Page 4 - Mid Valley Times 6-24-21 E-edition

Serving the Readers of the Reedley Exponent, Dimuba Sentinel and Sanger Herald.
A Mid Valley Publishing Newspaper
Founded March 26, 1891, in a two-story building on the corner of 11th and F streets, by A.S. Jones
Fred Hall — Publisher
In my OPINION State's High Speed Rail a
project with no purpose
Dinuba High softball title run is memorable for its ups and downs
Jon Earnest — Reedley Editor Dick Sheppard — Editor Emeritus
Thursday, June 24, 2021 | A4 | Mid Valley TiMes Editorial & Opinions
Thirteen years of delays created by mismanagement, political gridlock and outright corruption have seen the original budget for California's High Speed Rail Authority almost triple that of original estimates! Originally projected at a whopping $35 billion, that total has now reached an astro- nomical figure of $100 billion and rap- idly climbing.
Dinuba High School's post- season run in softball in 2021 was a classic contrast of emo- tions that nearly all athletic teams and individuals go through in the course of a sea- son. In the Lady Emps' case, the highs outweighed the lows as three memorable games car- ried them to the Central Sec- tion Division II softball cham- pionship.
Dinuba appeared ready to wrap up a Central Sequoia League championship earlier this month, defeating Kings- burg on the field in a game where the Vikings had a po- tential winning home run was voided by a DHS appeal that a baserunner failed to touch home plate. Although the Em- perors won the appear, a subse- quent Go Pro video overturned the call and gave Kingsburg victory (and the league title) by forfeit.
Dinuba coach Bryan Pat- terson called the turn of events "the hardest thing I've been through in the nine years I've been here (at DHS)." But he noted that the team pulled
it together and had each oth- er's backs. "The dynamics of our team were really good. I couldn't ask for any more from these girls," he said.
Dinuba survived an extra- inning quarterfinals challenge from Sanger High to win, 1-0, then used the longball from first baseman Hailee Zapien and pitcher Erica Flores to down Tulare Western in the semifinals. The run was then capped by a crisp 2-0 shutout of CSL rival Selma on a hot Fri- day night on June 18. Two grad- uated seniors, shortstop Faith Hernandez and Flores, came up bit as Hernandez belted a two-run homer and Flores scat- tered eight hits and rode strong defensive support to post the shutout.
"I bonded with this team more than I ever have before," said Hernandez, who was part of DHS teams that reached the finals in both 2018 and 2019 be- fore last season was lost to CO- VID-19. "We work really well together and it all clicked, and it showed in the finals." Flores echoed the sentiment, saying
the team put
in the prepara-
tion once the
all-clear was
given to play.
"We'd come to
practice and
we'd work hard. Wehadalotof
bonding together, and we took advantage of what we got as much as we could."
Like most roller coaster seasons, there were the painful downs to go with the emotional highs. Dinuba's postseason run ended when visiting Oxnard High turned a 3-2 deficit enter- ing the final inning into a 4-3 lead and ultimate upset win to end the Lady Emps' 17-7 sea- son.
The finish doesn't diminish a team's gritty performance that resulted in a champion- ship season that five months ago was uncertain of even be- ing played. For that, this team deserves all the praise and tribute from their fan base.
Jon Earnest is news-sports editor for The Times.
Fred Hall
QUOTE
“I get up every morning deter- mined to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning my day difficult.”
— E. B. White (1899-1985)
Jon Earnest
Former Gov. Jerry Brown was the
father of this bit of sleight-of-hand identified as Propo- sition A. Although this was credited to “a dream Brown had of connecting the coast with the Central Valley” we believe it was more to establish a legacy reflecting the achievements oft his father, Edmund Brown. A project with no purpose, one might say.
In order to pass this mess, voters had to be con- vinced that it was an environmentally friendly project that would take traffic off the highways. That was a pipe dream which — if one stops to consider Califor- nians love their cars and the freedom they provide — never did “pencil out” financially. To this point, High Speed Rail has delivered on none of the promises made to California taxpayers. It follows along the litter- strewn path created by so many of our state's “green” initiatives.
During his State of the State address in 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that he would be canceling the project. That had to be the best decision this man has made during his entire tenure. With the announcement that the project was ending, President Donald Trump moved to recover $1 billion of unspent grant money from California. For one of the few times in history, someone moved with respect for the taxpayer's money. Trump was successful!
Now, it seems that we've elected a president who is hell-bent on reversing everything accomplished by the previous administration. I won't recount the mess that is being generated throughout our economy be- cause it isn't germane to today's subject. Biden has now moved to return the $1 billion to California bureaucrats to waste as they see fit. An additional $1 billion is a lot of money to commit to a project that is already a proven loser! The HSR line Is just one more plank on the road to recall for Gavin Newsom. That is only one of a litany of mismanagement moves by this governor and his staff.
The California State Auditor's office reports that the only documented source of information regarding the timeliness and status of construction came from the contractors themselves. Obviously, the CHSRA has treated everything like the typical pork barrel project. They employed 4,000 construction workers at 32 sites and could produce little or no paperwork to explain what the hell was going on. That's an awful lot of tax- payer money which has been spent with little or no supervision or control.
The Rail Authority was so lax in monitoring quality and quantity of the work for which contractors were paid it appears corrupt. The state's auditor complained that many failed to deliver the products which they promised. The “bean counters” said that that “gifting” of taxpayer was so rampant as to make the CHSRA either ignorant or complacent.
Thanks, in part, to unexpected amounts of taxes col- lected during COVID and coupled with overly generous payments to blue Democratic states from the federal government, California is flush with money. The same can be said for public education. We fear that one, or both, will managed to squander that money on dubious projects. That's over and above the raises public offi- cials will give themselves.
The complete lack of common sense and any kind of control has reached levels where it is completely unac- ceptable. Californians would be well served to declare, “I'm mad as hell and I won't take it any longer.”
But, as always, that's only one man's opinion.
Public option will destroy private insurance
By Janet Trautwein
Guest columnist
Congress is trying to chart a path forward on health reform. Several congressional Demo- crats just announced plans to draft a bill that would create a public health insurance option.
That's bad news, given that a public option could destroy the private insurance market — and deprive the majority of Americans of the employer- sponsored coverage they like.
According to polling data, two-thirds of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage are satisfied with their current plan.
Public option proponents don't want to upset the more than 180 million people with employer-sponsored coverage. So they frame their offering as another choice. Those who like their workplace plans can hold onto them. Those who don't, or don't have access to insur- ance coverage through work, can seek out the public option through the Affordable Care Act's exchanges.
The public plan is also in- tended to check private insur- ers' premiums. A government- run plan would have two ad- vantages over private plans.
First, a public option could offload its administrative costs onto federal taxpayers. Private
insurers don't have that luxury. So the public option would have a structural cost advantage.
Second, it could dictate what it would pay healthcare provid- ers. Most champions of a pub- lic option envision that it would pay rates similar to Medicare's. Those rates are low. The Amer- ican Hospital Association says that hospitals receive just 87 cents from Medicare for every dollar in cost they incur caring for its beneficiaries. In 2019, those underpayments amount- ed to nearly $76 billion.
Private insurers can't name their price. In fact, it's health- care providers who have insur- ers over a barrel. Private plans pay hospitals nearly two and a half times what Medicare does for the same service.
Because of its artificially low cost structure, the pub- lic option could permanently underprice private insurers. Over time, consumers would switch from private plans to the cheaper public plan. Pri- vate insurers would eventually leave the market.
Instead of enhancing com- petition in the individual insur- ance market, the public option would destroy it.
A cheap public plan would also prompt some employers to drop the plans they sponsor for their employees. Doing so could save them money. They could
use some of the savings to raise employees' cash wages, but there's no guarantee they will.
An analysis of one public option plan introduced in the House in 2019 found that nearly one in four workers would lose their health coverage through work by 2023. By 2032, that fig- ure would rise to one in three.
Some defenders of the pub- lic option claim it will give private plans, especially those sponsored by large employers, more leverage in their negotia- tions with doctors and hospitals.
But only the largest employ- ers have the kind of negotiat- ing heft to haggle with doctors and hospitals over reimburse- ment rates.
Further, look at our existing public options — Medicare and Medicaid. Healthcare provid- ers haven't proved willing to take government-style reim- bursement rates from private plans. They've done the oppo- site.
The public option is back on Congress's agenda. Seven in 10 voters support it. These folks may change their mind when they realize that a public option could spell the end of private insurance.
Janet Trautwein is CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters (www.nahu.org). This article originally appeared on InsideSources.com.