ROANOKE TIMES

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, December 19, 1993                   TAG: 9312200312
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: D2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Long


DOCTORS CAN CONTAIN COSTS NOW

IT WAS with pleasure that I read Dr. Edgar Weaver's Dec. 8 letter to the editor (``Restructure medical-fee system for cost containment'') on medical-cost containment. The general public sorely need such informed comments on this subject.

I feel there's a certain logical flaw in Dr. Weaver's recommendations, however. After suggesting that cost containment must be based on market forces, he then goes on to suggest a commission to oversee the process of transforming today's itemized billing system into billing by services rendered.

I have two observations here:

The current system exists for a reason - greed. How do you change a system that does what its creators want - i.e., increase their income?

The current system was created by the medical profession. It can be changed in the same way. What's to stop one hospital from changing its system unilaterally and instituting a more competitive, service-based billing system? If this truly reduces costs, wouldn't it automatically force other institutions to follow suit in order not to lose business?

The medical profession, if it wants to avoid government intervention, needs to act very quickly to effect cost containment. Dr. Weaver's suggestion is an interesting one. Are medical professionals listening?

WILLIAM P. HAY III

PILOT

The facts on organ donation

THE NOV. 25 news article, ``Son's organs save 5 lives; hospital bills mom $41,000,'' greatly disappointed me. Its adversarial approach exhibited extremely biased journalism. I'm confused why this newspaper even printed a story about a Florida donation case that has no apparent local connection. Your editors should've consulted Roanoke's local organ-procurement agency.

In fact, donor families do not pay any costs associated with recovering organs for transplant. No ifs, ands or buts. Of course, families must pay any charges associated with trying to save an individual's life. But after medical personnel declare an individual brain-dead and donation begins, organ-procurement agencies pay all further expenses.

Additionally, machines don't keep patients ``alive'' so that organ donation can take place. Organ donation cannot occur until a patient has been declared legally dead. From that point on, the respirator's only function is to keep oxygen flowing through the body so the organs will not deteriorate.

These healthy organs then save, or greatly improve, the lives of other individuals.

KAREN A. SOKOHL

Public Relations and Marketing Manager

Virginias' Organ Procurement Agency

RICHMOND

A mind closed to country?

I CANNOT believe that the Roanoke Times & World-News sent Mark Morrison to review Billy Ray Cyrus when he has already stated publicly in this newspaper that he ``loathes'' Cyrus (Dec. 3 Extra section, ``Highs ring true, but lows let Billy Ray Cyrus down''). It seems that he loathes country music in general.

If you don't have another person to review the country shows, then maybe you should get rid of Morrison and get someone with an open mind. It seems that most concerts in this area are country music anyway.

LINDA HARVEY

ROANOKE

It's the message that matters

THE RECENT response to staff writer Beth Macy's Nov. 18 ``Pregnant and proud'' news article illustrates a truth as old as Sophocles' Antigone: ``Nobody likes the man who brings bad news.'' It seems that the Roanoke community needs to stop ``blaming the messenger'' and get on with the business of changing the message.

LANA WHITED

FERRUM

Renters get taken in Roanoke

SINCE coming to Roanoke in 1971 from Bristol, Tenn. (which was the biggest mistake), I've lived five places in the city. Every place I've rented, I paid for all repairs, plus the rent to the property owners. I became disabled, so I had to stop working, but property owners still expected the rent to paid.

Why does Roanoke have so many boarded-up and condemned houses? Because tenants are fed up with paying double the rent required in the first place and with having to pay for their own repairs, so they're not going to do it any more. Or at least, I'm not. I've spent thousands of dollars on rental property only to have the rent raised because the apartment was worth more to the owner since I had had things fixed. And I couldn't live there anymore.

If anyone outside of Roanoke wants to move here, you better think a long time about what I've written because I wished I had known this before moving here.

SARAH L. FURROW

ROANOKE

Others also are guilty of neglect

AFTER READING the Dec. 3 news article (``99 critters seized; neglect charged'') in the Roanoke Times & World-News by staff writer Karen Barnes, I was appalled that Bedford Animal Control allowed Ann Wallenborne to have 73 dogs and 26 rabbits. Does Bedford County have a limit on the number of dogs a person is allowed to keep? If not, why not? The animals' health and well-being are in the owners' hands. If that owner doesn't have the means to care for them properly, it just adds to the animals' suffering and doesn't alleviate it.

How could Bedford County Administrator Bill Rolfe have the gall to make the statement, ``We have to go clean her out every couple of years''? Hasn't anyone heard of preventive measures?

If this were ``the latest in a string of incidents involving Wallenborne and her animals,'' someone's not doing their job. There's no reason for a situation like this to occur even once, but for it to happen again and again (``This lady does this all the time,'' said Rolfe) is unforgivable! Maybe the animal-control unit needs more officers. Something needs to change.

Ms. Wallenborne was charged with neglect. How come Bedford Animal Control wasn't?

BARBARA A. NEWMAN

ROANOKE

Enough rocks to fill Grand Canyon

REGARDING the Mount Rushmore of Rock `n' Roll (Nov. 24 Extra section article by staff writer Mark Morrison, ``The votes are in, and the faces are carved in stone''):

I have to disagree with the choices made. All candidates should be based on originality. Hence, scratch Elvis from the list. Of all his recordings, only a few were actually penned by him.

My idea of ``Mount Rockmore'' would include inductees who truly made an impact on rock `n' roll and our lives: Rock No. 1: John Lennon; Rock No. 2: Jim Morrison; Rock No. 3: Bruce Springsteen (he's not called ``the boss'' for nothing); Rock No. 4: Pete Townshend. All of these choices are based on originality, of course.

At this point, we need to hire a sculptor because there are other faces who surely belong there: Roy Orbison, Jerry Garcia, Frank Zappa, Janis Joplin, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix, John Fogerty ... the list is endless.

Maybe we should contact the guy who was going to hang bras across the Grand Canyon and have him hang pictures of rock artists instead.

WANDA H. WINTERS

ROANOKE

No constitutional right to own cars

FOR THE past few years, many have taken their shots at the National Rifle Association and the ``gun lobby.'' I'd like to direct my comments to those who couldn't understand why the NRA opposed the Brady bill.

For years, we NRA members have endured the constant diatribe by the liberal media and the gun-control fanatics. We were told that we were being unreasonable, and that our fear that the gun-control fanatics would use this as a ``first step'' to total elimination of our right to bear arms was unfounded and irrational. Well, folks, guess what? The NRA had it right f+iagaino. The ink on the Brady bill has barely dried and already the gun-control camp is rubbing its hands in anticipation of what's yet to come.

A news article in the Dec. 5 Roanoke Times & World-News (``Clinton: Brady just a start'') reported that President Clinton views the passage of the Brady bill as only the beginning of a much broader effort by his administration to seek sweeping gun-control measures, including a possible push for a national gun-licensing system. He's also ``intrigued'' by the possibility of setting up a gun-licensing system similar to the one we have for motor vehicles. To those who may wonder what would be wrong with that, I have two answers:

First, there's not, to my knowledge, any group trying to ban the ownership of motor vehicles by law-abiding citizens. Second, there's not a constitutional right to own a motor vehicle.

To all who own any firearms at all, I say ``wake up!''

PAUL BISBEE

BEDFORD



 by CNB