Paisley Passe
The International Herald Tribune on Oct. 21 reprinted your Oct. 17 editorial ("Truce Tango in Northern Ireland").
The point of your piece was clear, and yet confusing: Is it possible anyone in your office can in his wildest imaginings consider Ian Paisley of the Democratic Unionist Party a player in the current (or future) peace moves in Northern Ireland? Apparently so, or you would have edited the item.
Paisley is a man who has passed his "use by" date. He has been written off by John Major, the main Northern Ireland Unionist parties and the pragmatic Northern Ireland Alliance Party. Unlike Yasser Arafat, he is an unsuccessful representative of the people.
Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein), on the other hand, is rightly being given credit along with John Hume (Social Democratic and Labor Party) for bringing the "hard men" into the democratic process.
Neither man should be mentioned on the same level as Ian Paisley, who had nothing to do with the loyalist paramilitaries' cease-fire.
'If this be peace, make the most of it." But keep the record straight while reporting it.
Jeanette F. Dugan Huber
Kinsale, Cork, Ireland
Report Awry
I wanted to point out factual errors contained in your Oct. 9 article, "Maryland's hospital costs go awry," and specifically the misleading opening paragraph regarding "angioplasty" at Prince George's Hospital Center.
You cited our hospital as being "almost $9,000 more" for heart angioplasty than at Franklin Square Hospital, citing in your chart an average bill at Prince George's of $13,454, while at Franklin Square it was $4,492.
Franklin Square does not perform heart angioplasty, nor do five of the other hospitals listed in the article. I would suggest this is the result of miscoding of these cases, but it also demonstrates the tremendous complexity of addressing the issue of health care costs.
At a minimum, though, your reporter should have made an effort to validate the accuracy of the data.
Charges for hospital services are regulated by the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission, which has a long tradition of controlling hospital costs in Maryland.
Since 1970, the commission has limited hospital cost increases by over $9 billion less what the national average increase would have been. Maryland's cost per case is 11 percent below the national average.
Every segment of health care is challenged with achieving greater cost efficiencies. Yet we are also challenged with rendering services to any patient that presents without regard to that individual's insurance coverage or ability to pay.
Responding to inaccurate reporting only makes it more difficult to balance these sometimes contradictory challenges.
Allan E. Atzrott
Cheverly
The writer is president, Prince George's Hospital Center.
'Manipulating' Kids
Yes, Andrew Ratner was manipulated, and so is his son. Children are easily manipulated by shows, commercials and merchandise fads. Unfortunately, the parents who rush out and wait in line to buy $37 toys reinforce that manipulation.
I sometimes buy my 5- and 7-year-olds what they want, but more often I say, "Yes, wouldn't that be fun to have." Or, "It sure looks neat. Too bad it costs too much."
Kids are very accepting of these answers,because you've validated their desires and opinions.
My kids are normal. They can be as stubborn and unreasonable as any, but they are smart enough to know that they can't have everything they want.
Parents need to give their kids credit for being able to accept explanations and limits. If you're not comfortable with your children watching the Power Rangers or other violent kids's shows, explain why and say, "I'm sorry, but we can't watch this in our house anymore." I did, and my children accepted easily.
At least find out what your kids are so crazy about. Some parents will be surprised to find out that "Power Rangers" is not a cartoon.
I want my children to make their own decisions, but when everywhere we turn we see Power Ranger merchandise, then I need to step in and help them.
When it comes down to it, I'd rather I was the manipulator of my children. Isn't that what we've been doing since they were infants -- manipulating their environment to allow them to gently grow and learn, healthy and safe?
Lisa Mathis
Baltimore
Banning Guns
This is a response to the article about gun control, authored by "faculty members of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health" (Opinion * Commentary, Oct. 26).
Not knowing what constitutes a faculty member of a School of Public Health, but inferring that these people are being presented as doctors, scientists or educators, I wonder why they want to treat the symptom and not the disease?
Furthermore, it is my observation over the years that this has been an issue that zealots tend to cite false or speciously arrived at statistics to support their view. I have heard so many different numbers for the same statistical items that I barely am willing to believe what I see with my own eyes.
The main flaw in all the gun control arguments is the total lack of awareness that there are already millions of legally owned guns in this land, and which, I hope, no one will try to set aside the Constitution to abolish.
There have always been guns here, and that is why a "study" comparing Seattle and Vancouver is not valid. They differ in far more always than just their regulation of handguns.
There is much about Canada that we would do well to emulate -- banning guns after they have always been legal is not one of them.
As to the temporary decline of gun deaths in Washington, D.C., after a law was enacted in 1976, the article itself pointed out that there was a "subsequent escalation of violence in Washington." They state that without the law there would have been more deaths. They failed to note that the current level is record setting.
I totally dispute their suggest that guns in the home offer no protection or deterrent as being simply self-serving. I am sure that as caring, feeling persons they want to do something about this, as they would want to rid the world of a plague.
But just saying it is a health-care problem doesn't make it so. It is a socio-economic problem that should be dealt with by people from that discipline.
There are more than enough laws to handle gun control now. Let's have them enforced, while the politicians in Washington try to become statesmen and pass some laws for the common good that will endeavor to give hope to all citizens and restore reason.
George H. Taylor
Reisterstown
The Truth About the 1993 Tax Revisions
For the past five years, I have been a volunteer with the American Association of Retired People's tax consulting for the elderly program and have assisted seniors and others to prepare and review federal and state returns.
I am alarmed at the misinformation about the 1993 tax revisions that is being presented on television, radio and print media.
The 1993 Tax Code, as it relates to middle-class Americans -- individuals filing single returns up to $70,000 and married filing joint returns up to $140,000 in taxable income -- has not increased taxes over 1992 Tax Code.
A review of the following chart illustrates that middle class taxpayers have not been told the whole truth concerning the so-called "largest tax increase in history."
There were several areas of tax increases in the 1993 Tax Code. Two new levels of tax rates were created for the most affluent taxpayers with income levels of more than $70,000 for individuals filing single returns and for $140,000 for married joint returns.
Gasoline taxes were increased a very modest 4.3 cents a gallon. The increase in summer gasoline prices far exceeded the increase in gasoline tax.
For affluent senior citizens, an additional tier was added to compute taxable portion of Social Security.
There was no change in computation for senior couples whose income plus half of Social Security is less than $32,000. For single individuals, the limit is $25,000.
I trust that the above information will be beneficial to your understanding the full facts on the 1993 tax revisions.
James D. Hussey
Lewes, Del.
Filing Status -- Single
Taxable ... ... 1992 ... ... 1993
Income .. .. .. Tax .. .. .. Tax
$20,000 ... ... $3,004 .. .. 3,004
$30,000 ... ... 5,619 ... .. 5,534
$50,000 ... ... 11,219 .. .. 11,134
$70,000 ... ... 17,236 .. .. 17,230
Filing Status -- Married Joint
Taxable ... ... 1992 ... ... 1993
Income .. .. .. Tax .. .. .. Tax
$30,000 ... ... 4,504 ... .. 4,504
$60,000 ... ... 12,153 .. .. 12,010
$90,000 ... ... 20,659 .. .. 20,439
$120,000 .. ... 29,951 .. .. 29,729
$140,000 .. ... 36,151 .. .. 35,928