Taxing Seniors for Medicare

I appreciate the in-depth Times article about the so-called catastrophic care Medicare extension. This is something which has needed public ventilation (“Some Seniors Protest Higher Medicare Tax,” Part I, Dec. 4).

Yet, the basic issue has not been touched. Citizens should be given the option of accepting or rejecting the law’s extension provisions depending upon individual needs and convictions. Argue about the premium increases or income surtax and get nowhere. They are negatives. The positive is that citizens in this democracy still expect to have a choice in matters that affect their lives. Instead, we are faced with a mandate that doesn’t fit that pattern. For many, the Medicare extension is a blessing and they should accept it gladly. Others should have the option of saying no.

In Robert Rosenblatt’s article, congressional authors--Rep. Pete Stark (D-Oakland) and Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas)--pooh-pooh protesters as “selfish” and not making sense to “talk about changing the law before it even goes into effect.” The American Assn. of Retired Person’s director of federal affairs, Martin Corry, says opponents are “playing on fears” and spreading “trash.” What is being spread is baloney--theirs.

The reality is that they aren’t facing up to the option issue. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) did. He had the option provision in the Senate bill, but it was killed in conference. There’s a year before most of the law’s provisions take effect. This suggests that Stark, Bentsen and others in Congress with more sensitive ears to democratic principles should use that year to turn a punitive law around from mandatory to optional.

BILL LYNDE

Cypress