Reforms to Save Medicare

The Times’ Dec. 15 editorial (“Leadership, Please, on Medicare”) calls for presidential leadership in saving Medicare. But it also suggests raising the age of eligibility for Medicare, which would inevitably leave more people without health care coverage.

Your editors and the American people need to decide whether entitlement reform consists of putting more people out to fend for themselves, or whether we can improve the quality and efficiency of the most expensive health care system in the world. Fixing the system requires brains and expertise as well as political courage; putting people out in the cold simply requires a few good slogans.

When President Clinton led the fight to improve the health care system in 1994, The Times faintly called for incremental reform. Clinton’s Health Security Act was savaged by an opposition that showed little evidence it had read the details or understood the ideas in the plan. Will there now be a real debate on health care policies, or are we just looking for slogans?

SIDNEY I. SIEGEL MD

Covina

* Your editorial paints too bleak a picture on the state of Medicare and its future. The projected rise in annual spending from $4,800 to $8,400 assumes an increase of almost 12% a year for the next five years. This is way above any reasonable projection.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate of a 50% increase in taxes by 2030 (33 years) works out to be only 1.2% a year. This doesn’t sound so politically impossible when looked at this way. Also, you don’t say which taxes have to be increased. Is it income, Social Security, Medicare or all taxes? The premium for Part B has been going up annually and there has been no political revolt.

I agree the system needs some reform. But first we must have realistic data instead of scare tactics. Only then will we be able to make the right decisions for the future.

NORMAN ROSEN

Rolling Hills