State budget cuts putting child immunizations at risk
To the editor:
The Nevada State Health Division has advised pediatricians that it will no longer pay for certain children to be immunized against varicella (chickenpox) and that there may be additional cuts to the state immunization program in 2009.
The cuts to the immunization program will further exacerbate the problem of unimmunized children in Nevada, which already ranks 50th in state immunization rates, according to Kids Count. Immunizations are one of the most effective public health advances of our time, and cutting access to them could leave children unprotected against serious diseases.
Compounding the access problem is the lack of payer support for immunizations -- both with Medicaid and insurance carriers. In Nevada, most payers pay less than what it costs to give the vaccine, further contributing to children's inability to get immunized.
About 85 percent of children in the United States are immunized in pediatricians' offices. However, as the financial burden increases, it becomes more difficult for pediatricians to afford to immunize. Some pediatricians may have to stop providing immunizations, as the financial loss is threatening their ability to provide care to children for other issues. Pediatricians cannot be expected to subsidize the nation's immunization system.
The Nevada chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics is gravely concerned about the impact these cuts will have on children. We encourage public health agencies and public and private payers to discuss these challenges and explore solutions. We must find ways to fully immunize our children without compromising pediatric offices.
Failure to do so will endanger the health of those who need protection the most.
Beverly Neyland, M.D.
LAS VEGAS
The writer is president of the Nevada chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Equal rights, not abilities
To the editor:
In his Wednesday column, the Review-Journal's John L. Smith touched on what I believe might be the most serious problem with our secondary school system.
The words in the Declaration of Independence that state, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," have been consistently misapplied throughout many sectors of our society and culture. These words mean that all men and women have the same rights to justice, the practice of religion, etc., but they do not mean that all men have equal abilities to do anything.
Obviously, not all men can be professional athletes, or Olympic stars, or billionaires, but our school system is based on the premise that all men and women are intellectually equal. That is, everyone can learn anything, and everyone should get a college education (as advocated by some of our politicians).
What happens when society expects all men to be intellectually equal? The school system must teach to the lowest level of learning capability, and this results in a dumbing down of all education. Those with below-average ability are hurt by trying to meet the "average" standard, and those with above-average ability are hurt because they are not challenged to achieve their best performance.
This situation is very costly to society. We waste a lot of resources trying to get students with below-average learning abilities up to the "average," and we waste a huge amount of talent by not challenging and pushing those with above-average ability to become the engineers, scientists, educators, doctors, lawyers, etc., of the future.
When I was in high school, there were two educational tracks for the school curriculum: the "technical" track and the "college preparatory" track. Those in the college track were expected to learn algebra, chemistry and physics, and those in the technical track were not required to take these subjects.
This is old stuff, but nothing is being done to rectify the situation. In fact, the concept that "everyone is created equal" just gets distorted more and more as it is incorrectly applied to the entire population.
Walter F. Wegst
LAS VEGAS
No subsidies
To the editor:
In her Thursday column, the Review-Journal's Erin Neff tries to make renewable energy sound like a slam dunk ("State must do more than just talk about renewables").
But just like the politicians trying so hard to sell it, she ignores the cost. With a few exceptions, renewables are so expensive that they won't work without huge government subsidies. The only people who stand to benefit are the renewable energy lobby, who will make huge profits at the expense of taxpayers.
We need to continue building renewable energy facilities wherever they make economic sense. But large-scale expansion of the industry needs to wait until the technologies are far enough along that they don't require government subsidies.
Tom Keller
HENDERSON
Immigration fix
To the editor:
Maybe the members of the 2009 Legislature should re-read Monday's Review-Journal article "Illegal immigrants hit new barrier."
The article, originally published in The Arizona Daily Star, noted that Arizona's "Proposition 300 requires students to prove they are citizens or legal residents in the United States to qualify for in-state tuition at Arizona community colleges and universities. If they cannot, they must pay the higher out-of-state tuition fees."
Next, apply the same guideline of proof of citizenship, or legal residence, for admitting children into the Clark County School District, and, whadayaknow, the state's budget problems are solved.
Why is it Arizona can get illegal immigration bills passed, and Nevada legislators are sitting on their thumbs?
T. Thomas Dreyer
LAS VEGAS
