RSSPrinted letters, July 15, 2012
Chief Justice John Roberts handed Mitt Romney a huge gift in deciding that the individual mandate was a tax, one that is primarily paid by the middle class.
The Affordable Care Act has never seemed very affordable to ordinary people, but we were talked down to and told in time we would see it. Now President Obama is going to have to actually explain how it is going to benefit all of us, which is what he should have done in the first place.
If affordability really is the objective, he can tell us why he didn’t include tort reform, interstate insurance competition and most important, a more transparent third-party payer system where we, the consumers, know what everything costs and can help decide what is really needed. Hospitals should coordinate care and be paid according to performance rather than by their sheer number of treatments. Does the president really think big government can do a better job at controlling costs than informed consumers?
Romney has focused on promoting healthy economic growth through incentivizing investors and workers with lower taxes and less regulation. Romney should also promote his ideas for common-sense health care. If the court had booted out the mandate, we wouldn’t have such a clear choice.
A vote for Romney is now a vote against Obamacare, too. We get to make that decision, not the courts or politicians in back rooms making deals. Justice Roberts made it the choice of voters to pay more in taxes.
DAVE KEARSLEY
Mesa
Big Brother now in charge of nation’s medical problems
Did anyone else wonder, as Daily Sentinel Publisher Jay Seaton led us through his convoluted path to the coveted single-payer system and discussed the Sentinel’s ability to dump Daily Sentinel employee coverage and the demise of evil insurance companies, why there was no mention of the phrase, “quality health care”?
Nor was there any mention in the other extensive coverage on July 1, although Steve ErckenBrack made a heroic attempt to assure us that, along with patient/doctor relationships, our exemplary local programs might survive unscathed among the ashes.
We have been reminded that the rest of the civilized world long ago recognized the need for universal health care. Does one also need to be reminded that the rest of the civilized world is going broke? And if their smaller, more easily managed populations are running out of “other people’s money,” how can we expect to do better?
The United States has had the best medical care in the world. The innovations, new procedures and better care, which have all have been brought into existence by free markets and the capitalistic system, will have no incentive to continue. Young people will have no motivation to enter the field.
Fifteen nonmedical people appointed by the White House will make the medical decisions for the American population. Waiting times will come into existence. Want that knee replacement? Two- to three-year wait. End of life “counseling” will replace the simple pacemaker.
But low-income people will at least not be forced to use emergency rooms. Oh wait — here in Mesa County we have long had the Marillac Clinic, heavily supported by the community. That will certainly cease to exist. Only the government should have the power to decide what’s best for the poor.
So rejoice. Big Brother has arrived to solve our medical problems.
MARCIA NEAL
Grand Junction
Marks is involved in multiple court cases
I appreciate Bill Grant’s July 11 column. There were some inaccuracies within it I would like to briefly address.
Litigation regarding ballots as open records started in the city of Aspen and was filed in Pitkin County. The Jefferson County case is not settled, and the city of Aspen case may not be either.
Mesa County is not alone. We are one of many across the state engaged in a legal disagreement with Marilyn Marks. Here are a few court cases I am aware of:
✓ City of Aspen : Koch v. Brandscomb and Marks
✓ City of Aspen: Marks v. Koch
✓ Jefferson County: Anderson v. Marks
✓ Jefferson County: Marks v. Anderson
✓ Mesa County: Reiner v. Marks
✓ Mesa County: Marks v. Reiner
✓ Saguache County: Marks v. Myers
✓ Chaffee County: Reno v. Marks
✓ Denver: Marks v. Secretary of State
✓ Denver: Gessler v. McGuire and Marks
✓ Federal Level: Citizen Center (founded by Marks) v. Secretary of State, Mesa, Larimer, Jefferson, Chaffee, Eagle and Boulder Counties.
Each elected clerk and recorder has a responsibility to seek legal guidance whenever there is uncertainty of this nature. A few other clerks and I filed a petition for clarification from the courts regarding what is open to public inspection and what is not. Each case listed above is different in its specific circumstances and facts.
Unfortunately, litigation is common now when it comes to sorting out guidelines for election conduct for all citizens in our state.
