A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Reporter-Herald, April 27, on Medicare Advantage:
A Medicare demonstration program may be good for health insurance companies that participate in Medicare Advantage, but it’s not good for taxpayers.
The Government Accountability Office last Monday issued a report that said the program will waste more than $8 billion, is poorly designed and, in a rare move, recommended it be ended.
The 2010 health care reform law cut payments to managed-care plans participating in Medicare Advantage, but instituted a bonus structure for highly rated insurers that participate in the program, with the goal of improving health care. The demonstration program, which began this year, opened up that bonus program to more insurers, not just those rated the highest.
Republicans in Congress are calling the demonstration program a political ploy to mask the effect of the original cuts to Medicare Advantage. Administration officials deny the charge, but also say the demonstration program will continue and will quickly improve health care for those who use Medicare Advantage.
The GAO report, though, says the program won’t be able to measure that claim.
But the bigger issue is the cost. As the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission noted, the demonstration project increases “spending at a time when Medicare already faces serious problems with cost control and long-term financing.”
Medicare is projected to run out of money in 2024 unless it’s overhauled. That overhaul should start with ending the demonstration program, an experiment that can’t come up with a successful conclusion.
Editorial:
———
The Tribune, April 30, on the U.S. Postal Service:
It’s going to take more than closing a couple hundred rural post offices to fix what’s wrong with the U.S. Postal Service.
That’s why we are happy the U.S. Senate decided last week to halt closing about half the mail processing centers the Postal Service want to close. It would also bar any shutdowns before the November elections and protect most rural post offices for at least a year. The service would also give it a one-time $11 billion cash infusion to keep it running.
While we realize this bill doesn’t do anything to solve the financial problems of the U.S. Postal Service, we do hope it will give lawmakers time to step back and address some of the real issues facing our national mail delivery system.
With more and more people using the Internet for correspondence, bill paying and communication, the volume of mail in the U.S. has gone down significantly. Problem is, with home delivery, the number of residences postal carriers have to visit really hasn’t gone down. More than 100,000 people are employed by the U.S. Postal Service.
The Postal Service is losing billions of dollars a year. Closing 252 post offices, as was originally proposed, would save some money, while cutting off rural communities from an important source of communication. Many of the rural post offices are the only public building in town, and serve as a hub for the community.
What is needed is a comprehensive look at the entire system, not piecemeal Band-Aids that might keep the Postal Service running for a few more years, but does nothing to address long-term financial issues.
Here are just a few of the things that Congress needs to consider:
—Is home delivery really viable in all areas, especially with the decrease in the volume of mail overall. Not only should the Postal Service consider stopping Saturday service, maybe it should consider a three- or four-day-week delivery, virtually every other day. If customers have to have a piece of mail overnight, then they might have to pick it up.
—Direct mail advertising takes up a lot of the volume of mail. Maybe these customers need to pay a higher rate to have their advertisements directly delivered to customers. This should include political mailings, as well.
—The contract with postal employees has to be revamped to reflect these changes. Right now there is a no-layoff clause in the contract with postal workers. That does not seem realistic for a business that is losing billions of dollars a year. Salaries also need to be brought more in line with other public workers. The Senate bill caps postal executive pay through 2015 at $199,000, roughly what a Cabinet secretary makes. That’s a good start, but more needs to be done.
—Instead of closing rural post offices, maybe more urban mail centers need to be closed. There are post offices within blocks of one another in some cities. The proximity of these needs to be studied, as well as the impact of closures on nearby facilities, and what can be done to plan for the increased volume.
—There has also been talk of privatizing the Postal Service. While we don’t necessarily advocate that, it’s an idea that merits study.
These are just a few of the many issues that need to be explored.
We hate to see Congress, once again, try to solve something piecemeal instead of looking at the issue comprehensively, and making substantial change that will address these financial issues that have been lingering for decades.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Coloradoan, April 28, on the state’s handling of wildfires:
Gov. John Hickenlooper and CSU President Tony Frank are responding swiftly and responsibly to a state-ordered review that studied both how wildfires are fought and how prescribed burns are controlled in Colorado.
