Leading Contender
In discussing the recent California primary election, your June 11 editorial "1996, Here We Come," concludes that if Pete Wilson if re-elected governor of California, "he becomes . . . perhaps the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996."
If history is a guide, Mr. Wilson is almost guaranteed the nomination. In the last seven presidentials elections (1968 through 1992) every Democratic and Republican presidential nominee has been a current or former president, vice-president or governor except one (George McGovern).
Thus, the Republican presidential nominee field is narrowed to Pete Wilson, Dan Quayle and George Bush. Senators and congressmen need not apply.
Leon Reinstein
Baltimore
No Weirdos
As I watched the introduction to the Belmont Stakes I could not help but compare it to the Preakness in Baltimore.
The Belmont, from the viewpoint of the TV viewing audience, is really a class act. Missing is the clutter in the infield, the tents, the trash, the dregs of society. How refreshing to see that the Belmont has not been reduced to a showcase for the weirdos that constitute about 90 percent of the infield of the Preakness.
We don't see this in the Kentucky Derby or the Belmont so why should we continue to disgrace Baltimore by opening the infield to all of the misfits of the human race. I can remember when it wasn't like this.
If we want to use the Preakness as a showcase for Baltimore, why not follow the example of the Belmont and keep the garbage out of the infield.
E.M. Fritz
Ocean City
Who Needs Docs?
President Clinton, in his tinkering with welfare as we know it speech, claimed that the best way to change welfare was to listen to people on it.
Welfare recipients apparently have unique and valuable insights that the Clinton administration needs to fashion effective re-regulation of an epic government dole.
Universal health care for every living soul in America, on the other hand, is a much simpler issue. Which is why the president hasn't felt the need to discuss his bold initiatives with practicing physicians. What use is their insight?
To ruin a medical delivery system that works well for so many millions, to undermine a profession that exemplifies dedication, intelligence and compassion, who needs doctors? Lawyers can do it all by themselves.
Rob Ringle
Frederick
Inept Prosecution
Having spent a recent week serving as juror on a criminal case, I must express my frustration.
Regardless of whether I considered the suspect guilty or not, we (the jury) were unable to do other than pronounce "not guilty," as the evidence provided by the state's attorneys was wholly inadequate to prove the case.
For example, no handwriting experts were provided to confirm the authorship of seized written materials, nor were fingerprints taken from confiscated artifacts. To me, the entire process was lengthy, expensive and inept.
The state should think long and hard and prepare well before bringing charges that involve tremendous cost and manpower to resolve. There certainly is not a shortage of criminals to prosecute.
Lesley Pierce
Baltimore
Nursing's Contribution Rebuffed
Your editorials praising the governor's veto of state Sen. Paula Hollinger's proposal, to establish a fund to encourage innovative programs in Maryland nursing schools to address unmet needs resulting from health reform, are ill-informed and downright wrong.
The source of the $400,000 annually was not the general fund, but rather a hidden singular 20 percent tax masquerading as licensure fees on Maryland's nurses. All that nurses wanted was for their money to be used for nursing and not diverted to others' pet projects.
After years of subsidizing other regulatory entities in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the need for this subsidy evaporated two years ago when those boards and commissions became self-sustaining.
Rather than simply seeking a 20 percent fee rebate, or turning the funds over to the Board of Nursing, the Maryland Nurses Association (not the legislature) proposed the Snoops Fund to benefit its profession significantly, ending funding only at a time when an increase in fees would otherwise be required.
Nursing sought to name this fund to recognize Hilda Mae Snoops' career as a registered nurse and role as the only registered nurse to serve as Maryland's official hostess.
Had you taken the time to inquire, you would have found that the state is lacking in nursing education resources, that the fund received national recognition and that the Board of Nursing is anything but "flush with surplus cash."
Board licensure fees are calculated on a 5-year basis and front-loaded to keep them level in the face of rising costs. Any "surplus" (your word, parroting the governor) will be gone at the end through anticipated expenses.
"Surpluses" have been created due to slowness, inefficiency and stupidity inherent in state procurement and personnel processes. These stifle the Board of Nursing's attempts to use money in aplanned and cost-effective manner. The "surpluses" are largely budgeted funds rolled into the next fiscal year due to such delays.
