Opinion: Let's help the millions without health insurance

Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins hit the nail smack dab on the head. I realize the importance of civil liberties and the protection of constitutional rights. But as we move forward into the 21st century, we must not ignore the most important quest for "life" -- as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Here in America, the greatest nation in the world, up to 50-million people are either financially, physically or otherwise unable to obtain health insurance. That means all the advances in medical science are unavailable to those unfortunate folks who are uninsured.

Ten years ago, when Bill Clinton was elected president, national health care was the No. 1 political issue. Clinton, along with his wife Hillary, took a strong advocacy position for instituting a national health care system that would assure every American access to medical treatment and life-sustaining prescription drugs.

"Socialized medicine!" the right-wingers yelled. Bill and Hillary's efforts were trampled upon and misinterpreted to such an extent that lawmakers, federal and state, found it politically unpopular to come to the aid of citizens who were denied even basic treatment for serious illnesses.

In too many instances, paychecks earned by working people on low-paying jobs will not cover the cost of adequate insurance protection. It's not just Social Security recipients and other pensioners whose medications cost more than their monthly income who are crowding hospital emergency rooms seeking their last resort for life-saving medical care. Employers, including some in publicly funded institutions, use part-time and temporary workers to avoid offering health benefits. Then, consider the great number of folks living between jobs or waiting for approval from newly assigned insurers. It's long past time for Americans to wake up and recognize the plight of the millions who are relegated to underclass citizenship just because government continues to fail in its duty to provide affordable health care for all Americans.

We, as citizens, should take action and demand from the alliance of powerful insurance companies and health care providers that they relinquish their self-serving control over the very lives of the more unfortunate among us.
-- Perkins T. Shelton, St. Petersburg

Confronting the health care crisis

Re: Who will pay for health care?, by Sara Fritz, April 1.

Who will pay for health care? I have a few ideas.

1. How about not spending billions on foreign aid? Why don't we take care of our own country first? Nothing is more aggravating than hearing about how we have to help all the poor, starving, homeless and health care challenged everywhere else in the world and then have nothing left over to help people in our own country!

2. What about Medicare coverage for everyone? Someone mentioned once that corporate health care profits and administrative costs that line the pockets of the wealthy could pay for health care for all. Of course this will never work as long as the wealthy are in control of our government and they enjoy lining their pockets while the rest of us suffer. It's such a shame that this country is no longer a democracy but a plutocracy -- of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

3. Extra taxes. Have they polled people and asked if they'd pay for health care? I'm a taxpayer and I would! If it was for the good of the people and everyone would benefit, you bet I would. The few who have good jobs and thus, paid-for health care may balk at paying extra taxes. But these people need to ask themselves: What will happen if I lose my job? Just try to obtain adequate private health care for yourself. If you're not 18 and the picture of health, you will be denied! If a miracle happens and you are accepted, good luck trying to pay for it, as the costs are astronomical.

The Republicans argue that you don't want government controlling your heath. Well just who is doing it now? The insurance companies! Men in three-piece suits with no medical degrees are dictating what doctors can or can't do for you.

I read (in the St. Petersburg Times) that the United States is 37th in the world in overall quality of health care. How shameful. Why aren't politicians embarrassed? I am.
-- Christine Jamesson, Clearwater

Nursing home calamities

Re: Nursing homes demand too much, editorial, March 21.

Your editorial accurately points to one of the many calamities infesting the industry. They are funded by public and private agencies and take the term "creative accounting" to a new low in that they attempt to cross-file and inflate medical claims. One need only follow your newspaper's accounts of swindles perpetrated on an unsuspecting and often completely overwhelmed public.

Famiy members who are devastated by the reality that they can no longer care for a loved one are thrown into the greedy clutches of the nursing home industry, which espouses the philosophy of "not-for-profit." Costs keep going up while the nurses and CNAs who work in those homes work for little more than minimum wages. Administrators, by comparison, live a lavish lifestyle while acting effusively with airs of sophistication.

