get elected and did not get rid of the fee.

While the degree of responsibility does not fall squarely on all the council members, the council as a whole has not fairly represented all of the city.  The Southeast, mostly Ward IV, has been allowed to languish.  Shirley Scott—Ward IV, perhaps should not be lumped with the other five Democrats on the council, because she has operated in a somewhat non-partisan manner.  Yes Tucson has six council members and all are democrats.  While there are areas of the city with heavy republican voter registration, Tucson still has disproportionate representation of six democrats running the City Council. 

It is important to question why each ward cannot elect a representative of its own choosing.  In elections around the country, congressional districts vote for their representative and no other.  In the State Legislature the vote is for your representative and no other.  In presidential elections we use the electoral system to determine how our state wants to be represented. 

As for city elections, what party must you be to provide adequate public safety and to fill pot holes?  What is wrong with being non-partisan and for each ward to send its reprepresentative to the Council?  The last time this method of ward voting was put before the electorate was in 1993—16 years ago and well before the Rio Nuevo debacle.

Giffords Secures Federal Projects in Grijalva’s 7th District — Why?

Today, Representative Gabriel Giffords proudly announced on her 8th Congressional District web site that she  has secured funding of $4.47 Million for four infrastructure projects from the Federal Government.

An extract from her web site is as follows.  

“The four projects for which Giffords secured funding include Tucson’s Modern Streetcar, the light rail transit system that will connect University Medical Center, the University of Arizona, Fourth Avenue, Downtown Tucson and Rio Nuevo. Mayor Bob Walkup was very appreciative of today’s vote.”

As a constituent, I see one very large problem with this fabulous accomplishment.  Apparently Ms. Giffords does not know whom she represents.  These four projects are not in her district.  That’s right , they are in Congressman Raul Grijalva’s district.  Boy do I feel loved.  Perhaps the folks in the 7th will vote for her in the next election.

Hello Arizona!

For some time I have been writing about our national broken government in my Ken Moyes’ Weblog found at http://Brokengovernment.wordpress.com .  I have now decided to spend more time writing about the government and the government players of Arizona, my state.  These players will include representatives to Congress and the State House, along with Pima County and Tucson elected officials.  I hope we all learn something from this experimental excursion through what makes Arizona run.

Fixing Health Care The Smart Way: at the state level, starting with Arizona

With the very questionable and incredibly expensive and poorly though out presidential health care initiative appearing to be in trouble, one state among others remains in a high cost medical environment.  Arizona doctors, especially primary care physicians are leaving for more conducive legal environments.  One state, Texas, has had great success in attracting both primary care physicians and specialists, since it enacted wide-ranging medical tort reform.  Tort reform, however, is only part of the solution. 

What is wrong in Arizona?

1. A shortage of primary care physicians exists – patient to doctor ratio is and has been rising for some time.
   1. Too many Arizona trained doctors opt to leave Arizona.
   2. Too many opt to go into specialties.
2. Health care costs in Arizona and the nation continue to dramatically outpace inflation.
3. Too many tests ordered, too few primary care physicians, too many expensive specialists, too many frivolous malpractice suits, too many dollars awarded as punitive damages.

Why is it wrong?

• Two medical schools in Arizona.
  1. University of Arizona, turning out only 110 doctors per year.
  2. A University of Arizona location in Phoenix will not significantly add to number of physicians output – output may be only and additional 24 doctors per year.
• A.T. Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Phoenix will have its first graduating class next year and produce only about 110 each year.
• The cost of medical malpractice insurance forces primary care physicians to order too many tests to protect themselves from malpractice claims.
  1. Damage Caps
     “Arizona does not place a cap on the amount of damages recoverable in a medical malpractice action. Article 2, § 31 of the Arizona constitution prohibits the enactment of any law limiting the damages one may recover for personal injury or death.”
  2. Statutory Cap on Attorneys’ Fees
     “Arizona does not place a limit on the fees recoverable by an attorney in a medical malpractice action.”
         Source for damage caps and attorney fees is McCullough, Campbell, and Lane LLP, attorneys: http://www.mcandl.com/arizona.html
• Physicians opt to become specialists seeking higher income to repay crushing student loans and cope with malpractice insurance premiums.

How does Arizona fix it?

1. Arizona should spend $500 Million annually to pay for the operation of “free” medical training for M.D.’s and D.O.’s.  This should allow for the doubling of doctor output from the 250 per year to 500 per year.  “Free” is not really free.  Doctors agree to work in primary care or community health care for 10 consecutive years in Arizona after becoming doctors.  Each year worked, eliminates 1/10th of the student loan made to the student who attends an Arizona medical school.
2. Quality of enrollees sours.
3. Double the output capacity for the two medical schools in Arizona, an initial expense of $200 Million.
4. Address tort reform in Arizona by seeking to amend the state constitution to:
   • Limit damage caps to actual damages, less contributory negligence from the patient.
   • Cap attorney fees.
   • Require mandatory initial medical arbitration, before referral to the courts.
5. Provide for a loser pays all cumulative attorney and court fees – if partial damages, then partial reimbursement of fees.  No one gets rich on malpractice.

Why will this work?

1. Costs across the board will be reduced.  Health insurance rates drop.
2. Malpractice premiums will drop in Arizona.  Health insurance rates drop.
3. Malpractice suits and awards will be diminished in Arizona.  Health insurance rates drop.
4. The number of new primary care physicians will reduce the current patient load.  More primary care physicians per capita means better health care.  Health insurance rates drop.
5. A higher percentage of D.O.’s become primary care physicians, than do M.D.’s.  More D.O.’s means more primary care physicians.
6. New doctors will not have crushing student loans to repay.
7. Fewer specialists, due to the better financial situation of new primary care physicians, as they no longer need to become specialists to increase earnings to repay loans and pay malpractice insurance.
8. Less need for specialist patient medical referrals to protect against malpractice – fewer higher cost specialists per capita needed.  Health insurance rates drop.
9. Fewer costly tests will be ordered in Arizona, lowering medical costs.  Health insurance rates drop.
10. Tort reform brings even more physicians to Arizona just as the tort reform in Texas has brought physicians to Texas. Supply and damand – Health insurance rates drop.
11. More primary care physicians actually doing hands-on medicine instead of being gate keepers will lower health care costs.  Health insurance rates drop.
12. Health care insurance becomes substantially more affordable to all in Arizona.  Many more people will be covered.
13. More small businesses in Arizona can now afford to provide health care insurance.
14. Small businesses migrate to Arizona, creating Arizona jobs.

Issues to overcome:

1. Malpractice attorneys are unhappy and fight the changes.
2. Progressives and liberals who want to control the population via health care are unhappy.
3. Coming up with the initial $200 Million to increase the capacity of medical schools and $500 million annually to fund the student loan / waiver program.  This equates to $30 per head and $77 per head respectively based on Census 2008 population estimates for Arizona.  Actually if  the federal government gave each state $500 million each year to cover this cost, it would cost only about $2.5 Billion annually and not the Trillions projected by out dysfunctional federal government.

Also included is a link to McCullough, Campbell, and Lane LLP, malpractice attorneys http://www.mcandl.com/arizona.html and a link to the School of Osteopathic Medicine web page explaining the difference between D.O.’s and M.D.’s http://www.atsu.edu/soma/programs/osteopathic_medicine/index.htm.