The Michigan Daily - Monday, July 17, 2006 - 5 VIEWPOINT What Stiggy didn't say The media's call of duty THERESA KENNELLY TIERE'S A REASON BY DAN ADAMS As an avid reader of The Michigan Daily, I'm quite familiar with columnist John Stiglich's recent work. Within the last year, Stiglich has lectured black families on the causes of poverty (In Dissent: Fam- ily ties, 11/04/2005), referred to Wal-Mart as a "poverty warrior" (Wal-mart: poverty warrior, 5/22/2006) and openly advocated torturing foreign captives because "you do what you have to do" (The politics of torture, 6/5/2006). Needless to say, I'm used to taking his columns with a grain of salt. But, Stiglich's most recent piece (A prescription for healthcare, 07/10/2006) cannot go unchallenged. Though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established medical care as a fundamental right, according to Sti- glich, the ability to see a doctor when you're sick is a privilege, "not a birth right." "Empirically," he writes, "univer- sal healthcare is one of the worst ideas in the history of man." A brief examination exposes this as an embarrassing and irresponsible charac- terization of the facts. By almost every empirical measure, universal health care outperforms Amer- ica's market-based system. Our system is more expensive than universal healthcare: According to anOrganizationofEconomic Cooperation and Development report, we spend an average of 34 to 75 percent more as of GDP on healthcare than do developed nations with universal healthcare. Despite that, a 2000 World Health Organization study ranked the perfor- mance of America's health care system an embarrassing 37th, behind many nations with universal healthcare. Forty-five mil- lion Americans don't have health insur- ance. When ill, they face the choice of paying for their treatment or letting their health deteriorate. Given the costs asso- ciated with the former, it's not surprising that many Americans choose the latter: A 2004 study found that Americans were the most likely to report not seeing a doctor when ill, not receiving recommended fol- low-up care and going without medication because of high costs. We do eventually treat the uninsured - at taxpayer expense. In 2001 alone, treating the uninsured cost the U.S. gov- ernment more than $30 billion. Stiglich would have you believe that coveringthese Americans with auniversal healthcare plan would be "less efficient." This is false: Studies by the Congressional LETTERS Continued from Page 4 *Abstemiousness' no qualification for office TO THE DAILY: I swallowed some bile when I read your account of "qualifications" offered by Democrats at the forum hosted by Ann Arbor's Democratic Party (Primary candidates join in forum, 07/17/2006): "I don't own a car." My fellow members of the political left, most voters do own cars. Despite our distaste for the expense, hassle and environmental impact associated with car ownership, we need cars to get to our Budget Office and the General Account- ability Office have estimated that the costs of covering all Americans would be offset by the administrative savings found in a universal system. Even for Americans with health insur- ance, the America's market-oriented system is far from idyllic. A 2005 study found that Americans were the most like- ly out of the six nations polled to report having experienced one of four types of medical error. A 2004 study ranked America fifth out of six nations on wait times to see a doctor. Only 33 percent of Americans report being able to see a doc- tor the day they became sick, and 19 per- cent waiting six days or more. The four nations thatfinished ahead of America all have universal healthcare. With a mountain of empirical evidence against him, how can Stiglich possibly maintain that universal healthcare is "one of the worst ideas in the history of man?" "Go into any hospital in Buffalo," he sug- gests,"and count the numberofCanadians fleeing their utopian universal healthcare systemto seek treatment in America." Since counting the number of Canadi- ans in American hospitals seems a laugh- able way of evaluating the adequacy of universal healthcare, I went ahead and did what Stiglich didn't do: research. In 2000, the WHO ranked the Canadian sys- tem higher than the American system in terms of its overall performance. Among developed nations, America ranks 23rd in terms of life expectancy and 27th in infantmortality --two imperfect, but oft- cited measures of quality of life. All of the nations ahead of us have publicly funded or universal healthcare. Canadians spend less per patient, less overall, and oh, by the way: All Canadians have coverage. It's not surprising, then, that in 1991 the GAO published a reportthat called on U.S. law- makers to look to the Canadian system for guidance in reforming our broken system. In sum: We pay more. We die earlier. Millions of Americans can't see a doctor when they're sick; the rest still face long waits and medical errors. Most of all, uni- versal healthcare systems consistentlyrank higherthantheAmericansystembyalmost every measure. If all this is true, why are so many Americans still convinced that uni- versal healthcare won't work? Maybe they've been reading too much of Stiglich's work. Adams is an alum and aformer associate editorial page editor. jobs because our elected officials haven't done enough aboutlcontrolling sprawl and creating public transportation. Car own- ership makes us privy to problems (how to pay for the car, howto drive it, where to park it) that are subjects of public policy. Candidates, when you brag about not owning a car, you're explaining that you regard that privilege as a qualification for office.You're askingus to put youin aposi- tion to make policy about things of which you have no personal understanding, and for which you publicly express disdain. Abstemiousness is a sound moral choice, but portraying it as a political qualification is a serious mistake. When you talk like this, even I don't want to vote for you. Alyssa Picard Alum D espite made this decision casually, with any ani- reminding mus toward the current Administration, or viewers without fully weighing the issues." every commer- But what goes above and beyond the cial break that it concerns the American public has toward remains "the most the media is the anger of many top offi- trusted name is cials in Washington. After the June 23 news," CNN's Times story, President Bush held a press credibility is conference to declare that the coverage steadily falling, of the monitoring program "does great and its proud slogan has lost much sig- harm to the United States of America." nificance in the era of politically polar- Some Republican congressmen are even izing media sources. Boasting only a attempting to get the attorney general to 32-percent credibility rating according prosecute the Times, saying that the story to the Pew Research Center, CNN has put Americans' lives at risk. lost almost 10 percentage points since In an attempt to somehow distinguish 1998. But even that's high compared to themselves from the Times and avoid the "most trusted" printed news source, similar condemnation in Washington, The The Wall Street Journal, which now only Wall Street Journal's editorial page has has 24 percent of readers believing "all taken to attacking the Times