<strong><span class="subhead">No one should have to breathe smoke</span></strong></p><p>The Institute of Medicine&rsquo;s recent report on secondhand smoke exposure and heart attacks should be a wake-up call for those who are exposed to smoke on a regular basis. This is a public health emergency. </p><p>Relatively brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases your risk for heart attack and stroke, according to the IOM. We must do more to protect ourselves and loved ones from the health risks associated with secondhand smoke and demand more smoke-free environments. </p><p>As an American Heart Association volunteer, I feel that everyone should be protected from the harm of secondhand smoke. Nearly one-quarter of Missouri adults smoke, and each year, 1,180 Missouri residents&rsquo; deaths are linked to exposure to secondhand smoke. </p><p>If we want to create a healthier future for our children, we must pay heed to these studies and support elected officials and policies that will give everyone the right to breathe clean air.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Harold A. Phillips</strong></p></p><p><p align="right"><em>Liberty</em></p></p><p><strong><span class="subhead">Obama&rsquo;s pay czar</span></strong></p><p>It is being reported that President Obama&rsquo;s pay czar Kenneth Feinberg has determined that the compensation to executives in the banking industry must be slashed because of their poor job performance. After all, they took federal dollars, so the czar du jour should have the power to set their pay level.</p><p> If this criteria were used for others who take federal dollars and do not perform, Congress would be working for free. If it is fair to have a pay czar overseeing private business, it should be required that there be a congressional pay czar who slashes congressional compensation as long as they continue spending our country into the abyss of debt which we will not be able to recover.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Mark Denney</strong></p></p><p><p align="right"><em>Shawnee</em></p></p><p>How can the president go after the private companies that took TARP money but not go after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? They got bigger bonuses than AIG, but not one person is asking them to give it back. </p><p>Why can&rsquo;t the president go after them? I am sure that he doesn&rsquo;t have a clue, as with much of the rest of the things he has done. Maybe his teleprompter can tell him it is wrong. It seems to be the smarter of the two.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Richard Minear</strong></p></p><p><p align="right"><em>Kansas City, Kan.</em></p></p><p><strong><span class="subhead">&lsquo;Obscene profits&rsquo;?</span></strong></p><p>The Star&rsquo;s editorial board noted the &ldquo;obscene profits&rdquo; of health insurance companies in the editorial &ldquo;Hold the line on runaway health care costs&rdquo; (10/18, Opinion). Please define &ldquo;obscene&rdquo; and cite your source for the facts supporting your pejorative opinion </p><p>Recently Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas City ran an ad that identified their profits as 1 percent to 3 percent of revenue in recent years. Blue Cross of Alabama was singled out by President Obama as abusing its &ldquo;monopoly&rdquo; position. Per an editorial comment in the Wall Street Journal their profits have averaged 0.6 percent over the last 10 years. </p><p>With this level of profitability, how could you expect Blue Cross to absorb the significant new costs of health reform? Where should the money come from? The taxes alone are above their level of profitability. </p><p>You cite the actuarial study released by the insurance industry as being flawed, but I must have missed your analysis of the study identifying those flaws. How about a few more facts as opposed to conjecture?</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Frederick A. Tromans</strong></p></p><p><p align="right"><em>Kansas City</em></p></p><p><strong><span class="subhead">Post health care costs and reviews of doctors</span></strong></p><p>Republicans have focused on the need for consumer-driven health care. The consumer needs at least two pieces of information on each health care provider to make an informed choice: the cost of each service or procedure and a measure of past outcomes.