Medicare MythsDoes Medicare bury recipients in a sea of...

Medicare Myths

Does Medicare bury recipients in a sea of forms to fill out? It's a myth.

Does Medicare make doctors terribly rich? It's a myth. Does the Coalition to Save Medicare want to preserve the system? It's a myth.

The recipient of Medicare service gets many papers recording both care given and benefits paid -- but does not have to file claim forms. Medicare fees are strictly limited, for both ''participating'' and ''non-participating'' providers.

And the Coalition to Save Medicare wants to destroy it, resulting in a windfall for large insurance firms. Members of the coalition include the Alliance for Managed Care, made up of the nation's largest insurance companies; the Healthcare Leadership Council, whose members are CEOs in the health-care industry; and the National Association of Manufacturers.

As the Wall Street Journal says, the group is ''right on the GOP wave-length.'' Note that a representative for the Alliance for Managed Care is one of a few persons regularly consulted by Speaker Newt Gingrich and by House and Senate aides working on Medicare, and that a former top official in the Health Insurance Association of America is now running the House Ways and Means Committee staff writing the Medicare legislation.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that managed care systems are so awash in dough that they use it buying up each other. HMOs are reported to use unfair and deceptive tactics to enroll Medicaid recipients.

Recently we read that some HMOs have been requiring pre-authorization for emergency room visits, and refusing to pay for non-authorized care given in real emergencies.

The General Accounting Office has now found that the federal government has been slow to take enforcement actions against ''HMOs that currently handle Medicare beneficiaries and that fail to comply with federal rules.''

Would a ''ChoiceCare'' type of privatization require any less federal regulation or be any more honest with citizens?

Mary O. Styrt

Baltimore

Appalled

I am appalled by this Congress and its hearings and investigations. Whatever happened to the descriptive title "the loyal opposition"?

A pox on the chairmen of the Waco hearings and all the people of his ilk!

Vera McCullough

Baltimore

Blood Money

Ed Brandt's Aug. 2 article on Stuart Berger states ''lost in the argument was the fact that he was following federal guidelines,'' referring to his inclusion program.

Dr. Berger had two years to comply with these guidelines, ample time to devise a plan which would have satisfied parents and teachers and served the needs of children with special needs.

His decision to implement a ''one size fits all'' approach in three months, under a cloak of secrecy, fear and intimidation, was nothing short of devastating.

It will take years to undo the damage done, and many children will never regain what they have lost in the name of progress.

The Sun praises Dr. Berger for being tough and getting the job done in a no-win situation. That's like saying the Gestapo wasn't all bad.

Let Stuart Berger take his blood money and get out of town. Good riddance at last.

Helene Haviland

Glyndon

Clean Air is Not Free

On Aug. 1, an article headlined, "To save ozone layer, keeping cool costs more," appeared in the Maryland section of The Sun. The following day, your paper editorially attacked the Republicans for wanting to curtail the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency.

To add freon to your present auto air-conditioner will cost an average of $80. When freon is no longer permitted, the cost to the motorist could be anywhere from $200 to $1,600.

Pennies for clean air? That was the cry in 1970. By 1995, the cost of electricity on the average has increased by $1,200 annually, while the cost of a car has climbed from $4,000 to $16,000.

Need we go on?

Our love affair with "clean air and clean water" now costs around $300 billion annually. It's a long cry from pennies for clean air.

Is ozone the villain it is pictured to be?

In Europe, ozone is used to purify both water and air, the exact opposite of our conception of ozone. It was identified as a new substance around 1840. The theory that an ozone layer existed had to come some time later.

The study of photochemistry, the effect of light on the structure of matter, is never taken seriously in the classroom except to note that it exists.

The effect of chlorine as harmful to the ozone layer is rather puzzling. Chlorine itself is broken down by blue light. In the atomic state it will attack water to get at the hydrogen to form hydrochloric acid. The free oxygen would then re-enforce the ozone layer, not destroy it. It's how fish get their oxygen in the water.

Is there an ozone layer? The ozone layer theory is only used to explain phenomena we do not understand.

The $300 billion we spend for clean air and clean water has produced little or no positive results. Isn't it time we stripped the EPA of some of its power just to catch our breath?