A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., Oct. 4, on the public option for health insurance:
The rejection in the Senate Finance Committee, at the hands of moderate Democrats, of two different versions of the so-called “public option” for health insurance, would seem to squelch prospects for some variant of that feature being included in a final version. However, the option is included in four of the five bills that have passed various Senate and House committees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists that the House version will include a public option, and the Obama White House is widely believed to want it.
So we have probably not heard the last of it.
The public option, creating a government-run health insurance entity to compete with private insurance companies, is widely viewed by proponents and opponents alike as a thin wedge designed to lead—eventually—to a single-payer system, that is a system in which only the taxpayers, through the government, pay for health care.
Even as European governments with years of experience with such systems are starting to modify theirs in the direction of privatization, the kinds of politicians who see the essence of progressivism as making the U.S. more like the Europe of yester-year are determined to move toward single-payer health care in this country.
Those who disingenuously deny that a public health insurance option is a stalking-horse for single payer claim that all they want to do is inject a little competition into the system, to “keep the private insurance companies honest.”
But none of the proposals put forward so far envisions anything like competition on an even playing field.
Not only would the government insurance entity not have to make a profit (which in a competitive market generally leads to lower prices rather than higher), it would be financed with taxes rather than paying taxes. In addition to these implicit subsidies, you can bet that once it was established Congress would continue to lavish subsidies on it so that while in reality being more expensive than private insurance it would appear to the consumer to be less expensive.
In addition, every bill put forward so far not only includes mandatory enrollment, but also is loaded with coverage mandates that can only raise costs and reduce competition.
Consumers won’t have the option of buying a Chevy insurance package; it’s a Cadillac for everyone—in itself a step toward a one-size-fits-all approach to health care in this large and diverse country.
Most pundits now say that President Barack Obama will have to make the call as to whether a public option is included in whatever bill is finally cobbled together for a final vote.
There are rumors that his disengagement at the level of legislative nuts and bolts—though he has certainly worked his speechifying and interview-giving powers to the max, to little effect in shaping public opinion—has already ended. The White House is said to be preparing a backup bill to be presented if the legislative process becomes hopelessly stalled.
If that’s how things shake out the result is likely to be modest reforms—just enough for Mr. Obama to be able to say he achieved something—rather than a giant step toward government control. We would prefer reforms pointed toward more individual choice and consumer control, but that’s unlikely in the Congress as currently constituted.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., Oct. 5, on a South American Olympics:
Personal lobbying by President Barack Obama on behalf of Chicago didn’t sway the International Olympic Committee last Friday. But a sense of fairness apparently did.
As a result, the 2016 Olympic Games will be held in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. It will be the first time in what will then be the 120 year history of the modern Olympic games that they have been held in South America.
The decision is sensible and fair. The United States has hosted three Olympic games in just the past 25 years—1984 in Los Angeles, 1996 in Atlanta and the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City. European and Asian nations have had their share of both summer and winter games. Even Australia has twice hosted the games. But in South America? Nothing.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Luna da Silva referred to that disparity when he told the IOC, “It is time to address this imbalance. It is time to light the Olympic cauldron in a tropical country.”
That apparently carried more weight than Obama’s plea for Chicago to get the 2016 games based on its diversity and his claim that it embodies the Olympic spirit.
It was unusual for Obama to fly to Copenhagen to join his wife, Michelle, and personally make a pitch for Chicago. He became the first U.S. president to make such a pitch. Republicans were quick to attack him for doing so, and for taking time away from the difficult problems facing this country.
His failed Olympic effort was a mistake that didn’t do him or Chicago much good. We doubt it will have a lasting impact on his political prestige, either at home or abroad, however.
But the IOC decision will have a great impact on Rio and Brazil as a whole. When the world spotlight is turned on them for the 2016 games, people around the globe will see Rio as something more than just an annual Mardi Gras celebration, and Brazil as more than the Amazon River.
It’s about time.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
Times-Call, Longmont, Colo., and Reporter-Herald, Loveland, Colo., Oct. 4, on renewable energy in Colorado:
A recent move by a Colorado ski area highlights the maturation of the green energy movement and the understanding of environmental issues that affect this region.
Vail Resorts announced recently that it will forgo its participation in wind energy credits, instead using the money allocated for the effort to help pay for restoration of the area affected by the 2002 Hayman Fire.
The money, about $750,000 from the resort, will be matched by a grant from the National Forest Foundation, a group that looks to help the U.S. Forest Service accomplish its goals. Though the $1.5 million will be a drop in the bucket to help restore the area consumed by the largest forest fire in recorded Colorado history, it marks a philosophical shift from a key player in an industry that depends on forest resources for its survival, the ski resort sector.
Through ski areas’ leases on Forest Service lands, ski resorts help to promote the federal agency’s goals of encouraging multiple uses on federal land while being stewards of the resource they use. Help for those forested lands will protect ecosystems and preserve water quality for users downstream.
Some groups are disappointed that the resort will lessen its role in buying renewable energy, but it should be noted how far those resources have come in recent years, too. Wind energy is no longer a microscopic slice of the electricity portfolio for the state’s utilities. For instance, recently, the Platte River Power Authority—which provides electricity to Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins and Estes Park—announced that a new wind farm had come online near Cheyenne, Wyo., providing another 12 megawatts of electricity to local communities. The utility expects it will have 20 percent of its energy coming from such renewable sources soon.
As the market for such renewables matures, their use will become an ever-increasing part of daily life. That will mean everyone will be participants in buying that power—and that those who wish can direct their resources to other environmental efforts.
Newspapers: and
———
Fort Collins Coloradoan, Oct. 5, on the Colorado Rockies success:
The Colorado Rockies have wrapped up their most successful regular season ever, reaching the major league playoffs for the second time in three years. More impressive than the team record for wins, however, is how the Rockies even made it to the playoffs.
In late May the team was floundering, clearly playing below their ability. Despite an abundance of talent, their record May 29—18 wins, 28 losses, 14 games out of first place—placed them among the two worst teams in all of baseball.
But then the Rockies replaced manager Clint Hurdle—a hero two years earlier when he led the Rockies to their first-ever World Series—with Jim Tracy. By the middle of June, the Rockies had clearly turned things around and began to pull themselves out of an enormous hole.
The Rockies are back in the playoffs because of solid team play. No player hit 40 home runs or drove in 100 runners, and no pitcher won 20 games. But throughout the Rockies lineup, players performed to their potential and came through at vital times.
Even if you’re not a baseball fan, you have to admire a team that didn’t panic, regained focus and executed fundamentals.
The core of this team came up through the Rockies system. The team also made a couple of key trades, but in this high-dollar sports age, the Rockies have not had to rely on importing expensive free agents.
It’s also worth noting that the Rockies players avoided the boorish behavior that often lands other athletes in the headlines.
In short, this was a fun team to watch.
Lessons from sports are too often applied to far more important matters. But in these trying times, it’s nice to have the Rockies come along and remind us that even when you’re struggling, focus and hard work can bring success.
Go Rockies!
Editorial:
