GOP’s Plan for Medicare

* It is disappointing to see House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt continue misinforming the American people on the truth of the Republican plan to save Medicare (June 3).

Your article reporting on my appearance on “Meet the Press” quotes Gephardt’s description of the Republican Medicare reform: “There was really only one reason [for the public backlash]: Seniors didn’t want their premiums doubled and their choice of doctor revoked to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.” Any public backlash that developed is because of perpetual statements such as this which are, in the first instance, deceptive, and in the second, just plain wrong.

Under the Clinton admin- istration’s plan, monthly Medicare premiums in 2002 would be $77, a 55% increase from the 1996 figure. Under last year’s Republican plan, premiums would be about $84--a difference of $7.

In addition, the Republican plan increases, rather than decreases, patient choices. It does not limit their choice of doctors. In fact, seniors would have the option of staying within the current fee-for-service system if they so wished or selecting one of several alternatives including HMOs, provider networks and medical IRAs--which Gephardt has supported in the past.

The 1996 estimate of Medicare’s impending insolvency is ominous. Projections by the Congressional Budget Office indicate that insolvency is occurring at a faster rate than previous estimates. Clearly, President Clinton’s and the Democrats’ demagoguery and inaction on this issue are costing the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars--and pushing the system further into collapse. Preventing this program from going bankrupt will take honest assessment and hard work.

NEWT GINGRICH

House Speaker

D-Ga., Washington*

* “Gingrich Assails Self, Democrats” (June 3) brings to mind the sorry state of the Republican Party as it has evolved over the years (and left me behind) in the hands of leaders like Gingrich. He blames the Democrats--which we would expect--and he admits his own profound errors. This could be a graceful exit speech, but he’s not exiting.

In any other major democracy, if the leader of the people’s legislative house had caused the collapse of his party’s agenda because of “mistakes and overreaching” and not being prepared to handle the level of responsibility, he would be expected to resign for the good of the party. But he’s not resigning. Why not? When will Republicans give Gingrich his gold watch, thank him for the leg-up in 1994, and get on with adult governance of the nation?

JANE W. PRETTYMAN

Santa Barbara