Established 1826 — Oldest College Newspaper West of the Alleghenies

Featured Letter to the Editor

Letters to the editor

By Featured Letter to the Editor | October 7, 2009

Featured Letter to the EditorDear Miami University students and faculty,My name is Jordan Gafford and I am a junior on the Miami University football team. This is written to express the team's appreciation for you, the students and faculty members of Miami. Thank you for your support last week against Cincinnati. It is hard to describe how valuable your presence and enthusiasm can be to our team throughout the course of a game. Last Saturday, you all created a great atmosphere for college football and the team was able to feed off your energy. We truly value your support.I also wanted to tell you how much we care about you. You are on our minds while we are working out at 6 a.m., lifting weights and practicing. We want to win for you. It is our genuine desire, and our responsibility, to be a team you can be proud to support and to be a team that is fun to watch. Everyday, we are working to improve and to get Miami football back to where it once was and should always be.Once again I sincerely thank you for your faithful support. Beat Northwestern!Jordan Gafford and the Miami Football TeamPublic health care intrudes on freedomThere has been much debate in The Miami Student about a letter to the editor titled "All should care about health care debate" (Sept. 25) written by Cory Bailey. Though Bailey's main idea was about the American right to voice an opposing opinion, the articles attacking his piece focused on health care and how they believed he was wrong. Let me first contest the letter to the editor published Oct. 6 named "Public health care can improve quality of life."To begin addressing this author's contentions, the public option won't be financed via premiums only. To start a company, one needs capital so clearly they will be using our tax dollars to start it out, as that is the source of government revenue. The author seems to think there are no not-for-profit companies, but there are in fact many competing in the private sector and those who aren't insured can't buy insurance from these not-for-profit companies either. It appears that not-for-profit services are not so effective. They have driven down private insurance premiums and these premiums are not low enough for the uninsured to buy them. Therefore, to reach this market of the uninsured, premiums must go lower, hence, the government will lose money because not-for-profit could not reach them. Adding one more competitor would not make the market more efficient unless they have some sort of competitive advantage, which they will because they are the government and do not have to have a balanced budget like a company. To say the government would cut down on administrative costs is laughable because the government is inefficient in areas where there is no market failure (i.e. police, fire, etc.). Also, part of the plan to pay for health care was going to be done by finding wastes in Medicare. If this is so easy, why aren't they doing it now? Also, if premiums are the source needed to finance this program, why are we talking about its effects on the budget deficit?Let me also note that the non-partisan CBO will not be able to estimate this. I don't think Americans realize the difficulties of estimating a program such as health care. The original estimates for Medicare were only 12 percent of the actual cost when Medicare was first created. States such as Massachusetts have also been running into trouble today because they can't afford the Medicare costs imposed upon them.The reason that Medicaid, Medicare and VA have somewhat lower costs is because the private industries subsidize them. There is approximately a 71 percent reimbursement for costs, which causes the private industry to cover these costs. President Obama's assertion that health insurance companies were dropping policyholders when they most needed it was proven false in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial. The president's claims are clearly wrong. America also has the best health care in the world. The ratings showing the United States ranks 37 in health care are completely bogus because they don't take everything into account such as demographics, crime and other factors. When world leaders need health care, they come to America not because it's their only choice or the most convenient but because it is the best. Let me also note we are basically subsidizing the rest of the world's pharmaceutical drugs and research because we pay high prices and observe patent laws. If it was not for America, we wouldn't have the drugs we have today which have been created through the free market. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about the government providing health care. Also, health insurance companies are not setting record profits. They have been doing well but not breaking records.In response to "America must define freedom in a new way" (Oct. 6), there are more than 225 years of American capitalism to prove capitalism and freedom work. There is a great deal of disinformation in this essay, but I want to get to the core of the argument, namely "What is freedom?" Freedom is the opportunity to do what you want to do with your abilities and property. In response to some of the author's questions, yes, freedom is the ability to buy an iPod with your money. If someone wants to work hard, earn an obscene amount of money, buy an iPod and enjoy it, they should have the right to do it. That is freedom. Freedom lies in your ability to do what you want under laws that prevent a person from directly harming another. Let me remind readers this freedom has provided you with everything you have. Freedom has nothing to do with "interaction and ethical relation with others." I am not selfish for working hard and providing some sort of service for someone while society is benefiting from it. I accumulate wealth, and then I spend it as I please. That is exactly what freedom is in the framework of capitalism. If we took others into account every time we made choices, we would not have airplanes because those who worked for the railroad might have said, "We don't want airplanes because airplanes will take away from our business." The workers in the railroad industry would have lost jobs. The beauty of capitalism is that personal benefits drove the Wright brothers, and in turn we all benefit from air transportation. It's not a zero-sum game.Also, freedom is the "refusing to pay for the betterment of society" so I can buy an iPod. For more information on this, read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. In regards to me providing someone else's health care, why doesn't that person needing health care provide it for himself? You are taking away from my hard work when I provide it for you. The author's view sounds like communism to me. Perhaps he ought to go work a 97.5-hour work week like some of us did to afford this education and then he'll understand freedom better and understand the property rights that come with the accumulation of wealth. Or perhaps following his reasoning, he should be paying my way through.Mark HutchinsonHUTCHINMD@muohio.edu

