As a childhood star, Shirley Temple was the perfect antidote to the Depression. Her bouncy curls and ready smile made people forget, if only for a minute, their desperate situations of the 1930s.
Even so, Miss Temple grew up to be a serious-minded Mrs. Black, who ran for political office and eventually became ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia. Yes, they were likely perks of being a personal friend and campaign contributor to then president Richard Nixon, but Black earned the respect of those countries and was well-regarded for her statesmanship.
Today, President Barack Obama is under attack for recent ambassadorial appointments. Though prodigious at raising funds for the president, some of the candidates fall short in their qualifications to represent the United States abroad.
In recent Senate confirmation hearings, several candidates had not an inkling of the politics of their prospective countries, according to a report by the Newshour’s Gwen Ifill.
Though viewed as a plum job, being an ambassador can be very demanding. An in-depth knowledge of a country’s history is a must, as well its language, culture, economics and politics.
Employees of the Foreign Service who have dedicated their lives to serve the U.S. government around the world fill most posts. Some take “hardship” posts to countries experiencing civil war or those with which we have been at war, such as Ukraine, Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan.
Political appointees generally are given “safe” countries, places you’d like to be a tourist, where the demands are not great.
But exceptions exist.
The U.S. ambassador to China, for example, is former governor to Washington, Gary Locke, whose grandfather immigrated to the United States from China in the 1890s. Locke, 64, did not learn to speak English until he entered first grade. Locke also served as secretary of Commerce under Obama before he accepted the post to China, at which he has excelled.
Same goes for Charles Rivkin, U.S. ambassador to Paris. Yes, it’s a posh post, but not without its challenges, especially concerning immigration. Rivkin’s resume goes far beyond his media mogul status. At Yale, he studied international relations; at Harvard, business, and he is fluent in French. All three attributes make him a good fit.
And Caroline Kennedy’s appointment to Japan has been much heralded as a win/win. The Japanese feel honored to have such a well-known and connected person as their ambassador. As for her qualifications, Kennedy is a scholar with a sharp legal mind who grew up with a world view.

SINCE the beginning, presidents have awarded ambassadorships to friends and contributors. Yet it’s only been in recent history their numbers have grown significantly. During the last three administrations these political appointments have increased from 25 percent to 37 percent of the approximate 180 embassies around the world.
Perhaps it’s time to review the trend of treating an ambassadorship as a perk, and give the post the respect it deserves by appointing those who have earned their stripes.
  — Susan Lynn

Since Jan. 1, insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions, including diabetes, cancer and heart disease.
The one exception is tobacco use.
Insurance companies are permitted to impose a surcharge on consumers who smoke. This “penalty” under the law can be as high as 50 percent of the premium.
It is one of the ironies of the Affordable Care Act that insurers can charge more if you smoke but not if you have lung cancer. Of course there are good (and competing) policy reasons for this odd outcome. The ACA seeks to provide universal coverage to all. People with cancer have no immediate control or choice over their condition. If you or someone in your family has lung cancer you understand this policy on a gut level. If you smoke or chew you do have immediate control and choice over your habit and the higher price is intended to encourage you to quit. Competing policies have to strike a balance between making insurance accessible to all, encouraging healthy behavior and fairly distributing the health cost of tobacco use.
This balance is difficult and far from perfect in practice. We know that financial incentives can result in less tobacco use. Recently, Georgia’s public employees faced an $80 a month surcharge on their health insurance if they smoked. This resulted in a three-fold increase in quitting tobacco. But these employees already had insurance. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) lists increasing insurance coverage as one of the most effective means of reducing tobacco use. Nicotine replacement products such as bupropion and Chantix, are effective. They are also more likely to be used by the insured. Applying the financial incentive prior to obtaining insurance coverage is as likely to amount to a barrier to coverage as it is a reason to quit. It is a further irony that Marketplace policies have very good coverage for preventive care. Once covered, a smoker can get an office visit for prevention free of charge and the prescription also will be covered. But they need the coverage first. It is another case of “ready-fire-aim.”
So what will tobacco use cost a person getting coverage in the insurance Marketplace? In Allen County, a 40-year-old can get a “Silver” (70/30) policy on the Marketplace for between $221 and $261 a month before government subsidies are figured in. The surcharge for smokers could be $110 to $130 a month. In actual practice, insurance companies serving Allen County, Blue Cross of Kansas and Coventry, seem to charge significantly less. As long as they stay under the limit there is little transparency in how the surcharge is applied. Working as a volunteer Navigator, it is my experience that this surcharge is usually in the 15-20 percent range and may vary policy to policy or possibly with the consumer’s age. The surcharge is especially bad news for low-income consumers because there is no subsidy on the tobacco surcharge. A low-income consumer in the Marketplace might wind up paying more for the tobacco surcharge than for the unsubsidized portion of the premium.
For help with the ACA visit the Thrive Allen County office from 9 to 5, as well as Wednesdays from 5 to 8 p.m. Call 365-8128 for more information.
— John Robertson

