Other countries offer roadmaps for universal coverage
Re:” Democrats ditch the details to focus on power,” Dec. 10
Mr. Stirewalt’s column makes an excellent point regarding the threat of abusing pressing issues to garner political power. PBS’ 2008 “Sick Around the World”? investigates the healthcare systems of five countries: The UK, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and Taiwan – all capitalist democracies – for examples of how the U.S. system could be reformed to provide universal coverage. In Taiwan, national health insurance has had a dampening effect on medical spending for both the government and citizens. According to the feature film, coverage for a Taiwanese family of four costs US $650 annually; in the U.S., the government spends US $2,500 per capita annually. The U.S. need not implement the same system, but it is increasingly clear that the status quo in healthcare is unsustainable. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are wasting valuable time by inhibiting meaningful reform.
Yu Yun
Bethesda
Healthcare used to be benefit, now it’s mandate
When I came to Northern Virginia in 1964 to start my career with Vepco, I was offered a benefits package that included health care and retirement. The deal worked like this: If you work hard for the company and our customers, we will continue to offer you these benefits to keep you in our employ. Fast forward to 2009 and the present health care legislation, which now “mandates” that your employer provide healthcare coverage or they will be fined. From “benefit” to “mandate” in 45 years. Sure sounds like creeping socialism to me. What’s the difference between working for the government or having the government tell your employer how to run its business? If you ask a Democratic congressman, I believe their answer would be “None!” Scary! I don’t know why the Republicans haven’t thought of this already, but the Democrats appear to be fashioning a system of “trickle down health care.” Now, if they can only print enough money.
George J. Pitonyak
Kitty Hawk, NC
Majority don’t want to pay for abortions
RE: “Women should be able to choose abortion”, From Readers, Nov. 16
Mr. Doerr erred again. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did not say “abortions seldom lead to psychological problems.” In 1989, lacking data we have now, he said: “I would like to make it clear … I did not eliminate [the] question on psychological sequela, I merely postponed the answer.” Since 1989, many credible studies show abortions have serious adverse effects on women’s psychological health. Mr. Doerr wrote, “The medical profession has not found any reason to worry about adverse health effects on aborted women.” If you’re speaking about abortionists who abort women for fees, he is correct, but those who care about women want them to know of the many harmful effects. Doerr’s latest anti-Catholic diatribe also said, “…the government should not interfere with the constitutional right of women to follow their own consciences in dealing with problem pregnancies.” But the issue at hand was federally funding the killing of the preborn, to which 71 percent of Americans object.
William Luksic
Rockville
