Think before leaping into health care
The president and Congress are rushing to pass within the next few weeks a health plan that will put a trillion-dollar program into government hands. It is estimated to be a takeover of one-seventh of the economy.
Many politicians call it a must-pass bill even though they don't know how to pay for it.
Put aside for now the debate over cost, employer mandates, mental health coverage, insurance reform, etc. The basic question is: How can we believe that the government will successfully run a life-and-death program with some 250 million participants?
The food stamp program serves 28 million people. The Department of Agriculture recently reported to Congress that 8.29 percent of benefits paid in 1993 (that's $1.7 billion) went to people who were ineligible. At the same time, needy people were denied benefits totaling $559 million because of mistakes.
If the federal government can't get it right in food assistance for 28 million people, it's crazy to think it will get health services right for 250 million.
We're talking here about an enormous, slow-footed bureaucracy bumbling about with your kid's asthma, your neighbor's kidney dialysis, my cataract operation.
We Americans have excellent health care -- which needs careful and well-thought-out reform. Let's keep what is good and fix what is wrong.
I am writing to President Clinton and Congress, asking them to approach health care as "must-think," not "must-pass," legislation.
Right now, no health care bill is better than a bad health care bill.
Ann Hall Marshall
Emmitsburg
O. J. coverage
I am writing in reference to the recent live O. J. Simpson TV coverage during the day on local stations WMAR, WJZ and WBAL.
I cannot seem to understand why the three major networks feel compelled to interrupt already scheduled programming to broadcast these court proceedings.
I realized that they want to make as much money as possible, but honestly, I don't know one person who can or has been able to sit and watch hours and hours of court proceedings. Meanwhile, they are interrupting daytime shows that many people enjoy.
Why are the Simpson court proceedings more important than the previously scheduled programming or any other murder case?
If TV insists on broadcasting the Simpson case, in order to be consistent it should broadcast every murder case that is pending. This case is being over-dramatized by the media.
I thought that the "special news reports" were meant for emergencies. The Simpson case fits neither of these two categories.
If the networks insist on broadcasting these live proceedings, my family and I will cease viewing all programming on WMAR, WJZ and WBAL.
I am sure that many other people will agree with me on this issue, regardless of whether or not they normally watch daytime programming. Please, just report the news of the Simpson case during the scheduled news time.
Michelle Bolton
Towson
In his own right
It strikes me as odd that the press and other news media refer to the slain Ronald Goldman as Nicole Brown Simpson's friend.
His death was no less a loss or tragedy than was hers. He was a person in his own right and deserves to be addressed as such.
J. Mullinix
Baltimore
That's the ticket
When the public announcement was made by The Sun during the week of July 25 that ticket writing by law enforcement officers was reduced during the last year, the response was predictable.
But the past excuses are no longer in vogue or justifiable. That is, the excuse for gasoline conservation and highway safety in terms of higher accident rates and fatalities do not ring true any longer.
So now "unnamed groups" have come forward to insist that the state police enforce the 55- mile-per-hour speed limit. As indicated in the article, state police personnel have been redeployed in the past year to areas of greater concern. Now, with revenues affected, troopers must return to their prime function: assist the coffers of Maryland.
If the numbers reported were a true indicator of state police activity, then a summons for a traffic violation is written approximately every two minutes of every day of the year.
Good work, guys! Especially with the additional volume of traffic on the roads, please slow them down.
Don't just keep the traffic moving. Oh, no. Go back to the phenomenal tactic of the rolling roadblock. Set up phony police cars. Do everything imaginable to trap the average motorist into going from A to B in the longest amount of time.
And don't forget, you are attempting to catch the 10 to 15 percent of all drivers that are estimated to speed.
It is very apparent that the state police are efficient at what they do. Neither the governor's yacht nor his home has had any attempts of attack. Additionally, the State Fair is well protected because the troopers use that familiar tactic of "cluster copping" on both York and Timonium Roads. Keep up the good work!
But really, it is a shame that this police force has to return to being utilized as a revenue generator and not for the safety of the population.
Baltimore County police do a fine job, so why should the state police supplement what is already in place and working well? I feel certain the state police could locate other areas in which to concentrate their specialties. However, everyone, please remember, the most populated area is here in and around the Baltimore metropolitan area. The revenue is here.
Stanley Miller
Owings Mills
'Sensitive' news
With local competition and network re-alignments heating up, Joe Lewin's promotional messages for WMAR-TV's new family-sensitive newscasts are not only not surprising but disturbing (The Sun, July 8).
Whether the ratings race or true journalistic concerns are behind the move, WMAR not only may wind up covering crime differently but risks redefining it.
Mr. Lewin says crime will be covered "only when justified, and we always look for a positive angle." Really? Will we now see stories on WMAR showing how crime is good, how it can help people or make people happy? Will WMAR bring us back to the "happy talk" newscasts of the '70s, only with a new twist -- airing stories that show how crime is making a positive difference in the community?
Granted, much of the push for so-called "family-sensitive" news is a reaction to viewers' concerns over the frequent use of graphic video of crime scenes.
However, it's one thing to rid the airwaves of gratuitous, graphic images. It's another to stick a community's head in the sand by sugar-coating very real truths that must be addressed.
Rather than seeking a positive angle to an issue that has none, WMAR should strive for a true balance in crime coverage -- reporting that reflects crime's actual rate of incidence, responsibly shows its impact on a community and examines solutions that have the potential for real change. Only time will tell WMAR's true convictions. Pending evidence to the contrary, we should give the station the benefit of the doubt when it claims its revamped news policy is not a "promotional gimmick."
One only wonders, then, if ratings were not a factor in bringing us family-sensitive news, will they be the reason for its demise? When a news show trails the competition -- as is the case for most family-sensitive stations -- it may be the need for higher ratings that "justifies," in the station's view, a newscast heavy on crime.
If ratings dip, let's hope a balanced view of crime will not be the first thing that WMAR jettisons.
Dan Mezibov
Baltimore