Deny Capital’s request for stent procedures
Norbert Howald advocates that the state permit Capital Medical Center to provide elective coronary stent procedures because, “All hospitals should be allowed to provide the same care and procedures in order to save the life of the patient.”
By this reasoning, he would have the rural hospitals in our area providing coronary stents and cardiac surgery. He would have all regional hospitals treat severe trauma cases that are now airlifted to Harborview Medical Center’s trauma center. He seems to miss the importance of practice and frequent cases to allow doctors to perfect their techniques.
Howald implies that because Providence St. Peter does most of the cardiac cases in this area, it is driven by “monopoly and greed.”
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
I strongly disagree.
Capital Medical Center is a for-profit hospital that sends its revenue to its parent company, investing little of its money in the community.
On the other hand, Providence St. Peter is a nonprofit hospital that invests locally.
Because of the revenue from cardiology and other departments, St. Peter can underwrite the programs in psychiatry and chemical dependency where I work. These programs and others would disappear without those dollars.
It doesn’t seem wise or ethical to jeopardize those departments at St. Peter that serve the community at a financial loss in order to increase the profits of an out of state corporation.
I support denying the certificate of need for Capital Medical Center.
GEORGE L. CHAPPELL, MD, Olympia
State-subsidized insurance almost useless
We recently, due to being disabled, became eligible for medical assistance from Medicaid.
After years of having no dental insurance whatsoever and my teeth breaking off at the gum line in several places, I decided it was time to look into getting dentures while I have the coverage.
I have since realized that virtually all — all except maybe one-tenth of 1 percent — of the dentists all across the state of Washington will not accept the state-provided health care.
How is such discrimination allowed to survive here? How is it that the state of Washington does not oversee such activity by health care providers? If the members of our government are so concerned with health care for all, they should be all over this.
It’s all about the money. I have been told that by dental receptionists. They have stated that Washington does not pay them enough.
I am curious as to what happened to their Hippocratic oath. I feel that when your ONLY resource for health care is what you receive from DSHS — NO doctor, dentist, optometrist or other provider should be able to deny state patients.
They make plenty of money off all the other insurance companies. I know they made plenty off my Boeing insurance for the many years that I worked there.
Being a veteran, I looked into getting help from the VA. Dental is provided only to POWs and 100 percent service connected disability vets.
I just want my smile back!
DALE RICHARD, Montesano
Physicians should have choice, too
The proposed Freedom of Choice Act would force doctors, nurses and hospitals to provide or counsel for abortion or face professional de-certification, loss of funding, lawsuits and prosecution.
I am not opposed to a woman’s right to have an abortion. However, freedom of choice goes both ways. A woman’s right to choose to have an abortion should not trump another person’s right to follow his or her own conscience in this matter.
The “Freedom of Choice” act is an abomination with an Orwellian name, and it would deny freedom of choice to those who honestly believe that to perform an abortion is to commit murder.
CARL SCHROEDER, Olympia
Others should follow Cronkite’s model
I was sad to hear about the passing of Walter Cronkite. From what I know of this former anchorman, he simply reported on the news in some of our country’s most difficult times.
I wonder what he thought about the way that many news organizations try to shape the news to support a specific political point of view. To be clear, I am talking about ABC, NBC, CBS and all of the cable news organizations (that means you too, Fox News).
Dan Rather could have taken a page out of Cronkite’s news playbook when he ignored staff advice and ran with the story involving George Bush and his time in the National Guard.
An independent report issued later concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of this story. I could never have envisioned Cronkite putting himself in a similar position.
If all news organizations would simply report and/or comment on news and remove the spin so commonly used to support a political point of view, we could all have a little more faith in what was being reported.
I respected that Cronkite was someone whose motives you did not have to question in his reporting of the news.
Maybe others should follow his lead.
JIM GRANTHAM, Lacey