No gas?

It's obviously true, but it's also irrelevant.

TransCanada is a pipeline company, not a gas producer. It has 36,500 miles of pipelines across North America. Somehow, over the course of 50 years, TransCanada has managed to acquire all those natural gas lines without owning or producing gas.

The critics toss around the "no gas" argument as if to say TransCanada is a pretender, a wannabe, maybe even a scammer looking to grab $500 million of state money and run away.

In fact, the TransCanada model -- owning a pipeline but not owning the gas that flows through it -- is the standard in the Lower 48. Less than 5 percent of interstate natural gas pipeline capacity in the U.S. is on producer-controlled lines, according to the state's economic consultant Black & Veatch. Independent ownership is the rule, not the exception. The exception is for gas producers to build and own their own natural gas pipeline, as Conoco and BP propose to do.

Maybe what the critics mean to say is, "Exxon, BP and Conoco will never commit their gas to a TransCanada project, so there's no point in the state going any further with TransCanada."

There are several answers to that argument.

First, Exxon apparently has an open mind on the question. The company said in a May 12 letter to several legislators:

"Assuming a gas pipeline is constructed to serve North American markets, ExxonMobil would be willing to sell North Slope gas at the wellhead or to ship gas through the pipeline on commercially reasonable terms and conditions." (Neither BP nor Conoco has made a similar commitment. Odd that on this count, Alaskans' least favorite oil giant, Exxon, comes off looking better than the other two big North Slope companies.)

Second, the state is the royalty owner of most gas that would go into a pipeline to the Lower 48. As the landowner that leased the gas rights, and as a sovereign government, the state has some tools that can help keep North Slope companies from withholding gas from an economically viable pipeline.

The state can seek legal enforcement of the "duty to produce" that is inherent in any state leases that hold paying quantities of gas and/or oil. The state could also pursue possible restraint of trade charges or lawsuits against companies that withhold gas. Finally, the state could impose a reserves tax on gas that is not committed to a commercially reasonable gas line proposal.

With TransCanada, the state has a potential partner that is motivated to build a gas pipeline and operate it on terms that maximize the state's benefits from the project.

TransCanada is a pipeline construction company that knows how to recruit gas shipping customers, even though the company doesn't control any gas production. That is just the kind of partner the state needs to get North Slope gas flowing to the nation's hungry energy markets.

BOTTOM LINE: "No gas" is no reason to rule out TransCanada's gas line proposal.

Not enough

More people, even insured, get stuck with big medical bills

While the U.S. does nothing to repair the broken parts of its health care system, more and more people are finding they don't have enough insurance to cover big medical bills.

The number of under-insured adults soared by 60 percent, to 25 million people, between 2003 and 2007, according to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation for health issues.

These are people whose health insurance is limited, or who have to pay so much before it kicks in that the insurance is only useful for very costly problems.

People are considered under-insured if they have to pay 10 percent of their income to medical costs. Or, for those families earning about $40,000 or less, 5 percent.

Add the under-insured to the uninsured, and you're talking an estimated 42 percent of adults across the country who have to foot a large share of their medical expenses.

How do they cope?

More than half of the under-insured don't fill prescriptions, skip recommended medical tests or don't go in for follow-up visits, say The Commonwealth Fund researchers.

This is a sad state of affairs. It's one more sign that the U.S. needs to do major surgery on its health insurance system.

In Alaska, Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, has proposed a way to extend affordable health insurance to all Alaskans. People who don't have any coverage now would get vouchers good for acquiring health insurance. Employers who don't offer insurance would contribute funds to help pay for the vouchers.

If everyone is covered, Sen. French believes insurance premiums will drop.

His bill got some hearings in the last legislative session, but no vote. He'll have to introduce it again in the new Legislature -- where maybe it will be treated more seriously.

BOTTOM LINE: In Alaska, Sen. French has proposed a good way to expand affordable health coverage.