Printed letters, Oct. 20, 2010
Consumer-driven health care plan would be better
On Oct. 6, Dr. Michael Pramenko, president of Colorado Medical Society and member of Club 20 Health care Committee, wrote a clear column for universal health care coverage.
Enrolling all citizens in a public option or requiring individual mandates to buy insurance approved by the federal government will simplify business for insurance companies and the federal health care administrators managing and controlling the industry. If you disagree with this “one-size-fits-all” health plan, then support Amendment 63. But if you wish to choose a plan which fits your individual needs, you might question Dr. Pramenko.
Consider this: Mandates have not solved Massachusetts’ health care problems, since many remain uninsured and costs have grown exponentially. Mandates do not insure all motorists so others pay for the 15 percent uninsured. Mandates will grow federal jobs to enforce these new and complex rules for your health care.
Mandatory health care will destroy health savings accounts that let one purchase catastrophic coverage and personally manage their health care.
A consumer-driven health care plan (like the Swiss Model) proposed by Regina Herzlinger, of Harvard Business School, can control cost with individual choice and responsibility for health care decisions. The Patient Affordable Health Care Act may not, however, with the currently unwritten and complex regulations.
The constitutional questions of HR 3590 will be decided by the Supreme Court. Colorado, along with other states like Missouri, should have their opinions heard and have the choice to “opt out” of these mandates. I plan to vote for Amendment 63.
LARRY TICE, MD
Ballot measures may cause federal intrusion
As a local businesswoman who has pondered Proposition 101, Amendments 60 and 61 with great intensity, I’d like to offer my own conclusions as to their ramifications:
Their basic logic is in keeping with what many western Coloradoans seek: a smaller, less-costly government. That is why the language is so appealing.
The measures systematically cause governments to become defunded over time. This may feel like the right medicine to shrink and control a government that we’ve come to mistrust. However, the ratcheting down effects of the measures crumble the very foundation of the civic structures that we originally established for the purpose of our own common good.
Most troubling: the collapse starts from the bottom up, with the smallest civic services going first.
Without question, governments must reduce their size, scope and cost dramatically. It is little reported, however, that many are actually responding quickly and responsibly. Having worked with civic services on many levels, I believe our local city and county governments are generally well managed and responding reasonably.
In the end, Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 leave their negative financial consequences most brutally on the private sector, and at a time when we can least bear another strike. Is it too big a stretch to envision a larger government anxious and willing to swoop in to our rescu?. I’m much more confident about our prospects for balance and equity through for balance and equity through local vigilance than the prospects of dealing with Denver or Washington to maintain local autonomy and self-governance.
Ultimately, these measures represent a prescription that will likely kill the patient, and in so doing, leave significantly negative consequences on private enterprise.
TERI CAVANAGH, CEO
COBB Marketing & Communications
Bennet and Salazar ads bring shame on both
Shame on Sen. Michael Bennet and Congressman John Salazar if they don’t demand that the distorted lying radio and TV ads about the supporters of the Fair Tax be pulled. Winning at any cost is not winning. It’s selling your soul to the devil.
In 2006, the Democratic groups used this tactic against me. When I was giving Bernie Buescher a run for his money, these groups stepped in and spent thousands of dollars on very similar ads to keep me out of office. Voters of Colorado, don’t be duped by this dishonest tactic that is now being used against candidates Ken Buck for U.S. Senate and Scott Tipton for U.S. Congress. These two honorable men deserve better and so does Colorado.
Don’t let the George Soros-types buy this election with false advertising. If Bennet and Salazar let these lies stand, they both are supporters of the lies. The Fair Tax is the removal of all taxes on the poor, (yes, they are taxed today) and does not increase taxes on the rest of us. Buy “The Fair Tax Book,” read it and then demand that the politicians that represent you read it.
Taxation today is not about raising dollars for good government. It’s about control and power. The fair tax would put some of the control and power back in the hands of we the people.
BOB CASKEY Grand Junction
Reformers waste taxpayers’ money on trails
Our state leaders and the local administrators in our three neighboring counties (Delta, Montrose and Grand Junction) have been filling their campaign spiels, the newspapers and airwaves with dire promises.
They have promised that if we don’t vote “No” on the “Ugly Three,” they will lay off many teachers from our schools — the children will suffer. They will lay off lawmen and chaos will run rampant in our streets. There will be nothing but mayhem. We will all suffer!
They chide us, and tell us that we have to keep letting them spend and control our money, because only they know “responsible reform.” Responsible reform? What responsible reform? When have any of these so-called leaders shown any responsible reform?
I read every single day how these “responsible reformers” have granted millions of our tax dollars to build another stupid trail in the forest, or in the desert, or in town, or they build a climbing wall, or they build a dang golf course out in the middle of the stupid, stinking desert where there’s no water, only alkaline. Is that responsible enough for you?
How many families are suffering financially because these “responsible reformers” kicked the gas and oil companies out of this area? How many families are suffering financially because these “responsible reformers” taxed the life out of the Bowie Mine, in the North Fork area?
Where are the grants from the “responsible reformers” in these kinds of situations, for these hard-working people? Why aren’t our tax dollars being spent in ways to help out the people who actually provide the tax dollars? Which provide the grants?
What have any of these “responsible reformers” actually done for you? Other than spend your hard-earned tax dollars on another trail, that you will probably will never walk on? Please vote “Yes” on the Ugly Three: Amendments 60 and 61, and Proposition 101.
Biased group produced a phony drilling survey
I read the article entitled, “Official explains slip up in drilling, health survey,” and I’m just left wondering what is really going on here?
Why would an environmental group like the Western Conservation Foundation pay for a push-poll on a health report that hasn’t even been finalized yet if they weren’t going to use the unscientific results for political purposes? Why call a press conference if the “data” generated from this ridiculous survey was only supposed to be used for internal purposes?
Furthermore, their claims that they aren’t anti-oil-and-gas development ring hollow when their paid media consultant, Allyn Harvey, is a big-time environmentalist who spends his time working on wilderness campaigns to lock people out of public lands.
From a biased source comes biased information. We should take the results of this phony survey with a grain of salt.