Letters To The Editor

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Insurers’ ad disservice to patients

As a physician, I take exception with the Aug. 8 advertisement purchased by a coalition of national health care insurers. Is this an example of patients’ premium dollars at work?

The advertisement takes issue with a concept called “any willing provider.” The idea is simple enough: even with health care reform, patients will continue to have the right to choose their personal health care provider.

Insurers say that to guarantee continuation of the patient/physician relationship means “ … higher costs, compromised quality … and perpetuate the inefficiencies … that have caused today’s health care crisis.”

Do insurers really think that limiting patient choice of provider is the silver bullet to fix what ails the health care system?

Let’s examine the facts. Although currently being debated at the federal level, “any willing provider” is not a concept new to Washington state. After careful study, our elected leaders voted to include what’s known as “any willing contractor” provision in the health reform law passed in 1993. As intended, the provision would allow any provider willing to abide by the published criteria of an insurer’s contract - including those that ensure quality and cost control - to participate.

Rather than listen to a consortium of well-heeled bureaucrats who buy ads to quote a host of faceless experts, let’s consider what patients want and need from health care reform. There is no doubt reform means a degree of shared sacrifice, but I’m convinced it doesn’t have to come at the expense of patient choice. Richard W. Seaman, M.D., president Washington State Medical Association

Employer mandates aid wage earners

It makes good financial sense for wage earners to achieve universal health care through employer mandates.

We employees pay for health care in one way or the other anyway. Currently, we pay for the sick or injured uninsured worker through our inflated insurance premiums, and we have no effective say in that cost.

As the debate now stands, without employer mandates, we hourly employees will probably bear the entire cost of universal coverage through taxes on our health insurance premiums (considered as wages) and on cigarettes and ammunition. We will have little leverage on those taxes.

Even with employer mandates, we workers will bear the cost of universal coverage through increased prices of goods and services. But with employer mandates, competition will come into play to moderate how much of that cost will be passed on to us.

Business A may add 20 cents to its burger but we can go to business B, which has added only 18 cents. Neither business’ competitive edge will be injured because both now pay health insurance premiums, whereas before only business A did.

That shows how we hourly wage earners will benefit in another way. Business A will no longer consider dropping health insurance coverage for its employees in order to meet the competition of business B, which has been profiteering on the suffering of its uninsured workers for a long time now.

I’d even consider paying the prices of businesses which pay an unreimbursed 100 percent of their employee’s premiums. They could advertise, “We pay 100 percent!” George T. Thomas Spokane

Only balanced approach will work

Washington state and indeed the entire country is about to undergo the most significant change in the delivery of health care since the Medicare Act of the 1960s. Multiple forces are at work as the laws and regulations are being shaped for this reform.

Your newspaper’s position has been consistently negative towards physicians, hospitals and health care providers. When there is a picture to be painted, yours is always negative toward these groups.

Spokane has one of the finest health care delivery systems of any U.S. city. The vast majority of Spokane’s highly qualified, dedicated physicians care for their patients and for their patients’ welfare.

Your recent diatribe against the any-willing-provider clause is viewed as if you were an agent of an insurance company whose interest was the bottom line.

Physicians are concerned about the any-willing-provider clause because they don’t want to see significant disruptions in longstanding doctor-patient relationships. You interpret that as a financial concern when it is really a highly personal concern.

Health care is delivered in a very personal environment. You cannot simply look at it as if it were some type of business commodity that is bought and sold. Accordingly, I plead for more balanced reporting. Most of us favor health care reform. But for it to be successful there is going to have to be a balance of power between governing bodies, insurance agencies and the health care providers.

Total control by any one group is simply not going to serve the public well. Franklin G. Browne, M.D. Spokane

AARP leaders, members are at odds

I am appalled by the arrogance of American Association of Retired Persons President Eugene Lehrmann and the AARP board of directors in publicly endorsing the Democrats’ health care plans being considered by the U.S. Congress.

The implication that they speak for 33 million AARP members is inaccurate and intentionally misleading.

