Dimes for global health: All we need is a vision
Editor, The Times:
I agree completely with Dr. Steve Gloyd and U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott when they state in their guest commentary “Pledge a dime for global health” [Opinion, Dec. 1] that we should be inspired by the efforts of international AIDS activists who refused to accept that treatment for all was unaffordable.
Why is it then that those of us who use the same argument here at home, and continue to advocate for universal, not-for-profit single-payer health care, have never really been taken seriously by our elected representatives? The same elected representatives who purport to be trying to reform our fatally dysfunctional health-care system.
To quote Gloyd and McDermott again, “The challenge is not in whether the funds exist, but whether we have the vision and the will to mobilize them.”
— Kenneth Fabert, Bainbridge Island
Only the wealthy will be truly healthy
It is clear from the credible and convincing research cited in “Health-care moneymakers” [News, Nov. 25] that Americans prefer wealth to health. We would rather have super insurance companies, profitable big pharmaceutical companies, and lucrative biotech firms than healthy people.
As the Senate falters toward much-needed reform in a badly broken American health-care system, it is clear that the only the wealthy will really be healthy.
— Theresa Earenfight, Seattle
Christian Scientists weigh in, lobby for spiritual care
As one of the Christian Scientists mentioned by the title in “Christian Scientists lobby to add prayer to health bill,” [News, Nov. 26], I’d like to add my perspective.
I have attended a number of local health-care-reform forums over the past two years. Patient choice has always been considered a major priority. People should be able to choose the type of health care and the provider they feel is best for themselves and their families.
If Americans are to be free to make this choice, and thousands currently choose spiritual care, this amendment must be included.
Some have questioned the constitutionality of the amendment. This is about private insurance companies reimbursing patients for private health-care costs. Michael McConnell, who heads the Stanford University Constitutional Law Center, concurs that the amendment is consistent with constitutional standards.
The Times article noted, “the clash over spiritual care has become essentially a referendum about whether the government recognizes prayer as a legitimate and viable health-care option.”
To those who have just been told that there is nothing more that can be done for their loved one or themselves, having another proven health-care option can be indispensable.
— William E. Scott, Kenmore