All you had to do was ask anyone familiar with the situation. The legislature did. Instead, you and Barry Rascovar chose to run TTC with only one self-serving version of the story.
While such fit your purpose (making the content match your headlines) and Gov. William Donald Schaefer's staff's (keeping the money no matter what), neither The Sun's endorsement nor the governor's veto brings credit upon yourselves in the eyes of Maryland's nurses.
As to this proposal, your editorial consideration (June 10) might have been better directed to this stealth tax on Maryland's nurses and the fact that nursing was willing to contribute its money to the training of all nurses and ultimately to the benefit of the public.
"Prudence" is hardly a word one might use to describe the thwarting of nursing's proposal. Mr. Rascovar (column, June 12) has it all backward. This is not "a $300,000 annual raid on the general fund." It's a continuing $400,000 gubernatorial pocket-picking of the nurses.
The Board of Nursing would have judged schools' proposals (which the board must review and approve anyway) based on merit without any administrative cost to the state.
One would have thought that The Sun would have vigorously endorsed any state program providing 100 percent of its funding to its proper and very worthy recipients, rather than using it to take a cheap shot at the legislature.
Rob Ross Hendrickson
Baltimore
The writer is lobbyist for the Maryland Nurses Association.
Clinton Plan Criminalizes Private Medicine
President Clinton asks Americans to place the "national interest" above what he calls "narrow" interests, and to pass his health care reform plan.
Think carefully before accepting this argument. Is it really in the national interest to impose criminal penalties on physicians for offering "supplementary benefits" to patients who may choose not to participate in the government purchasing collectives?
This is precisely what the Clinton proposal does. The plan forbids "the payment of bribes and gratuities to implement the delivery of health services and coverage." No matter what the bill's supporters claim, this statement can and will be interpreted in courts and by government agencies to mean that no voluntary, private contracts may be initiated between doctors and patients. The government will at last control the practice of medicine in its entirety.
The closest analogy one can imagine is the federal government imposing criminal penalties on any individuals who choose to operate a private school outside the public school system. It is almost as if the authors of the Clinton plan sensed that the better doctors would not participate in the collectives, thus requiring them to be mandatory.
The Clinton plan relies on the false assumption that human beings are incapable of making rational decisions about medical treatment in the context of their own unique, personal circumstances. A free market approach suggests just the opposite. It assumes that human beings are capable of making rational decisions, if they choose, and if government interference in the marketplace does not prevent them from doing so. If certain individuals choose not to make rational decisions, this is still no justification for imposing price controls and rationing on the rest of the individuals who do.
The evidence of the past 50 years suggests that the real causes of medical inflation are the following: (1) unfair and irrational tax codes which effectively prevent individuals from purchasing health insurance on their own and without reliance on their employers; (2) a 30-year spending spree by both doctors and patients under Medicare and Medicaid programs which pick up the tab for hospitalizations or, when the government deficit explodes, force private hospitals to cover the losses; and (3) senseless licensing laws that grant physicians a monopoly on certain medical treatments that could just as competently, and far less expensively, be performed by other medical professionals (such as nurses and physician's assistants). It is noaccident that as the government's interference in the medical marketplace has increased, so have the costs. . . .
Finally, and most importantly, no moral government is entitled to impose price controls on doctors in the first place. Doctors, like all professionals, have a right to charge what they think is appropriate for their life-preserving services. It does not serve the interest of any American to drive the best physicians out of the field and to alienate those who remain by perpetuating the stereotype that they are unfeeling exploiters of human vulnerability. The first lady's comments in this regard have been especially reprehensible and will not soon be forgotten by those of us who view doctors as heroes, not enemies.
Universal coverage can neither be wished nor legislated into existence, however hard Washington officials may try. Only individuals, acting freely and in their own self-interest, will ever be able to provide competent and comprehensive health care. Hopefully Americans, on the eve of a life-threatening vote in Congress, will not have to learn this lesson the hard way.
Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
Columbia
The writer is a psychotherapist.