RSS06/28/09 Letters to the Editor
Yakima Herald-Republic
E-mail
Print
Comments
A good first step
To the editor -- I applaud the efforts of Councilwoman Sonia Rodriguez in proposing a binding code of ethics for the City Council that would prevent council members from profiting from their positions and disclosing information from closed council sessions.
As a fairly recent member of the community, I was appalled that council members Rick Ensey, Kathy Coffey, Micah Cawley and Bill Lover would put themselves in a position so as to be accused of privately trying to change the city's budget policy, which resulted in the city paying out $2,500 of our money to settle a lawsuit.
I encourage the council to adopt measures that would ensure ethical behavior within the City Council.
KEITH B. SMITH
Yakima
Quit misleading
To the editor -- In his June 23 news conference President Obama said it was not logical that if the government provides health insurance the public insurance companies would be put out of business. Mr. Obama continues to mislead. If the government provides health insurance cheaper than public firms and if they tax public insurance coverage as a means to raise money to pay for the government plan, then of course the public firms cannot compete.
In a recent letter to the editor here, a writer praised government operation of education and transportation as examples of how well a new government-run insurance program would operate. One needs to look no further than the tragic train accident (June 22), in which it was revealed that repairs mandated by safety engineers were not made. Further, Amtrak, the train company in the east has been subsidized by the government for decades.
Another recent letter encouraged socialism, pointing to "socialized" services such as government provided Social Security and Medicare, failing to note that workers pay into both programs during their working careers (and could probably obtain better retirement plans and medical insurance if those funds were invested privately during the working years rather than taken by the government).
DICK MAISON
Yakima
Encourage English
To the editor -- Re: The June 21 article, "Five Star Project." I think the Ready By Five program is a great deal for the children of Yakima. I also believe that Maria Vazquez be commended for taking part in the learning process for her son, but wouldn't he be better encouraged in English since he will be going to an English-speaking school? Even if done in both English and Spanish he would learn the words in both languages.
ERLENE COOPER
Yakima
What is wrong with Spanish? Where is the evil? Just because you speak English does not mean everybody has to speak English! Nobody insisted I speak Spanish in Puerto Rico--nobody insisted I speak Spanish in Mexico. English is my native language, but I don't give a hoot if someone speaks some other tongue. What a waste of good mental energy to keep pounding away on Spanish.
Citizen 33
citizen33 - there is nothing wrong with Spanish - but having to provide bilingual education and other government services is more expensive and take resources away from other more important mandates - like building healthy communities and families. If I moved to another country I would not expect to have everything bilingual (it's really basic cultural anthropology - eculturation - not to be confused with assimilation). I would expect to learn the native language. It's not a racist thing, it's about limited resources and unneccesary costs. Is there an issue with learning English as a second language? Really?
Report ViolationKeith - welcome to Yakima. I totally agree with you. As if there isn't enough to get done without worrying about whether or not our council members "get" basic ethics and how much their deficit will cost us in lawsuits. Those who oppose Councilwoman Rodriguez's proposition must have another agenda - who would be against ethics reform in government? I wouldn't mind hearing from someone who opposes this and why.
Report ViolationMr. Maison,
This exchange on ABC says it all. The only thing worse than the concept of socialism itself is the politics that will be involved.
""Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."
O.B.A.M.A. I.S. A. F.R.A.U.D.
Duh Frank, of course rich people (Obama among them) can afford better health care than the rest of us. The question is, can our system afford people without health care? The simple answer is yes - if we don't mind those folks getting sick and dying off on us.
If we do provide them with a minimum of health care, then SOMEBODY is already paying for it, with or without national health care.
Eith the hospitals/doctors take a hit, and jack up every body elses cost to cover the loss, or the government steps in (more likely) and covers the tab. That is in the worst case scenario however, and a better outcome would be to provide a minimum of health/dental to everyone, so folks without insurance don't have to wind up in the hospital before they see a doctor.
francesgumm,
A recent Harvard study showed that fifty percent of bankruptcies in this country were due to medical bills. (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html) Strangely enough, most of the people who were bankrupted had health insurance.
In 2007, nearly one fifth of the population under the age of 65 was without health care coverage. (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml) This is about 45 million people.
In addition, there are certain services or products that do not lend themselves well to a market driven model. President Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit Plan is already beginning to drain the pocketbooks of millions of elderly while returning less and less in the form of services.
Any for-profit business is predicated upon being able to make a certain amount of profit for the owners/stockholders on a regular basis. As medical costs have risen, companies providing Prescription Benefits have had to either raise rates or lower services to make their expected profitability. This has led to my mother paying over five hundred dollars for this 'Benefit' while having the plan save her a grand total of twenty four dollars on drugs that she most often has to pay full price for due to the companies Gordian and arcane schedule of periods of benefit and non-benefit, deductibles and qualifications. This is for drugs that she formerly paid a lower cost on through her previous coverage.
The current for-profit medical care system is a failure. Since you obviously know what is wrong with the President's proposal, you must surely have some ideas of the right way to bring down health care costs, provide health care coverage for 45 million people and keep the insurance companies and hospitals solvent.
The President has never said that his plan is the only one and he has actively sought input from other points of view. However, he does have and is proposing an idea. If you have something to add to it in order to get us closer to a medical care system that works, then let's hear it, because, frankly, over 45 million of us are out here waiting for some good ideas.
Erlene: I believe EVERY CHILD should learn a second, or even more languages. It is not only fun to know, but to be able to converse with a friend or business associate if you travel to the another country, it is a smart and polite thing to do. However, I agree that English should be our "Official" language. We need to eliminate the huge cost burdens of dual, or even more languages, being forced into our public functions such as ballots, redundant education classes, government documents of every kind, and in our legal system.
Kieth: There is, and has been all along, a "code" of conduct for public servants to follow. They just need to be aware of its terms and to follow the rules.
We certainly don't need more confusing legal blather in our already over-loaded bureaucracy.
Nick - we agree on something. It's going to be a good day. :) One thing though - you say, ..."We certainly don't need more confusing legal blather in our already over-loaded bureaucracy."
Due to recent events, I think we do need a legally binding ethics code in the City Charter. My understanding is that the current Charter does not have this. Am I wrong? If not, how could you not support it's inclusion - what harm? If people break ethics code should they be held accountable on some level? Like - well your little breech in ethical behavior cost us this much in time and resources - thus, you will increase your time investment in Council and City business (perhaps getting an otherwise stagnant and unproductive Committee moving) to make up for that loss and no that does not include increased compensation. So, their choices become - 1) do the time; or, 2) resign. Either way you may have an improved public servant in place. I'm sure this has sorts of legal implications that would inhibit it's intended goal - improved public servants. And I'm not saying that the current Council is made up of BAD people - some just need a bit more nudging toward appropriate conduct of City business. That possibility applies to future members as well.
Jlang,
Boy, that's the easiest question that I have ever been asked in my whole entire life.
Instead of a committee of 635 politicians combined in Congress to fix this, organize a committee of 635 doctors.
Please start with these five:
Prohibit patients and their internet awash families from demanding tests and consults that are unnecessary.
Allow doctors to refuse futile care without a threat of a law suit (25% of all health care dollars are spent in our last year of life).
If a patient is in the hospital for 30 days, mandate a committee to review the case to see if it is futile care (A Minnesota court ordered a hospital to provide care for a patient as long as it was needed although the hospital fought the family. The patient lived over a year).
Limit legal fees by following the Canadian model. The lawyers are paid a fee per hour and not a percent. Then cap the fees
Prohibit frivolous law suits by patients.
May I also remind you that this newspaper wrote and editorial in favor of the FOR PROFIT hosptial, now known as Regional, went it first came to town?
If you are against profit in medicine, start with for profit hospials.
there are more:
Fine people for not having their tests done within the alotted time. Example: if a lady fails to do her mammogram within 18 months from the last one, she is fined $25,000.00 and losses all coverage for that problem for the rest of her life. She regains coverage if three mammograms are done in a timely manner.
If two doctors suggest a treatment and the patient refuses, then the patient loses all coverage for that problem. Example: two cardiologists say a cardiac cath is needed. The patient refuses and has a heart attack. the patient pays the bill and not the other insurance enrollees or the government.
I'll stop now.
Politicians will not make the tough decisions which will actually cut costs.
jlang:
Your right on the money about healthcare being the leading cause of bankrupracy. Even though I had insurance, it was all we could do to prevent bankrupracy after I became disabled and couldn't work. Loss of income plus doctor bills equals personal economic disaster.
Nick:
You too are right about learning a second or third language. I have studied Spanish and Russian, but I would NEVER expect to move to a country that spoke a language other than English to cater to me. If I choose to live there, then it is my responsibility to learn the language. It's my choice. It's my responsibility.
