Your Views

Was vote based on science or politics?

President Trump signed the "right to try" bill into law. Terminally ill patients will have access to drugs that have not won FDA approval for use but have passed the initial phase of review.

The first phase of drug evaluations are usually safety trials to show that the drug in question poses no major safety threats. The next phase is typically the efficacy phase where a drug must be proven to be effective for the disease for which it has been proposed to treat. In essence, terminally ill patients will have access to medications that have not been proven to be effective but have passed initial safety evaluations. This law gives some degree of hope to individuals who may have none at all. Congressman Bill Foster voted against it.

Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, stated, "By removing FDA oversight, you are counting on physicians and manufacturers to serve as the gatekeeper and protector of patients …" If physicians are not "the gatekeeper and protector of patients," then who? The patient-physician relationship is one of the most important bonds of trust that exists. As a doctor who has treated terminal patients, I take that relationship seriously. Patients put their trust in our hands to guide them on the best course of action to maintain their health. It is not the government's job to deem a therapy too risky or decide if potential benefit outweighs potential risks.

I believe in the ability of individuals to make choices for themselves.

As the only PhD. physicist in Congress, Congressman Foster should be expected to consider all sides of the argument. I fear my expectations may have been too high or this is another example of the congressman playing party politics rather than representing those in District 11.

Nick Stella

Darien

A doctor's experience with workers' comp

Recently, The Daily Herald published commentary from Steve Schneider, American Insurance Institute, outlining steps Illinois should take on workers' compensation. This a rebuttal from the point of a view of a medical provider who has taken care of over 19,000 injured Illinois workers over the course of my career and as an employer who operates a small business with 25 employees.

Mr. Schneider objects to the creation of the Illinois Employers Mutual Insurance Company, a not-for-profit workers' compensation insurance company, when there already 323 insurers vying for Illinois business. Illinois is the No. 1 market for carriers because of the record profits they have made since the 2011 reform that cut medical reimbursement rates by 30 percent and enacted provisions to deny medical treatment and benefits to injured workers.

According to a National Academy of Social Insurance study, between 2011 and 2015, Illinois experienced a 19.3 percent decrease in benefits paid, the second-largest decrease across the country whereas total benefits paid in the rest of the U.S. increased by 2 percent over the same period.

Yet, these tremendous cost savings have not been passed down to Illinois employers. For example, in my own medical practice, my workers' comp premiums have risen every year for my small business despite one claim in 10 years.

While the surgical fees in Illinois rates are high compared to Medicare, the reimbursement for office visits, the most commonly performed service in Illinois, actually ranks the state seventh lowest in the country right now, according to the Workers' Compensation Research Institute, with doctors receiving only 88 percent of the national median reimbursement.

Workers' compensation costs are declining and are under control in Illinois. Only when the 323 workers' comp carriers pass on the savings will the business climate in Illinois further improve.

David Fletcher

Champaign

Make democracy great again

The contest in the 6th Congressional District and several other tight races where Democrats are trying to flip Republican seats may well determine the future course of our country. The incumbent Republican, Peter Roskam, is facing a newcomer to politics, Sean Casten.

They differ on almost every issue. Roskam runs heavily on his key role in the tax bill, claiming unsubstantiated amounts of money going into the pockets of those who need it, He has greatly lowered the amount of taxes that may be deducted for state and local taxes, hurting a great many of his constituents. Casten is a strong environmentalist, having spent a good part of his business career in that industry.

They differ on health care, where Roskam voted to take benefits away from millions of people. Now Roskam is talking about tapping the Social Security Trust Fund to pay the deficit caused by his tax bill, the vast majority of the money going to corporations and the very wealthy, not to those who need it most.

The real danger of electing Roskam is that the one chance for democracy to make a comeback, or at least not to be further eroded, is in the House of Representatives. We have an executive branch that is in continual disarray. We have a president leading this branch who, if he even looked at the Constitution, certainly skipped the First Amendment and went directly to the Second.

He has prevaricated more than 3,000 times. He led the Parkland kids to believe he would support meaningful gun reform and was captive with NRA for only an hour before reversing himself.

That is why this election is so important. A Democratic House may well be the only check to an out of control president.

Spencer Heine

Inverness

Culture of violence to blame for shootings

The Daily Herald's call for a commission to find ways to improve the safety of our children in school may miss the key issues. We do not have a culture of gun violence so much as we have a culture of violence. Schools, public entertainment venues, and churches have one thing in common. They are poorly protected collections of soft targets to someone intent on violence.

In this country, the weapons of mass killers have included guns, bombs, car bombs, cars as assault weapons and aircraft. There are other choices available. If a deranged, vengeful or terrorist killer wants to kill, it is very difficult to stop access to the weapons. It is feasible to significantly harden the target, as may be shown by most federal office buildings and court houses.

The only workable longterm solution is to change the culture. We glamorize violence and afford its perpetrators great fame.

We preach that whatever feels good is right and those who oppose us deserve no consideration. We do everything we can to avoid inflicting failure on tender sensibilities, thus guaranteeing our next generation cannot deal with disagreement, disappointment and rejection.

These normal parts of life become triggers to initiate irrational behavior. Restoring tolerance, morality, and a sense of community will be the work of generations but, until we start that effort, all the discussions and actions will be as band aides on a gaping wound.

Mark Bailey

Round Lake Beach

Guns and majorities

Mr. McCray's May 26 Daily Herald letter states, "There is a majority in this country that would prefer to see a society free of guns." Sir, that may be a majority of your neighbors who are anti-gun, but the majority of us citizens are not part of your anti-gun diatribe.

Jim Thompson

Lake Barrington