Letters To The Editor: On Health Care, We Must Do More

On Health Care, We Must Do More
Editor, Times-Dispatch: A recent Metro page highlighted a photograph of two young boys sharing smiles, friendship, and the same form of a rare cancer: neuroblastoma. There is no cure for this rare form of cancer. Their families struggle to keep the cancer at bay, to keep their boys happy, and for their boys to have the opportunity to live as normal a life as possible. Insurance helps greatly, but there are so many medical fees. Family, friends, and caring strangers try to help with the growing mountains of bills and other expenses.

Universal health care is a complicated issue. The present system is flawed when it leaves millions of families without health care. Many Americans view the bill that is pending as a panacea. Others judge it as an attack on the American system of government, free enterprise, and individual choice.

Social Security provides income for retirement-age citizens. There are public schools to educate Americans, help for the disabled, and a welfare system. All these are imperfect systems, but these social systems -- as imperfect as they may be -- have educated some of the greatest minds, saved people from homelessness, and provided care for some of the most physically and mentally challenged in this nation.

There are no easy answers to these seemingly insurmountable problems associated with health care. But as a nation, we have found ways to raise ourselves up from the Great Depression and move forward into prosperity. We have been models of what is decent and good to the entire world in so many circumstances. Once again, we can demonstrate to the world that we have the ability to care for all Americans and provide the most vital gift of medical care. Too many families are relying on bake sales and car washes. Our nation can do more.

Julie Adler Noyes.
Richmond.

When it comes to health care, heaven knows we need some experts in the legislature. O'Bannon is. He also is one of the most respected men at the Capitol, on both sides of the House aisle and in the Senate.

I applaud his opponent for wanting to do public service, but not at the expense of a true patriot. O'Bannon has earned his return to the House. The choice is crystal-clear.

John Cates.
Richmond.

The editors should do a little more reading about the events preceding the Civil War. A place to start would be The Land They Fought For by Richmonder and Richmond News Leader reporter Clifford Dowdey.

Dowdey details the Brooks-Sumner contretemps: "It began with Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, a senator noted for his intellectual arrogance, illimitable pride and nastiness of tongue. The object of his spleen was old Sen. AndrewButler of South Carolina who was absent from the Senate due to illness. In referring to the senator, Sumner said 'he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others is always lovely to him, though polluted in the sight of the world is chaste in his sight: I mean the harlot of slavery.'" It was a personal attack that implied Butler alone was responsible for the institution of slavery.

Butler's nephew, Preston Brooks, a congressman, then took a cane and rebuked Sumner physically. But Sumner was no innocent prophet merely pleading for an end to slavery. Your sentence, "Sumner's opposition to slavery provoked Brooks' wrath" so incompletely describes the events surrounding the incident as to be misleading. In an editorial about rhetorical excess, Sumner makes a poor choice of victim. Rather, he was a vicious practitioner.

To say that Sumner's opposition to slavery provoked the beating is rather like claiming the First World War was about the assassination of an archduke.

Jill Ramsey.
Bon Air.