When AARP polled its members about the Clinton plan several months ago, an overwhelming majority of us opposed it. The AARP leaders dismissed that result with the condescending opinion that we didn’t understand what we were voting on.

Public endorsement of the current plans is unwarranted because there is no evidence that the majority of AARP members have modified their objections to schemes that would impose bureaucratic mandates on businesses, state governments, health care providers, and self-supporting taxpayers. Ghery D. Pettit Pullman

SPOKANE POLICE

Spokane a veritable `bird’ sanctuary

In all of the hoopla over Police Chief Terry Mangan and “the bird,” has anyone else noticed what apparently has been swept under the carpet? I have not heard, nor seen in print, a single mention concerning the rude act that brought all of this on.

Is Spokane saying that it is now a permissible, or even laudable, act to demonstrate to its law enforcement representatives total and absolute disrespect?

In my mind, The Spokesman-Review leads the community in promoting this disrespect. Not only have I not seen any mention that perhaps what that fine example of youth did is improper but, by emphasizing - twice - that the action was constitutionally protected, the “good paper” implies that it is OK.

Fine, Terry may have overreacted. He apologized and took his lumps. But because of the feeding frenzy of this paper and many others in the community when it comes to Terry Mangan, everyone appears to be willing to dismiss such flagrant disrespect for those who put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf.

Remember, the next time anyone waves at you with one finger, in Spokane, that’s OK; it’s just your Constitution at work. And it is worth commentary only if there is a reaction. James S. Switzer Colbert

Police not acting on racist motives

Members of the public should educate themselves about the role of police and the very difficult job the police have to do before criticizing an officer’s actions.

Police have too much work to do to be able to search out one person of color and then coordinate with other law enforcement agencies a plan to harass this person. I believe David Casteal was only stopped or ticketed by the Spokane city police three times. The other stops were by Washington State Patrol troopers and Spokane County deputies.

Maybe Casteal should reevaluate his driving habits. The vehicle involved in a motor vehicle infraction is what first catches the eye of a law enforcement officer. What should the officer do when he or she then contacts the driver and becomes aware that the driver is a person of color? Let the person go?

Joel Ferris Jr. (Letters, Aug. 18), I can tell you from experience (as a retired Pierce County deputy sheriff), good teachers and good people from all walks of life can and do have terrible driving habits and terrible attitudes toward police bringing these bad habits to their attention. H. Gene Lawrence Spokane

LAW AND JUSTICE

How bad does it have to get?

So “Some say three strikes law unfair” (SpokesmanReview, Aug. 14). Here is a “sickly” middle-aged man, married, with four children, having coerced a 23-year-old “friend” into robbing a convenience store. And he’s just the “wheel man” and he thinks it’s unfair that he faces life in prison and “wasn’t even in the store”! Nine felony convictions, seven parole violations and the possibility of more, and his defense attorney, Maryann Moreno, says, “He’s not the kind of guy who deserves a life sentence.”

I don’t have a law degree, but I am a common citizen who has had my home burglarized several times. Tell me, who is the kind of guy (or gal) who deserves a life sentence after such an illustrious list of felonies? Do we have to wait for the sickly Sidney Oranges of this country to wheel their wheelchairs into the convenience stores and homes of this country and kill someone before we justify locking these people up and throwing away the key? Jeff Sayler Spokane

Juveniles: We need more information

As we consider a bond issue to increase the capacity of the juvenile detention hall, isn’t it possible, by changing administrative procedures, to reduce the average length of confinement?

First, not everyone placed in the juvenile hall is guilty. The required capacity for youths in confinement is the product of all admissions multiplied by average length of stay. An increase in the population of juvenile hall is therefore not a reflection of an increase in youth crime.

No factual study has proven any connection between length of incarceration and success in the community after release. It is falsely assumed that because some confinement has failed, more of the same will be successful.

The 1974 Legislature changed the juvenile court into an adversary contest between county prosecutor’s office attorneys and the public defenders. This not only lengthened the adjudication process and length of stay, but also increased court and confinement costs for taxpayers.

Facts are needed. How many states use attorneys to this extent in juvenile court? What’s the average length of detention of untried juveniles in other states? How many states operate forestry/vocational training camps for longer treatment?

Not every arrested youth requires maximum security to assure an appearance in court. Expansion of administrative discretion to professionally classify the risk of release pending a court appearance should be based upon factual experience, not on unsubstantiated “beliefs.”

It is possible that our juvenile justice system was better before 1974. It would be worthwhile to study the procedures of other states for their application here. A. LaMont Smith Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

Seek better way to handle problem

My advice to (landlord) Peter Therens is, use a reference check and charge a security or cleaning deposit. He stated in his Aug. 17 letter that he would never rent to welfare people again and felt the recipient’s rent should be sent from the welfare department directly to the landlord. I’m certain it’s every taxpayer’s desire for welfare recipients to become self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency not only includes self-support but responsible financial management as well. To accomplish this, recipients need to believe they can do it, not be bombarded by the labels of “incapable” “irresponsible” and “hopeless.”

I am also certain it is every responsible welfare recipient’s desire not to be treated like a second-class citizen and be isolated in a slum because of welfare prejudice. Amy A. Buckley Spokane

Labeling and lumping poor approach

It really is too bad that the two women Peter Therens rented to turned out to be bad renters (Letters, Aug. 17), but it’s pretty sophomoric to say it’s because they were on public assistance. If those women were employed, my guess is that they would still be bad renters. If Mr. Therens is going to label and lump people into one category, before long he’s not going to have any renters. Jacquie Thielen Spokane

Doctor’s act was simply murder

Concerning Art Caplan’s Aug. 17 editorial about Dr. Gregory Messinger:

I gave birth to a child at 25 weeks and was told all the risks and problems my child could have developed. Pulling the plug on this child was never an option for me; I love this child no matter what could have happened.

What Dr. Messinger did was effectively murder his child. Thank God I didn’t do the same or I wouldn’t have a wonderfully healthy 3-year-old. He deserves to go to prison. Kimberly Rose Spokane

Restaurant review needs updating

I object to the column on restaurants, “Recently reviewed” (Weekend, Aug. 12) repeating excerpts from a two-month-old negative review of Salty’s Restaurant. The fabulous deck wasn’t even open at that time!

Leslie Kelly’s original review even steamed me at the time, with its thinly veiled anti-Seattle attitude. Rather than a balanced review, it was filled with picky asides that you have chosen to repeat again and again, i.e. “plastic tablecloths.”

How about the extremely warm and friendly service, the fabulous Sunday brunch, the superb clams and mussels, etc., not to mention the huge investment Salty’s owners have made in our community?

In spite of the roadblocks we put in front of them they persevered and have given us back a showcase restaurant in downtown Spokane.

I find it hard to believe that Graham Vink or Jim Kershner haven’t had a great meal on the deck this summer that they could have reviewed. After all, it is the spot to eat this summer. Shelly Kuney Spokane

Follow Denver’s lead in taxing

Every other year or so the problem of where to raise money for various projects comes up. The end result appears to be the same: tax the city residents or businesses.

I have told previous mayors and City Council members a very fair way to raise money for city fire, police, streets and parks. It is really quite simple. To solve this problem in Denver, Colo., where I used to live, the city and county of Denver voted in a head tax for all people who lived outside the city and county of Denver (one governing body) but worked in the city or county. My employer took the tax out of my pay and sent it to the city and county. This money was used for the things stated above.

I didn’t like it but it was fair. People who live outside the city and use the city to work and play should pay some of the cost to maintain those services.

If the freeholders’ recommendations pass, people living in the county will be included in the same tax base as all city dwellers anyway. David A. Robbins Spokane

Crime bill would be of little help

The Foley-Clinton so-called crime bill promises 100,000 new police on the streets. What you may not know is that 80 percent of them will have to be paid for at the local level. There is money for only 20,000 new cops but there is money for 40,000 new social workers. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Foley.

Let’s send Duane Alton to Washington, D.C., so Washington can have a real voice and we can get the job done. I don’t know why this option could not work in Spokane, as well. Penny Lancaster Spokane