Dear Editor:

The past few weeks have brought the close of our fall sports at Boothbay Region High School, culminating with the appearance of our football team and cheerleaders at Fitzpatrick Stadium in Portland at the Class C State Championship football game on November 17. Field hockey, soccer, golf, cross- country, whatever the sport, our Seahawk athletes and coaches represented our school and community very well.

The BRHS Sports Boosters would like to extend our thanks and congratulations to all of our student athletes. You have once again brought us many memorable moments and reasons to be proud of your efforts. To the coaches, thank you for your hours of time and dedication not only to our students as they hone their athletic skills, but for the guidance and for all the "little things" that go into helping with the development of a young person's character. To all who volunteered in the concession stand and behind the scenes, thank you for your help. There are always too many people to remember in letters such as these, so for each and every one of you who showed support and "boosting," thank you, you all know who you are!

Winter sports have begun and the Boosters Club encourages community members to once again support our athletes at their respective contests. The Club meets on the first Wednesday of every month, and welcomes members all the time. Good luck to all of our winter athletes and coaches: basketball, cheering, swimming and indoor track. We hope it's a successful, enjoyable season for you all!

Dear Editor:

Regarding the editorial of November 15, 2007 concerning Health Care, the fact is this: either wait for the complete collapse of the financial system supporting the current U.S. health care system or move to some type of universal national health care with massive cost containment like it or not.

The national expenditure for health care in the U.S. is estimated at $2.1 trillion or $6,700 for each person in the country. This equals approximately 16.0 percent of our Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). Current projections are for costs to rise to $3.1 trillion or 17.7 percent by 2012. The closest similar cost country in the world is Germany with 11.1 percent; the average for so-called developed countries is less than 7.0 percent. This might seem appropriate if the U.S. had the "best system" for the healthiest population. Fact - the U.S. life expectancy is 43 rd of 217 geographical entities and infant mortality is 42 nd of 226 geographical entities in the world. Among the developed countries this country is nearly last in both of the generally accepted measurements of health care quality. Germany's health care system covers 99.7 percent of its population, the U.S. system (private and public) covers 84 percent with 47 million uninsured people (excluding illegal residents who are not counted as no one knows how many there are).

There is a myth that the "free market system" provides for the best health care - I will believe that when I see someone who is having a heart attack checking the prices of hospitals and doctors. Fact - there is little free market involved. People do what they have to do and use the most available services in most cases of illness or always in an emergency. The U.S. system is grossly inefficient and dominated by monopolistic providers who do (in the case of the drug companies - for profit) or must try to (in the case of hospitals - to survive) charge the most possible with little concern for competition. Those who think there is choice in our system need only think abut the economic disincentives of not using the HMO's designated gatekeeper doctor or the PPO's "in network" provider. Those on Medicare, or in Medicaid-related coverage, first need to find providers that will take the coverage payment before receiving care. Having worked in international for 35 years and personally using or managing for an employer the health care systems of five different countries, ours is the only system that the first question in an emergency room is whether or not you have insurance, rather than what is wrong. This is cited without criticism of the hospitals or doctors in this country as our system's service providers must be extraordinarily concerned about how they will be paid. During the recent federal bankruptcy reforms, it was cited that the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in this country is medical debt. Yet our "free market system" has produced an outcome where if we spent at that same level as the Germans, it would produce a savings of $637 billion while covering 46 of the 47 million uninsured - remembering that Germans live significantly longer with a much lower infant mortality rate than in the U.S. The so-called U.S. free market system will not ever produce this result inasmuch as the "free market" is a complete myth. It is an oligarchic/ monopolistic system that is destroying this country's economic ability to compete internationally while millions of our citizens are deprived of anything approaching basic medical care.

I will agree that the government's management of its medical programs such as Medicare may not be particularly stellar, but with health care costing 16 percent of GDP and Medicare taxes at 2.9 percent of wage/salary income (50 percent employee/50 percent employer or 2.9 percent self-employed) with approximately three employee payers for each Medicare covered person, it does not take a rocket scientist to recognize that this is a fiscal train wreck. It must also be recognized that Medicare covers the most expensive users of health care - the elderly. Given the current economics of the program it is actually rather remarkable how well the system does work. However, rising premium costs to Medicare covered individuals threatens their economic well-being after decades of Medicare assisting in the reduction of the poverty levels of older Americans - the process has been reversed over the past six years. The Medicare Drug benefit is particular hampered as the Bush Administration insisted, with Republicans controlled Congress agreement, on barring the federal government from negotiating bulk drug purchasing and allowing the drug companies along with the insurance industry to create a profoundly complex system that first and foremost maximizes their profit margins. The editorial mentioned Social Security (assuming the "old age" segment was what was meant) as a mess, which it actually is not, assuming the federal government (us) does repay its borrowings, starting when needed and the actuarial assumption of 1.8 percent average U.S. economic growth (which is 1/2 the historical average, is too conservative, but appropriate for an actuarial estimate). The reality is that the Medicare portion of Social Security (2.9 percent) is the real fiscal disaster in that there is absolutely no way to avoid complete financial collapse within the next 10 to 12 years unless something is done to slow or reduce health care costs. Increasing taxes on employed persons and employers will not deal with the situation without continuing the decline in U.S. industry competitiveness.

