John McCann’s writings, especially his style of language to get folks to do what should be done, are enjoyable. It would be better, however, to urge men to “take your butts” to the Red Cross blood donation center than to prostate screening.
His column of Sept. 15 focused on an extremely complex matter, prostate cancer screening. After decades of morbidity from surgery (or radiation therapy for that matter), there is still no solid evidence that screening followed by locally curative procedures is valuable or saves lives. For certain, however, a “positive” test result currently costs the United States health care system many millions and if unchecked or expanded, ultimately billions.
The concept of approved screening is just one of too many issues that need work before health care costs can become affordable, although it’s not as serious as misuse of emergency rooms, lack of personal responsibility in general, over-utilization of testing by court-shy doctors, wasteful treatment during end-of-life care, and use of expensive new imaging techniques or treatments before they have been thoroughly evaluated.
Any debate about health care reform must tell the electorate several truths:
- To achieve adequate universal coverage will result in much higher taxes.
- Doctors can never bat a thousand.
- Popular insurance plans for the employed will soon disappear or become affordable only by the most affluent.
- Screening isn’t available for many diseases, yet we continue to do it.
HAROLD R. SILBERMAN, M.D.
Durham
The last straw
Back in June when TV broadcasting went digital we lost more than half of the stations we had been viewing even with our converter box and fancy new antenna.
After a couple of days we became aware of a phone number we could call to make this complaint. I called and was told the digital change was an improvement, a statement repeated at least twice by the FCC help-line lady, so when I assured her it wasn’t an improvement to us, she finally offered to send a complaint form. After a week with no form I called again and was told again a complaint form would be mailed.
Now, today, three months later, an 11-page, FCC form 2000 came in the mail, and none of it applies to our problem! Not only were the staples poorly applied but the lengthy Paperwork Reduction Act sing-song was invoked no less than five times ensuring this whole charade was a ludicrous exercise in what should have been something fairly straightforward.
How can we possibly believe that our government is capable of managing a further expansion into health care with this example of their waste and inefficiency in the digital conversion and the knowledge that Medicare is headed for insolvency?
RUSSELL L. AND JEAN H. SEAMAN
Rougemont
No inconvenience
In regards to the letter about the Silver Alert call, I was disturbed to think anyone could be so upset about a call of someone missing. I also received a call. It only made me more aware that a human being was in need of help. From that time on, I was more aware. I noticed people I saw walking and it stayed on my mind each time I drove to different areas.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe there was a happy ending to this alert. If I or my family ever have a need for an “alert,” I would hope the call for help would not be an “inconvenience.” No matter how small, we are here on this earth to help others in need, no matter how bothersome.
JUANITA WAGONER
Durham
