Clinton’s Health Plan

* There was much irony in libertarian Virginia Postrel’s critique (Column Right, Oct. 28) of President Clinton’s health plan. Irony because libertarians are ideologically locked into the formula that has given us the failed system we have now.

This is the formula of trying to match up the nonethical and amoral marketplace--where what is “moral” is what returns a profit--with people’s health care needs. This square peg-round hole thinking is inexorably dedicated to one thing--creating a system of winners and losers. Something that is inexcusable when it comes to health care.

I don’t totally agree with what I know of Bill Clinton’s proposal. But after nine months he has brought us closer to a health care solution than the libertarians, in their wildest marketplace dreams, could ever hope to.

BILL COLESON

Camarillo

* I was sorry to see The Times dismiss as politically unacceptable the only real solution to the health care crisis in the U.S.--a single-payer system (“But Why Is It So Darn Complex?” editorial, Oct. 28). The fact is that if we as a country are serious about the principles of universal access to a comprehensive package of health care benefits, nothing short of a single-payer system can deliver. The Times is right that managed competition is incredibly complex. It won’t control costs, and the entire health care system will be owned by a handful of insurance giants.

Canada’s plan is the only simple solution: Everyone gets care, they can choose any doctor or hospital in the country, and people pay for it fairly according to their ability to pay. Canadians are very satisfied with their health care, and would never trade it for ours.

President Clinton has made the correct diagnosis, but his prescription and those of the Republicans trying to make managed competition look more like the status quo are the wrong treatment.

RUSSELL BECKLEY MD

Physicians for a National Health Program

Los Angeles

* Merrill Joan Gerber’s article (“A System That Could Make You Sick,” Commentary, Oct. 26) was enough to make us all sick. She recounts how her mother entered a hospital with “vague abdominal pains,” then suffered major medical problems, some of them probably hospital induced. The costs, including unbelievable markups for common medications, exceeded $87,000.

I could understand indignation over poor quality of care and excessive charges, but Gerber seems willing to accept these. What she resents most is the fact that her aging mother received such expensive services. She wants to “leave resources to benefit us at the beginning and middle of life.” In other words, Mom’s old, so let her die. Ration health care. I wonder what her cutoff point is--50, 60, 70?

We need a better answer to the problems of skyrocketing health costs. Better preventive care, improved competency, cost containment, advanced research and universal coverage are some of the elements. But even if the cost of health care--of maintaining the quality and duration of our lives--remains high, as it probably will, isn’t it worth it? It’s hard to think of anything more important that can be bought.

BETTE ANDERSON

Laguna Beach