Mailbag:

In the Friday issue of the Daily Pilot, a letter appeared in the column “Sounding Off” by Michael Arnold Glueck (“Bill would ensure shoddy care, long lines”). I would like to respond to that statement.

Glueck’s contentious comments are filled with misinformation and scare tactics that remind me of the Harry and Louise ads that the insurance industry employed to frighten the public in 1992 when the Clintons attempted to provide a more rational health-care system in this country. Since the 1930s, when the Murray Wagner Dingle Bill was proposed in Congress, there have been numerous efforts to have a national health program in this country. We must commend President Lyndon B. Johnson for having created Medicare, a national health program for the senior segment of the population that has been highly successful with a minuscule administrative cost of 3% in contrast to the outrageous expenditure of 35% for private insurance coverage. The inefficient waste of time and effort that physicians are obliged to spend to obtain permission for health care is a burden that our country can no longer afford.

For years, the American Medical Assn. has boasted that our health-care system is the best in the world and has consistently fought every advance, including Medicare. Health statistics expose the falsity of these claims.

We are the only industrialized nation that has no national health program, and we are listed as 37th in the analysis of our health statistics. Forty-seven million Americans have no health insurance, and at least that many have inadequate coverage. It is estimated that half of all bankruptcies in this country are the result of health costs that families cannot pay with their inadequate insurance coverage. Such “health” bankruptcies are unheard of in countries with a national health program.

The public option that the Obama administration proposes is reasonable and will lead to coverage of the vast majority of our populace.

The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have resisted this proposal, because its implementation will force them to provide more competitive prices for services obtained.

Let me identify myself as an active emeritus professor in the School of Medicine of UC Irvine where I have taught, conducted research and taken care of patients for some 39 years.

JEROME TOBIS

Newport Beach

Slaying of L.A. girl was avoidable

I have never been a fan of the “Three Strikes Law” until now. The Los Angeles Times reports that Charles Samuel, a parolee with a long rap sheet, is accused of killing 17-year-old Lily Burk last month (“Burk slaying suspect was on his 3rd strike long ago,” Tuesday).

The problem is that when convicted of his last crime, a 1997 burglary, Samuel’s record reflected only one “strike” when it should have shown two, thus making him a candidate for the application of the Three Strikes Law and consequently serving a sentence of 25 years to life.

Burk paid the price for something that is done every day: dangerous criminals put back on the streets.

I now conclude that, properly applied, the Three Strikes Law is not only needed but imperative.

ILA JOHNSON

Costa Mesa