A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Aurora Sentinel, Oct. 26, on why repealing health care system won’t do any good:
As if the country doesn’t have enough to worry about, conservative factions continue to play a dangerous political game by campaigning on promises of “repealing” the nation’s hard-won reform of the U.S. health-care system.
It’s a seriously bad move that no good can come from.
We stand at the front of the line with those demanding the clunky, massive reform effort be further reformed to protect American consumers from a health-care industry run amok. Anyone who believes that the current system plaguing this country is worth saving can only be a member of Congress or visiting from Canada.
Health care in this country is a reach even for wealthy Americans. Even health insurance commands a price that makes even the affluent wince and beg for mercy. Insurance companies continue to cover less and charge more. And while nearly every single American industry in the world has had to hold the line on costs and price increases, hospitals, clinics, doctors, supply companies, drug makers and insurance companies continue to wildly hike prices in the midst of the longest and worst recession in American history.
As the price of health-care continues to rise in this dismal economy, it compounds the problem by leaving Americans with less every month to spend on things that could help push the United States out of its economic doldrums.
Conservative lawmakers are hugely mistaken if they believe that the country can take any more of the same when it comes to relentless health-care price hikes and service reductions. Something had to give, and giving the health-care industry a break on malpractice reform wasn’t going to cut it.
No reform effort in this country will ever be much more than acceptable because Congress doesn’t have the courage to nationalize and universalize health insurance. Only then will Americans see real change and savings to put us on an even playing field with Canada, Germany, Great Britain and a host of other modern, Western nations.
Because Congress took the sides of insurance companies in writing reforms, members of the House and Senate did neither side any favors. Insurance companies are still free to raise rates almost any way they like, deny claims, deny coverage and continue on as before.
All of this mess comes from two major flaws in the landmark health care reform law: It waits too long to start up, and it has no public option.
Because more paying policy holders aren’t added at the same time insurance companies have to pay benefits, the system will be forced to shudder through reforms. And because there is no mechanism to force insurance companies to change their way of doing business to better suit consumers, such as a public option, true reform bringing down the cost and availability of health care is as about as likely as widespread miracle healings.
Instead of talking repeal, which even the most ardent, savvy Obamacare opponents say is unwise and unrealistic, everyone should be talking about what ways to improve and accelerate the changes.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Oct. 26, on how authorities should handle incidents such as WikiLeaks:
WikiLeaks has become the plain brown envelope of the Internet age, and everyone involved in or affected by such massive releases of sensitive information will have to figure out how to responsibly handle them.
Even if authorities bust WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for disseminating classified military documents, it stands to reason that some other Internet-savvy activist will pop up to take his place.
There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.
We were heartened to see that in the latest release of 391,832 secret documents about the Iraq war, Assange redacted the names of confidential informants and others who could be endangered if their names were public.
That wasn’t the case this summer when WikiLeaks released thousands of documents about the war in Afghanistan. In the aftermath, there were reports the Taliban was using the documents to target hundreds of Afghan informants.
This time, WikiLeaks took out the names, but some have raised questions about whether the documents still contain enough information to identify people who could face reprisals.
If so, that is irresponsible. That is not how the four news organizations that received the WikiLeaks documents on an embargoed basis chose to handle the information.
In an editor’s note, The New York Times explained its approach:
“The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests. The Times and the other news organizations agreed that we would not disclose anything likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations.”
We also think the Pentagon could learn lessons about the value of transparency and information security from the WikiLeaks experience.
If the military is more upfront about the painful issue of civilian deaths during the war, there is less likely to be any news in documents about them. We would also hope this episode has taught the Pentagon the need for better safeguards so that information truly damaging to the country’s national security is protected.
The Internet has made the mass distribution of vast stores of information an easy matter. It’s up to those involved to make sure such matters are handled with care for the ultimate consequences.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The (Colorado Springs) Gazette, Oct. 25, on why Senate candidate Ken Buck is right about global warming:
Statewide media on Oct. 22 described Ken Buck’s campaign in a scramble to fix yet another supposed gaffe, in which the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate had once again said something horrifically outrageous.
