Letters to the Editor | Dec. 11, 2024

As a recently retired family physician, I decry the violence that took the life of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the response by some who are rooting for the gunman. Nevertheless, is this all a wake-up call, especially for our political leaders? I hope so. Public dissatisfaction with our system of health care is deep and getting deeper. As both a physician and as a patient, I have experienced denials for care coverage that seem unfair at best, and unwise or dangerous at worst. At the same time, unreimbursed drug costs and medical care costs can be astronomical. The power of the insurance companies, drug companies, and health-care systems must be better balanced by the overarching needs of patients. Such reforms require popular debate with informed input from many parties, including the above health-care entities, as well as health-care providers and patients. Politicians who understand that will earn both the public’s confidence and the public’s support.

Tom Lyon, Philadelphia

We live in a democratic society; let’s call this the Big D. The recent slaying of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson sheds light on the dark side of the Big D in that it has evolved to comprise many little d’s. The recent shooting is tied to deny, delay, depose — words found written on the ammunition used to kill Thompson but that are not unique to the insurance industry. We also see them in our politics and our legal system. I would like to add to that list deflect and denounce (as exemplified by the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021), defraud and deceive (see the false claims about the 2020 election), and deportation (soon to take center stage in the new year). Don’t get me wrong, we live in a great country exemplified by freedom of choice and constitutionally guaranteed rights. But as much as we might want to deny it, we are also a society of many little d’s.

Richard Lee, Kennett Square

Temple has decided on a new head football coach and will remain in the Football Bowl Subdivision. Is this the right decision? Temple currently plays at this top level with the most profitable football schools. Players now get paid for the use of their name, image, and likeness — quarterbacks make yearly averages of up to $820,000, wide receivers are up to $610,000, offensive linemen are up to $500,000, and defensive backs are up to $440,000.

The top salaries for coaches at the most profitable schools go from $10 million to $13 million. At the top schools, the head football coach makes more money than the college president, which is also true at Temple. The first lower division down is called the Football Championship Subdivision. Players in this subdivision also get paid, but substantially less. Then there’s Division 2. These players get academic scholarships but do not get paid.

Competitively, Temple football has been among the worst in the Football Bowl Subdivision for quite some time. As a former varsity football player at Temple from 1959 to 1961, I’m embarrassed to read the scores and watch the games on TV with so few people in the stands. After 60 years, I don’t buy season tickets anymore. Temple is a state institution, so their annual football financial statements should be public knowledge. These statements should include hidden expenses like stadium rental and game-day expenses, as well as the band, cheerleaders, trainers, travel, and medical costs. I suspect Temple’s losses are in the millions of dollars. Where is the benefit?

I agreed with the NCAA when it allowed players to get paid, but there should have been limits so that the big, profitable schools would not have an unbeatable advantage. Temple can’t overcome this financial hurdle and should be playing in Division 2 against nearby natural rivals.

Dave “Fizzy” Weinraub, Cherry Hill

There appears to be the belief among some of our federal representatives and senators that a president-elect or president has a right to select individuals for cabinet and agency posts whose duty is to carry out the “president’s agenda.” This is a fool’s narrative. Federal public officials are paid with tax dollars and they are servants of the people of the United States who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The various cabinet and agency personnel are bound by duty to act in the best interest of the nation and not to please a president. It is, therefore, incumbent upon a president not to choose cronies, political supporters or sycophants, but to nominate the most capable individuals who will do the most to serve the people. This sacred concept is quite apparently lost on Donald Trump.

Victor J. Janosik, Norristown

Regarding Philadelphia’s soda tax, the supposed health benefits of the tax assumed that Philadelphians would drink less sugar-sweetened products due to the higher cost. Therefore, less sugar intake would lead to a lower body mass index (BMI) and better overall health outcomes. Wrong. According to a recent study published in The Lancet, the researchers found “limited evidence” that BMIs and the prevalence of obesity decreased in the city fully three years after the implementation of the 2017 tax. Likewise, the revenue projections from the tax fell woefully short. That’s because many Philadelphians simply went to the nearby suburbs or New Jersey to purchase their sugar-sweetened drinks rather than pay the onerous city tax, just as we predicted. Mayor Cherelle L. Parker has kept the Kenney-era tax in place, despite previous misgivings about its fairness and effectiveness. Why should one industry have to bear the brunt of the tax? We have lost business and members that are never coming back. We urge Parker to consider repealing the soda tax.

Daniel H. Grace, secretary-treasurer, Teamsters Local Union 830, Philadelphia

I went to Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s recent town hall regarding the proposed Sixers arena. The mayor took my question but answered how she chose. The thing I really want to know is why there wasn’t more of a push to negotiate an acceptable community benefits agreement or build on other sites to minimize displacement.

When I walk through Kensington and see all of the homeless people and even someone injecting drugs on the street, I realize that the only way the mayor affects change is by displacement. It is the tool that is being used to make the pie bigger. This is at an incredible cost to the city and the mayor’s One Philly slogan tries to paper over the fact there are two Philadelphias.

One is the out-of-town billionaires and their surrogates who control the disinformation about the arena, while the rest of us struggle with basics like housing and food. The penthouse vs. the poorhouse. The people spending $1.3 billion on an arena are only interested in investing in their own business, not the city, or education programs, or affordable housing, or anything else that our community needs. Public officials: slow your roll.

Jayson Massey, Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in the Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.