Readers Write 11/2


Preventive care must be mandated, paid for

I was somewhat alarmed at the proposal (“State-mandated coverage revisited,” News, Oct. 23) of Rep. John Lunsford to eliminate mandates for preventive health screenings and tests.

That sounds like it might be an initiative to save dollars for the insurance company, but it might wind up costing clients more in the long run, if we have to pay for procedures out-of-pocket.

The costs incurred by optional procedures sometimes are passed on to the patient, and that’s the call of the insurance company, not the patient.

I know insurance companies look for ways to reduce the number of payouts and covered items. I might do that too, if I owned or ran a health insurance company, but not at the expense of preventive care for premium-paying customers who might have their lives saved by such measures.

In making decisions of this kind, let’s always consider the needs of the patient first. If our insurance friends want to cut their overhead, maybe they should look at upper-level executive salaries, before hitting us with another expense.

Anthony Wilkins, Carrollton


It’s government’s job to offer health care access

I believe that defending our lives and ability to earn a livelihood against illness and injury is as much a duty of any good government “of the people” as defending us against foreign military attack and against attack by criminals in our own country.

As such, it is incumbent upon us, as a civilized country (governed by and for the people) to offer access to health care for all as a service of the government, along with military, police and a judicial system.

Linda Lee, Atlanta


No endorsements a good start for elections

I’m glad that the AJC has decided to stop endorsing political candidates. I would like to see elections conducted with no endorsements and no polls.

Newspapers and television news should report the platforms of all the candidates in a race, and let the voters decide for themselves who is the best candidate.

That way, the decision will be based on the issues, not on who is the “front-runner” in a poll, or on who has the most endorsements.

Lisa Chambers, Snellville


Jekyll development wrong for state to OK

After reading “Jekyll giveaway robs our state jewel” (Opinion, Oct. 23), I once again wonder if Jekyll Island was a gift to Georgia, and there is an authority over the island, why would the authority start to sell off beach-front property in a state park?

I thought parks were for the preservation of nature, and for people to enjoy that nature.

How will all this development enhance our park? Who is in charge of sewers and utilities? Could it really be that Georgia is issuing bonds to pay for this infrastructure?

What will be done with the money involved? Where is the oversight for this proposed project?

Isn’t this like putting a hamburger stand on every corner: a condo complex in every state park?

Ada R. Almering, Atlanta