HEALTH-CARE ANSWER: SINGLE-PAYER
Tim Macaluso’s probing questions
and Rene Reixach’s cogent responses on health
insurance (Say What, November 2) seem to lead down a path that has only one
solution: we must disengage business from the financial responsibility of
health care.
Whether they are public or private, profit or
not-for-profit, we as a capitalistic society demand that businesses remain
fiscally healthy. That is the basis of the economic security of our families,
our communities, our country. To burden business with
the crushing and rapidly increasing costs of health care is ultimately going to
hurt us all in every arena, from local to international.
There is an answer, and that answer is universal health
care. No, not “socialized medicine,” but health care for all —
including the 40 million currently uninsured Americans — paid for by a single
payer but delivered largely in private offices, similar to the health-care
delivery supplied by Medicare.
From my point of view as a physician, our current medical
system is full of contradictions and inefficiencies, and our current federal
administration’s attempts at pharmaceutical-coverage options only further
confuses patients caught in a system that is inefficient and intimidating.
As one of the richest nations in the world, it is a travesty
that we view medical care as a privilege and not a universal right. We are the
only developed country that does not supply its citizens with health-insurance
coverage. And lest we think that our health care is so much better than other
developed countries: statistics show that even though America
spends considerably more per capita on health care, as a population our
outcomes are worse. High technology does not guarantee a healthy population.
Have MRI’s stemmed the devastating tide of obesity
and diabetes that this country is facing?
We need to let businesses like Kodak and ViaHealth
tend to business, and we as citizens need to realize that the
“government” is us. We are the ones who must demand a national health
insurance. When put to the task, today’s federal government can create
efficient and workable systems: witness the dramatic improvements in the postal
service and VA hospital systems over the last couple of decades.
Only when Americans decide that we are a community and
establish a single-payer national health insurance can we come to accountable,
efficient, and ethical medical care for all.
Cynthia Reddeck, Moraine Point, Victor (Reddeck
is a cardiologist in private practice.)
THE LIBS’ DILEMMA
You kinda picked a bum week to go after
Libby/Rove, what with your boy Tom Tomorrow bad-mouthing Judith Miller and the New York Times (“Scooter’s Not the
Problem,” Urban Journal, and “The Modern World,” November 2). So which is it?
Was the White House lying, or did the Times and Colin Powell pave the way for the gullible public to follow W into war?
What’s a lib to think?
Was it bad form for Maureen Dowd to call Ms Miller a slut?
What a catfight that was, right there on the op-ed pages of the paper of
record. Man, it’s tough to be liberal these days. Let’s just kick out all the
reporters and get to the bottom of this before we say another word to the
press. Oh, wait; that’s just what Harry Reid did! He won’t have Tim Russert testifying against him, will he?
So I guess liberals can’t trust the liberal media anymore; gotta go straight to Michael Moore and Tom Tomorrow. (Well,
their websites are linked, after all.)
Joe St. Martin,
Penfield
MALES, BASHED?
In her review of “2046” (October
12), DaynaPapaleo comments
on the several beautiful women in the film. That’s fine, but her
throwaway line, “But no man could really be worthy of these stunners”
got under my skin. I suppose it seemed harmless to her, meant to go scarcely
noticed and certainly not questioned.
Although I have no evidence that Ms. Papaleo
is a hardcore male-basher, that is the nature of the
sport: to seem natural and benign, nurtured by a kind of “Duh, we all know
women are superior to men” mentality. Male-bashing, the debasing and
insulting of men, thrives in the media, content with the knowledge that most
people, including men, will probably not take the time to oppose it. If the
shoe were on the other foot, of course, women would be up in arms, organizing
rallies and protests and shrieking their indignation.
Luckily, men are not without support in this matter. There
are a number of men’s organizations that address offenses against men, and at
least one women’s group: WOMB: Women Opposed to Male Bashing. Good going,
ladies.
Harold Jewell, Alexander Street, Rochester
FERRY FUTURES
Regarding the fast ferry: rather than bankrupting Rochester
into oblivion and further straining our relationship with Canada
(which had to be arm-wrestled into accepting it), why not just sell the
albatross to someone who could use it?
Joan M. Fox, Winchester Street, Rochester
WRITING TO CITY
We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester14607.
Our guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and
we ask that you include your street name and city/town/village. We don’t
publish letters that have been sent to other media — and we don’t publish form letters generated by activist groups. While
we don’t restrict length, letters of under 350 words
have a greater chance of being published. We do edit letters for clarity and
brevity. And in general we don’t publish letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces)
from the same writer more often than about once every two months.
This article appears in Nov 16-22, 2005.
