A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, March 25, on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing arguments the Affordable Care Act:
Readers who lately have been paying little attention to the Affordable Care Act—frequently called Obamacare—may experience an overdose of health care policy and the Interstate Commerce Clause this week.
That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments Monday on constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act. A high court decision is expected this summer.
We make no predictions on how the court will rule. But we continue to see problems and promise in the law passed by Congress two years ago this month.
As columns and a letter on this page illustrate, there is a robust debate about the law and its consequences.
Many people argue—as lawyers representing 26 states will do this week—that the individual mandate of the health care law is unconstitutional. They maintain the requirement that all eligible Americans purchase health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. To these folks, the issue isn’t so much health care, but the limits of federal government authority. If the government can order citizens to purchase health insurance, they say, there is virtually nothing the government can’t compel us to do.
For others, the debate is entirely about health care and the inadequacies of the system that existed prior to 2010. They point to the many people already receiving health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act who didn’t have it before as evidence of the law’s benefits. The old system, where insurance companies held most of the cards on health care decisions, was unfair, inefficient and not cost-effective, they argue.
For still others, the debate over the health law is about money and the cost of the Affordable Care Act. New cost estimates released by the Congressional Budget Office—$1.7 trillion for the next decade—add ammunition for those who say it is too costly.
For a variety of reasons, The Daily Sentinel did not endorse the health care law when Congress was contemplating it. For one thing, we thought it was too much all at once. Incremental changes, whose effect could be evaluated before the next step was taken, made more sense to us.
We also had concerns about the cost estimates, which were much disputed even then. And we worried that some of the provisions would encourage businesses to drop health insurance for their employees, a concern that is already proving to be valid.
However, we also supported some of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Measures that encourage test programs in areas such as evaluating new technologies make a great deal of sense. So do provisions that prod health care professionals, from doctors and clinics to hospitals and insurance providers, to work together to control costs.
Because of the defects in the previous system, many people have long clamored for a government-operated health care system. That cry is likely to ring even louder if the Supreme Court were to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the legislation, we believe the search for a cure to the nation’s health care woes will have to continue.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, March 24, on how rule of law must be observed in case against Staff Sgt. Robert Bales:
If there’s a single outcome that will show that the United States succeeded in its military mission to Afghanistan, it will be that the rule of law has been established.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Taliban ruled as theocrats and tyrants, denying the rights of the individual and due process for those who ran afoul of the government. The mullahs also allowed al-Qaida free rein to train terrorists to attack other countries. They had to go.
In the 10 years since Americans have been there, we’ve had victories—as well as horrific setbacks.
One of those setbacks could, if not handled properly, jeopardize the progress of the entire past decade.
On March 11, nine Afghan children and eight adults, all civilians, were shot in cold blood in their homes near an army base housing U.S. soldiers. One of them, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, has been accused of pulling the trigger.
Since his arrest, Bales has been spirited away from the country where the crime occurred and jailed at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. On Friday, he was charged with 17 counts of murder, and if he is convicted, he might face the death penalty. He also faces many other charges from the incident.
However, the process will continue through the military court system, which could mean less transparency for those who need to see the rule of law in action the most: the Afghan public.
At almost every turn, the military has worked to restrict the flow of information about the case, which is too bad. It would be easy to imagine the reaction if a foreign national had been accused of similar crimes on American soil and then moved to his or her home country for trial. The outrage would be incredible.
The Army must ensure open and accessible justice in this case. If that means bringing over the Afghan media, the families of victims and others to witness the proceedings, then do it. If it means televising the case throughout southwest Asia, it needs to be done.
Only through observing the application of the rule of law can the United States retain any credibility on the world stage. To do otherwise could undermine the entire reason for our presence in Afghanistan.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, March 27, on bill requiring welfare applicants be drug-tested:
We were pleased to see that a bill requiring welfare recipients to undergo drug testing—which we oppose—was amended last week to require statewide elected officials to take the same test. It’s a ridiculous amendment, but it helps illustrate how confused the thinking on this issue has become.
