"The Medicare system is broken."
Dear Editor:
Americans aged 65 years and over spend an average of $700 a year each on prescription drugs. This is a crisis, and Congress is tripping all over itself to pick up the tab, but consider all the other senior crises that are going woefully unaddressed. For example, the average senior:
- spends $1,200 a year "dining out." The elderly could save so much on "blue-plate specials," if only the government paid the tab;
- drops $800 a year on furnishings (How many recliners - perfect for watching the "Golf channel"- go unpurchased because Congress refuses to help pay this bill?); and
- spends $1,000 a year on entertainment - yet we persist in forcing seniors to pay for their own subscriptions to large-print editions of Reader's Digest.
Many seniors need help buying prescription drugs; about a third of them don't have drug coverage (not provided by Medicare), and an undetermined number actually have trouble paying for their drug bills. Those seniors have to be, on one hand, not so poor or sick that they are covered by Medicaid, but on the other hand, not so wealthy that they can afford their own coverage. Probably 10 percent to 15 percent of the elderly fits this description.
It would be simple to provide a food-stamp-style subsidy for this group and a government insurance program to protect them from truly catastrophic drug expenses. However, the big-spending Democrats in Washington want a generous new benefit for all seniors. Never mind that this benefit, instituted as part of Medicare, will inevitably mean price controls; drug spending has been increasing simply because more people are buying more drugs.
The irony is that government is challenging and cutting chiropractic benefits to seniors drastically. We comprise the world's largest drugless healing profession. When seniors go to chiropractors, they reduce their dependence on drugs, which saves tremendous health costs. Studies have shown that up to 40 percent of seniors suffer with an iatrogenic disease caused by prescription drugs. This causes untold billions of dollars in unnecessary medical expenses. Bureaucrats on the backs of the taxpayers make all these decisions, and the snollygosters are using demagoguery to scare seniors into thinking that those who want to preserve the system are trying to kill them.
The Medicare system is broken Its payment system is so expensive that it creates inevitable pressure for government price-controls on whatever it touches - doctors, hospitals and HMOs (all of which are fleeing Medicare as a result). Price controls already have crushed innovation in France and Japan, while the U.S. leads the world in new heart therapies.
Allen D. Unruh, DC
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
"According to Dr. O'Neal, I should never have been accepted at Los Angeles College of Chiropractic." Dear Editor:
Since I began reading Dynamic Chiropractic in 1986, there have been many occasions on which I have wanted to write a response to erroneous statements or comments made by egomaniacal chiropractors. Until now, I have chosen to "let sleeping dogs lie." However, the letter from John W. O'Neal, MS, DC, entitled, "A Call to Higher Standards" [Feb. 24], has made it impossible for me to continue to maintain my silence.
In his letter to the editor, Dr. O'Neal states that the reputation of the chiropractic profession, and the respect it receives, are related directly to the quality of the students admitted to and graduating from chiropractic colleges. I wholeheartedly agree with this obvious cause-and-effect relationship.
Dr. O'Neal also cites several examples of scandal in the chiropractic profession, and an example of a chiropractic school that lost sight of its mission. With respect to these examples, he states: "Selection of students from first-generation colleges, without four-year degrees, and from 'nonprofessional' family backgrounds, can only produce what I have mentioned above."
I am certain that students from first-generation colleges, those without four-year degrees and those from "nonprofessional" family backgrounds can succeed as ethical and well-qualified chiropractors.
Dr. O'Neal also would disqualify from consideration for chiropractic college all students who did not attend a four-year college. Many qualified students arrive at their goals in life without following this generally accepted path. If the student can demonstrate proficiency and meet the requirements, he or she should be accepted into chiropractic college
Unless we are throwing out the tenets on which the United States was founded and changing to a caste society, it is ludicrous to even suggest that one's family background should be considered as an admittance qualification. I would love to see Dr. O'Neal's lists defining "nonprofessional" and "professional" backgrounds; would one secretary and one doctor qualify as "professional," or would both parents have to be doctors? My parents were not "professionals"; they worked very hard to put food on the table and shelter over my head. My parents also taught me to be ethical and fair to everyone, regardless of background (a lesson obviously not taught in Dr. O'Neal's undoubtedly "professional" family).
Then there is Dr. O'Neal's assertion that students selected according to these criteria will produce unethical chiropractors - what a ridiculous statement! It is obvious that graduates of the most highly respected four-year, 10th-generation college who have "professional" family backgrounds can be quite unethical; there are too many examples to even begin to list. Just as his criteria do not produce unfailingly ethical graduates, the lack of his criteria does not produce unethical graduates. The determination of a person's character is never that simple. These requirements do not in any way assure an ethical or unethical chiropractor.
Let's raise the bar: institute stricter admission standards; require character references for students; have stronger colleges; and provide ethical mentors for our new graduates. Most importantly, let's be fair to everyone, regardless of family background.
By the way: According to Dr. O'Neal, I should never have been accepted at Los Angeles College of Chiropractic. He must be amazed that today, I am considered both professional and ethical.
Michael J. Kaye, DC, DACRB
Sellersville, Pennsylvania
Why Aren't DCs Allowed on DMAT? Dear Editor:
Chiropractors know we did our part after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America. Scores of DCs were situated in and around the Pentagon, and deep in the pit of the World Trade Center. At first, there was no particular organization coordinating our movement - just our drive to help. I was stationed in St. Paul's church, just one block from the towers. I worked there for eight months, two to three days a week. In the beginning, I worked alongside an MD and a DPM; as time went on, they became scarcer. (This is not meant as a derogatory statement, just a fact.) We also worked with the fire and police departments, the FBI and all labor personnel.
Now that I've established what we all know, here's what you don't know: We weren't (and aren't) allowed to be on the Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT), a component of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS). The DMAT consists of a group of professional and paraprofessional medical personnel designated to provide emergency medical care during a disaster or other event. It's sort of what the chiropractors did after the terrorist attacks: For all those months, we worked in 24-hour rotations at Ground Zero.
The response to my application was, "A chiropractor is not a recognized medical position on DMAT teams, and we would be unable to accept you onto the team if that is your only medical licensure."
I pointed out that there was one chiropractor listed on their New York site. Their response: "The chiropractor on our team is functioning as an EMT. He is certified, and does not function as a chiropractor."
Something must be done about this. We must educate this organization on our benefits and contributions. We also should consider starting our own disaster team; it could be government-funded in conjunction with homeland security guidelines. I don't have all the answers, but we need to find some way to elevate ourselves to the forefront of health-care provision.
Juan-Carlos Izquierdo, DC
Bronx, New York
Thanks, NYCC! Dear Editor:
In reference to the new NYCC internship program at Camp LeJeune, N.C. [March 10 issue], I am so proud of my colleagues. When I graduated from CINY in 1963, I volunteered to trade my naval commission for a job in the Navy Medical Corps. Of course, they wouldn't talk to me in Washington.
We are now there, after these many years. Congratulations to NYCC!
Frederick B. Wishner, DC, LCDR, USN (ret.)
New York, New York
Kudos to "Still vs. Palmer" Dear Editor:
I received exhilarating refreshment in reading Dr. Ted Frigard's article, "Still vs. Palmer" (DC, Jan. 27). It made me reminisce about my days at the Columbia College of Chiropractic (CCC) in Baltimore, and my entrance into the chiropractic profession in 1952. His article echoed the words of Dr. Frank Dean, dean of CCC, and Dr. Edgar Northam, a professor of philosophy at CCC.
I have written a number of articles differentiating the specific chiropractic adjustment from a manipulation, and my pleasure was intensified to see the differentiation expressed in Dr. Frigard's article.
The primary requisites needed to destroy a profession or society are the destruction of its concepts, principles and vernacular. My chiropractic writings always utilize orthodox, original, traditional, fundamental chiropractic terminology and vernacular to preserve the philosophy, science and art of chiropractic.
Charles N. Cooper, DC
Baltimore, Maryland
