Insurers discourage breastfeeding
Citizens should be made aware of the hypocritical attitude toward health preservation displayed by many so-called health maintenance organizations. Some of these insurance companies are more interested in managing your dollars than managing your health.
It has been established that breastfeeding, particularly during the first three months of an infant's life, will reduce the risk of infection and the chances of hospitalization. Breastfeeding may even increase the infant's ultimate intelligence.
It would seem logical and desirable for health maintenance organizations to promote and support efforts for mothers to successfully initiate breastfeeding. On occasion, such practice cannot be established in one day's time and feeding an infant from a bottle interferes with the establishment of the mother-infant bond.
The present policy of many insurance companies is to pay only for one day's hospitalization for a mother following delivery of her infant despite the need for some mothers to remain in a supportive environment for an extra day or two to ensure that breastfeeding has begun successfully and the mother is free of stressful disruptions. Do insurance companies really care?
This type of shortsighted attitude helps destroy healthy beginnings and is one further example of the failings of our current health insurance system.
Frank A. Oski, M.D.
Julia McMillan, M.D.
Baltimore
The writers are, respectively, director and associate director of the Department of Pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Kerrey's plan
I'm glad you have finally targeted the most important issue facing America today -- health care. This nation will lose its economic strength if health care costs continue to skyrocket.
Of all the candidates for president, only Sen. Bob Kerrey has a program for controlling costs effectively while providing all Americans with quality health care. His plan will do this by eliminating the needless and costly paperwork plaguing patients, doctors and hospitals alike. This alone would pay for many millions of people who now have no insurance at all.
What about the alternatives? Let's look at three plans proposed by others who ask to be elected this fall. President Bush's plan is a cruel hoax on the American people. More of the same extravagant hodge-podge.
The Clinton and Tsongas plans, while less phony, would reduce out-of-control costs only marginally. They would put major new burdens on small businesses. The Tsongas plan would not confront the special interests that now profit so spectacularly off health care.
Bob Kerrey's plan will control health care costs with tight cost-controls in a simple, efficient system. It will provide access to health care to every American as a natural right and will let people continue to choose their own doctors, hospitals and health plans. Kerrey's Health USA will have a single-payer system for financing health care. This will reduce soaring medical costs.
L Let's make American great again by adopting the Kerrey plan.
Mace Olcott
Pikesville
False security
The false sense of security that a motorcycle helmet provides is by far more dangerous than not wearing a helmet at all.
Lawmakers seem to provide plenty of reasons why motorcyclists need to wear helmets, but they overlook the basic issue: preventing accidents. The helmet does offer a certain degree of protection at the expense of the wearer's hearing and full range of view. This may seem trivial to the non-rider, but try wearing a helmet while driving a car in congested fast-moving traffic.
Frank Slusher
Bel Air
EPA, do something
Bravo for Lisa M. Satterfield and her deep concern for our environment! The threat to sue the EPA for delay in enforcing recycling and safe disposal of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) in household appliances (Evening Sun, Feb. 20) made me think of how government and environmental agencies are juggling our time. The world's entire population and the earth's ecosystem are being endangered by mindless delays. The agency excused itself by claiming that it had been busy working with other aspects of the Clean Air Act, but I think that Ms. Satterfield, I and many other responsible citizens have had it with excuses. Article after article, news release after news release, finding after finding are bringing the imminent threat of ozone depletion closer to home. It should be up to agencies such as the EPA to ensure that something is being done. I don't know about them, but I wouldn't enjoy growing up to see my children wearing protective suits and playing in a dry, barren field.
Adriana Benitez
Baltimore
Kuwait zoo killings
Both during and after the war in the Persian Gulf, how many people gave a thought for the animals at the Kuwait City zoo apart from a handful of humanitarians and animal welfare activists? There were many dying and wounded animals, horribly emaciated, wandering about hopelessly. Hundreds of cows and other domestic animals in the same condition could be seen everywhere amid the smoke, stench and death.
In a country that abounds with stories of Iraqi atrocities, the decimation of these animals is but one more example of the needless destruction that took place during the seven-month occupation of Kuwait.
I hate zoos anyway. But before the war, the Kuwait City zoo collection included 400 animals representing 134 species. Fewer than two dozen survived.
Iraqi troops were billeted at the zoo, where they took target practice by shooting the monkeys for sport and killing gazelles, oryxes, birds and even ant-eaters for food.
Donkeys and other animals were pushed into the cages of the big cats, who quickly devoured the sacrificial animals because they were on the verge of starvation.
I shall never stop wondering how people can be so needlessly destructive and barbaric.
Life is a gift, given equally to all. It must be treated with respect and with due consideration of others, including future
generations.
Sheila Waters
Baltimore
All shook up
What a ludicrous testimonial! A national popularity contest sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service to determine which picture of Elvis Presley -- a womanizing drug addict -- is chosen as a national commemorative stamp.
To add insult to injury the post offices are supplying "free" postcard ballots (paid for with tax dollars) to vote. The stamp is extra.
There are many great American musicians who elevated our society as a whole and were at the same time great statesmen such as Benny Goodman, Louie Armstrong and Eubie Blake. We're not all groupies!
William H. M. Finney
Baltimore
Politics and the English language
As we get deeper into the election year, doublespeak by politicians will become more prevalent. There is a phrase I have noticed for several years which is particularly obtuse. My first recollection of its use was by John F. Kennedy, and I have heard it used by every president since. I have also heard it used by governors, mayors, senators, representatives and other officials. I refer to the phrase "I would hope . . ."
Politicians, if they are astute, must be extremely careful in their public utterances. Practically any declaration of future action will be greeted with joy by some and hostility by others. To avoid this dilemma, the politician has a hierarchy of verbs to answer questions pertaining to future actions on controversial topics. At the top of this hierarchy is "I will . . ." This is to be avoided at all costs, for it sets one unequivocally on one side of the question and immediately earns the ire of those holding contrary views.
Next is the phrase, "I would . . ." In cases where the implied conditional "if" has a good chance of not being met, then the politician is in the enviable position of promising action he will probably never have to take.
The next rung is, "I hope." One definition of "hope" is "to feel that something desired may happen." The key word is "may." When the politician says "I hope" to take some action he is really saying it "may" happen. This leaves a broad avenue of escape from criticism when the defined action is not taken.
Finally, we reach the bottom of the ladder, where "I would hope" stands in all its hazy majesty. It is a bona fide English phrase that sounds splendid but signifies absolutely nothing. The politician may use it with complete abandon. When analyzed it says that sometime in the future the politician might get around to hoping for the action.
This is a classic example of the devaluation of the English language. A new word or phrase is introduced. For a period of years purists deplore it, but to users it describes exactly the idea they intend to convey. Eventually it finds its way into the lexicon ,, of everyday speech, and after a long gestation period no one remembers that its usage was ever controversial. Thus our language grows. I would hope it continues.
Vernon J. Wyatt
Havre de Grace