|
|
The Council for Disability Rights |
| Advancing rights and enhancing lives of people with disabilities |
|
CDR HOME NEWS BOOKS VIDEO USEFUL LINKS ABOUT CDR HOW TO HELP |
October 2004
Harris Poll on Voters with Disabilities Race is Tight; Level of Support for Republican Unusual from this Voting Bloc Washington, DC, Sept. 29, 2004 — A poll conducted by Harris Interactive this month finds President George W. Bush with a narrow lead over Senator John F. Kerry among Americans with disabilities who are likely to vote in November's election. This finding marks a dramatic shift in support among this voting bloc, which has historically supported the Democratic candidate in every election since Harris Interactive first measured it in 1988. NOD estimates that there are 40 million voting-aged U.S. citizens with disabilities. Harris found 41 percent (or roughly 16 million) voted in 2000. Among U.S. adults with disabilities who are likely voters, 48 percent said they were either likely to vote for, or leaning toward voting for President Bush, while 46 percent said the same for Sen. Kerry. Three percent favored Ralph Nader. "This finding indicates a shift compared to polls from past years and even from last month, when Harris Interactive found Kerry leading 50 to 40 percent among likely voters with disabilities," said NOD President Alan Reich. "In 2000, Harris found 56 percent of voters with disabilities voted for Al Gore and 38 percent for George Bush. If the numbers from this latest survey hold up, it would represent a notable shift from the 2000 vote. However, Bush's lead is within a margin of error. If either side reaches out to disability voters or champions issues important to this voting bloc, that investment could still reap significant rewards. Neither side can take these voters for granted. Each has a challenge to connect with our community." The voting survey did not identify the reasons likely voters with disabilities favor Bush in contrast to those who do not have disabilities (in this poll the latter favored Kerry, by 50 to 45 percent). Other recent polls have noted a trend of greater than expected support for Bush from women. This poll result is part of a larger disability survey project studying voter preferences, issues of concern, and barriers to voting. This survey project has been made possible by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. The National Organization on Disability, founded in 1982, promotes the full and equal participation and contribution of America's 54 million men, women and children with disabilities in all aspects of life. N.O.D. is a non-partisan organization. On Participating in the 2004 Elections By Bob Kafka I do a lot of organizing trainings for ADAPT, a national grassroots disability rights organization. I learn a lot from the people that attend these trainings. Recently I was in Mississippi where a grandmother with a disability was telling me how she could not believe how people took for granted their right to vote. She told me how as a child she was part of the civil rights protests of the 60s and had gone to jail for that right to vote. Amazing! She confronted dogs, hoses, children being thrown in jail, and we in the disability community, that have never experienced anything close to that oppression, complain it's too much trouble for us to vote? Justin Dart said it well: vote like your life depends on it, because it does! Y'all know and have been told by everyone how important this election is. Not only the presidential election, but also the congressional elections. Who runs congress is important for disability rights and services. Congress writes the laws and the budget! Bush or Kerry. Republicans or Democrats. Red or blue! I know one thing. I'm going to vote on the positions the candidates take on disability issues. The question is: do disabled people and our supporters vote according to the positions candidates take on disability issues? Will the positions the candidates take on disability issues swing your vote? Will their positions on disability votes swing the vote of your families? What about the people who provide your services, equipment, therapy and education? Will the bureaucrats who are paid design the programs that support us in the community vote on the disability positions taken by the candidates? There are significant differences between the Bush-Republicans and Kerry-Democrats' positions on the role of government. Bush believes in turning control back to the states - Kerry that the federal government needs to play a strong role. There are significant differences in the Bush-Republican, Kerry-Democrat view of the judiciary. Bush will appoint judges that construe the constitution in what is called a "strict constructionist" way. Kerry believes in a more interpretive viewpoint, that things change with the times. There are significant differences on how the Bush-Republicans, Kerry-Democrats believe health and personal attendant services are to be delivered. Bush has proposed block grants to the states for Medicaid and housing while Kerry has made reform of these programs a priority. We as a community need to check out their web sites, brochures, written positions, past records. Is it rhetoric or is it action? I believe that if the disability community, families, providers, and bureaucrats all vote our self interest on November 2nd we will be the real swing voters that carry Bush-Republicans or Kerry-Democrats to victory. You hear a lot about the battleground states. There are a lot of undecided voters with disabilities and their supporters in each of the battleground states. There are active disability Get out the Vote efforts going on in those battleground states. Our votes can decide the direction of the country. Do we as a community believe that? Though I think we do it seems invisible to the media and general public. As usual, disability = invisibility. But that doesn't mean it = ineffective. If there is one thing disability teaches us it is that we can do all kinds of things no one else thinks we can do. Our political efforts to get out and influence the vote are running under the radar of the national media and only now coming to the attention of the candidates. I watched both conventions and from a disability perspective I went away disappointed. No... ANGRY. Disability was almost totally ignored. You heard about the black vote, women's vote, latino vote, gay/lesbian, NASCAR, soccer moms, & gun owners vote, the 18-24s, senior citizens, moderate Catholics, Islamic, Evangelicals, and Jewish vote, and so on and so on. What about the disability vote? 40 million of us (not to mention our supporters). You hear almost nothing! Love us. Hate us. But don't ignore us! I scan the papers, with e-mails I talk to people all over the country. Did Bush mention a disability issue? Did Kerry? Did they attend a disability event? We need to demand respect from both parties. As a voting force ignore us at your peril. This is not an empty threat if we vote in large numbers on November 2nd. We are an interest group and a growing political force. We aren't courted by both parties so we are like a tree falling in the forest. They don't hear it but it makes a hell of a noise. We need to challenge both parties. How do you stand on our issues? Kissing or hugging a disabled person doesn't cut it any more. Taking positions on our issues does. For example:
Though this election is critical we also need to keep our eye on the future. We need to continue to build our political influence at local, state and national elections. Our influence needs to be felt in city council, state legislative as well as school board elections. To do this we have a responsibility to be active in the campaigns. The door swings both ways. If we want respect we need to earn it. We don't want the parties to give us something because we are all "crippled up". We want them to earn our votes. Florida was decided by 536 votes in 2000. New Mexico was close, as were New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada and West Virginia. We can and will make a difference in this election and in the future. Listen up President Bush. Listen up Senator Kerry. Listen up Republican party. Listen up Democratic party. Disabled and we vote. Disabled and we vote. Disabled and we vote. Integration, inclusion and independence. Source: Justice For All Moderator 9/30/04 Please Help Voters with Disabilities Thank you for your recent support of United Cerebral Palsy's successful DontBlockMyVote.org campaign. With your help, we sent 15,000 letters to Congress and President Bush seeking full funding for the Help America Vote Act. While we should all be proud of what we're doing to make polling places more accessible for people with disabilities, we can't stop there because 40 million voters with disabilities are being ignored by the candidates for President. By Taking Action now, you can help United Cerebral Palsy challenge President Bush, Senator Kerry, and the Commission on Presidential Debates to address the urgent issues Americans with disabilities and their families face every day. Our votes can't be blocked and our issues can't be taken for granted! Sincerely, Stephen Bennett President and CEO, United Cerebral Palsy 
Tell your friends about our Disability Issues Deserve Debate campaign.
We encourage you to take action by November 2nd. Send your letter to: Commission on Pres. Debates President George W. Bush Senator John Kerry ----------------------------------------------- Dear [decision maker], I am writing to demand that the urgent issues facing people with disabilities and their families be addressed in the Presidential debates. People with disabilities represent one of the largest minority groups in the United States. One in five Americans has a disability. Millions more have someone in their family, a friend, a neighbor, or a co-worker with a disability. The challenges people with disabilities and their families face are America's challenges. Yet 40 million eligible voters with disabilities have heard nothing during the campaign for the White House on matters of education, employment, health care, and accessibility for people with disabilities. This is not acceptable. Forty million votes are worth your attention. The debates are the right forum for honest answers to the serious questions facing people with disabilities and their families. Please don't deny this powerful voting bloc the opportunity to make an informed decision about which Presidential candidate will best represent their interests. Sincerely, -----------------------------------------------
Sign up for Public Policy Action Center.
Source: United Cerebral Palsy, 10/7/04. Campaign 2004 — The Big Issues: How Not to Save Social Security Among the clear-cut policy differences between President Bush and Senator John Kerry is each man's take on Social Security. In his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, Mr. Bush said, "We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account." Mr. Kerry, in his acceptance speech, said, "I will not privatize Social Security." Mr. Kerry is right, and Mr. Bush is wrong. The president's plan would do the opposite of what Mr. Bush claims. It would weaken Social Security, hurt the economy and endanger many workers' retirements by pushing them into unreasonable risks in the stock market. If Mr. Bush were a broker peddling stocks to low-income, uninsured, indebted individuals like many of the Americans who would be included in his plan, he would be violating rules that require brokers to recommend only suitable investments. When responsible politicians talk about "fixing" Social Security, what they generally mean is finding a way to guarantee a basic level of financial security for the elderly while closing the gap that will develop over time in the system's finances if nothing is done. Social Security's trustees plan for solvency over 75 years. Currently, the program is projected to come up short in 2042, when it will be able to pay about 70 percent of the promised benefits. That's a lot of money, but the gap can be bridged over the next 38 years with a package of modest reforms, which we will discuss in a future editorial. What Mr. Bush proposes - allowing workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts in exchange for agreeing in advance to receive a much-reduced guaranteed government benefit when they retire - would neither provide retirement security, nor take care of the solvency of the Social Security system. And it would wreak havoc with the overall federal budget. In proposing personal accounts, Mr. Bush has promised to retain the current benefits for today's retirees and for those who are nearing retirement. So for some 40 years, workers would be making deposits into their accounts with tax money that - under the current system - would have been used to pay the benefits of those who are retired. The government would have to make up the difference, and Mr. Bush has no reasonable plan for covering this cost, which is estimated to be at least $1 trillion. That leaves three general possibilities: immense government borrowing, draconian cuts in other programs or higher taxes. In a 1997 report by President Bill Clinton's Advisory Council on Social Security, those who favored ample mandatory personal accounts proposed a national sales tax of 1 percent and $1.2 trillion in government borrowing. If offsetting steps were not taken immediately, the reduced cash flow in the transition period would drive the Social Security trust fund into the red about 15 years earlier than is currently projected. That, too, would require wrenching fiscal moves - borrowing, spending cuts, tax increases - to avoid default on the government's obligation to retirees. When workers in a partly privatized system reached retirement, they would find that higher interest rates caused by huge deficits, reductions in government services or higher taxes had offset some - if not all - of the sums they had accumulated in personal accounts. And they would get smaller government benefits than they would if Social Security had been reformed in a more sensible way. However Social Security is reformed, when younger workers retire, their benefits are likely to be smaller than the benefits promised to current retirees. But a partly privatized system would produce a cut that's likely to be bigger and an income that would be far less reliable. That's because the government benefit is cut more deeply under privatization, and how much you can actually accumulate in a personal account would depend on the stock market. Anyone who lived through the 1990's knows that investing in stocks can leave you with less than you started with. Privatization would invite overexposure to the stock market - a risk that is not justified by the potential return. Most people who already save for retirement rely heavily on stock investments through 401(k)'s and other savings plans. Even workers who have traditional pensions are more exposed to the stock market than ever, as employers increasingly strive for outsized stock market returns to make up for inadequate contributions to their plans. And people without pensions or enough income to save money in retirement plans generally do not belong in the stock market at all. Stock investing makes sense only after you have accumulated an emergency cash reserve, are adequately insured and have paid off consumer debt. Personal accounts within Social Security would perpetuate the wrongheaded notion that the stock market can bail everyone out. It can't. Mr. Bush does everyone a disservice by implying that it will. The personal account idea also does nothing about another big reason that Social Security needs reforming: people are living longer. Unless the government mandates that people convert their personal accounts into private annuities, retirees are in danger of outliving their money, leaving them to survive on the meager government benefit. And they would lose the inflation protection built into government benefits, which is increasingly important the longer you live. Those most at risk of impoverishment are old women, who live three years longer than men on average and are far less likely to have private pensions. There is a broad social argument against privatization, which is that we all lose if our fellow citizens come up short in their quest for secure retirements. By taking the financial risk out of growing old, Social Security has had remarkable results for society at large. Poverty among the elderly is now 10 percent, down from 30 percent in 1960. Like any sound insurance system, Social Security works by broadly pooling risks. It protects everyone because it includes everyone. Personal accounts move Social Security away from a comprehensive system to one in which it's increasingly every man for himself. None of these arguments deter Mr. Bush and other advocates of personal accounts. For them, Social Security is primarily an ideological struggle. Social Security supports retirees by shifting income from the young to the old via taxes, and from the rich to the poor via the formula for calculating benefits. To Mr. Bush and his supporters, taxation and redistribution are anathema, and Social Security is an anti-capitalist ploy to squelch initiative and growth. Those same arguments were leveled against Social Security when President Franklin Roosevelt established it in 1935, and when its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937. 
New York Times: Campaign 2004/The Big Issues (Editorials in this series remain online.)
Source: The New York Times, 9/23/04. New Web Health Resources About 57 million working-age Americans (18-64 years old) live with chronic conditions such as diabetes or depression. Rising Health Costs, Medical Debt and Chronic Conditions reports that, in 2003, more than one in five -- 12.3 million people with chronic conditions -- lived in families that had problems paying their medical bills. Rising health costs have hit low-income, privately insured people with chronic conditions particularly hard: Between 2001 and 2003, the proportion of such people who spent more than 5 percent of their income on out-of-pocket health care costs grew from 28 percent to 42 percent.
