Letters to the Editor for Friday, March 12, 2010

Two sides of the health care debate
I am currently in Prague with a friend recently diagnosed with cancer.

For those of you who fear “socialized” health care, this is what it looks like on the ground in the Czech Republic, which has a single payer system, and in which every Czech must be insured.

My friend’s first chemo session was at the Charles University Medical Center, one of the world’s oldest and best medical facilities. Upon arrival, she was sent off to the billing department to pay for that session, during which she was also given an EKG. It came to a grand total of $1.50. Yes, that is one dollar and 50 cents — not even $150, which would be an unimaginable bargain in the United States.

She then had four prescriptions filled for which she paid a total of $6. Meantime, after no long wait for an appointment, she met with her doctor, who is one of the world’s leading experts on ovarian cancer. Amusingly, the Czechs are complaining about having to pay these up-front costs.

Were it not for the uninformed hysteria in the U.S. about anything ringing of socialism, we too could be blissfully complaining about these ridiculous up-front costs rather than dying because we can’t afford to be sick.

LINDA THOMAS
Lynchburg

The nanny state
To make maple syrup, you have to boil off a good amount of tree sap to obtain a small quantity of the sweet stuff. Over the past several months I have watched the debate over health care boil, leaving behind three arguments to consider.

The first argument is that health care delivery needs reform because it is currently too expensive. One would do well to remember, though, that costs are relative. Is health care too expensive? Compared to what? A college education, a house, a pizza (more on that later)? One should also remember that if a 2,000-page bill becomes law, thousands of more pages of regulation will need to be written to implement the new law. Those in favor of Congress’ current plans have a very heavy burden of proof in my opinion.

The second argument is that everyone else in the world (i.e. Europe) has universal health care and therefore so should we. I would counter that it is a good thing to be different than the Europeans. We generally pay less for goods and services, we have larger homes and we have more “stuff.” Some might call this a higher standard of living.

I once had dinner with my wife in Norway. We ate at a pizzeria and ordered one pizza, two side salads and a couple of beers. The bill came to $65. The proprietor, seeing my look of surprise, felt obliged to inform us that taxes in Norway were rather high — 33% for food — in order to pay for things such as universal health care. In a very real way the choice before us today is between cheap pizza and “free” health care. You can’t have both, as the Norwegians will tell you.

Finally, the third argument to consider is whether we would be better off with “reform.” The argument’s premise is that proper health care will keep us healthier, leading us to happier and longer lives. If you have read Dr. Randy Pausch’s book, “The Last Lecture,” however, you may have learned that a healthy and long life are not prerequisites to a happy life. We are all going to die, and at some point neither the wealth of Bill Gates nor the “benefits” of universal health care will buy us any more time. For those looking towards the government’s plan for happiness, you might be better served adopting a dog and caring for it as columnist Susan Estrich recently wrote in a column in The News & Advance.

After considering these arguments, I have reached the decision that the product before me is not very sweet at all.

JOE LA MAGNA
Evington