Single-Payer Initiative

* Amazing! An independent study by a prominent national accounting firm shows that in its first five years of operation Proposition 186 would save Californians $112 billion.

How does that result in a headline like “Single-Payer System Would Balloon State Budget, Study Says” (Oct. 27)? Did the headline writer forget to read the article, or did The Times just decide to bury the story’s most significant facts?

While the study’s cost estimate is cited in the article’s lead paragraph, the $112-billion saving isn’t mentioned until the sixth paragraph. The fact that employers would save $3 billion to $7 billion annually isn’t mentioned until the second to last paragraph. What’s wrong with this picture?

The information is in the story: According to the study, California businesses and individuals would spend much less under Proposition 186 than they do now and would get better health benefits. Too bad The Times didn’t think that was worthy of headlines. LAURA REMSON MITCHELL

Canoga Park

* Anyone considering voting yes on Proposition 186 should ask themselves this question: What is the proper function of government, on any level? The answer should be based on the premise that the primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens against the initiation of force from any quarter (including its own power seekers). This is what rights are all about.

If it is immoral for one man to force another to sacrifice his legal rights, to whatever degree and to whatever purpose, it is no less immoral for our government (which is, after all, only a lot of individuals) to force some citizens to sacrifice their rights for the “public good.” Proposition 186 violates this principle. Don’t enslave our doctors. Vote no on Proposition 186. It is immoral.

SHARLEE S. McNAMEE

Corona del Mar