Before one criticizes the federal government's management of its health care programs, one does need to recognize that the health care private sector is spending an estimated $400 billion on administration. The government's administration is a masterpiece of efficiency compared to the private insurance administration. The situation here is a global wonder as absolutely no other country does anything like this. For example, there is a rapidly growing health care career field in the U.S. known as "coding" wherein coders must spend thousands of dollars to become certified in the area and the wages/income of such highly trained people are rightly significant. What is a coder - it is someone who ensures that health care claims are properly coded to ensure that the health care provider is reimbursed by the public or private health care insurer. Any health care provider I know will state their largest frustration is dealing with the bureaucracy of the health care field. Including full adjustment for the difference in population, Canada spends less than one third the amount the U.S. does.

Additionally, this country's reliance on a generally employer-based private health care system is seriously undermining employment opportunities within this country. Most small businesses can no longer afford to provide much more than major medical care coverage to their employees. Fully 40 percent of U.S. employers (including Maine employers) do not offer health care coverage to employees - most small employers. Large employers who have historically provided such benefits have been forced to move operations to other countries in part because labor costs are less in many cases because of health care costs. General Motors in its most recent negotiations with the UAW made no secret that if health care costs and legacy liabilities were not reduced, many of the autos produced in North America would be moved to Canada due to the health care cost differences. The UAW recognized the situation and a VEBA financed by the three U.S. auto companies is being established. (Speaking of Canada -- having worked with hundreds of Canadians, Canadian operations affiliated with U.S. companies, and Canadian companies, I have yet to meet anyone who, although critical of some aspects of their own single payer national health system, wanted to be covered by a U.S. style system.)

Employers offering health care have transferred costs to employees and reduced benefits. Within Maine, while employee only costs remain relatively reasonable with the employer paying most of the costs, generally around 80 percent, the costs of family coverage for the employee have skyrocketed to as much as 25 to 30 percent of the employee's gross pay. This does not include the higher costs of health insurance deductibles, co-payments and "out of pocket" expenses that can easily add 10 percent of gross pay to an employee's annual expense for health care. This has, here in Maine as well as throughout the U.S., resulted in many employees (estimated by the Society of Human Resource Management to be as high as 35 percent of employees) reducing or canceling their health care coverage despite eligibility. The 47 million uninsured people in this country are generally not unemployed (if of working age) and have family incomes above the "poverty level" but are working for employers without health care or not able to afford the employer provided health care employee premium costs. These have become the so-called "working poor," which is often defined to have family incomes up to two times the respective poverty level.

The final analysis in my opinion is that we as a society must come together and determine how we are going to deal with this society-wide situation. We must find a way for everyone to be covered, not based on any socialist ideals, but pragmatic capitalism that says someone should have the option of dealing with a health care issue sometime before it becomes necessary to go to an emergency room where costs are in the thousands rather than a doctor office call and then sticking the hospital with the expense that must be passed on to paying customers or the hospital itself goes bankrupt. The magnitude of the problem is economically so enormous that only a society wide solution can begin to deal with the matter. Political leaders must stop bowing to all of the interest groups demanding that someone else bear the burden, which will only occur when all of us recognize that the problem is not lawyers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc. but is all of us. Years ago, I attended a consultant's presentation on this issue (when health care was costing one third what it costs now). The consultant opened his remarks by asking who we wanted to blame because he could easily speak on any one of the players in health care - doctors, hospitals, lawyers, insurance companies, patients, etc. because everyone of the players was at fault. This has only become more evident. Frankly only at the federal government level with leadership can we as a society determine how to deal with this situation. I advocate national health or universal health coverage - not socialized medicine - with a society- wide determination of how much is to be spent on health care.

The longer we wait the more critical the problem. Do nothing and I believe that the entire financial structure of U.S. health care will collapse within a relatively short time period; four to five years as employers bail out of providing health care and most individuals and families will not have the financial resources to act individually.

Mike Loewe

Boothbay

Dear Editor:

As frequent visitors to our home on Southport, my wife and I have been monitoring with great interest the discussion of the proposed consolidation of schools in Maine.

Vermont has a statewide property tax known as Act 60. Education decisions and control of the tax revenue now rest with the state. You can see what is coming - Good-bye local control of your budget and any impact is practically eliminated.

Vermont has decided which towns are wealthy and which are not wealthy, based on assessed property values, not income.

The state sets the per pupil cost. The so-called wealthy towns were not allowed to reduce their own per pupil cost. For every dollar needed above the state per pupil cost to maintain their budget, they had to raise three dollars - one for themselves and two for the state. Those towns with a per pupil cost lower than that set by the state would receive what was needed to make up the difference.

In several of the wealthy towns, the medium income is lower than some non-wealthy towns (income vs. property values). In short, there are instances where the less wealthy are subsidizing the more wealthy. Vermont has since passed Act 68 to provide some tax relief, called a "prelate" on property taxes.

Now the Vermont legislature is moving to consolidate its school districts. Maine's school district consolidation proposal appears to be a variation of Vermont's statewide property tax. Be assured this is nothing less than another "power grab" and a money grab by the state. It is also another step by "big government" to effectively minimize and eventually eliminate the tax-paying citizen from any meaningful say in how government functions.

Remember, this proposal has nothing to do with education. It's all about power and control. In the end, an attempt will be made to play one community against another to achieve their goal. Education is only a ploy.

Fight back Maine, fight back.

Carlton J. Houghton

Southport and Vermont

Dear Editor:

I have for years enjoyed the Veterans Day festivities and their appreciations concerning those who gave up so much for our country. However, those regarding World War II have always seemed incomplete to me. At the end of this war our people continued their sacrifices for about 15 years by contributing greatly to the revitalization of those countries that had fought with us and suffered considerable destruction. In addition, we restored our enemies in perhaps the greatest "Turning of the other cheek!" that has ever occurred in this world!

Joe Graham,

Grand Junction, Colo.