House Bill 1046, which passed out of a House committee March 23 on a party-line vote with seven Republicans in favor and six Democrats opposed, would require $45 drug tests for welfare recipients and reimburse those who passed. Those who failed would be barred from benefits for one year—or three years for a second positive test.
Before the committee acted on the bill, however, it unanimously approved an amendment requiring statewide officials such as the governor and attorney general, as well as all lawmakers, to take the same test.
House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino, who offered the amendment, argued that singling out the poor for drug tests was unfair when many other people receive government money, too. The obvious retort from the bill’s supporters should have been that there is a big difference between a welfare payment that is given to someone who is needy and a salary that a worker earns.
But rather than insist on the distinction, Republicans effectively embraced Ferrandino’s false equation.
“I don’t think we should be held to any different standard,” said Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland. “If we’re going to go to these people with a straight face and say, ‘Look, you have to abide by these laws,’ we should be held to the same standard.”
Seriously? Then why not require everyone else whose salary includes state funds to take periodic drug tests? Such a requirement could logically extend all the way to private employees in companies with state contracts.
Maybe that’s what Ferrandino had in mind when he talked about expanding the bill to include those receiving “corporate welfare.”
Republicans who voted for Ferrandino’s amendment succeeded in stoking suspicions that HB 1046 would put Colorado on a slippery slope in which a drug-test mandate for welfare would be followed eventually by a similar mandate for other benefits (scholarships, for example).
If lawmakers honestly believe that statewide officials who stand for periodic election and who are subject to daily public scrutiny should submit to a drug test, it’s hard to imagine where they might draw the line.
To be sure, we opposed HB 1046 even before Ferrandino’s amendment. That’s because we prefer that new initiatives address real problems—especially when they impose costs on state and local governments. Yet no one has offered evidence that welfare recipients are squandering income on drugs at an alarming rate, or use drugs at greater frequency then the general population.
The core of the bill rests upon a stereotype. The amendment rests upon a phony comparison. In this case, two strikes should be enough.
Editorial:
———
The Chieftain, March 27, on disqualification of two teens selling goats at the State Fair:
The disqualification of two teens from Sedalia who showed and sold goats at the 2011 State Fair Junior Livestock Sale became a cause celebre. The two were disqualified after slaughterhouse tests determined the animals had ingested a muscle growth substance approved for hogs but not for goats.
The disqualifications of Maggie and Benjamin Weinroth raised the spectre of legal proceedings being brought by their parents. The case became so volatile that it was reported in other nations around the world.
The youths’ mother, Sue Weinroth, maintained that the goats’ feed had been tampered with in the livestock barn on the Fairgrounds. She vehemently denied the animals had been given the banned substance prior to the fair.
Maggie’s goat was judged the grand champion and fetched a sale price of $5,500 at the Junior Livestock Sale. Benjamin’s animal brought $1,300. But after the banned substance was discovered, both were denied their sales earnings and their prizes.
It was a difficult decision. As Fair General Manager Chris Wiseman noted recently, the Fair’s rules—like those of most other expositions—maintain that the animals must be cleared to enter the human food chain. According to the rules, the banned substance tainted the goats’ meat.
Last week, however, the Fair and the Weinroth family reached a settlement during a mediation hearing at the state’s Office of Administrative Courts. As a result, Benjamin, 14, has been cleared to participate in this year’s Fair. His sister is now 19 and beyond the age for competition and she’s studying agriculture in New Zealand.
While we have no way of knowing how the banned substance got into the goats’ systems, we have empathy for the teens, who went through the turmoil this incident caused. We are heartened that the Fair will take this case into account when it takes up its annual review of junior livestock regulations.
We believe the youth programs at the Fair are an integral part of the kids’ education, both as it applies to agriculture and to their development toward adulthood. Hopefully, the Fair board will come up with solutions that will preclude such incidents in the future.
Editorial:
