Dental decision short-sighted

Reader Input
-A +A
How ironic that Dr. (Jim) Gandley, DDS, calls the policy to slash dental funding to the indigent “both a caring and fiscally prudent perspective,” (Journal, Dec. 17). I find it both callous and financially short-sighted. The reduced service doesn’t fund permanent fillings, opting instead for extractions of teeth that could be saved, or providing temporary fillings that sooner or later must be either replaced (more money in the long run) or neglected, leading to expensive and preventable dental trauma later. Why not do the right thing in the beginning and provide preventive care (which saves money in the long run — zero expensive emergency dental work) and allows people to keep their God-given original teeth? Shame on the supervisors for taking this short-sighted and inhumane path, even though they were warned this would cost the county more in the future. How about cutting some of the bloated administrative salaries/retirement benefits in the county instead, and keep basic, decent care for the poor? VIRGINIA W. WARD, Auburn