Read the report
Debate continues over Health Savings Accounts (HSA's), though many leading health care analysts and economists have warned that HSA's pose a high risk of causing "adverse selection". Adverse selection occurs when healthy people and less-healthy people separate into different insurance arrangements which drives up the cost of insurance for less-healthy enrollees. Initial Data on Individual Market Enrollment Fail to Dispel Concerns about Health Savings Accounts considers new data, which the authors conclude do not support the claims of HSA proponents. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]
Read the report
The medical care that minority children receive is often inferior to the health care services that other children receive. Current research on racial and ethnic disparities documents widespread failings in both access to care and the quality of care for millions of minority children. Policies to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Child Health and Health Care describes an arsenal of weapons available for reducing racial disparities in health care. [The Commonwealth Fund]
Read the report
Consumer-directed health care plans have attracted attention as a method for managing rising health care spending by "giving consumers greater financial control over their health care". Increased cost-sharing is the principal tool used by these plans to achieve lower spending. Will Consumer-Directed Health Care Improve System Performance? argues that this and other measures may also cause patients to consume less care, even when that care is essential, potentially costing the health care system more in the long run.
Read the report
The persistently weak labor market, together with sharply increasing health care costs, have led to a related problem for working families: the loss of employer-provided health coverage. The Chronic Problem of Declining Health Coverage: Employer-Provided Health Insurance Falls for Third Consecutive Year examines the erosion of employer-based coverage since 2000, with an emphasis on the characteristics -- gender, race, education, and wage and income levels -- of those who have lost coverage. [Economic Policy Institute]
Read the report
Large increases in health care costs combined with an economic slowdown have created pressures for health plans and employers to reconsider cost containment strategies that were scaled back after the managed care backlash. Managed Care Rebound? Recent Changes in Health Plans: Cost Containment Strategies examines how plans -- approaches to cost containment and care management -- have evolved since 2001. [Health Affairs]
Read the report
If you have questions about health insurance and/or if you are having trouble getting health insurance benefits that you need, a health insurance assistance program may be able to help you. These programs may also be able to refer you to low-cost or free health care, including assistance with finding prescription drug coverage. The programs listed in the Program Locator handle questions about Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance, and they also can help people without health insurance. [Health Assistance Partnership]
Program Locator
Perceptions of disrespect and of being treated unfairly within patient-provider relationships affect whether patients heed doctors' advice or return for treatment. In R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Patient Reports of Disrespect in the Health Care Setting and Its Impact on Care, researchers found that minorities are significantly more likely than whites to report being treated with disrespect or being looked down upon in patient-provider relationships. These patients were also more likely to put off needed care, less likely to follow doctors' advice, and less likely to receive optimal care for chronic diseases. [The Journal of Family Practice]
Read the report
The Public, Managed Care, and Consumer Protections, a Kaiser Health Poll Report, examines the public's attitudes towards, and experiences with, their health plans, with a specific focus on managed care. The report uses current and historical public opinion data from the Kaiser Family Foundation and other polling organizations. It also looks at current and historical support for legislative action with regards to patients' rights. [Kaiser Family Foundation]
Read the report
Knowledge of the new Medicare prescription drug law remains sketchy, but 15 months from the date when the benefit is set to kick in, many more people on Medicare have an unfavorable than a favorable impression of the new law. Views of the New Medicare Drug Law: A Survey of People on Medicare assesses beneficiary attitudes toward the new Medicare drug law. It provides detailed insight in their perceptions and opinions about the law, the Medicare-approved drug discount card program, and the new Medicare drug benefit.
Read the report
Many people are unfamiliar with the individual health insurance market because most Americans get their health coverage through their jobs or from a public program. Update on Individual Health Insurance provides information about the individual health insurance market, including information on insurance purchasers, premiums, retention rates, and cost-sharing. Future reports will provide trend information in such areas as premiums and cost-sharing and data on other topics such as Health Savings Accounts and small business health insurance trends. [Kaiser Family Foundation and eHealth Insurance]
Read the report
Race, Ethnicity and Health Care, a tutorial, discusses how a person's race and ethnicity relate to their health status, health insurance coverage, health care access, and the quality of the care they receive. [KaiserEDU]
Read the report
The role of private health plans in Medicare expanded substantially in 2004 under the new Medicare Modernization Act. Monitoring Medicare+ Choice: What Have We Learned? Findings and Operational Lessons for Medicare Advantage notes that the program, now known as Medicare Advantage, is widely viewed as a failure. As private plans continue to be a focal point for changing Medicare in the future, policy makers need a better understanding of the dynamics of the system to facilitate a successful transition in this latest effort. [Mathematica]
Read the report
At least 10 percent of low-income children have serious emotional and behavioral problems. States have adopted widely different ways of financing and delivering children's mental health services. Access to Children's Mental Health Services under Medicaid and SCHIP provides new information on Medicaid and SCHIP coverage of mental health services and on the prevalence of mental health problems among children according to income and health insurance coverage. [the Urban Institute] Many low-income adults have a health problem or impairment that limits their ability to participate in social activities, including work. A Health-Conscious Safety Net? Health Problems and Program Use among Low-Income Adults with Disabilities examines the employment and program participation patterns of low-income adults with disabilities and how well the current safety net meets their needs. It also compares low-income adults with and without disabilities across employment, program participation, and income status.