The latest pseudo scandal involves Buck praising Republican Sen. James Inhofe, of Oklahoma, as “the first person to stand up and say this global warming” is a hoax.
Buck’s opponent, appointed Sen. Michael Bennet—who cares nothing about Colorado Springs—jumped on the statement as if Buck had renounced baseball and apple pie.
“Ken Buck’s extreme stance on climate change is a threat to Colorado’s economy and could prove cataclysmic for our national security,” said Bennet spokesman Trevor Kincaid.
Really? What threatens the economy and national security is the unscientific crusade to promote a theory that humans are warming the planet and must be stopped. Global warming fear mongers, such as Bennet, would break this country with expensive and futile efforts to control the Mother Nature with massive new carbon taxes that would cripple production and curtail our country’s ability to afford security.
But don’t take The Gazette’s word for it. Instead, hear the great Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California-Santa Barbara, who resigned this month from the American Physical Society after 67 years of loyal membership. His resignation letter said this:
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Or, hear astronomer Sallie Baliunas, at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: The “recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.”
Or, listen to Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who calls the United Nations-led global warming scare “propagandist and not dignified.” The list of political leaders and leading scientists willing to out anthropogenic global warming as a redistribution scam is highly distinguished and growing.
Meanwhile, global warming alarmists—from Al Gore to the Hollywood glitterati set—are consuming fossil fuels with reckless abandon. Director James Cameron wants to burden California with higher taxes to stop global warming, telling the Los Angeles times “we’re going to have to live with less.” Yet, Cameron owns three sprawling mansions with no windmills or solar panels. He tools around in a JetRanger helicopter, a Corvette, three Harleys, a Ducati, a Ford GT, a Humvee, a yacht and a fleet of recreational submarines. But he tells us to live with less. (See video outing Cameron as a “hypocrite” )
Thank you, future Sen. Buck, for shielding us from the scam that says humans must pay for warming the globe.
Editorial:
———
Sterling Jounral Advocate, Oct. 20, on why John Hickenlooper is the better gubernatorial candidate:
The race for the Colorado gubernatorial seat has been an unusual one this year.
It started with a twist when Gov. Bill Ritter announced that he would not seek reelection, leaving Democrats searching for a suitable replacement candidate.
Then one of the front-running Republican candidates, Josh Penry, dropped out—a decision he may now be regretting, given the party’s chances in the race.
The primary between Scott McInnis and Dan Maes took a scandalous turn as accusations of plagiarism against McInnis likely cost him the election. Since then, questions about Maes’s campaign finance management and resume “embellishments” have the GOP apparently worried that it could lose major party status as voters run screaming for an alternative.
That alternative has emerged in Tom Tancredo. The longtime Republican entered the race with the American Constitution party, and while many at first scoffed at his chances, he appears to be closing in on Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
The problem is that while Tancredo does demonstrate a good understanding of the issues facing the state, he admits that his solutions have little chance of coming to pass. The man also has a reputation for focusing on one issue in particular—illegal immigration—a reputation that he admits he is proud of. That reputation could make it difficult for him to be accepted as a leader of the state.
On the other hand, John Hickenlooper has done an acceptable job leading the largest city in the state. He has a business background that will be needed to solve Colorado’s budget shortfall, and a reputation for working with both sides of the aisle to get things done.
Our concerns about Tancredo’s ability to govern effectively cause us to lean towards Hickenlooper in this race. Although we don’t always agree with his positions, we feel that he is the best equipped of the candidates to adequately manage the state for the next four years.
Defining values One of the issues on the Colorado ballot asks voters to define “personhood” as the beginning of biological development.
The issue raises questions about when human rights should be conferred, and could lead to significant changes in the application of justice and the delivery of women’s health care services.
As the amendment calls on voters to weigh their own values and beliefs, we feel it is a personal decision. Instead of supporting or opposing the measure, we simply encourage all voters to read the measure and consider the implications, then vote according to your heart.
Editorial:
