The Aurora Daily Sentinel, June 14, on the Affordable Health Care Act:
Unless you believe in Santa Claus, the chances of Senate Republicans unveiling anything desirable, or even new, in the realm of American health care and insurance legislation are nil.
Sorry, Virginia, there is no better plan than Obamacare, and as most Americans will tell you, it stinks.
Despite that, Republicans have dangerously forgotten or refuse to admit that the Affordable Care Act was created because the system before it stunk even worse. Before 2008, when the ACA was created, America suffered from a quagmire of state and federal laws created to benefit hospitals, insurance companies, doctors and drug manufacturers. The ACA created a new quagmire of laws that tried to benefit patients, but to appease important campaign contributors from both sides of the aisle, Obamacare accommodated hospitals, insurance companies, doctors and drug manufacturers.
A marginal system was made worse by Republicans, who were determined to see it fail. They have either refused to fix obvious problems or actively worked to make it fail.
The reboot of Trumpcare, about to be released from a secret Senate cabal culturing this newest strain of health care, won’t be any better than Obamacare because it can’t. It is, however, likely going to be far worse, based on what the House tried to do.
It can’t be an improvement because, like all these plans, it doesn’t address the problem. Like Obamacare, Trumpcare 2.0 will be a shell game, shifting costs from one unlucky American to another, with everybody paying more for less every single year, and middle-income and older Americans taking the biggest hit.
Obamcare poured more money into the health care system to allow more people to see doctors and treat illnesses. That created a surge in the market, driving up prices with increased demand. Clearly, the only way to reduce the overall cost of healthcare is to take those people out of the market, creating competition for fewer patients, and driving down costs. In reality, prices won’t go down, they’ll just stop mushrooming.
The lucky fewer who can afford health insurance will see some immediate benefit, but unless we’re willing to let people die in hospital parking lots because they’re refused treatment for not being able to pay, that’s not going to happen either. Instead, those thrown off of insurance will get health care for free, and those now larger costs will be passed onto paying customers, just like before.
There are no good answers, but there are cruel and stupid ones, and this one even President Donald Trump has branded as “mean.”
The least-worst thing Congress could do is fix Obamacare, creating a public option for those who don’t have health insurance plans available or who just want government insurance, reducing the Medicaid load and using that money to create this Medicare Part All. Republicans and Democrats both must work to improve the system to keep it working as long as it takes to face reality: none of these systems is sustainable.
This untenable, critical problem will only get worse. We already spend more than $10,000 per American on health care, a whopping $3.5 trillion each year. Increasingly older, sicker Americans and increasingly expensive ways to keep them alive longer are a looming disaster in the making.
The best answer is to prop up Obamacare and simultaneously look at some type of universal care, and there are many options. Whether you like or dislike the notion of a system like that in Canada, Germany, Australia or Norway doesn’t matter. It’s the only sustainable system unless we agree we will no longer provide health care to those who cannot pay for it.
So America can either get real, and move toward a universal care system, or we can all get deathly sick, whether we’re in the system or outside of it.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2tn8DI0
___
The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, June 14, on Attorney General Coffman stepping in on COGCC appeal:
It’s hard to imagine Gov. John Hickenlooper equivocating on the direction of an important case regarding oil and gas regulation in the state if recent deadly explosions near Firestone and Mead hadn’t scrambled conventional thinking on the matter.
Hickenlooper can’t run for re-election. One would think that fact would embolden him to take a stand on how the state’s oil and gas commission does its job. Instead, he’s mired in political quicksand and waffling in his response to a recent court ruling that could dramatically change the way Colorado regulates the state’s oil and gas industry.
First, some background: The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rejected a rulemaking request by six youths who want oil and gas development suspended until it can be shown it wouldn’t harm the public or environment or contribute to climate change. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the COGCC used an errant rationale in rejecting the request.
As the Sentinel’s Dennis Webb reported, the appeals court found that the law requires that a priority be placed on protecting the health and environment. That’s a departure from the COGCC’s long-held approach to trying to strike a balance between oil and gas development and public health, safety and welfare.
When the COGCC decided to appeal the case on May 1, environmentalists - with the Firestone explosion still fresh in the public’s mind - applied political pressure to the governor’s office to reverse that decision. Hickenlooper said in a statement that while he didn’t believe an appeal was necessary, he wouldn’t interfere in the COGCC’s decision. But he also asked the state’s attorney general, Cynthia Coffman, to disregard the COGCC’s decision to appeal - effectively asking to let the ruling stand, which would change the regulatory orientation of the commission.
When Coffman refused, the governor showed no signs of fighting her, leaving the public in a twist. Either the governor believes that public health and environmental concerns should drive COGCC decisions - thus necessitating a fight over who speaks for the state - or that the COGCC was right to appeal, in which case he should have thrown his weight behind the AG’s intent to argue on behalf of the COGCC before the state Supreme Court.
The governor is trying to have it both ways on an issue that requires a bold declaration. Under the standard reinforced by the court ruling, an argument could be made that any level of development carries some level of risk. The only way to make health and the environment the pre-eminent considerations of COGCC rules is to prohibit oil and gas-related activity.
Coffman is right to seek some clarity on this issue. Should the appellate rule stand, there would be no balancing of oil and gas development with the public health and safety. The state has an interest in the efficient and fair development of oil and gas resources and the ruling creates too much uncertainty to go unchallenged.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2tmGJMa
___
The Durango Herald, June 13, on airport subsidies:
In 1978, when the airline industry was deregulated and airlines wanted to pull out of small markets to focus on profitable large airports, the Essential Air Service program of subsidies was created to preserve commercial service to small, rural communities. Since then, presidents have seen EAS as an easy budget cut that won’t anger too many voters.
Until now, every time EAS has been on the chopping block, lawmakers representing rural areas, communities that depend upon small airports, and the airlines that serve those airports have wielded enough clout to keep the program alive. A recent short-term funding bill preserved the program until Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year.
But Donald Trump has proposed eliminating the subsidy, which brings $3.58 million annually to the Cortez Municipal Airport. Durango-La Plata County Airport does not receive the subsidy. Without it, Cortez likely would have no commercial flights and travelers would look to Durango for service.
EAS-supported airports tend to be in deep-red towns in strongly conservative states; they are home to Trump voters and are represented by Republican congressional representatives. This is Trump’s “base,” although not the focus of his interest. Simply put, not enough money flows through these towns, either to support an airport without assistance or to hold the president’s attention.
He might be surprised to learn how often energy-company executives fly to those EAS airports, some of which are a long way from anywhere. He might also be surprised to learn that flights to and from EAS airports like Cortez often are full.
While Durango might be happy to have the passengers who now use the Cortez airport, the gain there would be small, while the cost to Cortez of losing its air service would be considerable. In the first quarter of 2017, Cortez saw a monthly average of 650 enplaned passengers compared to Durango’s average of 14,000.
Not having commercial air service is like not having a hospital or a grocery store. The loss of EAS can severely limit the growth of a community and render it a different kind of town, a backwater, a flyover zone.
Sen. Cory Gardner and Rep. Scott Tipton understand the issue. We hope they’ll continue to help identify cuts that won’t harm small-town economies. The issue is bigger than not being able to fly out of Cortez; the problem is that no one could buy a ticket to fly in. That sure seems like an essential service.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2rs6SrL
___
The Denver Post, June 13, on how CU handled a domestic violence situation:
Six months ago the University of Colorado chancellor, athletic director and head football coach utterly failed a self-reporting victim of domestic violence, blocking her phone calls and not reporting the incident to those at the university equipped to investigate and advocate for victims in cases like these.
However, after the initially botched handling of the case, the university acted swiftly to get a full accounting of what had occurred, to hold those who had done wrong accountable, and to offer apologies to the woman.
That type of institutional response to a crisis should be commended. It sends a clear message that the behavior in question will not be tolerated, while also concluding the investigation quickly so it won’t hang over the program or the victim.
The third-party investigation into the matter resulted in CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano being suspended for 10 days. Athletic Director Rick George and football coach Mike MacIntyre will each donate $100,000 to a nonprofit that works with domestic violence victims.
All three were formally admonished.
We’re not saying that erases the harm done.
The investigator found that after MacIntyre had blocked her calls, the woman sent him messages seeking various levels of support.
“He hasn’t gotten help. Immediately after what he did to me, he has another woman alone in his place and I am really worried for her because she isn’t safe until he gets help,” she wrote in one message that was blocked.
MacIntyre never received that message or other similarly urgent messages because he had blocked the phone calls and text messages. Unaware she had been blocked, the woman continued to reach out to MacIntyre for support. It was a callous, self-serving decision to end correspondence with the victim without first ensuring she had another point of contact. All three men had a duty to report this to offices in the university equipped to investigate and help.
The attorneys who conducted the external review noted: “We cannot and will not, speculate as to the state of mind or intent in each of the parties regarding the failure to share the report with the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance. Even were we to presume good intent, mistaken application of the policy, or simple ignorance, the inaction cannot be justified in light of the known facts identified in this review.”
Victims of domestic abuse often suffer in silence. When a victim reaches out, officials have the obligation to take the reports seriously and ensure those who know how to proceed are notified.
The final report notes that MacIntyre notified George, who notified DiStefano, who told investigators he didn’t think he had a duty to report because the woman was not affiliated with the campus and the incidents didn’t occur at the university.
That’s not an unreasonable assumption, and given the complex workings of federal laws and campus policies, DiStefano could be forgiven for the error in judgement. But when dealing with reports of this severity, DiStefano should have checked with legal counsel or the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance to be sure.
University president Bruce Benson said: “We didn’t handle this matter as well as we should have. CU does not and will not tolerate domestic violence or any sort of sexual misconduct.”
That’s also the clear message Benson sent with the quick investigation and the university’s response to the findings.
Editorial: https://dpo.st/2sBCe3E
Please read our comment policy before commenting.