LETTERS : HMO'S DONATION MUST BE TAKEN IN LARGER CONTEXT.

It was buried deep inside the L.A. Life section of the Oct. 24 edition, but there it was in black and white: WellPoint Health Networks donates $500,000 to the Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza.

At first glance, one might think, ``How nice - a local corporation offering financial assistance to a local cultural center.'' However, when one looks at this cultural benevolence in light of the information revealed in an Oct. 3 story, this benevolence doesn't appear quite as nice, let alone prudent or appropriate.

The Oct. 3 story told the all-too-frequent tale of another local physicians group that filed for bankruptcy, citing the low level of reimbursement and slow payment from the HMOs.

In related analysis of those disclosures, it was revealed that the California Medical Association, which represents 34,000 California-based doctors, sued eight HMOs in August, alleging that the eight HMOs owed more than $60 million to doctors who cared for the plans' patients.

Guess who one of the eight HMOs was? That's right, Blue Cross of California, the HMO owned by WellPoint Health Networks, the benevolent organization that dropped a cool half-mil to assist the Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza.

Don't misunderstand me. I fully support the Civic Arts Plaza, and I fully support local business supporting the arts and cultural activities in our neighborhood. What I'm not in favor of is a for-profit HMO, that holds the power over life and death for its members, allocating significant, scarce financial resources to activities that are not in the best interests of those that pay their increasing premiums for medical care. (Medical care, not the support of the arts.)

A half-million dollars would pay for a lot of medical procedures or pharmaceutical treatments that are regularly denied on a daily basis due to ``cost considerations.'' When the leadership of this for-profit HMO can deny or delay payment for medical procedures and pharmacy benefits, maybe next time they will think, and allocate their resources better and actually provide the service that they advertise in their expensive television commercials.

What's even more ludicrous is the whole concept of for-profit managed health care. How can a company maximize shareholder value and profits and provide timely and quality care for its members? The two goals are are diametrically opposed.

Scott Tesar

Oak Park

Sex ed practice needs oversight

Thank you for your article publicizing the meeting for parents to view the Family Life (sex-education) videos that are shown to fifth- and sixth-graders here in Simi Valley. Since it is foremost the parents' responsibility to teach their children the facts of life, I'm glad that your paper saw the importance of informing parents of this event.

I believe that these classes should not be given co-ed. It would be a simple matter for the nurses to spend more time at each school to teach the boys and girls separately. I clearly remember my embarrassment in my junior high girls' health class, and I can tell you that my friends and I would have wanted to melt into the floor if it had been co-ed. Our feelings of embarrassment were normal, and our teacher acknowledged that. The district's head nurse, Jean Borowsky, told us at the meeting that the Family Life committee, made up of volunteers from the community, are the ones who made the decision on this co-ed issue, and that it's been done that way here in Simi ``for years,'' but was a consensus ever taken from parents?

Sex education is such a delicate topic that it is presented ideally by the parents. Parents, God entrusted your children to you. If you are teaching your children Christian values and principles, then you really can't rely on the public schools to do your job, because sex-ed should never be taught without your family values. Oh, I know, many will say that the schools do a sufficient job in blending value lessons in these classes, but since public schools can't teach religion, their value lessons will be weak.

Instead of the emphasis on public school sex-ed classes, people like Wendy Shalit, author of ``A Return to Modesty,'' and Michael and Diane Medved, authors of ``Saving Childhood: Protecting Our Children from the National Assault on Innocence,'' offer alternatives to parents who want to return to the bedrock moral principles that made our country great.

Sheila Strain

Simi Valley

Teachers must be held accountable

As I sit back and replay the past weeks' developments, I can only become deeply saddened by the level of awareness that today's folks have on this issue. The idea to ban or censor the Harry Potter book series was never my intention. Though we come from different camps on this subject, we must not lose sight of the end goal.

My heart aches for those now-grown children that have chosen the unhealthy paths that have left their lives in ruin. My wife and I have worked with young couples to help keep their lives together, and grieve when they can't, all due to poor choices made.

J.K. Rowling herself admitted on television that these books have evil content. The manipulation, lying, violence and rebellion are without a doubt unfit for young minds that don't have a strong safety net at home.

This book series has the same sugar coating that the alcohol, tobacco and, for that matter, your local drug dealers, use as well as clever marketing that the publishing companies use to lure us into thoughtless choices. Many with lifelong consequences. My goal, in my feeble way, is to aid folks in these choices. I will, with every fiber and particle of my being, protect the greatest blessing God has given my wife and myself from the trash this world has to offer. From this standpoint Harry Potter is of no real use in the classrooms. Educate, don't entertain, these kids.

Rather than divide on this issue, we should unite with the common goal of our most precious gift - our kids! Join me in keeping our teachers accountable to us with the young lives left in their charge. Raise the standard to the child's needs, don't lower the standard to the child's wants for the sake of entertainment and popularity. I find little pleasure in stepping forward with my concerns, but by doing nothing about this important issue I would be agreeing with it. My hope is that more people will take note of what is being taught to our kids in class.

If you like the books, read them at home, don't force them on our children at school. Don't let peer pressure or popularity fool you into thinking these are good books. Here is something from the real all-time best seller - think about: ``You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your heart. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's eyes.''

- Luke, 16:15.

Dominic Schmidt

Moorpark

Walk kids to school wishful thinking 

Several weeks ago the Moorpark City Council and the school board approved a Walk Your Child to School Day. The idea was suggested by a parks commissioner.

In considering this suggestion I had to determine how many of the school children could be walked to school, and found that the only ones for which this was available for any number of years were the children of Mountain Meadows. In the Campus Canyon area, the children have to be bused for eight years of their schooling. In the downtown area, the kindergartners are even bused to Campus Canyon, unless they are in the so-called magnet school.

Most of the children who attend the magnet school in Walnut Canyon need transportation to their school. Walking is simply not possible.

This may sound like a wonderful idea and so it is, if you live in a city that actually has neighborhood schools. In Moorpark you may have a school in your neighborhood, but you cannot always be sure that your child will attend it. Perhaps those who are so anxious to have you walk your child to school need to become better acquainted with the school system before they talk.

Nancy Wagenbach

Moorpark