Right to Sue Over Denial of Health Care

Michael Kinsley (Commentary, June 22) makes some very good points around one very wrong one. It is true that “liberalism a la mode” deals with the wrong issue first. Before we concentrate on people with health insurance being able to sue, we should be working on the millions who have no insurance at all (other than the most expensive there is, emergency rooms). Our unwillingness to deal with issues that affect only the poor, disenfranchised and needy, as Robert Reich pointed out in his June 21 commentary, is a disgrace.

That does not mean, however, that there should not be immediate legislation allowing insurers to be sued if they decide to deny treatment or medication to a client who suffers as a result of that decision.

Pat Ormsbee

Newport Beach

In “Rights and Health” (editorial, June 21), The Times glibly states the obvious about the Republican/Bush patients’ rights plan: The arbitrary “$500,000 cap on pain and suffering damages . . . is too low.” Not only does it prevent injured victims from getting good lawyers, it denies fair compensation for those with the most catastrophic damages. Surely Congress wouldn’t pass such an unjust law. The American public wouldn’t stand for it.

Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. California has had a law capping pain and suffering for malpractice victims to $250,000 for the last 25 years. Every victim in every case, no matter how devastating the injury, is limited to $250,000 when negligence destroys a normal life. If the injury is fatal, the heirs (no matter how many there are) must split that amount among themselves. And there are thousands more of these cases than there ever will be against the HMOs.

Russell S. Kussman MD, JD

Pacific Palisades