It reminds me of a quote I heard, although I don't know by who..."Teach me in Spanish and I will become a fine waiter. Teach me in English and I will become a fine doctor."
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/index.jsp take a ride to understand where it is all going.
Report Violationfrancesgumm this one is for you... http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=59&cat=2&rgn=1
Report ViolationThe best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.
- Samuel Butler
army193
I am well aware of the ultra-extremeist liberal Kaiser Foundation.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here. What am I looking at that you want me to see? how many males vs females die yearly in the USA? so what?
Please elaborate on your point.
francesgumm,
I did not say that I was against for profit medicine. I said that there are certain situaions in which the for profit model does not work. Currently, it is certainly not working in medicine. If a proposal can be made that will allow a for profit schema to exist while providing the same level of care to those it is targeted at without exposing them to becoming the 'subsidizer' of health care organizations at the cost of service and care, I'm all for it. Having said that, though, I do believe that the two are fundamentally unsound business partners.
I freely admit to a depressing paucity of expertise in the medical field. However, I do not own, nor am I responsible for opinions expressed within the pages of the Yakima Herald-Republic, other than my own.
These are ideas I had not heard regarding cutting medical costs, and very interesting ideas at that, if a little rough around the edges.
I like the idea of the Canadian model of physician pay. It doesn't mean that doctors should be impoverished, but it also means that medical care should be brought into the realm where all people can afford it, and doctor pay is a necessary part of that puzzle.
I'm not sure how you will be able to limit tests to those that are prescribed. If a patient wishes to have a test done, it is hard to say "No", ASSUMING that they are willing to pay for such a test. This point needs some more clarification.
The idea of allowing doctors to refuse futile health care has promise, I think, but as with other ideas, it would need to have some questions answered, such as if the family has the money to spend, does the doctor have the right to refuse them then?
A very cogent set of suggestions and a good starting point. You should write these down and send them to your senator to see what they have to say. As I said, I believe that President Obama was more than willing to listen to any idea that would help our medical care situation. I believe he would listen to these.
my ideas about Canada's model has to do with lawyer's income and not doctors' income
My comment about limiting tests and/or treatment has to do only with what the insurance, public or private, is asked to pay.
If people want unlimited care, they should not ask the insurance to pay. "the insurance" is "you and I" and not "they". People demanding excessive health care drives up insurance payments for all of us.
By stopping care, I guess what I am saying is that the family would have a choice. the treatment, if futile, would either stop or they would assume the cost.
I can tell you that the richest people are often the ones that want the fullest plate at the hopital.
Hospitals can be very generous. There was a case at Memorial about 3 years ago when a patient became ill and was in the ICU for 4 weeks before she was declared brain dead.
The hospital keep her "alive" for about two more weeks until the family came to grips with the tragic loss of a 30 year old. You have to respect the hospital for that. People in this town have a soul.
Those are the stories that don't make the paper.
francesgumm
"I am well aware of the ultra-extremeist liberal Kaiser Foundation."
I would say, you only agree with the ultra-extremist right wings nuts. The stats on male vs women I find to be interesting thought you would be too, but must of been to much for you with that ultra-extremist liberal Kaiser Foundation.
francesgumm I would be more than happy to read the ultra-extremist right wing foundation that you relied on that provides stats such as Kaiser Foundation does.
Report Violationdon't worry army193, I was just being a wiseguy.
The Kaiser foundation does provide good statistics. They are affiliated with the washington post.
francesgumm thought may be the case...LOL
Report Violation"...elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public..."
Doesn't that pretty well discribe the situation we're in now?
YakRob:
I Definitely support ethics in government - as it is, we witness few. That said, my point was that we already have a code of ethics and procedures to follow that take all this into consideration. All that needs to happen is for the new members of city government that are unaware of these rules and procedures, need to educate themselves to them.
What good are more laws if they just molder away where no one reads them?
Ethics ??? I was arguing on line with US Bank about ethics. Did the banks have ethics when all this bailout came down. Do their CEO's have ethics? What ethics are to one person is a slam to another. Surely a democrat cannot have ethics. And I know the last republican president and his cabinet did not have ethics. Is it good ethics to give out all this welfare to needy people. Or is it good ethics to have them work for what they need. Ethics is a word that needs used very delicately. If you go into a political position with ethics. It is very unusual to come out with any! Is it good ethics to let all these illegals into our country and give them citizenship for breaking the law? Tell me, can anyone actually say what good ethics are. Good ethics are when you Believe what I believe ??????????????????
