State-mandated healthcare for all

Re “Ready for its checkup,” editorial, Jan. 2

The Times says that “a plan that provides healthcare to everyone in the state would be spectacularly costly,” as if that’s reason enough not to do it. Educating our children is spectacularly costly too, as is fire and police protection, and a standing army. Every other developed nation on Earth provides healthcare for its entire population. They understand the wisdom of sharing the risk among everyone and the benefits that derive from a healthier citizenry.

We wouldn’t dream of a private police insurance system with deductibles and co-pays and exclusions for preexisting conditions. Why do we put up with private health insurance in the U.S. that is “spectacularly costly” in dollars and human suffering?

DON SCHROEDER

North Hollywood

*

To extend the break-a-leg metaphor, the government could easily break another leg and an arm with a heavy- handed approach to healthcare reform instead of providing a cure for what is wrong now. Any proposals could lead to unnecessary government intrusion into our individual healthcare decisions and privacy -- and be expensive to implement. The legislative juggernaut might add more bureaucratic provisions that best serve the interests of providers or public employee unions rather than patients. What would really make healthcare more affordable? More regulations and mandates, or more choices and more tax relief for those who now struggle to pay for their own insurance or treatment?

RICHARD E. RALSTON

Newport Beach

The writer is the executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.