Pharmaceutical and health care ads waste billions

I read with interest the April 2 Forum commentary by Karen Wolk Feinstein on the health care debate (“Beyond Beltway Blathering on Health Care”). I have to agree with her that a bipartisan solution is necessary to solve the problem, but a part of the problem she failed to mention is the constant barrage of radio, television and print media ads for medications.

No one knows how many billions of dollars are spent each year telling the public to ask their doctors about medications for asthma, hepatitis, irritable bowl, erectile dysfunction, COPD and hundreds of other medical conditions. These are all drugs that cannot be bought over the counter but must be prescribed by a doctor.

I feel I have an excellent doctor, and I don’t have to tell him what medication I need. I depend on his education and knowledge to prescribe the proper medication for any medical condition I have. The drug companies spend all this money on advertisements when it could be better spent on lowering drug costs.

Drug companies are not alone with outrageous spending on advertisements. Hospitals and insurance companies buy full-page ads and television ads to influence consumers’ choices. They are listed as nonprofits but pay CEOs and upper management millions each year.

The only way to lower health care costs is to forbid these ads and rein in outrageous pay for heads of drug companies, hospitals and insurance plans. Unfortunately, these companies also spend millions on lobbyists and donations to politicians to prevent any meaningful progress in lowering costs and providing health coverage for all citizens. JOE PALUMBO

Arnold of competitive, for-profit businesses. Might competition be the incentive for UPMC’s unabated expansion in areas with existing health care? EUGENE PASQUINELLI South Fayette

I am writing to express my horror at President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a missile strike against Syria. Although the Assad regime’s actions are only to be condemned, this attack will hurt more innocent Syrians already beleaguered by war and put American troops in danger.

Reports indicate that Russia and Iran also could be pulled into this. This attack was not a humanitarian action, but rather an action that could lead to a disastrous war with Bashar Assad and his allies.

I’m ashamed of this U.S. president and his rash, deadly decision-making. To reject refugees in favor of launching missiles shows a true disregard for humanity and the safety of Syrians, Americans and our national security. VALERIE Y. NANCE

Penn Hills

In my opinion, President Donald Trump’s missile attack on Syria was legally and morally justified and should be praised.

Under international law, the

We welcome your opinion

side whose conduct makes the use of force necessary is the aggressor. Under the concept of just war, the use of force to prevent a greater evil is morally acceptable.

The attack that Mr. Trump ordered was not vengeful retaliation but rather preventive retaliation, intended to cause the terrorists to pause and consider what will happen if they again use poison chemicals forbidden by international law against civilian women and children. JOSEPH FORBES East Liberty