Help us spread the word: Forward this message to a friend or colleague.
Source: Ingrid VanTuinen, Families USA, 10/5/04, Health Action@familiesusa.org Support the Doctornaut Act Dear Exceptional Parent Friend and Reader: Exceptional Parent has exceptional news. There is the real possibility that physician volunteers for clinical research, or Doctornauts, can rapidly speed up the discovery of breakthrough medical discoveries to treat disabilities, chronic diseases and other illnesses both for adults and our children. In order to make it happen, my good physician friend and colleague, Stephen L. DeFelice, the founder and Chairman of FIM, the Foundation for Innovation in Medicine (FIM), recently has proposed that Congress should enact the Doctornaut Act. But your help is essential to convince the members of Congress of the critical importance of Doctornauts. To learn more about the Act and what you can do to help make it a reality, visit FIM's web site. Dr. DeFelice hopes to establish reciprocal links with as many organizations as possible in order to help increase awareness and support of the proposed Doctornaut Act. 
Please send the instructions for FIM to link to your web site.
He would appreciate it if you would post the following description on your site with a link to FIM: "FIM, the Foundation for Innovation in Medicine, is a nonprofit, educational foundation founded in 1976 by physician Stephen L. DeFelice. FIM's mission is to accelerate medical discovery both for adults and children with disabilities, chronic diseases and other illnesses primarily by decreasing the costly and risky barriers to clinical research. FIM has recently proposed the Doctornaut Act (full text online) to permit physicians to take greater risks as volunteers for clinical research." In this new millennium, new technologies are making rapid changes to daily life in many ways, yet clinical research still lags woefully behind. The time is here for the human factor to be recognized, to allow those who have dedicated their lives to healing to go blaze the trail. As parents and professional caregivers who have often had to stand alone at the edge of medical knowledge because it had not yet advanced far enough to help someone in their care, please lend your support to those who would lead this unique charge for change. Consult the EP web site or the Foundation for Innovation in Medicine and write your Congressional Representative or Senator. Become active. The direct beneficiaries of this are the only real treasure we have as a nation and as a people -- our children and those we love. Thank you Joseph M. Valenzano, Jr. President, Publisher, CEO, River Edge, NJ
Foundation for Innovation in Medicine
Doctornaut Act
Exceptional Parent
Source: Exceptional Parent, 10/08/04 Chicago Transit Authority Releases Two Budget Proposals for 2005 Illinois General Assembly Asked to Review Transit Funding Formula to Avoid Service Cuts [Below is a CTA press release from Oct. 4, 2004. Please note two especially important items: CTA will be doubling the fare for ADA Paratransit, Taxi Access Program and Mobility Direct, from $1.75 to $3.50, regardless of whether or not the CTA gets additional money from the State of Illinois; and Public hearings will be held, beginning next Thurs. Oct. 14.] In September, the Board of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) directed that all three regional transit agencies, CTA, Metra and Pace, prepare two budget proposals for 2005, one that anticipates additional funding if the General Assembly acts to modify the current funding structure and provide additional funding for public transit, and another that anticipates no new funding. Unless the General Assembly supports RTA's operating and capital transit funding marks for 2005, CTA will have a significant budget deficit and will be forced to drastically cut service. CTA President Frank Kruesi today presented two starkly different budget recommendations for 2005. "At the unanimous direction of the RTA Board, CTA has created two budget scenarios, one in which the General Assembly acknowledges the critical need for public transit by increasing funding, and the second which outlines the impact if no additional funding is forthcoming. It reflects a substantially pared down version of the level of service customers receive today," said Kruesi. "Both scenarios are presented so that CTA customers and the public are informed of both the service levels the CTA would like to provide its customers, and the budget that reflects dramatic service cuts that the CTA, and its customers, may be forced to live with. Simply put, the level of public funding provided to the CTA will determine both the amount and quality of service the CTA can provide to customers." The formula that funds transit operations in this region is fundamentally flawed. The current funding formula was established by the Illinois General Assembly in 1983. It determines funding levels based on geographic boundaries and retail spending rather than ridership, service provided or other transit performance criteria. Most fundamentally, it does not sufficiently fund transit services. Funding erosion has contributed to difficult budget decisions year after year and each year CTA staff worked diligently to find more ways to cut costs, operate more efficiently and increase revenues. But with each new budget year, it has been harder to find ways to reduce costs without impacting customers and service levels. "If CTA receives adequate funding, it will be able to maintain current service levels and build on