We welcome letters, but please include your
full name, address, and daytime telephone number. We edit all
letters for libel, length, and clarity. Send letters to Letters, Illinois Times, P.O.
Box 5256, Springfield, IL 62705; fax 217-753-3958; e-mail
editor@illinoistimes.com. INSPECTORS FOOLED, WHY NOT BOARD? If Larry Hupp and Debra Neece fooled the
federal and state inspectors [Bruce Rushton, “Ill
will,” April 27], why is it not surprising that they were
also able to fool the local board? Too many boards, even at
corporate levels, are just rubber-stamp committees. F.N. Ross Rochester MAKE HEALTH CARE A PRIORITY May 1-7, 2006, was the fourth annual Cover
the Uninsured Week, a nationwide educational campaign sponsored by
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and more than 100 professional,
business, and civic groups. This campaign was intended to raise
awareness that a record 46 million Americans, up from 38 million
just four years ago, do not have health-care coverage. People without insurance tend to delay or
forego needed health care and have poorer health status than do
their insured fellow citizens. More than two-thirds come from
families with at least one fully employed person, and increasingly
moderate-income people (with incomes of up to $50,000 for a family
of four) are uninsured. In Sangamon County, where health care is
the second largest industry behind state government, as many as
4,300 children and probably more than 20,000 adults are uninsured. The United States spends more than $2
trillion per year on health care, approaching 16 percent of the
GDP, far more than any other industrialized country. (We have a big
lead over second-place Switzerland, which spends 11.5 percent of its
GDP for health care.) Over 40 percent of U.S. health-care spending
comes from Medicare, Medicaid, VA, military, and government-employee
health plans, making health care one of the most heavily government
supported sectors in our free-market economy. Somehow, all of us — the healthcare
profession, businesses, civic and religious organizations, and
American society in general — have allowed ourselves to get
away without providing a basic level of health care to all. We
provide roads, schools, and defense; we endorse our
government’s regulation of utilities, services, and
behaviors. But we are the only Western nation without some form of
universal health care. Why not health care for all? My opinion is
that it’s precisely because there is so much money in health
care. Attempts to regulate the health-care industry or expand
coverage lead to lobbying and counteradvertising that only wealthy
industries and organizations can afford. Therefore the political
process is unable to take the big steps required to cover everyone.
It is also my opinion that the medical profession must lead the way
to some type of universal coverage, but so far we haven’t
done the job, and I include myself among those who have failed in
this task. I encourage your readers to contact elected
officials, and candidates for election, and tell them you
won’t vote for them unless health care for all is a critical
priority for them. Dave Steward, M.D. Springfield THE GOVERNMENT’S INCONSISTENCIES The recent smoking issues have highlighted
big inconsistencies in government. We now have a situation in which businesses — that
is, bars and restaurants — don’t have the right to allow
smoking in their establishments, while other businesses are given the
privilege to control smoking on or even off property through mandatory
nicotine tests. It seems politicians grant rights to individuals and
businesses only when in line with big government’s moral views. Consistency in policy should be the central
issue, but instead smokers and nonsmokers have been pitted against
one another so that there must be a winner and a loser. Shame on
the government for using its power to give either side victory.
This time, smokers lose all around. Who will be next? A solution in which everyone wins, which has
worked so long and so well, is being abandoned. The free market
allows businesses to choose their own rules for patrons and
employees while individuals can choose to work, visit, or frequent
whichever establishments suit their individual needs.
Unfortunately, in a recent survey, it was found that 74 percent of
individuals in communist China embrace the free market as the wave
of the future, while only 71 percent of Americans believe the same.
I guess we have decided that government knows best — about
our health, our happiness, our wealth, ad nauseam. Seth Bohlen Springfield CONSIDER PEOPLE WHO WORK The Salvation Army had a big sale on books
recently. I love those. I went there right after work, got there
about 4:19 p.m. I was told they closed the sale at 4. I asked,
“Aren’t people with jobs invited?” One lady said,
“Ask for time off.” Another said, “Come in on
Saturday.” After everyone else had two days [to shop], I
would not want what was left. I love the Salvation Army. I volunteer
several times to ring the bell each year, taking time off to do it.
When I was young, I hitchhiked around the continent and was fed by
them a couple times when I really needed it. They are great. I
don’t like that several agencies only offer hours for people
who do not have day jobs. Would it kill them to operate from 10:30 a.m.
until 5 p.m.? I mean, why should people without jobs, who can go
anytime, dictate when the service people are open? Why is my time
and convenience less important than that of people with all the
time they need? I am glad I have a job but only get 30 minutes for
lunch. Why should I lose money to get services? Please tell me why.
Patrick Johnopolos Springfield CORRECTION This photograph is of Thomas F. Schwartz,
interim director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and
Library. The wrong portrait was published with a news story in the
May 4 edition. Illinois Times apologizes for the error.
This article appears in May 11-17, 2006.
