Yes on all three.

I agree with you RE: voting No on F. However, I think we need to be honest about why F is undesirable. Measure F would limit the profits of health care professionals in private practice (i.e. dentists, therapists and physicians) motivating them to leave Palo Alto.

Agreed, a definite "No" on "F". But, people should take this opportunity to understand just how broken the system is. I highly recommend studying this article:

Web Link

While the hospital side of the problem certainly is a major problem, the driving force for the systemic irrational pricing is the health insurance system. That has to be reformed. The current US health insurance system creates a corrupt pricing regime with perverse incentives that results in waste and overhead throughout the system.

"F" won't address this problem in any way. While "list prices" at Stanford Hospital are "unreasonable", Stanford is, in fact, reacting reasonably to an irrational health insurance system. No other country in the world has an insurance system like the US. This has resulted in unreasonable pricing of medical services in the US-- and, we get less for more.

Please vote "No of F", but, let's continue to debate these issues-- the health insurance system in the US is clearly a mess.

"the health insurance system in the US is clearly a mess."

nah, dawg, it's not a mess. It's as PROFITABLE as ever. No mess.

Measure Z says it will improve on the infrastructure of the schools. In Fletcher's case the "new" classrooms were originally labeled as new CTE classrooms. These classrooms would be smaller than the existing CTE classrooms by a great deal. The teachers were not consulted as to what would benefit their programs.

Measure Z is another attempt by the district to gain better optics, not education.

I will vote no on Measure F because it will do very little to reduce the overall cost of healthcare. In fact, it will be a financial and management burden for Palo Alto, since the measure puts the responsibility for managing and policing the proposed process squarely on the City of Palo Alto Government and Staff. This is not something the city is either trained or equipped to do. It's not clear to me who benefits from this measure, but since the SEIU is sponsoring and supporting it, my guess would be them. I do not have any interest in providing any more benefits to SEIU than are currently in place.

+1

"the health insurance system in the US is clearly a mess."

nah, dawg, it's not a mess. It's as PROFITABLE as ever. No mess.

@Stephen,
We all support our schools, and want them modernized. Take a look at what was promised in the Measure A bond, and then go take a trip through the classrooms of the many schools and look at what was actually delivered.

The process is wrong. The argument for asking for a pot of money first last time before having a plan and roughly costing it out was because the economy was low and they wanted to start right away. Having a plan and evaluating what our goals are and how to achieve it, and roughly estimating the cost and asking for the money with a more specific bond is the way to help our students.

Did you vote for the Measure A tax that we are still paying for? We were sold on how important reducing class sizes was and that the district would lay off 80 teachers if they didn't get the money, but they didn't even wait to spend it on something else.

80% of bonds that have a 55% cutoff pass and 100 % pass here. We should be asking for a spe ific plan and more accountable bond so that we know what we are getting, sonon hat there is a plan, and so the kids actually get that investment, long after everyone forgets what we were promised. Read about Measure X in MP.

You wouldn't invest your kid's college fund through a broker who just swindled you out of your money. Let's at least make sure the promise is in writing. Vote NO on Z, so that we can get a better bond.