them to sustain the momentum of ridership growth in five of the past six years," explained Kruesi. "But without adequate funding, CTA will have no choice but to drastically restructure its service in order to achieve a balanced budget. This is not a choice the CTA wants to make. ..." In the hopes that the General Assembly will acknowledge the importance of public transit to the region, the first of Kruesi's 2005 budget recommendations seeks to promote increased regional mobility. It recommends an operating budget of $1.02 billion that would include a public funding level of $524 million-an increase of $82.5 million over 2004. This level of funding will enable CTA to maintain current service levels and continue developing service improvements to build ridership. This will include the addition of weekend service on the Cermak (Douglas) branch of the Blue Line and may include other enhancements resulting from the West Side Corridor Study. CTA remains committed to carefully managing its operations and improving efficiency. Since 1997, CTA has reduced operating costs by over $760 million, including the reduction of more than 1,100 positions and increased bus and rail service. Since 1998, CTA has made service improvements on 68 percent of its bus routes (103 out of 152 routes), and on all seven of its rail routes. A total of 281 improvements have been implemented which include 25 new bus routes, expanded hours of bus service, expanded hours at rail entrances, added trips to reduce wait time, and route changes to improve access and connectivity. The greatest number of improvements has been to add trips to improve the frequency of CTA buses and trains. In 2004, the CTA cut 446 positions and raised base fares for the first time in 12 years in order to eliminate an $88 million deficit. In 2005, CTA has proposed the reduction of an additional 200 positions resulting from new or continuing initiatives that have helped CTA to hold the line on expenses. Without these internal cost control efforts, CTA's budget would be $120 million higher. In addition, select fees and fares will increase to help maintain critical aspects of the system. These include the University Pass (U-Pass), parking fees and paratransit fares. Increases will help offset the cost of providing these services. Without action from the General Assembly to correct CTA's funding erosion, CTA will be forced to implement the second scenario that will lead to increased regional gridlock in 2005 as a result of service cuts. The funding level and service assumption embedded in CTA's preferred 2005 budget proposal will be revised to reflect the limited funding that will be available to CTA. In that environment, the RTA will only provide public funding of $441.6 million to CTA in 2005, the same level of public funding CTA received in 2002. This will result in an operating budget of $912 million. This funding level is 2.68 percent less than CTA received in 2003; considering inflation, it amounts to a funding decrease of $35.7 million in real terms. Under this budget scenario, the CTA proposes to eliminate 250 jobs that are not directly involved in the delivery of bus or rail service. This brings the total number of positions eliminated since 2003 to 696 and represents an 11.5 percent reduction in the non-service workforce. Fare increases for paratransit customers are planned. Like Pace, the CTA is required under the Americans With Disabilities Act to provide these critical paratransit services. This is an unfunded mandate, however, and the CTA receives no dedicated funding. These costs continue to grow faster than the projected rate of inflation due to a combination of service provider rate increases and growth in the number of trips provided. Purchase of paratransit services are projected to increase by 16.3 percent over the 2004 budget to $52.5 million, which represents 5.1 percent of CTA's total operating cost. Fares for the taxi access program (TAP) will increase to $3.50 from $1.75. Paratransit customers using the curb-to-curb service will see an increase to $3.50 from the current fare of $1.75. In addition, the price of a 30-day paratransit pass will increase to $150. Fares on the main service for seniors, students and customers with disabilities will remain at the reduced rate of 85 cents. In addition to the paratransit increases, fares for the discounted University Pass (U-Pass) will increase by 10 cents per day to 70 cents. An increase in parking rates to $2.00 is also proposed. These changes coupled with the workforce reduction enabled CTA to reduce the 2005 projected budget shortfall from $77 million to $55 million. Without these and other cost control efforts implemented in prior years that have saved CTA $120 million each year, the deficit for 2005 would be over $195 million. This $55 million projected deficit for 2005 will be eliminated through service cuts (proposed rail service cuts, proposed bus service cuts) and layoffs that will result from lower service levels. With service cuts, the CTA anticipates that 1000 bus and rail operating jobs will be eliminated. ... Without additional funding, more than one-fifth of existing CTA bus and rail service will be eliminated in January 2005. This represents a reduction in bus vehicle hours of 21.5 percent and a reduction in rail vehicle hours of 11 percent. The number of peak period buses eliminated under this proposal is over 300. Of the current 152 bus routes in operation, 30 will be eliminated completely including weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. An additional 21 routes will have weekend service eliminated, and nine others will have a segment of the route eliminated. In addition to the elimination of some services, virtually all bus and rail routes will face some service reductions. Service frequency and hours of service will be decreased on many routes. The service cuts were chosen through an analysis that considered ridership, geographic distribution and federal requirements. In addition, the importance of retaining 24-hour service and regional connections were factors in the decision-making. For the bus system, the primary measure used to establish the initial list of service reductions was route productivity ... defined as the number of riders per vehicle-hour of service. Routes were reviewed for reductions if the productivity per hour was lower than 75 percent of the system average for the time period in question. Additional criteria were then applied, which included the desire to continue 24-hour service, and protection of growing markets and regional connections. Lastly, retention of service on key routes was favored over service on support routes. In considering service cuts on the rail system, the substantial capital investment contained in CTA's rail infrastructure was a factor in determining the scope of reductions. Because of the infrastructure investment already made, rail service is generally more productive than bus due to the additional capacity inherent in train service. One operator can carry many more people with a train than with a bus. To determine service reductions on the rail system, ridership was reviewed by time period to identify when service could be reduced. The reductions were then reviewed for geographic considerations and adherence to federal requirements. In order to implement this service reduction package, CTA's current Service Standards adopted in 2001 must be temporarily suspended. Given the magnitude of the budget deficit and the resultant service reductions needed, all five primary Service Standards are compromised. ... These reductions will be felt both by residents and businesses throughout the region. Pace and Metra will also be impacted by a reduction in CTA service. Millions of Pace and Metra customers connect to CTA services each year. Rapid transit service will operate less frequently and hours will be shortened, making transfers to the less frequent Pace system more difficult. Similarly, Metra customers who today transfer in the Loop to buses that provide links to Michigan Avenue, State Street, Navy Pier and McCormick Place will have a more difficult time making connections. "A strong transit system reduces congestion, improves air quality and enhances economic competitiveness. Through the combined systems of CTA, Metra and Pace, the Chicago area has one of the most extensive public transit networks in the United States. But transit is not appropriately funded in this region and we are all suffering the consequences," said Kruesi. "CTA's funding has lagged nearly one full percentage point behind inflation for the past two decades. The resultant loss of purchasing power is the core of the financial crisis facing CTA today. ...Without additional funds, CTA will continue to lose ground." Written comments may be submitted through November 5, 2004, by writing to the following address: Chicago Transit Authority, P.O. Box 3555, Chicago, IL 60654, Attention: Gregory Longhini, Assistant Secretary. E-mail comments may be submitted through November 5, 2004, by writing e-mail. The proposed budget is available for public review at the CTA's General Office at the 567 W. Lake Street, 2nd floor, weekdays between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Regular and large print copies are available at this location. Audio copies are also available by request. Copies will also be available at the main office of the Regional Transportation Authority located at 175 W. Jackson, 15th floor, Chicago. A copy of the proposed budget is also posted on the CTA's web site. Copies of the budget proposal will also be available at the reference desks of the following libraries: Chicago Public Library (regional) Harold Washington Public Library, 400 S. State St, 10th Fl Sulzer Regional Library, 4455 N. Lincoln Ave., Woodson Regional Library, 9525 S. Halsted Chicago Public Library (branches) Archer Heights Branch Library, 5055 S. Archer Austin Branch Library, 5615 W. Race Ave. Jefferson Park Branch Library, 5363 W. Lawrence Ave. Marshall Square Branch Library, 2724 W. Cermak Rd. Midwest Branch Library, 2335 W. Chicago Ave. South Shore Branch Library, 2505 E. 73rd St. Suburban Libraries Evanston Public Library, 1703 Orrington Ave., Evanston Evergreen Park Public Library, 9400 S. Troy, Evergreen Park Oak Park Public Library, 834 Lake St., Oak Park Riverdale Public Library, 208 W. 144th St., Riverdale Skokie Public Library, 5215 W. Oakton, Skokie Source: Kevin Irvine, Equip for Equality, CTA Press Release, 10/4/04 Stop restricting access to mental-health drugs Chicago — Depression is a common and debilitating illness, and it's a particularly cruel disease to bear if you are poor, a senior citizen, disabled or very ill. People with untreated depression are at risk for suicide, as well as illnesses such as stroke and heart disease, and lost productivity on the job. Suicide deaths now outnumber homicide deaths in the U.S. by five to three, and untreated depression costs U.S. employers more than $79 billion each year. Unfortunately the State of Illinois has made it more and more difficult for our most vulnerable residents to obtain the