National pride at World Cup

Soccer pay for all

Regarding “Soaring salute” (Sports, July 11): All Americans appreciate the stellar performance of the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team and again congratulate them on winning the 2019 World Cup (for the fourth time).

Now, U.S. Soccer needs to create a jointfunding formula for both U.S. men’s and women’s soccer whereby the total revenues plus federal, state and corporate subsidies are totaled, then costs are deducted and the balance split between the two programs. Perhaps it could be divided this way: $200,000 per player, coach bonus for attaining first place, $100,000 for a second place and $30,000 for a thirdplace finish, with an equivalent share split between assistant coaches, trainers and training staff.

Something along these lines takes care of necessary expenses, shares the revenue and would indicate the value our nation places on the national pride and rewarding winners for their representing us in victory. Rex Alfonso, Missouri City

Developers: No free passes

Regarding “Developers resist postHarvey building rules” (Front page, July 8): I certainly hope the fact that developers supported the Harris County flood bond is not viewed as being in any way inconsistent with their current opposition to the building rules. In supporting the flood bond, the area builders and developers were seeking to have the public pay for the protection of, among other things, land that they hope to profit from in the future.

Now, when the new rules would require that they use their own resources to aid in protecting the public, they push back. This is why developers, fully informed that they were building in the flood pools of Addicks and Barker reservoirs, resisted all regulatory efforts to require them to disclose this information to potential buyers of those properties. The development community appears to prefer passing the cost to the public, profiting in the short term and avoiding accountability for their recklessness.

It’s past time for the city and county to protect the public rather than developer profits. If land subsequently is shown to be develop-able when the map revisions are complete, it can be developed then. I doubt though that the developers are going to refund the purchase price of homes proven to be built in harm’s way in the interim. Greed should not drive development, as we have learned repeatedly over the last few years. Bruce R. Bodson, Sugar Land

Medical pricing

Regarding “Posting medical care prices is a start toward clarity” (Outlook, July 11): Dr. Arthur Garson’s op-ed on medical cost transparency is on point, but there needs to be more added to the dialogue. First of all, medical costs vary about as much as airline tickets. To buy an airline ticket, one can go online and select date, start point, destination and then come the choices of class, specials, seats, baggage, etc.

For medical procedures the number of choices is not much less: facility, triage doctor, specialist, analytical evaluation (e.g. MRI, upper GI, blood work). The problem of pricing becomes even more Kafkaesque because most people do not have a medical education.

For example, it is easy to select a flight because the traveler knows where they want to go and at what general time. The patient does not know what the process is for curing or treating a particular ailment. The patient relies on the doctor to guide them through the process.

Unfortunately, the doctor does not always have the patient’s best interest in mind. Doctors are sometimes forced to require an MRI to discourage potential lawsuits. Other times, the doctor may require an MRI because his practice owns one.

Also, there is no protection for a bait and switch. Specifically, if a facility decides to use an out of network provider, the patient is just victimized. Patients are always left holding the doctor’s bag.

One can only conclude that medical pricing has to be not only transparent but also fair. This cannot be done by marketplace forces. James A. Babb, Friendswood