The review was ordered after March’s month’s deadly Lower North Fork Fire, in which a prescribed burn by the Colorado State Forest Service erupted out of control, killing three people and destroying several homes. The forest service, which is part of Colorado State University, acknowledged that errors were made in its oversight of the controlled burn.
The most notable structural recommendation by the review team is that the Colorado Division of Emergency Management and wildfire resources of the Colorado State Forest Service should be moved under the authority of the Colorado Department of Public Safety. The governor and CSU president quickly agreed to the structural change, which is intended to improve communications.
“We need one central point of accountability and responsibility when it comes to state actions in fighting wildfires in Colorado,” Hickenlooper said in a statement. “These suggested changes will enhance coordination among all state agencies involved in emergency situations and result in a single point of command when dispatching resources and personnel.”
In endorsing the change, Frank said in a statement: “A single point of command, control and accountability will better position us to deal with the chaos that so often surrounds a wildfire situation. We all share the goal of being fully prepared to protect Colorado as we enter this fire season.” Colorado State Forest Service functions not connected to wildfires will remain with Colorado State University.
Because these structural changes cross departments, approval will have to come through the state Legislature. Hickenlooper and Frank have vowed to work with state lawmakers to see if this can be done before the session ends. We support the quick action.
While the structural changes should proceed, additional recommendations still may come because reviews into the cause, firefighting measures and communications will continue. As Hickenlooper noted, the reviews will not restore what was lost by any means, but they are a start toward ensuring such a tragedy does not happen again
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, May 1, on a proposal to redefine video lottery terminals:
How does a seemingly unconstitutional bill remain on the legislative agenda month after month without being killed? Chalk it up to the wonders of doublespeak.
House Bill 1280 would allow video lottery terminals—very similar to electronic slot machines—at a single site in Colorado west of the Continental Divide. The only trouble is that the state constitution is already clear about the location of slot machines. It limits them to Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek.
The only legal way to expand limited gaming—which “means the use of slot machines,” according to the constitution—is through another statewide popular vote.
So how does HB 1280 try to maneuver around this obstacle? It blithely declares a “video lottery terminal” is not “a machine or device defined as a slot machine” in the constitution. Yet as bold as that claim might be, it is also illegitimate.
Lawmakers have no power to redefine objects. They can’t pass legislation—not without looking like fools—decreeing that water birds with webbed feet, short legs and broad bills will no longer be known as ducks. Everyone knows what a duck is. And everyone can see that a video lottery terminal fits the constitution’s definition of a “slot machine.”
The constitution says a slot machine is, among other things, a “video, electronic” device that “after insertion of a coin, token or similar object or upon payment of any required consideration whatsoever … may deliver or entitle the player” to something of value. Revealingly, that definition of a slot machine is not very different from the definition of a video lottery terminal provided in the legislation itself, where a VLT is “an electronic computerized game machine” that “upon insertion of cash value” allows someone to play a game that may result in an award “redeemable for currency.”
How stupid do the sponsors of this bill think voters are that they would flout constitutional language with such obvious legislative gimmickry?
There is much else to dislike about HB 1280, including the fact that it was apparently written to benefit a single company, namely Mile High Racing & Entertainment in Aurora. Mile High Racing’s executive director even acknowledged his role in the legislation when meeting with the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel editorial board.
“I wrote the legislation, I’m pushing the legislation,” Mile High’s K. Bruce Seymore told the paper. “It would be silly for me to sit here and tell you that I don’t hope to make money off of it.”
As the Sentinel’s Charles Ashby explained in his report, “Seymore operates the only horse track in the state that would qualify to get Colorado Lottery Commission approval to open such a facility under the provisions of the bill.”
Now, that’s certainly convenient.
Somehow this flawed bill has survived through two House committees. If we were gambling types, we’d bet that run of luck is destined to end—but the sooner the better.
Editorial:
