YOUR OPINION 6/28/2009

Project ESBA's, not Scranton's

Editor: I am writing to clarify a misunderstanding about sponsorship of a neighborhood improvement project, the Commons at Richter Avenue in East Scranton.

The plans were conceived a few years ago by members of the East Scranton Business Association, when I was privileged to serve as that group's president. Development and construction at the site have continued under ESBA President Eugene McDonough and project coordinator John Darcy.

Work has progressed because of  the many hours of hard work performed by an untold number of dedicated ESBA members and community volunteers.

 Money for this project has come from many sources including generous individuals and businesses, a $10,000 state grant through the office of state Sen. Robert Mellow and, most recently, a $75,000 state grant through the office of state Rep. Ken Smith.

 Several small contractors have provided heavy equipment and tools.

The Commons at Richter Avenue is not a project of the city of Scranton.  To date, no local tax dollars have been used for this project. The completion of this project is expected by fall.

Members of the East Scranton Business Association are very proud of East Scranton and are very supportive of community improvement projects.  We invite all to come to the site and see for yourself the work that has been done.

RICHARD A. HAMES

            Marketing Director, ESBA

First things, first: Cut, then tax

Editor: Memo to the Harrisburg Syndicate:

Your self-made budget dilemma has a simple by-the-numbers solution:

Unemployment is 9.4 percent.  Lay off 9.4 percent of state workers.

The economy is down 6 percent.  Cut every department, including pay, by 6 percent across the board. 

After doing this, then come hat-in-hand to the taxpayers.  Not before.

TOM McCAREY

devon, Montgomery County

Include public plan

Editor: I read with interest Denise Cesare's column in the June 21 Sunday Times, "No to government-run health care."

She makes some good points. She also makes some terrible points. Like some of the "right-wing" talk-show hosts, she refers to a public option as a government run health care system that rations health care and, that it would be "inevitable."

She points to statistics as proof, but when the administration points to statistics, these same people claim them as untrue. Anyone can find statistics to prove almost anything. She would be more convincing to me if she was suggesting the insurance industry work with the administration to develop a plan that works.

Polls show the public wants a public plan. She'd be more convincing if the insurance industry had given us reason to believe it had worked in our best interest in the past.

Politicians fall on either side of this issue and both sides claim the other is dead wrong. I don't think that a public plan is the whole answer, but it certainly is part of the answer. I think tort reform is a part of the answer, but not without some way of providing assurance that the medical community will actually police its own.

Cutting costs must be a large part of the answer, but a promise from insurance and the medical industries doesn't mean much, unless someone holds them to that promise.

That's what a public option does. Maybe if insurance, medicine, pharmaceuticals and the administration and Congress all worked together, we could get a really good system of health care. Finding fault with a public option isn't working together in good faith.

Failing to work together, the next best option is a public option.

ED COLE

Clarks Summit

Circular power

Editor: Recently President Obama spent the evening trying to explain his health care plan.

The day before some of your readers' letters showed a misunderstanding of the terms of this discussion.

"Health care providers" are the professionals involved in providing medical care.

Insurance companies are not health care providers. They are the intermediaries between you and your doctors, who for a fee promise to pay for your care.

 When the need for such payments arises your insurer will try everything to deny payments by restricting your access to needed care, denying payments after the care is provided, claiming that treatments are experimental, burying you in paperwork.

They do this to maximize their profits so that they can donate millions to the same hospitals that they denied payments to, demonstrating their good corporate citizenship, and then raising your premiums so that they can continue to buy other insurance companies and consolidate their near monopolistic presence in a community.

This then leads to higher premiums and lowered reimbursements to your health care providers.

I hope this was helpful.

ROMAS DOVYDAITIS Dalton

Curative facts

Editor: In a June 23 letter, Marilyn Rau states that socialized medicine is practiced in many industrialized countries which are obviously morally and intellectually superior (to the U.S.?)

She also states that these countries have socialized medicine to keep their people healthy and not to keep their rich from paying taxes.

I wonder if Ms. Rau has ever had any experience with socialized medicine.

I lived in Scotland for two years and I observed that a great deal of its citizens are not happy with their health care system. It is not easy to see a doctor and waiting months to see a specialist is the norm.

I witnessed two close friends waiting six months to see a gastroenterologist and then wait another 6 months for colon cancer surgery. Neither one of them is still alive.

In the U.S. I had to wait only three weeks from a general practitioner visit, to seeing a gastroenterologist, to colon cancer surgery.

To counter these delays, a large number of people have decided get private health insurance.

Ms. Rau should check the high taxes all people have to pay on everything in countries with socialized medicine. Many people from these countries travel to the U.S. for treatment.

Regarding Susan Zito's recent letter, it appears that she has used her own experience with Blue Cross of NEPA to denounce health care in the U.S.

Her comments center on the high cost of health care and the possibility of health care executives losing their "obscenely high salaries and generous benefits." Not once did she complain about the quality of health care that she and her family receive. According to a recent poll, over 80 percent of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care.

She also dismisses the column authored by Denise Cesare, Dr. Robert D'Alessandri, president and dean of the Commonwealth Medical College, and the CEOs of seven hospitals.

Their column provided a wealth of information.

Ms. Zito states that the government can't do any worse than health care providers are doing now.

If the government runs health care, it won't have to make a profit. Most companies will not be able to compete and the great majority of us might be forced to migrate to the government program.

I'm not sure I want to do that since I'm one of the 80 percent who are satisfied with my health care.

Most Americans agree that our system of providing health care needs improvement.

Before anyone rushes to endorse any plan get all the facts and then make your decision.  

FRED DEMECH

moosic