By Charlie Norwood
Wednesday, February 18 1998; Page A21

A large number of Washington conservatives need to spend a lot more time with working people across America and a lot less time with lobbyists and politicos. For it appears that far from being defenders of individual freedom, they have convinced themselves that at least in terms of the debate on managed-care reform, the only freedom that counts is the freedom of corporations.

In fact, average working families are just as opposed to big business running their lives as they are to big governments. But inside-the-Beltway conservative leaders and journalists are still fighting the policy battles of the '60s and '70s, and ignoring the changing economic conditions of the '90s.

Robert Novak writes that my bill, the patient Access to Responsible Care Act (PARCA), "fits the president's covert plans for big government" ["A Health Care Bill That's DOA," op-ed, Feb. 2]. In fact, the bill seeks to restore the free market in health care that has been taken away by acts of Congress.

Americans disapproved of the 1994 Clinton health care plan because they didn't want to give up their health care freedom to the federal government. The plan called for pushing the public into one of eight "regional alliances," each consisting of a handful of managed-care organizations that would ration health care.

It's now 1998, and 70 percent of the American public has been pushed into the same managed-care plans by business interests. That figure continues to rise, and if the opponents of managed-care reform are successful, health care freedom for the working class will consist only of the freedom to quit your job if you don't like its health plan.

The Wall Street variety of Republicans seem to think that Clinton Care is just fine, as long as corporations run the show instead of the federal government. If they don't have a change of heart, they will soon discover at the polls just how out of touch with the electorate they truly are.

Novak mentions that nationwide audiences are cheering criticism of HMOs in the new Jack Nicholson film, "As Good as It Gets." There's a reason for it. Nationwide audiences support patient protections in managed-care plans. They want their health care freedom back, and they demand that those who provide their health care are legally responsible when something goes wrong.

This is the line in the sand in this debate. Patients must have the final say in choosing their doctor and health plan, and managed-care plans must be held legally responsible for damages caused by denial of promised and medically necessary care.

Health insurance is the only industry in this country that enjoys a federally mandated shield against liability for its actions, and that's the root of the horror stories of managed care. It's interesting to note that those who oppose reform because of their dislike of government involvement don't have a bit of problem supporting this kind of deadly federal involvement in the health care market.

The Republican leadership has to recognize that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" applies to all Americans, not just the business community. If they don't, these folks may find that their hold on the majority in Congress may be the next victim of managed care.

The writer, a Republican representative from Georgia, is sponsor of the patient access legislation.