Letters to the editor

By Featured Letter to the Editor | September 28, 2009

Featured letter to the editorAs faculty, we declined to sign the Dawisha-DeLue letter protesting the construction of a new student center and want to explain why.We, too, disagree with constructing such an extravagant building at a time of serious financial distress, layoffs and looming furloughs. Nonetheless, we declined to sign the Dawisha-DeLue letter because it contains no statement of purpose that the funds saved by not building a new student center will be re-directed instead toward what we consider the top priority of reversing the decline in the quality of undergraduate education at Miami University as manifested by faculty teaching fewer undergraduate courses (especially junior faculty), cuts in the sections of courses students need to graduate, inflation of class sizes, use of more fill-in-the-dot exams graded by computers rather than faculty, rewarding research more than teaching, multiplying the number of "centers" where faculty administer rather than teach - all which are eroding the quality of the student-faculty intellectual engagement that has been Miami's hallmark.Lacking this statement of purpose, the protest against the use of funds for a new student center appears as only an attempt to shield the ongoing waste of resources consumed in making Miami less Miami and more OSU. Barry ArlinghausJames BrockPhillip CottellWilliam R. HartRichard McClureDavid RosenthalTell us your thoughts on the latest letter on the message forum.Student senate plays important role at MUSince the author of Friday's op-ed "ASG should target student indifference," has never bothered to attend a session of student senate, I would like to invite him (and every other member of the student body) to come join the student senate Tuesday at 6 p.m. in Harrison 111. Although the author seemed quite confident in his knowledge of what the senate does, I urge him and other students to confirm their opinions before printing misconceptions.After reading the insulting piece several times, I could only wonder if, in addition to never attending senate, the author ever bothered to speak with a senator or ask a senator why they chose to run for their position. Maybe ask a senator what they have been or are currently working on. Did the author even ever bother to ask a cabinet member what they think of his reckless proposal? It is apparent the author is either completely unaware or simply indifferent to the fact the student senate is credited with helping to establish the Miami Metro, the Recreational Sports Center and various other changes and additions to the campus and the community. Every year, student senators spend countless hours ensuring student organizations are allocated the proper funds to be able to perform as exceptionally as they do. Student senators spend hours researching the changes Miami University is in need of, in order excel on a competitive level, and then those same senators track down and work with administrators and other key actors to make those changes feasible. Student senators cover every corner of campus and walk every block of their districts to make certain our streets are well lit enough so we can walk home safely. Student senators have recently committed themselves to walk door-to-door off-campus and identify constituent concerns. Student senators are producing results without getting paid $44,000 (as it should be).Are student senator actions irrelevant until they attain a salaried position? Were the five former senators currently on cabinet useless until elected to their current position? I believe every single Miami student is capable of making the changes to this university they see fit, regardless of the student's title or organizational affiliation, but I do not think the work of any student should ever be belittled and disrespected as much as the student senate was in Friday's op-ed. The author stated, "It does not matter if my assessment of the senate's record is inexact, because my perception of it is in line with popular student perception." Unfortunately, accuracy does matter in this situation. It is likely readers, akin to the editorial's author, will assume the words printed to be truth. It matters because the author felt confident enough in his ignorant ideas to print them in the paper without bothering to verify his claims for factuality. Dori BahirBAHIRD@muohio.eduMiami students must respect local workersI am writing to address the article in the Sept. 25 issue of The Miami Student regarding the Top 7.5 jobs. I realize this was supposed to be a "funny" and sarcastic look at jobs, but I find the townie job very offensive. As a "townie" myself, I am here at Miami University providing you with a service you obviously want or you wouldn't be here. So why ridicule the very people in the town you chose to live in while obtaining your education? I think you should step back and appreciate the "townies" and the city in which you are living and apologize to all of us in a sincere manner.Cathy Edwardsedwardca@muohio.eduConservatives fight health plan with factsI must disagree with the main point of Roger Young's column, "Health care debate causes hysteria" (Sept. 22), which was the hysteria surrounding the health care debate is the most interesting aspect of health care reform, and that this hysteria (more accurately described as "anger" or "opposition," I believe), is rooted in ignorance or knee-jerk reactions. I wasn't surprised when Congress broke for recess in August, and Democrats found themselves being shouted down at town hall meetings as they tried to explain why they favored President Obama's plan, but I was somewhat amused by it. It was fun to see conservatives get riled up, since they are normally so stiff. Democrats are so shocked by all this because the normally quiet and well-behaved conservatives are speaking out. Some of them aren't speaking out all that eloquently. Clearly the references to Nazism and Islam are illogical and aren't adding value to the discussion. But it's not as though there is a large proportion of protesters comparing Obama to Hitler, only a very small amount. The vast majority of these protesters have thought it over and decided more government involvement will make their health care system worse than it already is. These outlooks are not "fueled by misinformation and violent media framing" or even "scattered" as Young has observed, but instead are held in every city from sea to shining sea, and are fueled by a healthy distrust of government bureaucracy and a different understanding of what the fallout will be if Obama gets his way. Democrats can't seem to believe a large portion of the American people understand there is more than one way for the health care system to be screwed up, and they'd rather take their chances with the status quo (or less government regulation) than give more decision-making power to government bureaucrats. Democrats seem to think if the average citizen more fully understood the legislation, they would begin to like it. The opposite is happening, and they are so shocked that they attribute the anger and opposition to racism and even some third party covertly organizing these protests. In that respect, Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi are out of touch. Most of the arguments against the legislation are factual, not ideological. That is, opponents don't think the legislation will accomplish what it is meant to even if it were to pass. I think Obama sticking to platitudes like "I believe we have a responsibility to provide health insurance for all" as the legislation grows increasingly complex and cumbersome smacks more of desperation than any of these questions. And it doesn't do a good job of countering the conservative platitude of "Why should the government take money from one man to pay for another man's health care?" So

Trending