Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 10, 1994 TAG: 9403100154
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Thomas says that ``government already controls an estimated 24 percent of health-care expenditures.'' But he doesn't say that all this money is funded through insurance companies that take out a sizable chunk for profit and paperwork.
He tries to blame the nonexistent Clinton plan for things already put into place by insurance companies. He quotes Dr. Michael DeBakey's statement about medicine being turned into a trade or a business, which is true. But insurance companies and profit-making hospitals have done this, not government.
Those responsible for the present situation are insurance companies, the private for-profit hospitals and drug companies. They are concerned about their bottom lines and have increased costs without regard to what it does to the average American.
The health industry's been busy with negative and distorting advertisements. Since great profit's made from the present situation, the industry would like to keep it, or something as close to it as possible. It also buys congressmen. And well it might - it's been done often enough before by monied special interests.
Anyone can see that a single-payer system similar to Canada's would be best. Surveys show that a majority of Americans would prefer this. It would save a great deal of money. Are we likely to get it? No. We'll get some kind of legislation with a grand-sounding title that will preserve the financial standing of the health industry.
CARROLL SMITH
SHAWSVILLE
Planners show no respect for peak
CONSIDERING the Mount Rogers Planning District Commission's endorsements of major destructive highway projects (Interstate 73 and U.S. 58) through the Mount Rogers recreation area, I ask them to drop the Mount Rogers name. The commission has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of respect for Virginia's majestic peak.
I recommend that the MRPDC change its name to either the Many Roads Planning Destruction Commission or Mutilate Ruralness Planning Destruction Commission. After the name change, please don't do Mount Rogers any more favors.
MARK E. BARKER
ROANOKE
TV plot wasn't accurate portrayal
I AGREE with Cody Lowe in his Jan. 16 Back Pew column that television ``can do a good job of integrating religious themes'' into its programming (```Picket Fences' gives religion a starring role''). Certainly it's capable of that. The public has a right to fair and accurate representation of religion as experienced in daily life.
But to say that ``Picket Fences'' is especially reliable in its research isn't entirely convincing. The program segment portraying Christian Scientists cited in his column wasn't representative. The dramatic setting may possibly have had some validity had Christian Science been totally left out of the story. But characterizations and situations in the plot weren't easily identifiable with real-life Christian Scientists I know.
The dialogue strongly implied that, even though one might legally escape forced medical treatment, prayer isn't really dependable or safe in healing serious illness. This weak portrayal of prayer, one that ignores the century-long healing record of Christian Science, couldn't be more detrimental to a right understanding of practical Christianity.
Producers were informed beforehand by the Christian Science church about the misleading nature of the script. Only one minor change was actually made in the final version. Let's pray that the healing power of prayer itself will be better represented on television in the future.
WANDA W. HANCOCK
ROANOKE
Gun foes' rush on democracy
REGARDING O. Randolph Rollins' Feb. 27 commentary, ``Fight crime on all fronts'':
He suggests that Gov. Allen's crime program lacks credibility because it does nothing to further punish law-abiding citizens with additional gun prohibitions. It's Rollins who lacks credibility. While he was pushing the present handgun-purchase limitation, he assured us in writing that no bans were being sought. Flush with success from the passage of the one-gun-per-month bill, he then assisted in the passage of a law making possession of a certain shotgun a felony, even if it was lawfully purchased long before this law became reality. Shotgun owners are now felons, with no grace period, and there weren't any remunerations offered.
Rollins is now urging the same Draconian measure for owners of semi-automatic rifles. How is this a credible idea since government figures show these rifles are rarely involved in any crime? Most readers know exactly where this is leading. People of his ideology won't be satisfied until all gun owners are made felons through legislation and are unable to vote against gun foes' whims.
It's ironic that his commentary was directly above Robert Reno's commentary, ``Rushing to dismantle our democracy.'' This should have been the title of Rollins' commentary.
DAVID S. JOHNSON
ROANOKE
by CNB