Report ViolationNick - they ARE useless if they just "molder" away unseen. Thus, let's get them in the Charter and include reference to them in the oath of office. Let's have our elected officials swear an oath that they understand and will follow the ethics regulations as stated in the City Charter - that way the burden would be on them to understand what they are swearing an oath to uphold. Just my $.15.
Datreuf - we are talking about a specific set of ethics regulations associated with our local City government and how City Council business is conducted - not trying to formulate some global ethics policy or one shoe fits all thing. You are correct in your statement that ethics are subjective, but surely you would agree there are a basic code of ethics that most people would agree with. Love thy neighbor might be one. Whether people adhere to that statement on ethics is another story. I do take exception to your statement that democrats can't possibly be ethical, but it clearly defines your ability to work with others that you may not agree with. And, where has that attitude gotten our community and world. As I will continue to say - extemeists on either side of the spectrum are not the ones that make change happen - they may make lots of noise, but the solution is ALWAYS somewhere in the middle - and yes, I'm comfortable with the word ALWAYS.
Report ViolationRegarding healthcare - as someone who worked in academic and clinical medicine for 10 years, I can tell you that administrative costs in our healthcare insitutions are totally out of proportion with other academic departments -medicine is the most top heavy, multi-layered, over compensated, and ineffective group I have worked with. In fairness, the amount of redundent and unneccesary regulatory reporting adds a great deal of challenge to effective administration. Clinic practices in larger institutions are based on quantity not quality, thus, inhibiting the care providers from spending adequate time with their patients on preventative medicine. This is an administrative issue, not a care provider issue. The physicians I worked with - every one of them - were frustrated with the system and believed that their patients suffered as a result. I had some involvement in billing and can tell you that it is customary practice for insurance companies to reject bills even when there is no deficiency in the required information. Whatever the reason for this practice, the result was additional review time on the administration level that is not necessary. I hated that. There are so many problems in this system - I agree with the person who said that medical practioners should be the ones working on the solutions, not politicians and not administrators. I can tell you that not for profit healthcare entities are being administered in very much the same way as a for profit entity. You would be hard pressed to find a difference in the management models.
Report ViolationOne more thing - the pharmaceutical industry - YIKES. As much as I enjoyed my interactions with many of the drug reps I dealt with - those companies are some of the wealthiest and influencial in the world and working every day to exert that wealth and influence on the healthcare industry. To defend their product's cost they give you the song and dance about the high cost of drug development, but the truth is, it is nowhere near the inflated costs they charge for the resulting product. That said, they also were some of the largest grantors of funds for research that my department was involved with - and without that investment some important research would not take place - federal research dollars are limited and competition is great. For as many great proposals that are funded there are many just as great that are not.
Report ViolationFact-Checking Karl Rove’s Attacks Against The Public Option ... http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/11/rove-public-plan/
Report ViolationGood on you, YakRob. I've been an RN for 28 years. Where's the anti-argument!
You're right! We need to take the profit out of medical care. Vague accusations of the idea in terms like "Rationing!", "can't choose your own doctor",...any other system that has failings that are the basis of these knee-jerk parochial responses can be examined...and designed out, so to speak. But they on the Right strive consistently to avoid sitting down and talking like adults they want us to believe they are. My biggest assumption, of course, is that the money-grubbing (call it what it is) HMO and pharmaceutical lobbyists have alot to do with filling these 'followers' minds with this tripe. Money can buy alot of beliefs, and votes, and Presidents...I am referring to Bush/Cheney and Co. I believe a friend of mine died because of this for-profit system. He had insurance, but they didn't live up to their end of the deal..I'm guessing per their policy. An insurance rep on the special broadcast after Peter Jennings died said that his company had a policy to deny claims, an actual red rubber stamp that said "DENIED" which they used without reading claims. When people complained their policy was to respond with, "oh, we overlooked this, and we apologize. We'll now look into it". He continued explaining to Peter that his company did things this way because statistics showed that only under like 15% or less claimants would ever complain. Financially, statistically, this was a profitable business design for them. As Michael Moore's movie SICKO showed this goes on in Medical Insurance; note the woman doctor who testifies before Congress. Also note you never get answers from the GOP side, just distracting statements. Obama needs to walk over them, as they would/ and did when they held the majority. It's s dying party.
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?