As we look forward to an exciting and busy presidential election in November, keep in mind that we need help from the community to conduct it. If you are interested in working, please call 244-1662.
SHEILA REINER
Mesa County Clerk and Recorder
Grand Junction
COMMENTS
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.“Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted that the United States invests more on health care than any country, but that its health care system ranks 37th.” – Denver Post, April 29 2008
The criteria of the ranking includes the availability, and therein is the rub. The U.S. has cutting edge technology, but it is not available through wealth distribution spectrum, insurance affordability, and factors dependent on social/economic status.
What good is having great technology without availability? It does not make the “best healthcare in the world” except for the 1%. Insurance that won’t pay for the cutting edge and exclusions to insurance coverage have denied much of our insured population. For those without insurance, any access except what they might find in a triage situation, is not available.
In tough economic times, people will skimp insurance or just being cheap because of youth and good health, and then put a burden on everyone else when the “unthinkable” happens and Medicaid or emergency services are used. The Act provides that if these people are capable of participating and do not, then they will pay an additional tax with their income tax. That tax will help the programs they use.
Another example is the 80/20 rule coming down this year. When health insurers do not spend 80% of premium income on healthcare, but instead exceed 20% in administration or bonuses or other non-service, they must refund the difference of the over 20% (or under 80%) to the rate payers. This is a correction of a past abuse area of private sector insurance.
That is what the Affordable Health Care Act is about and not myriad of lies floating on the internet and parroted by numbskulls too lazy to read the Act itself or check the validity the statement.
It is absolutely amazing that people can be pimped out of something so beneficial by lies, distortions, and propaganda because they are too ready to accept someone else’s “snake oil” because they are too lazy to get the actual facts or reputable analysis.
“The U.S. Government Accountability Office put out a report on Monday afternoon that provides some welcome news for defenders of the Affordable Care Act and, perhaps, a bit of pause for those eager to overturn or de-fund the legislation. The debt is an increasingly dire crisis, the investigative arm of Congress found. But one thing alleviating the problem, though by no means eliminating it, is the health care reform package passed this past spring.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/health-care-law-debt_n_783918.html
July 18, 2012
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
734 South 7th Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Dear Editors:
Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Sheila Reiner’s litigation scorecard – “Marks is involved in multiple court cases” (July 15, 2012)—was both timely and revealing.
While Reiner sought judicial clarification of “uncertainty” under the Colorado Open Records Act (“CORA”), she failed to explain that CORA permits a custodian of public records to avoid statutory mandatory attorney fees for unlawfully denying a CORA request only when such a “petition” is filed before denying the request.
Consequently, six of the eleven listed lawsuits arose when Clerks denied (based on “certainty”) Marks’ CORA requests for anonymous ballot information, then belatedly sought judicial protection from Marks’ entitlement to attorney fees, citing “linkage”.
Last year, Colorado’s Court of Appeals reversed the Aspen court, ruling that Marks was entitled to attorney fees – now estimated at $275,000. Aspen appealed to Colorado’s Supreme Court, which – on Monday – allowed that ruling to stand. What remains is either settlement or further litigation over the amount Aspen owes Marks.
The Jefferson County judge ruled in Marks’ favor on all substantive legal issues – including her entitlement to attorney fees – but the Clerk appealed. With Monday’s ruling, the Clerk’s legal position is untenable, leaving only settlement or further litigation over” reasonable” attorney fees – now estimated at $200,000.
Because the legal issues in Jefferson County are identical to those in Reiner’s two cases, she delayed trial hoping for a favorable decision in Marks v. Koch. Now that every state court has ruled in Marks’ favor, Mesa County taxpayers should anticipate a similar outcome – and the same magnitude of attorney fees.
On Tuesday, the Chafee County Commissioners began considering settlement – for $30,000 and elimination of procedures permitting linkage of voters to their ballots.
Because Reiner rejected Marks’ offer to settle three cases for $32,000 and elimination of her unconstitutional procedures, she remains a defendant in the federal case.
Bill Hugenberg
543 Rim Drive
Grand Junction, CO 81507
Word Count = 300 257-1998