Too bad Common Core wasn’t around when Willie Dove, a Republican representative from Bonner Springs, was a schoolboy. It might have improved his reading and comprehension skills.
Dove wants to nullify Common Core reading and math standards in Kansas, though he admits to not having read what Common Core is about and means to accomplish.
The Associated Press reported he’s against the concept because he doesn’t want the federal government involved in education. Actually, Common Core was a product of the states themselves.
That Dove serves on the House Education Committee should give leadership pause. His logic defies what should be the approach of a committee member helping to decide the course of education in Kansas.
The good news is that leaders in both chambers say Dove’s legislation isn’t likely to go anywhere.
As Jack Morrell, with experience at Iola Middle School, so eloquently explained in a letter to the Register a year ago, Common Core is a meaningful advance in education. It sets up standards that all high school graduates in the nation will be expected to attain. Morrell also testified in favor of Common Core before the House Education Committee during the 2013 session.
Common Core means to ensure that students are well-educated and prepared either to continue at a post-secondary school or enter the work force.
What’s the matter with that?
— Bob Johnson

Kansas is friendly to smokers and those who use tobacco products.
The state’s tax on cigarettes, which has remained static since 2003, is 79 cents per pack, against the national average of $1.46 per pack.
A bill in the Kansas House proposes the tax be tripled to $2.29 per pack as well as a tax increase on other tobacco products from 10 percent to 78 percent.
Such a tax increase could be expected to raise more than $100 million — if tobacco trends continue. A likely effect of such a tax hike, however, is a reduction in the number of tobacco users. So the hike isn’t a sound budget plan.
As a cost to society, however, smokers take a heavy toll — so any decrease in smokers would add to our bottom line.
For a business, smokers are absent more because of smoking-related conditions such as emphysema, bronchitis and problems breathing. Smoking is a leading cause of cancer, heart and lung disease and strokes.
In the United States, cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year, and another 42,000 deaths per year resulting from exposure to secondhand smoke.
On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.
Between lost days at work and medical expenses related to smoking, the United States spends more than $289 billion a year.
Almost 70 percent of smokers are disgusted with their habit and want to quit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Increasing the cost of cigarettes will hit the pocketbook hard.
A pack-a-day habit averages $2,160 a year. For a heavy smoker, make it $6,000 a year.
At the poverty level, a pack-a-day habit can consume 10 percent of a family’s monthly budget.
Kansas ranks 36th in pricing for a pack, averaging $5.13 for 20 cigarettes. New York charges the most, $10.11 a pack, while Missouri ranks last, at $4.51 a pack.
Experts with The Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition say the tax would put cigarettes out of reach for an estimated 33,500 Kansas youths tempted to take up the habit and another 27,800 adults would quit because of the higher cost.
House Bill 2672 would put the price of cigarettes sold in Kansas in the upper third of the nation. Sounds like a leadership position.
— Susan Lynn