Phil Weiser would be the better choice for governor
Coloradoans in the upcoming Democratic primary are faced with a choice for our
candidate for governor between Attorney General Phil Weiser and U.S. Sen.
Michael Bennet. Both have been outstanding in their jobs. Neither has previously served
as governor. There is a distinct difference, however, as to the effect that choice will have on
Colorado voters.
Phil Weiser, this year, will complete his second term as Attorney General. Under Colorado
law, he is term-limited in that office. Michael Bennett is in his third six-year term. He serves on numerous important federal U.S. Senate committees. As such, in representing us he has gained in the Senate an enormous amount of current experience and respect. Any replacement for him in the Senate would be starting from scratch.
Admittedly, we agree that Colorado is a more pleasant place to live than Washington, D.C.
When Sen. Bennett chose to run again for Senate in 2022, he knew full well the length of
time that he committed to us to serve. Should he now be elected as Colorado governor, his
Washington knowledge and experience will be lost.
If Bennet is selected as our nominee and ultimately elected governor, his successor will be
named by the governor. Bennet’s experience in the Senate cannot be replaced. Both are well qualified.
But considering the loss we could face in the Senate, Phil Weiser would simply be the better choice. Keep Bennett in the Senate. We need both.
John Gehlhausen, Estes Park
Property tax dollars could help preserve a vital community clinic
Thirty years ago, the Park Hospital District asked Salud to establish a clinic in Estes Park to serve the needs of the local uninsured and underinsured population.
Over the years, the Salud clinic has grown in its footprint and in the scope of its primary care services provided to the community and serves nearly 2,000 patients each year.
During the COVID crisis, the Salud Estes Park clinic was instrumental in providing vaccine delivery to our residents sooner than otherwise would have been possible.
Because of the reduction in federal support for community health centers such as Salud, our Salud clinic is in crisis. Private fundraising will carry our clinic throughout the balance of this year, but such private fundraising will be unable to sustain the clinic long term.
While the recently established Provider Stabilization Fund has provided funding for some community health centers, to date the Estes Park Salud Clinic has not been provided funds under this program and it is instead reliant on private donations to continue its operations.
The taxpayers in the Park Hospital District provide in excess of $4 million per year to support the UCHealth Estes Valley Medical Center which has been pledged to the new UCHealth hospital entity. Under the new arrangement between the Park Hospital District and UCHealth, the Park Hospital District no longer manages the hospital and principally collects and remits to the hospital the property taxes collected from our residents.
Its fundamental role is to ensure that the property tax revenues are spent wisely to maintain and improve the health of the community.
In light of Salud’s financial crisis, I would urge the Park Hospital District board to initiate a discussion with UCHealth to use part of these funds to support saving the Salud Estes Park clinic.
Such an approach would have several benefits to UCHealth. First, continuation of primary care for the needy at Salud Health will not only improve health outcomes for its patients, it will also reduce the amount of charity care required to be provided at the hospital – thereby improving the financial sustainability of our local hospital.
Second, it serves the hospital’s community function of improving health outcomes for everyone in our community – not just the insured able to pay for hospital services. Finally, it would represent a tremendous public relations benefit to UCHealth by showing a strong commitment to the health of our community.
This approach can likely not be done by the Park Hospital District board itself because of its pledge of these tax revenues, but the Park Hospital District board should and must have influence on how UCHealth deploys the taxes generated by property owners in the district.
Bill Brown, Estes Park
YES!!!!!