Explore the vast range of titles available.

The expansion of health-care coverage and improvements in the nation's fractured health-care system will occur only if reforms have widespread support and diverse groups remain frustrated by the status quo. Only a broad-based coalition will be able to generate the bipartisan political support required to withstand the special- interest or partisan attacks that will follow any substantive proposals. Only a broadly shared sense of dissatisfaction will produce the passion and commitment necessary to trigger change. The financial costs of health care -- whether in Medicaid or private-sector employers' plans -- are immense, affecting national and state budgets as well as corporate profits. So are the human costs of inadequate insurance and care: The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 18,000 adults die each year because of inadequate access to care. Those are good reasons for the coalition to pursue its plans to have budget analysts project the costs of any proposals; we hope the analysts will also identify the costs associated with maintaining the status quo (lost work hours and wages, decreases in productivity, unpaid medical bills, charity care provided by hospitals, banruptcies, foreclosures). The group is leaning toward incremental solutions, the Times reported, an approach that might disappoint purists on the political left and right. But increments -- substantive increments -- offer the best short-term hope for progress at a time when partisan dissension, especially in Washington, has caused political paralysis on health care. For the foreseeable future, any sweeping proposal to either fully privatize or socialize insurance is likely to be dead on arrival, so it makes sense for the coalition to focus on improving the current mix of public and private coverage.

What happened during WWII was that after the invasion of Poland and the German advance into Halychyna and Volyn, ancient Ukrainian territory occupied briefly by Poland between the wars, the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators from Polish occupation. After WWII these western Ukrainian lands were incorporated into the Ukrainian S.S.R. not into Russia. It seems, moreover, that [Robert Krumpen] not only doesn't know his history, but he also doesn't know his current events. Today, the greatest push for Ukrainian independence is in these Catholic western Ukrainian territories. Likewise, after tremendous Soviet persecution, the Ukrainian Catholic Church has just recently been legalized under pressure from the Polish pope who recognizes that these lands are Ukrainian and not Polish. Critics of a co-educational Virginia Military Institute use the argument that an education from VMI is uniquely special and should therefore be protected from any female infringement. You bet an education from VMI is special. It is exactly this \"specialness\" that necessitates the admission of women to VMI.

There is, however, a way out - it's called privatization. Instead of engaging in the losing war of attrition, privatization calls for the government to provide incentives for people to seek services from the private sector, rather than from the federal government. Privatization, in other words, means transfering programs into the private sector with the carrot of incentives, rather than the stick of cutbacks. The inducements would be designed to build a coalition of interests pressing for private provision - a sort of \"mirror image\" of the coalition that supports government programs. And as demand shifted toward the private sector, opposition to cutting the federal sector would diminish. Though it may sound like heresy, even Logan Airport could be privatized. Robert Poole notes in a Heritage Foundation study that in Switzerland and other countries the air traffic control system is provided by a private company, and the FAA permits several smaller airports in the United States to be privately operated. Why not sell Logan to the highest bidder and invite an FAA-approved private firm to handle the flights? Thanks to the PATCO strike, there would be no shortage of qualified controllers to staff the tower.

FEDERAL budget-making in the era of the Gramm-Rudman balanced-budget amendment has catapulted a new word into the nation's vocabulary - ''privatization,'' or the transfer of Federal assets and functions to the private sector. As a commendable first step, the Reagan Administration has proposed the sale of a portion of the $245 billion portfolio of outstanding Government loans, such as those to students and small-business men. Sales of assets make good political and budget sense as a strategy to make the kinds of rapid deficit reductions necessary under Gramm-Rudman. They would bring in large amounts of cash quickly, in contrast to the savings from ''contracting out,'' which would take years to amount to significant reductions. Thus, selling assets can be used to meet immediate budget targets, after which savings from other forms of privatization and from orderly program cuts would keep deficit reduction on track. Asset sales in the United States could result in similar benefits. Selling public housing at a discount to tenants would raise money, cut subsidy costs and give low-income Americans the chance to own their own homes. Selling airport landing slots to airlines would bring in revenue and lead to more efficient use of airspace. Selling Washington's National and Dulles Airports would cut the deficit while leading to a more economic use of each airport. And selling franchises to private companies to sort and deliver first-class mail would help meet the Gramm-Rudman target - and there can be little doubt that service would improve.

Mr. Magziner also said that the administration will not alter its proposal to save money from future Medicare spending to help finance national health coverage. The administration insists that the health plan can cap the growth of Medicare outlays without hurting the quality of the program that serves 33 million Americans over the age of 65 and 3 million disabled individuals of all ages. The Medicare numbers could be revised slightly, as could the amount of revenue collected from \"sin\" taxes on alcohol and tobacco, Mr. [Ira Magaziner] said. But the major thrust -- big savings from Medicare and Medicaid -- will not be changed, he said. Critics of the Clinton plan say it would limit choices. Stuart M. Butler, a vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said administration officials are \"talking about choices within a very narrow band of services,\" those specifically mandated by the government.

Mr. Butler states that ''generous assistance to the able-bodied'' promotes ''socially and economically destructive behavior.'' If he refers to cash assistance, it has never been generous. If to efforts to improve early education, health care and job training, the record shows that improved services improve chances for a successful climb out of poverty.

If Mr. [Stuart M. Butler] is genuinely sympathetic to the needs of the American people, what he should do is congratulate the ''elderly and liberals in Congress'' for their progressive stance. MORRIS SABBETH Brooklyn, Nov. 2, 1986

Medicare is also efficient. Its administrative costs run about 3 percent, compared with private insurance company costs of 12 percent. If there are to be local and regional health maintenance organizatons throughout the country, the paperwork will be staggering, particularly when one is ill outside one's own area. The bugs that will be found in any new system will delay the full effectiveness of the system until they are worked out. The Medicare paperwork has already been devised and is most effective.

The Heritage Foundation is among a vast industry of think tanks, lobbyists, lawyers, businessmen and politicians who through the Reagan years were nourished by a massive redistribution of wealth. Taxes and regulations were slashed for the rich, while incomes and services were slashed for the poor.