Lovin' The IGAs

So the growth issue is being debated within the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and today's Camera describes four counties — Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson and Adams — are pushing to expand the growth boundary.

In Boulder County the various Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) currently in place limit the growth boundaries and annexation efforts of neighboring communities. This allows each community to drop the worry about losing an annexation battle and instead they can focus on who they can attract and incent to develop within their boundaries. They can put some sort of scope onto their Comprehensive Plans and argue ofer the final design they want their town to look like.

The most interesting thing about the IGAs is the way they springboard your brain into the not-so-distant future to imagine each community at build-out. Between now and then, each community needs to shore up long-term financing options for town services. That's why absolutist anti-growth sentiments are flawed. A well funded open space program, for example, needs funding sources. I don't think DRCOG can legally deny any county's expansion of self-imposed boundaries, and for readers of this blog, know that Weld County isn't a member of DRCOG - they have their own agendas out east of EastBoCo.

Health Care Policy - Changes On the Horizon?

Lots to ponder with this topic...

Yesterday I attended about an hour of a presentation at the Lafayette Public Library on potential changes to Colorado's state laws re: health care policy. Last year the state legislature created a blue ribbon panel on health care. They solicited conceptual proposals and filtered down to four for detailed analysis. The meeting yesterday gave an overview of this process and was meant to be a forum to solicit comments and concerns.

Senator Brandon Shaffer and a couple members of the 208 Commission, as the panel is also called, heard from a range of people. I was intrigued at the points that were raised, and felt sympathy for the folks who have messed up scenarios regarding their specialized needs and their struggles to get proper treatment. The saying "All that matters is your health.." kept popping into my mind.

The key issues I heard include:

• The distinction between access and coverage
• How coverage should be funded (by whom, really)
• Whether health care should be tied to employment (making employers the vehicle instead of the individual)
• The impact of illegal immigrants on the system
• Getting the profit motive out of health care

The big question - which the 208 panel reps said was ultimately where this was headed - is whether health care is a right or a privilege. Sen. Shaffer nuanced this black/white analysis by asking "what do people expect for coverage? call it what you want, but that's what we need to aim to provide. With clear expectations, you can start talking about the coverage/access/how to fund issues." (I'm paraphrasing.)

Having this philosophical argument is crucial. I'm turning over in my head the notion of health care as a "right". If I think of the right to free speech or similar concepts, these do not involve a financial impact. This is decision of governing that allows for certain behavior without some kind of suppression. If I think of the right to a speedy trial or other more mechanical rights, to me these seem to involve a policy decision that does involve costs we presume are part of our overall justice system, and as such the machinery we set up should cost the same, per person involved, once it it set up.

But health care as a right presumes that every last medical option and indeed even experimental options should be provided to every person whether they are ill from an accident, genetic bad luck or extremely poor personal lifestyle choices. This philosophical debate will have to address the notion that some illnesses are simply too far out on the limb for society as a whole to be responsible for treating. I don't know where that line is drawn, and what an awful place to be right outside it. But how else, truly, can it be as public policy? And why should anyone assume society will break the bank to take care of them? It's a great ideal, but can it really work that way on a grand scale - that everybody's health problems are treated to the maximum technology available? This elephant in the room is what Sen. Shaffer and his colleagues must tackle. A daunting task.

Yesterday I heard the notion of a two-tiered system, that would provide some kind of minimal blanket coverage for everyone, and then other procedures would be covered by some other kind of ability to pay. I think pragmatically speaking public policy has to lean that way. I can't see how every person's illness can be covered by everyone who isn't ill paying in. How is that sustainable? (These FAQ's address some of my questions.)

And a key side note - where does an emphasis on wellness come in? The legislature just changed the law in Colorado that allowed insurance companies to provide premium discounts to healthier (fewer claims) groups, as this was deemed discriminatory against the groups with ill people, who could be charged up to 10% more. If you can't charge the people who are actually sick more, and you can't give those people staying healthy a break, how can this work? The structural generosity of coverage for everyone has to be tempered with some kind of incentive and benefit if you stay healthy. Whether it's good luck, genetics or proactive behavior, if you're healthy, you're healthy. Such healthy people will get pretty bitter about paying for the unemployed overweight chain-smoker's third bypass operation.

I sincerely hope the legislature will answer the right/privilege question and draw up clear expectations (and limitations) for the coverage everyone deserves/will get in terms of society paying for it. Once we know the "what" we're paying for, then can we argue about how to pay for it.

MMMM...Beer... And Liquor Laws

This is all very interesting. Kerry was correct about the state’s authority on tastings (silly me I deferred to the newspaper’s information). In 2004 the Colorado General Assembly gave municipalities permission to allow tastings of no more than 1 ounce of beer or wine or 0.5 ounce of distilled liquor. It also caps the number of days of the year that tastings can be offered at 104. (This was all part of legislation –HB 1021 - also allowing you to take home the rest of a wine bottle from dinner, and lowered the BAC level for DUI to .08 – that kept Colorado from losing $50 million in federal highway funds.)

Some of the stipulations on the local control of tastings: Tastings are limited to a maximum of 5 hours in one day and hours need not be consecutive. Tastings may only occur up to four days per week, Monday through Saturday. Tastings may not be conducted earlier than 11 a.m. nor later than 7 p.m.

In all cases, the municipality can make more restrictive parameters.

The main arguments I’ve found – i.e. just last month Castle Rock’s Town Council considered the issue – is that people could drive from tasting to tasting getting wasted for free. Making alcohol available so easily would threaten the safety of our highways. (Right behind teenagers on cell phones.)

I love when the conservatives in society take a page from the liberal political argument playbook: “If just one life could be saved, isn’t it worth it?” Well, no. The percentage of people who would actually participate in the worst case scenario brainstorm of puritanical, paranoid authority freaks is not enough to of a reason to restrict an otherwise reasonable business practice. The nannyism of this mentality is what conservatives usually resent about liberals.

The scope afforded by HB 1021 above is reasonable; practically speaking I can certainly live with it. But I enjoy arguing principals here on the blog, and this is another area where the government legislated with a presumption of protecting us from ourselves. I resent that mentality from political leadership.

Louisville May Boost Tax Breaks With State Funds

Tonight the Louisville City Council will likely repeal an ordinance that gives cash rebates on property taxes to the elderly. (Since 1973 anyone over 65 could apply.) But it's not as cold-hearted as it may first appear. The reason is that the state has reinstituted a similar tax break for seniors that pays much more than Louisville's program. The catch is that the state requires a person over 65 to have lived in, owned and paid taxes on the property for at least ten years. With Louisville facing budget cutbacks, staff estimates a savings of about $32,000 based on previous years' payouts.

So at first I thought that stinks for the seniors in town, who may see property taxes go up with property values while their income plateaus. Now, I don't want to sound like a curmudgeon (how old do you have to be to be a curmudgeon anyway? I don't think I've been around long enough yet) but Louisville's payback maxed out at about $100 per year. The state is going to max out around $600. Is this a necessary expenditure for the state government? And anyway, is that enough money to make a substantial difference in a yearly budget? If you own a home valued high enough to get the full $600, will $50 a month matter? It seems like a perk, a bone thrown to a special interest group. I'm not really against it in the grand scheme, I'm just sayin'.

Am I missing something here? Or is this my curmudgeon-to-be speaking out?

A Little Bit of Hell Froze Over

After five years of attempting to negotiate the ability to develop his land in western Superior - and being rebuffed- Richard Verhey has sold his 155 acres to the Town and Boulder County as Open Space. It is remarkable because Verhey had most recently declared he would use the agricultural zoning of his property (which was the basis of the denials for developing a neighborhood) for a huge pig farm. His spiteful threat was borne out of frustration with neighbors in Rock Creek candidly saying they didn't want to lose their nice views to the west.

Verhey has said recent health issues in his family have led to a change of heart. Read more in the Superior Observer.