Back to regular view     Print this page
  • Suburban Chicago News Classifieds
  • SearchChicago Autos
  • SearchChicago Homes
  • Sun-Times Find a Pet
Become a member of our community!



Opinions
News Alerts
Blogs
News
Local News
Columnists

Letters to the Editor ::
Print Article Email Article Share / Bookmark


TOP STORIES ::
Hail to four-time champs

Unemployed doesn't mean unhappy

Hester sets the pace for Foxes

Rihanna's fighting words

Holiday bird: Forget fancy; bring on flavor








FEATURED ADVERTISER ::
Lion King Tickets
Jersey Boys Tickets
Chicago Bears Tickets
Cher Tickets
Christina Aguilera Tickets

Letters to the Editor


October 28, 2009

Health care spending a positive for society

In his Oct. 23 letter, Mark Di Maria states "Expenditures that yield little or no return for society mean that the society has less wealth." On that point he is absolutely right. On many others he is absolutely wrong.

Apple Computers' most recent annual revenue was $24 billion. At its peak, Pablo Escobar's cocaine cartel had an annual revenue of $30 billion. Microsoft's most recent annual revenue was $60 billion. The estimated amount of Bernie Madoff's fraud is $65 billion. While they may have similar revenue amounts, no one would consider Apple to be on par with the Escobar cartel or Microsoft as the equivalent of the Madoff scheme.

The genius and hard work of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates gave us the tech boom, which yielded a decade of economic growth and which continues to improve our quality of life. Pablo Escobar gave us the cocaine epidemic, which benefited mostly criminals.

And what about the years of life lost, the lost productivity, the lost income and taxes from addicts who are dead, disabled or jailed instead of working? Madoff perpetrated the most enormous fraud in Wall Street history. How many people have fallen or will fall into foreclosure and destitution because of him?

How is health care spending something that yields "little or no return for society"? The nation as a whole spent $2.2 trillion in health care in 2007. This is about $7,333 per person. We could all decide tomorrow to bring that number to zero and spend no money on health care, provided we don't mind having the life expectancy of Somalia. I don't know what Mr. Di Maria thinks his life is worth, but I think my life is worth at least $20 a day.

As for Mr. Di Maria's comment about long lines and low-quality health care, famed physicist Stephen Hawking (clearly a person with very high health care needs) said about Britain's National Health Service "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived." We should all be so fortunate.

Litzi T. Hartley

Naperville

Medicare and Social Security needed for economic crisis

President Obama says we should not ask, "What's good for me?" but "What's good for the country my children will inherit?"

Surely, this economic crisis is proof positive that we desperately need Social Security and Medicare now and for our children and grandchildren. So many of us have seen our savings depleted, home equity disappear, and health care costs skyrocket beyond our means. I can't imagine facing this current crisis without Social Security and Medicare.

Unfortunately, rather than look for ways to strengthen these programs, some in Congress are now using the current economic meltdown as political cover to renew their push for "reform."

These so-called budget hawks know Social Security and Medicare costs didn't create this crisis yet they want to cut these vital programs to pay down President Bush's record budget deficit. We can't balance the budget on the back of Social Security and Medicare.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare as a trade off for stimulus is a false choice -- one I hope President Obama, Congress, and the American people will see through and reject.

Shree Gurusamy

Naperville