Franklin D. Roosevelt often referred to the fact that "economic royalists" have dominated this country since the end of the Civil War. If he were alive today, I am sure he would include the nursing home industry in that ilk. He would almost certainly impose price controls on the entire health care industry, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

Universal health insurance is needed now. Monies could be raised by taxing gambling and other luxuries that working people cannot afford in the first place. America, wake up! How long will we continue to lag far behind other industrialized nations in how we care for those in our midst, who can no longer care for themselves?
-- Maurice F. Shaw, St. Petersburg

Cameras could limit nursing home abuse

On March 28, the St. Petersburg Times ran a story about two nursing home aides who were caught beating a resident (2 aides arrested after elderly man injured). While it is somewhat of a relief to learn that these aides were arrested and that another employee of the home was diligent in reporting this crime, a recent government study finds that this is not always the case.

A new report from the U.S. General Accounting Office finds that crimes in nursing homes go unreported at an alarming rate. The report, entitled "More Can Be Done to Protect Residents from Abuse," reveals a culture of secrecy behind the closed doors of long-term care in America. In restating a prior finding that 30 percent of homes were cited for abusing residents, the respected GAO now concludes that even this unacceptably high figure is most likely understated! The report suggests that nursing home operators and their employees are engaging in what can only be described as a conspiracy to hide incidents of abuse from families as well as law enforcement agencies.

Unbelievable? Consider these statements from the report:

"Law enforcement officials . . . are seldom summoned to . . . investigate allegations of physical or sexual abuse."

"Fifty percent of the notifications from nursing homes were submitted two or more days after the home learned of the alleged abuse."

And when crimes were reported, researchers believe that in most instances, "evidence had been compromised."

Calling the findings "shocking, gruesome and devastating," U.S. Sen. John Breaux said, "It is clear that nursing home crimes are not reported or punished with the same severity as crimes outside those nursing home walls."

Even in the face of this chilling evidence, nursing home industry representatives in Tallahassee were successful in killing a measure that would have given residents one simple means of protecting themselves: in-room security cameras.

The Coalition to Protect America's Elders supports a change to Florida law that would allow residents the option of installing surveillance cameras in their rooms. These cameras would not be mandatory, nor would homes be required to pay any of the costs, as they would be the responsibility of residents and their families. A notice on the door would alert employees and others that a security camera is monitoring the room.

When crimes like those described in the GAO report occur, law enforcement agencies would be armed with the evidence they might need to prosecute offenders. In fact, Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth recently issued a report stating "The likely deterrent effect on resident abuse and neglect . . . suggests that the voluntary use of cameras in . . . resident rooms would work well in Florida."

Sadly, stories like the one on March 28 are not isolated and are becoming all too common. Just last month in the St. Petersburg area, a nurse aide stripped the morphine patch off a resident for personal use. She was caught by the administration after a tape from a video camera was reviewed.

Elderly and disabled citizens are being denied even this modest measure to protect themselves against abuse. The GAO is right, more can be done to protect residents; allowing them to use security cameras is a small step in the right direction.
-- Barbara Hengstebeck, executive director of the Coalition to Protect Americas Elders and a former state ombudsman, Tallahassee

Schools can educate about weight

Re: Schools have no role as fat police, by Debra J. Saunders, April 1.

The American Medical Association and other reputable medical authorities have warned of health consequences to a nation that is at least 30 percent overweight or obese. The warnings pointed out a significant minority of children are so afflicted, and like smoking- and alcohol-related conditions, we pay a high monetary price to later remedy problems which in many cases represent private choices by consumers. The above column correctly criticized a school district letter to parents that stated their children were fat. While the columnist cites six reasons to object to the content of the letter, I think she missed an opportunity to recognize schools should have a positive influence on the health of students irrespective of parents objections and student sensitivity. Of course it depends how you do it and what you say!

Warnings about being overweight and obese are valuable and can be delivered without damaging student self-esteem. Many would agree with the columnist that schools should stick to academics, but that is simply not adequate in our society. Weight problems can have organic causes as well as be traced to lifestyles that are ultimately harmful.

When a school can help a student with a weight problem in an appropriate manner, school policy should encourage it even if some columnist finds grist for the journalist's mill.
-- James R. Gillespie, St. Petersburg

A warm and fuzzy moment

Re: Matilda's new mom, April 1.

How wonderful! I opened my morning paper and there was Matilda instead of death and destruction. I felt warm and fuzzy all over and couldn't stop smiling. Please keep us informed of her well-being.
-- Ethel Burton, Brooksville

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page