as well. In or most of what it says," down from 41 a June 30 editorial (Fit and Unfit to Print) percent in 2000. the Journal's edit page said that it no lon- In recent months,the trust issue has taken ger trusts the Times to properly balance a wild turn for the worst, owing to media national security concerns and the public's coverage of the government's monitoring right to know. Of course, it's no secret that of phone and international banking records. the News section of the Journal rarely The issue is no longer just about the unre- agrees with its edit page's critiques, and liability of the media; now the American the result was no different this time, with public is concerned with and fearful of the the Journal's political editor declaring that media's capabilities as well. These senti- he was shocked by the editorial. ments have escalated so much in the past But what the Journal's edit page and oth- couple of weeks, newspaper editors have ers whotthreaten the Times have forgotten is been forced torespond to reader's criticisms that there is a small section in the Constitu- of their editorial decisions. Most notably, tion that gives the Times the right to publish Bill Keller, the Executive Editor of the New the story. It's called freedom of the press, York Times - blamed for leaking the bank you know, wedged in the First Amendment monitoring-program in a June 23news story between freedoms of speech and assembly. - defended the Times's decision in an open The Times's decision to cover national letter stating, "Nobody should think that we security operations is protected under the A modern-day Salem JARED GOLDBERG IF NOT Now, WHEN? Constitution and, as long as they legally obtained the information and presented it in a truthful manner, there are no grounds for prosecution. The Journal's edit page is only hurting itself by saying that the media should obey the governmentby denying its right to publish whatever it deems impor- tant for its readers. For the government to have any control over what the media pub- lishes is simply not permissible no matter what the ramifications. As Thomas Jef- ferson said, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost:" With fewer and fewer Americans con- sidering media sources credible, publish- ing information that may harm the public and potentially foil the anti-terrorismstrat- egies of the government will only further cause people to lose faith in the media. In order to increase readers' trust, the Times, as well as the Journal, CNN, Fox News and every other media outlet need to use their freedom with more integrity. This means having the ability to ascertain when they have indeed crossed the line from providing solid news coverage to provid- ing superfluous, dangerous and perhaps unethical coverage that serves no purpose to the American public. Especially in this time of heightened security concerns, when it comes to poten- tially endangering human lives, media sources must administer careful discretion and be fully capable of defending their publishing decisions. Kennelly can be reached at thenelly@umich.edu. ur story begins in a small town in the north- ern United States. A typical American family - we'll call them the Smiths - attends their daughter's high school graduation. The Smiths are one of the few Christian families in town, and the daughter is the only Christian in her graduating class. During the convocation, a local imam says the following prayer: "I also pray for one specific student, that you be with her and guide her in the path that you have for her. And we ask all these things in Allah's name." This was the straw that broke the camel's -I mean the Smiths' - back. It seems-the Smith children had been harassed in their school for being Christian for a long time. Among the things that the Smith children had to endure was school sponsored prayer, members of Torah, Quran, Vedas and Tripitaka clubs being allowed to go to the front of the line at lunch, teachers advocating for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism in class and, worst of all, prayers to all of those religions at school board meetings. When the Smiths protested, school board officials refused to change their policies regarding prayers of other reli- gions at meetings. The Smiths were told not to seek legal counsel as part of a com- promise that would include only non-sec- tarian prayers at the convocation. When it fell through, the school board again secretly conferred with the Smiths, this time assuring the family that they would seek the counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union. Despite this, the school board decided to develop a religion policy at their next meeting, where the Smiths were openly harassed and threatened. When the younger Smith son wanted to read his statement, the crowd shouted vulgarities at him. When his statement was finally read, the boy told the school board it hurt his feelings when his classmates called him "Christboy." State representatives present at the meeting announced that board mem- bers who changed the religious policies in the school district would be replaced. Callers to the local radio station, which had been exacerbating the situation over the airwaves, demanded that the Smiths convert. The Smith boy faced further harass- ment at school. Classmates called him a "crusader," and he frequently took off his cross when he went grocery shopping with his mother to avoid any altercations. The fiasco forced the Smiths to move from their hometown. After leaving, they filed a lawsuit against the school district for violating their civil rights. School board members have dismissed the charg- es as frivolous. They have yet to change their policies, and local judges seem sym- pathetic to the board. One judge ruled that sectarian prayers at school board meet- ings were a historic tradition. Bring this case to the attention of Bill O'Reilly, SeanHannityRushLimbaugh or any other member of the Christian right, and they'd side with the Smiths. They might argue, given past statements around December of every year, that the Smiths' rights as Christians have been violated, just like around the country where the civil rights of Christians are being destroyed by secularists and mul- ticulturalists. They might ask you to write your local newspaper or congress- man demanding action. Then tell them that the Smiths are Jew- ish. Their real name is the Dobrichs, and their community is not a mob of multicul- turalists but rather fundamentalist Chris- tians who preach (in public schools, of all places, the supremacy of their beliefs and typical anti-Semitic diatribes. The school district is the Indian River School District in Delaware. Then see if their reactions are the same. But don't hold your breath. When it comes to protecting the fun- damental freedom of religion for people other than Christians, conservatives and their allies inthe state and federal govern- ments don't seem to hold the same stan- dards as they do for people of their faith. This shows the danger of allowing any kind of religious interference in gov- ernment. If we allow schools and their respective boards to continue with this type of oppression, we have returned to puritanical Salem, circa 1690. And the wood is already starting to burn. Goldberg can be reached at jaredgo@umich.edu.