Jump to content
The difference in price matters for personal travel, especially for families, when it is multiplied by 3, 4 or 5. That's real money. But as the article mentions, business travelers would generally not mind the additional cost; $200 is reasonable for the time savings--a person can work in the airport and on the plane but not during the 3 1/2 hour drive to DIA. The reason I no longer fly out of HDN even for business is because of unreliability. I cannot count on the planes out of and into Hayden actually landing and taking off, and that has nothing to do with the weather. Since it matters that I make it to my meetings on time and get home on schedule after a long trip away from my kids, it's just better to drive. That's the issue the airport, airlines and other powers that be should be most concerned with.
Can the Pilot look into why the ski area changed its focus from Vagabond to Heavenly Daze for early season? As recently as a couple of years ago, the ski area focused its snowmaking on Vagabond and Eagle's Nest, opening Thunderhead and almost always having skiing from the Gondola building down. Then, last year, they focused on the Daze and didn't open Thunderhead for two weeks. This seems a bit nuts to me, since the Glaze is hardly beginner-friendly and is harder to get good coverage on; they can't even get it covered well enough to open it on opening day in a year that has seen the wettest fall on record, and plenty of cold nights. Plus, having Thunderhead open takes pressure off the gondola. What's up?
Scott, that seems far fetched; plenty of people like Bloomberg's and Gates' policies, programs and ideas. What strikes me as nuts is the fact that out of state residents can legally contribute to state elections. We see Bloomberg and Gates doing it here, and the Koch brothers doing it on the other side of the aisle. Regardless of where one comes down on the issues in Citizens United (is donating to elections campaigns free speech?), it's hard to see how someone who lives in NY should have any right to influence elections in CO...
And I am not supporting 66 per se; I am just answering your question about why Routt county residents should pay for other students' education.
Mark--because that's the way a civilized society works. Sometimes you give more than you get; sometimes you get more than you give. Why should students in poorer counties get a worse education than ours just because of where they live?
But there are two separate issues here: The cost of providing care, and the likely need to provide care. I am still not clear on which of those CO is basing its ACA program pricing. If it's the second, that would seem to run counter to the economics behind the ACA. If it's the first, then I'm not clear on why costs are increasing so much, since those factors should presumably have influenced costs before the ACA.
Why medical care is so expensive in mountain towns--and how people can work to reduce those costs--is a separate, though important, issue.
Hi Scott. Thanks for the link. But it would seem that this approach contradicts the underlying philosophy and economics behind the ACA, which is based on the idea that, if you get everyone--young and old, healthy and sick, couch potatoes and extreme skiers--into the pool, then rates effectively level out across the board. They come down for some and increase for others compared to pre-ACA pricing, but no one is paying a higher or lower rate going forward (with the exception of smokers). So, it seems as though the Colorado approach is poor. Unless I am misreading your analysis...
Seems like the issue is with how Colorado is pricing plans based on location in state, presumably relating costs to some kind of mean or average income/wealth calculation. Would be helpful if Rob could explain how that is structured.
Sorry... meant 190, give or take. Denver, obviously.
Good letter, Jim. I would add that one of the roles of government is to provide services and amenities that the private sector can't. That can certainly have economic benefit (i.e. have a net positive effect, as Jim suggests), by bringing tourist and tax dollars to the community. But it also has a benefit for the community, and there is value in that even if you can't put a price on it. People in Steamboat are lucky to have access not just to great skiing (delivered via a private company) but also to less-varied but much less expensive skiing (on a city-owned hill), tennis, skating, golf, parks, trails, playgrounds and so on. Those are reasonable amenities for the government to support and provide. The money comes from our tax dollars, but collectively, our spending on them benefits the group and does not require a hard ROI. Not everyone takes advantage of all the opportunities--I don't play golf or ride single track, but I do skate and my kids play tennis and hockey, and they loved the playgrounds when they were young. But as a community we are all better off for having those assets. It's why people live here. Without them, we are not Steamboat--we are just a small rural town 90 miles from a major city center. This is what gets lost in the "run government like a business" calculation; some things aren't meant to be run like a business, for profit. They are meant to be investments in our health, well being and happiness.
Last login: Thursday, December 18, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.