Copyright 2000 The Chronicle Publishing Co.
The San
Francisco Chronicle
DECEMBER 21, 2000, THURSDAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A32; LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LENGTH: 1431 words
HEADLINE:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
BODY:
Is It Really Gender
Bias in Health Care? Editor -- Regarding your editorial about supposed
discrimination by health insurance companies ("Gender
Discrimination -- When Will It Ever End?" Dec. 18): The facts support the case
that women tend to use the health-care industry far more often than men, even
though men pay just as much in premiums in California.
In Illinois, my
home state, women pay higher premiums than do men of the same age because they
use health care far more.
When I received my health
insurance policy, the first 12 items listed as covered will
never be used by this single male -- from prenatal care to elective abortions to
delivery of babies.
The answer to the question of why health
insurance companies cover Viagra and not
contraceptives or elective abortion is simple: Health care is
meant to facilitate the bodily functions in operating the way that nature
intended. Viagra does this. Contraception and elective abortion both work
against the body's natural functions. NEIL SPUN
Concord
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMALE ILLS COVERED
Editor -- You call it "gender
discrimination" when health plans do not cover female
contraceptives but do cover Viagra. This is quite illogical.
Health plans cover the prevention and treatment of diseases and disorders.
Neither fertility nor pregnancy is a disease or disorder.
Viagra treats
a sexual disorder of men. Health plans cover sexual disorders of women as well.
You say it "seems incredible" that women "still have to pay for their
own contraception." Women, and men, have to pay for many things that they choose
to buy. Men pay for condoms.
Legally requiring someone else to pay for
women's purchases sounds like an approach from days when women were not
permitted to own property.
Sex-based discrimination is a terrible
limiting factor in our society and must be eliminated. You should not dilute its
seriousness by alleging it exists where it clearly does not.
C.D. STONE
San Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHILD'S EYE LOSS
Editor -- Regarding Lewis Dolinsky's column
item, "Just a Kid With an Empty Eye Socket" (Dec. 15), about Ala' Badran, a
young Palestinian victim of Israel's military occupation: The boy's story
confirms what Palestinians have said repeatedly: that Israeli occupation forces
target children who are not threatening Israeli soldiers in any way.
It
also exposes the real danger of rubber-coated bullets. Ala' lost his eye and
could easily have been killed, as many children have been.
Israel denies
its victims adequate medical care, which is why Ala' had to come to America for
treatment. Badran's story also demonstrates the Christian-Muslim solidarity
among Palestinians against the illegal Israeli occupation.
Most
remarkable is that this young boy refuses to live in hate, even after the
violence done to him by the Israeli forces. His story is an inspiration to us
all, and a reminder of the brutality of the occupation.
GREG HOADLEY
Oakland
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TARGETED JEWISH KIDS
Editor -- Lewis Dolinsky's article was
inflammatory in that the underlying assumptions are false and propagate further
hatred of and aggression toward Israelis and Jews.
It is misinformation
to suggest that Israelis intentionally target children, or the eye of a child.
However, we do know that the Palestinians do intentionally target children, as
with 37 Jewish Israeli schoolchildren who were bombed.
It is tragic what
happened to the child, but it is malicious to report about it the way you have,
with innuendo and omissions.
PAMELA KIMBALL
San Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT-ELECT IN D.C.
Editor -- President-elect Bush is quoted
as saying at a Capitol Hill press conference with congressional leaders, "I
believe I'm standing here because I campaigned on issues that people heard"
("Bush Pledges to Press On With Tax Cut," Dec. 19).
Is this man
delusional? He was "standing here" because of a failed vote count in Florida, an
antiquated electoral system and a bad call by the Supreme Court -- and that's
the positive spin on how he got there.
If this presidency had been
determined by what people "heard" in the election, we would be hearing from Al
Gore, and Bush would be at home on the ranch.
DOUG SMITH
San
Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUT DRUG DEMAND
Editor -- Regarding your series, "The Colombia
Quagmire" (Dec. 17-20): Do you think there is any hope that the new
administration will see what an ill-advised mess this is?
Our priorities
should be on cutting demand for illegal drugs here at home, not on trying to
limit supply from abroad.
BEVERLY LEVINE
Santa Cruz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHENEY IN THE SENATE
Editor -- Although Dick Cheney, as vice
president, could break a tie in the U.S. Senate, he will not be a senator. He
will not be counted as a Republican senator and the Republicans will not have a
majority in the upper chamber.
Therefore, current Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott has no justification acting as though he can continue as majority
leader. There will be no majority party in the Senate (split 50-50 between
Democrats and Republicans).
It might be that Cheney, without giving any
thought to the issue at hand, always will vote with the Republicans. Even if he
can be counted on to vote in such a thoughtless, partisan manner, that does not
turn an evenly divided Senate into a Republican-majority Senate.
The
Democrats are legally and constitutionally entitled to share chairmanships and
other power with absolute equality.
LYNN SNYDER
San Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUSH'S 'DEMOCRACY'
Editor -- One overriding thought came to mind
after listening to George W. Bush's speech recommending Colin Powell for
secretary of state. The word Bush used most often in his speech was "democracy."
Either he doesn't know what the word means (a real possibility) or he's
being a complete hypocrite. That the same man who so zealously preached the
gospel of democracy would be so eager to use his political connections to usurp
the presidency from a good and decent man who got more votes than he speaks
volumes about Bush's inner ambitions and ruthlessness.
I have a real
fear that some of the freedoms I most treasure are now in danger of being
compromised by our next president and his supporters. Sadly, his recent speeches
have done absolutely nothing to quell my fears.
MARK W. LEHNHOFF
San Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LATE-NIGHT ISSUES
Editor -- We have worked for the last three
years with Downtown-Civic Center residents, community groups and the Planning
Department to develop workable legislation covering complex late-night
permitting issues. I am pleased that the Planning Department agrees a
"notification" plan alone is insufficient to protect our neighborhoods.
Our recommendation to the Board of Supervisors is neighborhood
participation through "conditional use" and the notification process for
late-night permits. Terrance Allan of the San Francisco Late Night Coalition
says, "The first wave in any gentrification is the arts groups, the
coffeehouses, the clubs." His opposition to "conditional use" control does not
reflect the consensus of the community.
Why should our 50,000 residents
be denied the same process for late-night permits as enjoyed by all of the other
"neighborhood/commercial" districts that are also of mixed use? There have never
been sufficient zoning and enforcement controls here to deal with the nuts and
bolts of late-night permits.
A mere extension of hours of operation can
intensify use by attracting more customers, say, between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.,
giving rise to potential conflict with residential use. This is why residents
want to avoid conflicts by having uniform controls and rules that everyone can
adhere to when a moratorium expires Dec. 31.
With affordable housing a
major issue, what is needed is intelligent urban planning and concern and
respect for those living downtown -- not self-serving advocacy for
"gentrification" and displacement.
ROBERT GARCIA
President
Save Our Streets Tenants and Merchants Association
San Francisco
LOAD-DATE: December 21, 2000 
