OPIN ION EDITOR IN CHIEF James M. Nash EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS Patrick J. Javid Jason S. Lichtstein 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan. 4 Unsigned editorials present the opinion of a majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other cartoons, signed articles and letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Daily. President Clinton put serious health care re- form on the political map. His State of the Union threat to veto any bill that fals short of universal coverage effectively quashes opponents' schemes to produce an incremental bill so incremental that its effects would not be seen in our lifetime. For that, he deserves kudos. But when push comes to shove on the floor of Congress in the upcoming weeks, President Clinton will become merely an observer. The baton of leadership will be passed on to the two Democrat leaders - Richard Gephardt and George Mitchell. They will substantively impact the way every American receives health care. All too often, universal health care becomes obscured in lofty principles and high rhetoric. It takes no political spine (but much chutzpah) for Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole to decry all Demo- cratic proposals as "socialized medicine" or "big government." Nor is it difficult for liberal Demo- crats to gain a sympathetic audience by calling Republicans "uncaring" or "indifferent" to the plight of real Americans. What takes courage is laying the old ortho- doxies to rest. The bill put forward by House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) last week does precisely that. Real healthcarereform can be split up into three components, in all of Health Care Reform: Gephardt Style House leader's plan blends best elements which the Gephardt plan receives high marks. Universal coverage Universal coverage is a must. The indigent and the affluent are already insured in this coun- try. It is the hard-working middle class, those families that play by the rules, that are being squeezed out of the current system. Should any American be forced to choose between going on welfare to receive health care for his or her children, or quitting his or her job? The answer is fairly obvious. Perhaps even more important, without uni- versal coverage phased in over a period of time, the number ofuninsured will skyrocket. The Dole plan, as it should, forces insurers to cover indi- viduals with pre-existing conditions. However, if you include a large new segment of the popula- tion, without coupling this with universal cover- age, insurers will hike their rates, forcing more working Americans to drop their insurance. The Gephardt plan achieves the goal of universal coverage in a reasonable amount of time: 1999. Cost containment No plan can stifle the rapid growth of Medic- aid, or increase competition so that insurance premiums are held in check. The Dole plan would slash Medicaid without replacing it. The result, which has been noted by a bipartisan National Governors Association, would be to place a huge new burden in the laps of the states. The Gephardt plan is far from perfect in this respect. But it does provide some answers. If the competitive mechanisms it puts in place fail to curtail costs within five years, a hard trigger would allow the government to impose moderate fee schedules for doctors and hospitals in regio* where health spending exceeds federal targets. Consumer choice Here is where the Gephardt plan distinguishes itself. Instead of'relying on alliances,'it creates Medicare Part C. Simply put, a system with Medicare as its foundation would work far better than the present system. Together with employer mandates, Medicare Part C would only insure 50 percent of Americans. However, it would allow previously uninsured Americans to gain cover age, while leaving the present method of insu ance in place for the other half of the nation. In short, the Gephardt plan relies on existing systems and creates no new bureaucracies. The Mitchell plan, with a panoply of soft triggers that wouldn't guarantee universal coverage for over a decade, is better than any Republican alternative. But it just doesn't provide the answers most Americans are looking for. Why not get the best of both worlds? Support the Gephardt plan, an you will be supporting guaranteed insurance fW the working poor and guaranteed freedom of choice for the already insured. Homicidal hypocrites Pro-lifers must disown violence as tactic Radiati'on deception? 'U' community deserves to know the truth n a repeat of history, a physician and his escort were brutally murdered outside of an abortion clinic last week in Pensacola, the second such incident within 17 months in the Florida town. These anti-choice "crusaders" must learn that a social issue should remain debated through the channels of public policy and the democratic process - not through the gun sights of an excommunicated Catho- lic priest, wielding a loaded weapon. This page sincerely respects the view- points of those who advocate an anti-abor- tion philosophy. Many have moral, philo- sophical and religious problems with the procedure. This is understandable, and these individuals are more than welcome not to choose an abortion for themselves. The con- flict arises when those of an anti-choice bent attempt to influence policy and subvert de- mocracythroughany meanspossible. Block- ading the entrances of abortion clinics, for example, was a favorite strategy of anti- choice crusaders. Thatis,untilCongressright- fully realized this act violated a woman's constitutional right to an abortion and passed measures to counteract those on the right. The extreme extension of such unlawful pro- test is the killing of abortion providers - resulting in three deaths in the last year and a half. That it has come to this is a frightening thought in itself. Moreover, as reported over the weekend, the leaders ofthe nation's Catho- lic Church have held conferences to discuss whether the premeditated murder of an abor- tion provider is morally justified. These lead- ers - who avidly preach a religion of love and compassion around the world - sat down and talked about slaying doctors to achieve their political goal. The hypocrisy is clear: to end the practice of abortion (which by law in this country is not murder), several Catholic leaders advocate their own style of vindicative homicide. This violence must come to an end before more innocent individuals are killed for a single group's political cause. Law enforcement agencies, bothlocal and federal, must police abortion protests more effectively and aggressively monitor those demonstra- tors who tend to be violent. A complaint was issued a few weeks ago in Pensacola against the alleged murderer - a complaint that could have saved two lives if followed up correctly. Moreover, it is up to the nation's leaders to call for an end to this tragic epi- demic. President Clinton and Attorney Gen- eral Janet Reno, have made it clear that, regardless of religious belief, the murder of an abortion provider is not justified and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent. The debate over abortionrights is far from over.However, the debate must bekept where it belongs and not placed in the hands of violent fanatics. A s both federal investigators and Univer- sity officials begin their investigation into the radiation testing that was performed at the University Medical Center as late as the 1960s, anumberofimportantquestionsloom. First, were the tests voluntary or involuntary, and how much information was provided to the subjects? Second, if the tests were injuri- ous enough to cause long-termhealth effects, what sort of compensation do the patients deserve? And third, were the tests part of top- secret government research? When an individual goes into a hospital, that person expects to be treated for illnesses andinjuries.We expect the doctors andnurses there to do everything they can to help us. We don't expect them to injure us or expose us to any kind of unnecessary risks - and this is precisely why the public needs to know whether the radiation tests were done volun- tarily. If the patients were not fully aware that they were being given doses of radioactive substances, then these studies will stand as a permanent stain on the University's moral and scientific record. Also, federal investigators should decide whether, and to what extent, patients deserve to be compensated for the injuries that the tests may have caused them. University Gen- eral Counsel Elsa Kircher Cole maintains that the hospital has not been the subject of any suits stemming from the tests. But how potent and damaging were the tests? If they caused injury, pain or suffering, the victims and their families must be compensated. And it is the responsibility of both government investigators and the University to release this information. One last point: As deplorable as it is that people were the subjects of these "whole- body" radiation tests, the set of experiment were undoubtably necessary for the expan- sionof scientific knowledge at the time. After all, the data gained from the experiments contributed to the pool of knowledge that inspectors now draw on to determine the limits of safe radiation exposure to humans. The case may be that there was informed consent,andthatminimalphysiologicaldam- age resulted from the tests. Still, regardless of the scientific lessons unearthed, this know edge would be illegitimate if obtained se- cretly. Investigators must get to the bottom of this and find out what really happened. The testsmayhave benefittedscienceimmensely, yet it is imperative that the amount of damage caused to these human guinea pigs, and their level of consent, be uncovered. Until this happens, the controversy will rightfully li ger among the public and University commu nity. Progress in the name of science is one thing, exploiting non-consenting human be- ings is another.