Letters

Proposition 187 not motivated by racism

Editor:

This letter addresses a couple of the more annoying items
contained in Dawn Mabalon’s Viewpoint article (Oct. 5, "Asian
Americans should oppose Prop. 187). First, I would like to discuss
her characterization of the United States as a "racist capitalist
society." The U.S. is not a "racist society." Though racism may
exist in various, unfortunate undercurrents of our mainstream
society, it does not ­ as Mabalon suggests ­ define
it.

Also, her implicitly derogatory usage of the word "capitalist"
seems to forget the fact that the FREE MARKET economic system has
brought a better life to more people than any other economic system
in the entire history of human existence! After all, the poorest
fifth of the population of nearly any free market industrialized
nation you wish to choose is still far better off than the entire
population of any one of the present or former communist
nations.

Secondly, I wanted to say that I agree with Mabalon in that
immigration has been an important ­ and indeed vital ­
part of American history. This nation was founded on immigration
and its tremendous success was fueled by the dreams and
determination of the millions of immigrants it has received over
the years.

No, immigration is a wonderful thing and immigrants ­ LEGAL
immigrants ­ should be respected and welcomed. My concern and
Proposition 187’s focus is not with these wonderful people. Rather
it is the ILLEGAL immigration that is a problem and the focus of
Proposition 187, and I must say that I am tired of Mabalon and
other commentators in Viewpoint conveniently omitting the word
"illegal" from their discussions of illegal immigration!

In closing, I would like to applaud James Lebakken’s article in
the same issue (Oct. 5, "Government not responsible for charity,
uphold moral consciousness on your own"), which is a more
intelligent, logical or reasonable article that I’ve seen from a
Viewpoint columnist.

Matt Keuneke

Senior

Aerospace Engineering

Yes on 186: health security for all, forever

Editor:

What will the passage of California’s Proposition 186 mean for
you? Passage of California’s Health Security Act would ensure
health coverage for every Californian forever.

As a UCLA student, member of the faculty or staff, you most
likely have access to health coverage and to the finest medical
care available at the UCLA Medical Center. When you graduate or
find employment elsewhere, it won’t be that easy.

During the national health care debate, Americans highlighted
the existence of health care benefits as a major consideration when
looking for a job or deciding to change jobs. In an attempt to keep
their profits up, insurance companies seek to discontinue health
coverage for those who use it frequently. Thus, if you have a
"pre-existing condition," they will not pay for any treatment of
that condition once you change medical coverage. For those
Californians experiencing medical conditions, they must consider
whether to lose coverage and face higher premiums, or to stay in
their current job at their current level of health coverage. This
is called "job lock," and you can imagine that it does not bode
well for the economy when people are not able to follow their best
interests in the job market because they are literally strapped for
health care.

Proposition 186 will make health coverage a non-issue because
all Californians will have health security from cradle to grave.
The opponents say the government will provide health care. In fact,
Proposition 186, the California Health Security Act, is a single
payer system where traditional doctor/patient relationships are
maintained, the government only pays the bills. Choice is conserved
under this plan, unlike today where health maintenance
organizations (HMOs) continually interfere in doctor/patient
relationships and limit our choices in health care providers.

The plan will be paid for by a 2.5 percent income tax, replacing
any premiums and co-payments you currently pay; while your employer
will pay a 4.4 ­ 8.9 percent in payroll tax (a significant
reduction in many cases). In addition, a $1 per pack cigarette tax
will be imposed.

Currently, as the cost of health care coverage dispenses with 14
percent of our Gross National Product; Californians experience job
lock and ordinary infectious diseases proliferate because of a lack
of basic medical care. The time has come for California to lead the
nation once again in positive change. Now that the national health
care debate is tabled, Californians must vote yes on Proposition
186. A strong message from a state as powerful as California that
Americans are ready for real improvement will go a long way in
sending a message to our national leadership. Vote yes on
Proposition 186, health security for all Californians forever.

Kelly Barnes

UCLA ’90 graduate

Karen Flint

Graduate student

Monetary burdens come in many forms

Editor:

As a UCLA graduate and Extension student I noticed Wednesday,
Oct. 5 that the "No on 187" folks have spoken in the form of
graffiti written all over campus, and in illegally posted flyers.
One question: you’re so worried about the monetary burden placed on
California should 187 pass, where do you think the clean-up funds
to repair your vandalism will come from?

Secondly, Proposition 187 is against ILLEGAL immigrants, not
immigrants as John Du incorrectly stated in his viewpoint, "Take
charge of ‘Save Our State’: educate, organize, demonstrate." If a
person desires government services, why can’t they simply apply for
a green card and become legal U.S. immigrants? I have no savings
account or medical insurance yet I have accumulated more than
$3,500 in medical bills recently. Where do I go? How many foreign
governments would pay this for me if I was not a legal resident of
their country?

Jim Lehmann

UCLA Extension student

B.A., Design ’88