Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, August 21, 1994 TAG: 9408230045
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: C2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
We so easily forget the lessons of history! Private interests did nothing about child labor, so government had to do something. It was the same as to drugs, cosmetics and foods. And the same for mine safety and black-lung disease. It was the same for sweat shop labor, and for guaranteed old-age pensions. The list is endless.
As to health care currently: In 1993, we paid $911 per person in administrative costs. Canada pays only $279 per person. Sen. Kennedy's state of Massachusetts has Blue Cross covering 2.7 million and employing 6,680. There are fewer persons running the Canadian single-payer health care, and they have 26 million insured.
We cannot trust private parties to do what needs to be done at a reasonable cost. Profit is more important than people's health to them. Government may not be as efficient, but who else is going to put people first?
Contrary to what's being said by some, the Canadian system looks pretty good to me, considering the current system in the United States. When thousands of people have to choose between food and health care, then it's as the Bard said: ``There's something rotten in Denmark!''
JACK E. BYRD
HARDY
Cost isn't always what counts
JUDGING FROM the populists who make up the majority of C-Span's callers, our country is in no mood to allow Congress to pass a health-care bill. Our people seem cynical, mean-spirited, ignorant and in general to have the attention span of flies. There's a race going on between the educated and the uneducated.
I leave you with that famous definition of a Republican: One who knows the cost of everything and value of nothing. We liberals are often accused of being too naive, but I'd rather be naive than be one who puts money always ahead of people's needs.
BOB SHIELDS
ROANOKE
Few smart bets on the lottery
WEBSTER'S New World Dictionary defines ``jackpot'' as being cumulative stakes, as in poker, and to advertise a jackpot is to describe or praise publicly, usually so as to promote sales.
Richard G. Wilkinson, interim director of the Virginia Lottery Department, accomplishes this at the expense of the truth (Aug. 3 letter to the editor, ``The lottery's democratic principles''). There's no players' jackpot. The real jackpot is won by the state. For each $1 million of promised jackpot, the state need only invest an amount that's less than 1/14th of its gross receipts for that drawing.
Wilkinson says that since 1988, the lottery has taken in $4.3 billion and paid out $2.4 billion in prizes. People who play the daily lottery can expect to win back less than half of what they play. Odds for scratch-and-sniff games are even poorer.
The next time the lotto jackpot is $1 million, purchase the 7.1 million tickets that cover every combination. This takes the luck out of gambling. If you could demand the $500,000 that they intend to invest for you, you'd only be out $6.6 million. But that isn't an option. The present system allows $500,000 to become the promised $1 million, over a period of 20 years.
I suspect Wilkinson continues to take license with the truth when he says that $2.4 billion has been paid in prizes. He should say ``paid, or under obligation to be paid.''
Your only smart bet on the lotto is if the jackpot is more than $7 million. Don't listen to the lottery's fairy godmother, "Lady Luck." She's paid by the lottery department.
We've found a way to eliminate organized crime. Change a few laws, hire some educated people, get a logo, and call it the Virginia State Lottery.
WILLIAM A. MILLER
FOREST
What's in a name may be telling
RECENTLY, while watching a report on the Commonwealth Poll on television, I discovered something. The name Robb contains four letters; North has five; Wilder has six; and Coleman has seven. More interesting is that their popularity with the voters was in that order.
PEARL S. BEASLEY
ROANOKE
Outdoor sports aren't the target
IN RESPONSE to the Aug. 6 news article, ``North angles for new voters'':
Oliver North is the best example of the kind of politician our state could do without. From what the press says, he seems to suffer, as most politicians do, from a severe case of tunnel vision. I refer to his perception of ``liberals.'' He doesn't know what the word means, nor does he understand the liberals' political agenda. They don't hope to wipe out outdoor hobbies.
North's tactics to attract voters are alarming. He's convincing people that a ``cultural war'' is taking place, and is practically scaring them into becoming allies. What he should be describing is societal change, rather than a war. Our society struggles to break out of its cycle of racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc. Most often, liberals try to counterattack social evils that plague and paralyze our progressive steps toward peace. North paints a distorted view of liberals on purpose.
All groups have extreme points of view within them. Just because some are anti-guns doesn't necessarily describe the feelings of all in that group. North's choice of information on liberals doesn't reflect them, but reflects the radical vegetarian view.
I'm concerned about the presence of hatred in our society. Electing someone so shortsighted as North would be disastrous. His narrow visions of family values, slighted view of liberals, his scare-tactic cultural-war theme, the fact that he lied to Congress? No way. How he's come this far I shudder to think, but he has his voters in the palm of his hand.
If you ask most liberals, you'll find that their most outstanding qualities include concern and action against inequality, injustice and violence. I don't believe hunting and fishing are much of their concerns.
SUSAN E. FOLEY
RADFORD
Animal abuse needs stricter penalties
I'VE READ two very disturbing news articles in this newspaper in the past several weeks concerning animal abuse. One was about a puppy set on fire (July 25, ``Pooch Gucci ignites sympathy for abused animals'' from the Associated Press) and the other concerned people in this area who sponsor dog fights in which other animals are killed for entertainment (Aug. 2, ``Pit bulls vs. kittens brings cruelty charge'').
It saddens, upsets and worries me. Are these the same people who are our neighbors and attend school with our children?
When a person has no regard for life, no matter where a creature is on life's ladder, it's time for legislators to make and enforce stricter laws, and to stop giving offenders a slap on the hand and calling it justice.
Abuse of any kind often leads to more violent crimes. It's a proven fact.
DEBRA HARRISON
ROANOKE
Evolution theory being challenged
REGARDING your Aug. 1 editorial, ``The Scopes trial, revisited'':
The ``scientific'' theory of evolution is now being challenged by many reputable secular authorities as being unsupported by evidence or observation. You may be interested to know that there are no universally accepted transitional fossils, as one would expect to find if evolution occurred over many millions of years. That is, there are no fins-to-feet or ape-to-man examples known of today.
However, there is much evidence of life forms that appeared suddenly, and have remained more or less unchanged to this day (e.g., crocodiles and sharks). The evolutionary time frame of dinosaurs is suspect when one considers that, in Canada, fresh (unfossilized) dinosaur bones and unpetrified plant materials have been located and documented.
Also, for a ``theory'' to become a ``law'' in science, events described by the theory must be observable and repeatable. Since neither evolution nor creation can be observed or repeated, both stand equal in this respect.
I invite this newspaper to more objectively consider the question of evolution vs. creation in the future.
RAYMOND C. HOPKINS
MAX MEADOWS
by CNB