Jump to content
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.
"They do not understand that the birth of this nation is based on the moral principle of self ownership and freedom."
You realize, of course, that those principles applied only to white men, right?
To the Pilot's editorial team: Will you please also cover all the other budget discussions that took place? Apparently, there was some issue concerning the funding of the tennis center, and we know there is already interest in the ice rink... please, please cover these other issues and let your readers know what other city facilities and programs are under discussion for cuts or additional budget. Thank you.
A natural-born citizen is generally defined as someone who was granted US citizenship at birth--either by being born in the US, or by being born outside the US to citizen parents. However, there appears to be a wrinkle here: a special section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that applies to “Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent.” Under that provision, Cruz only qualifies for American citizenship if his mother was “physically present” in the United States for 10 years prior to his birth, five of which had to be after she reached the age of 14. The only definitive way to prove Eleanor Cruz’s 10 years of physical presence would be with documents such as leases, school registration, utility bills or tax records. So far, Cruz has not released such evidence--or renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Last login: Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.