LETTERS: Boutique medicine; Medical snobs; Puppy mills; and more

One size doesn’t fit all

The article on “Boutique Medicine” missed an important point. One of the criticisms of this type of care is that when a doctor transitions into it, many former patients must find a new provider. However, in one of the first sentences in the article, Dr. Eads states “I was 35 and ready to quit.” If she had, all of her patients would have needed a new provider.

If being a physician is unpalatable, there is certain to be a shortage of doctors. I find it likely that being able to practice medicine in this manner will attract more people to the profession or at the least prevent some from leaving it.

Health care is important to all of us, but that doesn’t mean that the same type of care will work for all patients or all doctors, for that matter.

Karen Gotski

Colorado Springs

Snobbish boutique medicine

I commend Barbara Cotter’s objectivity in reporting on the trend of boutique medicine in Colorado Springs. When I first heard of this concept some months ago, my first response was “Why?” I still have that question, although Cotter’s article clarified some finer points not covered in the slick brochure I was given by MDVIP, the “umbrella company” in Florida. This smacks to me of some recent MBA who’s come up with a new money-making scam, or perhaps some med school dropouts who want to recoup their tuition; it is clearly a middleman group whose income will be paid by us , those who require health care. I do not think this sort of snobbish/clubbish rip-off “boutique” is quite what our president has in mind when he speaks of creating new jobs.

All of us know the experience of waiting long beyond scheduled appointment time to see our doctors, then being shuffled through the series of “vitals” by an assistant, waiting again, and finally spending about five minutes with the physician. Sometimes, during that short time, he or she seems hurried and/or preoccupied while flipping through a patient’s file and sometimes does not even make eye contact. No, that is not optimal care, nor what we and our insurers pay for. It is often clear that the doctor is rushed and overbooked. Some do that on purpose. The answer seems pretty obvious: take home a few thousand dollars less per year, give better care and be happier and less stressed by scheduling fewer patients — duh.

I was insulted by the self-serving suggestion from Mark Murrison, MDVIP president, that we (patients) give up DirecTV or our cell phones so we can pay his company $125/month to join this elite membership, in addition to paying for regular insurance to cover other specialists, hospitalization if necessary, etc. Let him give up his cell phone!

I have an insurance plan through my employer, which has some frustrating conditions. However, the monthly cost is reasonable and my co-pay for a visit to my primary care physician is $30.

I may need to go at most three times per year (that’s $90), and I always feel I get quality personal care and attention to my needs. I also have periodic blood testing and have been referred to a few specialists (co-pay $40 per visit). I just did my tax prep and found that I had spent a total of $980, including insurance premiums (excluding prescriptions).

Why should or would I choose to pay an extra $1,500 per year to belong to an exclusive group? What would I get that I do not?

Lin Fife

Colorado Springs

Stop the puppy mills

About 77.5 million dogs are household pets, but only 19 percent come from shelters, according to the Humane Society. Where do the other 81 percent come from?

Most come from puppy mills where the dogs are treated horrifically. They aren’t given enough food and are kept in wire cages stacked one on top of another. Their teeth are rotted through, and most have health problems such as seizures. The goal of puppy mills is to churn out as many puppies as possible, so they force the dogs to breed over and over again until they are deemed “ineffective.” They are abused physically and emotionally to the point where some take months if not years to rehabilitate.

The puppies of these horrible establishments are sold in common pet stores as well as newspaper ads. Colorado is lucky in that we have the National Mill Dog Rescue in our backyard to help these defenseless dogs. They can’t stop every puppy mill, though. We have to help.

So instead of buying that cute little puppy in the store window, consider one that has been rescued from a puppy mill or one from a reputable breeder. Together we can stop the abuse.

Sommer Shearer

Colorado Springs

The ethic of ‘mutual respect’

So the county commissioners have now decided to open their meetings with prayer.

I understand this may have special meaning for them, but elected officials must act for people of all faiths and those with no faith. By promoting their strictly Christian beliefs in this fashion, they are, in effect, discounting those not of the same belief.

When our country adopted the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson explained that it created a wall of separation between church and state. Having seen the problems that religious governments had created in Europe, our Founding Fathers decided to limit government to a secular role, establishing no state religion. This concept represented a giant leap forward, because it put all belief systems on an equal footing so far as government was concerned, and advanced the ethic of “mutual respect.”

Our country developed a vibrant religious atmosphere because of this insistence on secular government. I believe that when we abandon this principle we jeopardize true freedom of religion.

Janet Brazill

Colorado Springs

Parties need wider vision

John Horner’s column on dialogue and rhetoric in the Jan. 19 Gazette was the most eloquent piece I have read in some time. His sane words were unbiased, well thought-out and expressed, and should be required reading for everyone.

Recently, several friends and I have had discussions about the ever-widening gap between viewpoints in our country. Politically, it appears the two sides have never been further apart.  Even though everyone talks about “working with lawmakers across the aisle,” I don’t believe they really mean it. Some have already stated publicly that they will attempt to push through their agenda, regardless of what might be best for the country.  It has become obvious that both parties need to widen their vision, the GOP in particular.

And it goes beyond that also. People’s treatment of their fellow man seems to have nose-dived to levels I cannot recall seeing in the past. Even simple things like thanking someone for holding a door have disappeared from daily life. Maybe, and hopefully, we can return to an era of more civility in our society.

Jerry Butenhoff

Colorado Springs