mental-health treatment they need to lead healthier and more productive lives. In an attempt to curb costs, the Illinois Department of Public Aid established a policy that requires Medicaid patients to receive prior authorization from a state bureaucrat before receiving any medication not on the state's list of preferred products--the rationale being that by favoring less expensive, generic drugs over brand-name medications, the state would save money. The economic reality, however, is that preferred drug lists, or restrictive formularies, are not the answer to Medicaid shortfalls. By restricting access to mental-health medications, the state actually increases treatment costs over the long run and endangers patient health. As the IDPA embarks on a review of its preferred drug list, we urge state officials to consider the wisdom of this policy. When other states have tried to contain Medicaid costs through restrictive formularies, they have found this woefully unsuccessful. There is no one-size-fits-all approach for treating depression. Not all medications work for all people. Physicians need to have the latitude to prescribe the most appropriate medication for their patients. And, yes, sometimes that means prescribing a newer medication over an older, less-expensive drug. Newer anti-depressants usually cause fewer and less troubling side effects. Consequently patients are far more likely to adhere to their medications and improve. Patients who take their medicine have significantly lower health-care costs than those who stop or switch treatment. According to a 2001 study by a Columbia University researcher, a $1 expenditure on newer medications translates into a $3.65 reduction in hospital costs, physician visits and other health-care services. In these tough budget times, it is tempting to go for the quick fix. We urge the state to look beyond the immediate potential to save some dollars and carefully consider the long-term costs and consequences. Suzanne M. Andriukaitis, Executive Director, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Greater Chicago; Mark Heyrman, Policy chair, Mental Health Association in Illinois; Sean R. Smith, Director, Government Affairs, Howard Brown Health Center Source: Chicago Tribune, 10/1/04, Voice of the People Some Advocates Voice Support for the Schiavo Ruling By Marvin Wasserman, [Marvin Wasserman writes the following in response to Not Dead Yet's reaction to the Florida Schiavo ruling. "Disability Groups Angered by Schiavo Ruling," posted on JFA on September 9, 2004. The disability community is apparently divided on this extremely controversial and sensitive issue. Several other JFA subscribers voiced their support of the outcome; this one was the most thorough response.] This case ended exactly as it should have, with an impartial court weighing the evidence provided by the State, the family and medical experts. What shouldn't have happened was the state and other non-family members intervening in an intensely personal family matter. Terry's parents and their supporters have much maligned and libeled Terry's husband. How many of us have faced the choice of prolonging the life of a loved one whom we are told is "brain dead" by medical experts or mercifully ending life supports. How many of us expect to be maligned for our choice by a conservative governor and state legislature committed to fundamentalist principles of "right to life," and other interlopers who try to second guess us? Must our own ordeal be prolonged? Much has been said about "following the money" in regard to Terri's husband, as if all the money in the world can compensate for the loss of a loved one. Terri's parents had every right to contest her husband's decision. Much can be said about Terri's failure to have a living will. What went wrong however, was that so many outsiders interfered in what was an intensely personal family situation. Source: Justice For All Moderator, 9/28/04 For Sale Wheelchair Lift I have a fairly new wheelchair lift, but I don't know the manufacturer. It goes up one flight of stairs; the platform area is approximately 4 x 5. It is cream colored and attached to the front porch. I believe a fair asking price is $500. I can be reached via mobile phone at 773/719-3999 or by e-mail. Sasha D'Austin Ford Wind Star 1999 Minivan It has less than 10,000 miles, ten months left on the warranty, and an electric-powered ramp and lock-in device. I am asking $19,000 or best offer. Please contact me at 847/831.2699 or 847/254.1059, my cell phone. Robert Kahn Election Resources Verify your precinct today. Call your election authority to check your registration and your precinct location; for Cook County, call 312/603.0906, for Chicago, call 312/269.7900. Visit the precinct site before 11/2. Visit the site so you will know where it is and whether it is accessible to you. In Cook County, call 312/603.0987 to check on accessibility, or to make suggestions about accessibility. Provisional Ballot The new federal law (Help America Vote Act or HAVA) requires this procedure. If your registration record cannot be found, or your eligibility is otherwise questioned at the polls, you may still cast a provisional ballot on Election Day. But it will not be counted if you are in the wrong precinct. New election equipment Wherever you are, the equipment or the process will be different. There are ramps, mats, remote announcers, magnifiers, large styluses, booths with chairs, portable booths, etc. And all the equipment will also change by 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
