Health Care Exclusions

My wife and I have Ph.D.s from elite institutions and we’re hard workers; neither of us have ever had a problem gaining meaningful, reasonably well-paid employment. Under the current health care system and under any system that doesn’t cover 100% of Americans, however, our family is subject to exclusion because we have a 5-year-old son, Jordan, with cystic fibrosis. Legislators talk blithely of incentives to insurers and employers so that health care coverage can be extended to as many as 96% of Americans.

Guess who won’t be covered? That’s right, our son Jordan won’t be covered. Our current employer-paid fee-for-service policy has a lifetime cap of $850,000. Jordan is well on the road to exceeding that cap. Just one of his medications costs $10,000 a year, and he takes many. His several-day hospitalizations have averaged about $10,000 each. When genetic engineering treatments are available for his disease, the expenses will go up still more. It’s just a matter of time before he is kicked out of the present “best-in-the-world” health care system.

I’m sorry but I get angry when legislators tell me that 96% coverage is the best they can come up with. If they claim that universal access can only be bought at the cost of quality of care, I will ask them why do cystics in Toronto, with access to health care guaranteed by the Canadian government, live an average of nine years longer than cystics in Boston? When countries much poorer than ours can offer universal access to health care services to their citizens, I don’t see why the U.S. cannot do as well and still maintain an acceptable quality of health care.

WILLIAM J. McCARTHY

Malibu

* The First Lady says it is “only fair” that all Americans have health care equal to that of Congress. This is called a “cheap shot” by Sen. Bob Dole (June 23). Unlike the senator, millions of U.S. citizens have no taxpayer-funded health insurance. For them, Hillary Rodham Clinton just fired the cheap shot heard round the world.

ETHEL BLACK

Lancaster

* We were aghast when we read “Brokering Votes for Health Reform Begins in Earnest” (June 17). That the basics of our health care system may be determined by special interest votes for the tobacco, oil and other industries is incomprehensible. To think that the bill can “be loaded down with unrelated goodies” such as lowering (proposed) taxes on tobacco products and giving tax breaks to the oil industry to get an apparently unpopular health care reform bill through Congress, and, incidentally, to assure reelection of congressmen and senators, is mind-boggling.

Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) is only accused of stealing a few hundred thousand dollars from the government. If the proposed health care plan is as disruptive, costly, and inadequate to the needs of the people as it is reputed to be, then our representatives who are willing to cast votes for it primarily to assure reelection are far more evil than he.

Whatever happened to proposed legislation (or, perhaps, an appeal to the Supreme Court) to restrict the content of a bill to the subject being voted upon?

DEANE H. HYATT

Laguna Niguel

* Why is President Clinton more concerned about the 17% who don’t have health care insurance instead of the 83% that are concerned about the economy, crime, welfare and inflation? The odds of reelection are nearly five times greater by satisfying the latter group rather than the former.

PAUL W. BERNSTEIN

Beverly Hills

* Recently, I received a campaign reelection letter from Republican Rep. Bill Thomas of Bakersfield. He writes that we have the finest health care system in the world and that Republicans in the House saved it from devastation. What a joke! It’s true that America has one of the most advanced technological health care systems in the world, but as far as covering most citizens or collecting the monies for services rendered it ranks as one of the worst.

I recently had a quadruple bypass at Bakersfield Memorial Hospital. The bill for this operation exceeded $75,000 and the bills keep coming. Luckily, I had 100% insurance coverage, but what about those poor people who fail to have insurance?

I’m constantly threatened by collection agencies or medical establishments that insist on immediate payments. When I lived in Germany the patient never saw the bill and was never harassed after major surgery. I disagree with Thomas and many other Republicans suggesting that our health care system is the best in the world. Tell that to 45 million Americans who have no health insurance, while our politicians bathe in full health care benefits.

In Germany everyone is covered with 100% coverage and, yes, you can pick your own doctor. Sadly, most Republicans are feeding the public lies about what a democratic-socialist health care system really does. The American Medical Assn., major insurance companies that provide health care coverage and other political power groups oppose a socialistic health care program, because it prevents them from obtaining huge profits for their own personal gain. I support Bill and Hillary Clinton’s universal health care program, because it provides health care for all Americans--rich or poor.

FRANK R. STIBOR

Tehachapi

“Look, we know it’s half-baked . . . Do you all want pie or not?”