Shall the City increase health benefits for retired City employees by placing a cap on monthly health care premium costs, and paying one-half the cost of health coverage for the retiree's primary dependent?
Proposition E is a Charter amendment that would increase the contributions made by the City, the School District, and the Community College District for health coverage to retired employees and to spouses and domestic partners who have survived deceased retirees. This measure would require these public agencies to pay half of what each retired employee now pays the Health Service System for health coverage. Proposition E also would require these public agencies to pay half of what each retired employee now pays the Health Service System for health coverage for one dependent. At the present time these public agencies do not contribute to the cost of providing health coverage for dependents of retired persons. Those retired persons who desire such coverage must pay for it themselves.
Should the proposed Charter amendment be adopted, in my opinion, it would increase the cost of various local government entities by approximately $12.5 million annually beginning July 1:
- City and County of San Francisco: $9,000,000
- San Francisco Unified School District: $3,000,000
- S.F. Community College District: $500,000
- TOTAL: $12,500,000
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition E:
- Many seniors suffer because their health care is inadequate. This proposition would help to alleviate this problem for the retired city workers who gave many years of dedicated service to the citizens of California.
The City Charter presently requires that health care benefits received by City retirees be equal to the health care benefits received by active employees. However, as a result of collective bargaining, the City now pays nearly all of the health care premiums for active employees and also subsidizes their covered dependents, but the City does not do so for retirees. Proposition E would correct this inequity.
The passage of Proposition E would alleviate the increasing burdens of escalating health care costs and the rising cost of living for these retirees with a limited income.
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition E:
- The money to pay for this increase in health benefits for City retirees would come from the City's General Fund and thus increase the tax burden on already overtaxed citizens.
Employees negotiate their already generous retirement packages before they retire. They should be required to adhere to what they agree to.
The School and Community College districts need all the money they can get to improve conditions for teaching and learning. The passage of Proposition E would cause an unnecessary financial burden on these institutions.
|
|
Nonpartisan Information
League of Women Voters
News and Analysis
San Francisco Chronicle
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
|
League of Women Voters of California
