Guest Editorials

  Skin cancer is a lifestyle disease, affecting young women, older men and everyone in between. One in five Americans will develop skin cancer in the course of a lifetime; 13 million Americans are living with a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer and nearly 800,000 Americans are living with a history of melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer.
But there is good news: because skin cancer is chiefly lifestyle disease, it is also highly preventable.
About 90 percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers and 65 percent of melanoma cases are associated with exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun, says Perry Robins, MD, President of The Skin Cancer Foundation. Everyone, regardless of skin color, should make staying safe in the sun a priority and incorporate sun protection measures into their daily life.
Reduce Your Skin Cancer Risk:
Seek the shade, especially between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. when the sun is strongest. An extra rule of thumb is the shadow rule. If your shadow is shorter than you are, the suns harmful UV radiation is stronger; if your shadow is longer, UV radiation is less intense.
Do not burn. A persons risk for melanoma doubles if he or she has had five or more sunburns at any point in life.
Avoid tanning and UV tanning booths. UV radiation from tanning machines is known to cause cancer in humans, and the more time a person has spent tanning indoors, the higher the risk. Those who make just four visits to a tanning salon per year can increase their risk for melanoma by 11 percent, and their risk for the two most common forms of skin cancer, basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, by 15 percent.
Cover up with clothing, including a broad-brimmed hat and UV-blocking sunglasses. Clothing can be your most effective form of sun protection, so make the most of it with densely woven and bright-or dark-colored fabrics, which offer the best defense. The more skin you cover, the better, so choose long sleeves and long pants whenever possible.

BY RENEE TEN EYCK
  The City of Fountain Utilities staff hosted a public meeting in March at the Dean Fleischauer Center focusing on our water future and updating attendees on the current status of capital improvements and water rate hikes for Fountain Utility water customers.
  Utility staff reviewed some of what was presented during the water rate meetings last spring and gave updates on outcomes and changes since those meetings. Customer Service Manager Curtis Mitchell also summarized the Super Ditch Project, which is a pilot program. 
  During a recent interview with Fountain Utility Director Larry Patterson, he agreed with this reporter that there were several basic concepts utility customers should be informed about including;
  *?Our utility is an enterprise fund.  An enterprise fund establishes a separate accounting and financial reporting mechanism for municipal services for which a fee is charged in exchange for goods or services.
  *?The sole purpose of a municipal enterprise fund is to provide for specific essential services, such as garbage collection, water supply, or sewerage collection and treatment. The rate charged for these services pays for them exclusively.
  *?The enterprise fund does not produce a profit.
  *?The enterprise fund operates essentially on a cash-basis, however, the fund does have the ability to borrow to fund capital expenditures. The price of services is set to recover actual costs but also includes what is needed to pay back loans.
  *?The fund maintains an operating reserve to pay for emergencies as a prudent business practice. The fund does not hold "surplus" money.
  *?Actual cost of services includes labor, material, equipment, overhead, support services, reserve, and capital improvements.
  *?Capital improvement costs are for those projects necessary to replace and install new piping, structures, and equipment consistent with service needs.
  *?Fountain will need additional water supplies in 12-14 years, and this requires planning from three to ten years ahead of time, since it can take years to actually receive additional water supplies.
  What this means to Fountain Utilities customers is that, with the Southern Delivery System (SDS) in progress, as well as other capital expenditures, customers will see their rates increase as needed over the next several years to cover the costs of Fountain’s financial obligation.  The SDS is needed to provide water for Fountain into the future.  Since Fountain does not have the ability to transport and distribute all the water that we currently have access to, the SDS is the best, albeit still expensive choice, to accomplish this in the future.
    At the meeting, a few Fountain Utility consumers questioned why, if they are conserving water, are they not “being rewarded with lower monthly bills.”  Mitchell emphasized conservation as a means of not only conserving water, but also to mitigate the costs associated with the rate hikes while the SDS is being paid for.  What that means is that we will NOT see our utility bills go down.  The rate hike to pay for capital expenditures, like SDS, will still increase our bills, but if we do our best to make water conservation a habit, our bills will not increase as much as they would if we were not conserving water. 
  Another important point that Mitchell emphasizes is that conservation will provide for long term sustainability and stability with regard to water supply.
  Also during the March meeting, Consultant Ed Harvey of Harvey Economics described the current rates and fees for ¾ inch tap customers, explaining that each rate block has a set fee, and that, as was suggested by citizens during previous water rate study meetings, rate increases were prorated, so that those who use the least amount of water will experience the lowest water rate increase.  For example, residential water use from 1,000 to 3,000 gallons currently costs $28.19, with only a 9.6 per cent increase, where as someone who uses 6,000 gallons or more per month will see a 14.6 per cent increase in rates once their usage exceeds 6,000 gallons.
 
  Since the average residential water use in Fountain is around 9,000 gallons per month, this water bill would be calculated as follows:
                                                                                      Percent increase per rate block for Capital Improvements (SDS)

Block one:                Up to 3,000 gallons $28.19                                        9.6
Block two:               3,001 to 6,000 gallons $11.28 ($3.76/1000 gal)        10.9
Block three:             6,001 to 9,000 gallons $13.89 ($4.63/1000 gal)         14.6
                                      TOTAL BILL for month $53.36 
 
  Mitchell commented recently that the utility is considering, in response to concerns of citizens who use less than 3,000 gallons, the possibility of further dividing block one into separate blocks to accommodate those who use less than 3,000 gallons per month.
  Mitchell said utility customers must understand that their conservation efforts will not mean that they will not have their rates increased, since everyone pays for capital improvements.  What diligent water conservation does is control how much customers’ bills will increase.  If a consumer who sometimes uses 3,500 gallons of water per month, (thus paying an extra $3.76 for that extra 500 gallons of water) can conserve and use 3,000 gallons or less per month, though that consumer will still see the 9.6% increase in the rate for block one, that bill will be $28.19 for that month, rather than $31.95. 
  As the rates continue to increase, and they will to accommodate increasing requirements to cover those capital improvements, Patterson wants consumers to understand economies of scale, with regard to the debt incurred during this time of building the Southern Delivery System, and other capital improvements.  Economies of scale refers to the cost advantages that an enterprise obtains due to expansion; in our case, the decrease in the cost of our water and the system to deliver it to our homes results from the increase in the number of residents and businesses, which will spread these costs over more consumers. 
    At the meeting, Patterson explained that state predictions expect a continued increase in the number of residents on the Front Range, starting with the transfer of a combat aviation brigade to Fort Carson, which will bring 2,300-2,800 more troops to the area in the next two years.  Since there are no plans for Fort Carson to establish on-post housing for this brigade, according to Patterson, those troops and their families will seek housing in the surrounding areas, to include Fountain.  Thus, Fountain must be prepared to support them with regard to water needs.
  Indeed, at the meeting, Harvey pointed out that we are seeing the “foundation of growth increasing so far.”  Building of housing is increasing nationally and “things are looking better than one year ago.”
  Mitchell recently explained also that we currently have only one pipe bringing 70% of our water supply from Pueblo to Fountain’s existing water customers, with nothing in place to mitigate risks of an interference to our water supply if there is damage to that infrastructure. 
  Mitchell stated, “We need a better distribution system for existing customers; you can’t eliminate all risk, but we can mitigate it.”  SDS will give us the additional support to guarantee water for existing customers as well as support water delivery for future customers. 
  Sources:
  http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=99
  http://www.municipalconsultants.net/enterprise_fund_accounting_systems.aspx
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
Fountain City Council is expected to talk about the issue at its May meetings.

By Mark Hillman

At a time when state legislators should be doing everything possible to encourage job creation, a bill working its way through the Colorado Senate unfairly paints employers as unreasonable and untrustworthy.

Worse still, Senate Bill 3 gives trial lawyers another opportunity to sink their teeth into Colorado’s job creators extracting "damages" where none exist and forcing employers to pay dearly just to prove their innocence.

Would it surprise you to learn that the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora), just happens to be a trial lawyer with one of the state’s most high-profile firms? Or that, at the bill’s first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee which Carroll chairs, not a single witness claimed to have been denied a job or a promotion as a result of a credit history check?

According to Carroll, employers should be prohibited by law from reviewing a job applicant¹s credit history and could be sued by applicants or disgruntled employees if they do. The bill makes a very narrow exception for jobs in financial services or defense and security.

When customers engage in a transaction, we often entrust a business with our personal financial information, and we expect them to keep it confidential and secure. Businesses know that consumer fraud is a $30 billion-a-year problem, so one precaution they take is to review the credit history of potential employees. But credit history isn’t the only factor considered in the hiring process nor is it the most important.

Moreover, businesses don’t sneak around to snoop at employees’ credit history. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act already requires employers to obtain written permission from the applicant to check credit history.

Even then, the employer doesn’t see the actual credit score.

Various media reports suggest, using mostly anecdotal evidence, that job applicants with poor credit histories cannot get a job and that it¹s normal for a person¹s credit history to tank after losing a job.

Neither happens to be true.

With truly rare exceptions, an individual has more control over his or her

credit history than does any external factor.

Losing a job certainly puts a strain on anyone’s finances, but not everyone who is unemployed dives deeply into debt or fails to make responsible adjustments to their spending habits. Surely job-seekers who maintain sound credit through these difficulties are entitled to be distinguished from those who don’t.

According to the Denver Post, "Senator Carroll said it’s unfair that a bad credit record should keep an otherwise qualified candidate from landing a job." In fact, a bad credit rating is rarely, if ever, the determining factor.

Employers are, by and large, reasonable people who use a myriad of criteria to make personnel decisions. By considering an applicant’s employment history, training and references, employers are capable of discerning between someone who’s recently fallen on hard times and someone who is habitually one step ahead of the collection agency.

What is alarming is the persistent drumbeat by some legislators that treat employers as unscrupulous adversaries who must be constantly regulated, micromanaged and threatened with litigation.

Colorado businesses are job creators whose faith in our state’s economic climate and its government is essential to spur a sustained recovery. Yet year after year, a handful of legislators devise still more ways to make Colorado employers jump through regulatory hoops and spend countless hours and thousands of dollars in the courts defending themselves against mostly bogus allegations concocted by trial lawyers seeking a quick payday on behalf of disgruntled former employees.

Senate Bill 3 is yet another political solution in search of a real-world problem. Federal law already ensures that job-seekers control access to their credit history.

Here’s hoping legislators who recognize employers as allies rather than adversaries will stand together to defeat this ill-considered Formeasure.

 

Former state Sen. Mark Hillman is executive director of Colorado Civil Justice League (www.CCJL.org).

 

BY DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
The Republican primary in Florida brought discussions of healthcare, particularly Medicare, back to the forefront of the national discourse. With its sizeable senior population,  Medicare  and Social Security were top of mind to Florida voters.
It is certainly important that health care, and particularly Medicare, be debated thoroughly during the Presidential campaign, as entitlement reform is one of the most pressing issues that Congress and the White House will face next year. Indeed, the latest  annual Medicare and Social Security Trustees report projected that the Medicare trust fund will run out in 2024 - five years earlier than previously expected - and the Social Security trust fund will run out by 2036.
The good news is the emerging national consensus,  across the ideological spectrum, that we must address the nation’s budget problems and that Medicare reform must be a part of any agreement. It’s essential, though, that changes to the Medicare program be made responsibly, starting with the principle  that reform must protect the elements of the program that are working efficiently now.
One Medicare program that should be kept intact is Part D, the prescription drug benefit program. Part D is the most cost-effective and successful entitlement program the federal government runs. Even Newt Gingrich, presenting himself on the campaign trail as the champion of conservative voters, has spoken up several times in support of Part D. He has touted the market-based program’s success and effectiveness in saving lives, saving money and offering people more choices.
Thanks to competition among insurers, the prescription drug program costs the government and beneficiaries far less than initially projected. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reduced its baseline 10-year spending projection for all of Medicare by $186 billion, two-thirds of which is accounted for by a reduction in Part D spending.
While Medicare Part D is an example of a Medicare program that works, it is clear that not all Medicare policies and programs are as useful and valuable.
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that was created with the passage of President Obama’s health care law is one such provision that should be eliminated.
IPAB would allow an unelected and unaccountable board to make program cuts to meet spending targets.
Proponents of the board have argued that IPAB will improve the quality of care as a result of the cost-cutting measures it enacts. In fact, IPAB is a threat to critical medical treatments and services for all Medicare beneficiaries. The cuts it imposes will only reinforce systemic problems, not fix them, and create unsustainable savings.
Major changes in the Medicare program should not be decided by bureaucratic fiat in a process lacking transparency and oversight. Rather, they should be debated and decided by elected officials who will be held be accountable for their decisions.
Everyone knows that tough choices lie ahead. It’s up to our political leaders to explain that reforms are essential to make Medicare secure for future generations of seniors.
There are many possible ways to reduce Medicare spending.  A broad reform debate will enable people to better understand the tradeoffs involved.
To make sure program benefits remain available for those who need them most, lawmakers should consider eligibility requirements and need-based benefits. By raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 from 65, for example, $124 billion would be saved.
The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission has proposed gradually limiting the Medicare benefits the wealthy receive. Last fall, President Obama proposed higher Medicare premiums for high-income seniors as part of the deficit reduction plan that he submitted to the Congressional “supercommittee.”  Obama’s plan would save about $20 billion over 10 years in Medicare.
Increasing premiums beneficiaries pay for Medicare doctors’ coverage to 35 percent of  program costs from the current 25 percent could save $241 billion. Modernizing Medicare’s benefit package to include copayments, deductibles and an out-of-pocket maximum could save about $14 billion through 2018. A cutback in subsidies for “Medigap” supplemental insurance would save $92 billion.
A still-bolder proposal going beyond Medicare itself would be to remove the distortion in the tax code that keeps health insurance tied to employment. The tax write-off for employer-provided health care benefits is the single largest tax expenditure. It is estimated to cost the government more than $1 trillion over the next five years. Capping the tax exclusion in 2018 and then phasing it out over 10 years would result in massive savings that could be devoted to shoring up Medicare and other programs for seniors.
The American people are ready to accept some difficult choices as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction program. It is time for Congress to begin the debate.

Douglas Schoen is a political strategist and author of Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System (Harper 2010), co-authored with Scott Rasmussen.