41
Monday, July 21,2008
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
IJhe Michigan 43aili
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
EMMARIE HUETTEMAN GARY GRACA KATE TRUESDELL
EDITOR IN CHIEF MANAGING E[NTOR EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
Unsignededitorialsreflectthe officialpositionofthe Daily's editorialboard.Allother
signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
FOJA fai*ling
Courts destablize already weak power
Watchdogs and the oversight they provide
are pillars of a successful society. But
those dogs got a swift kick in the hind-
quarters last week when the Michigan Supreme
Court delivered two pivotal decisions regarding the
1976 Freedom of Information Act, effectively broad-
ening the definition of what may be withheld from
those seeking information. This blow further leach-
es power from the already-diminished act, which is
well-intended in its conception but, pragmatically,
No charity case
Shortcomings of aid another argument for mandating coverage
A
Unforeseen medical emer-
gencies can be physically and
emotionallydevastating,butthe
idea of health insurance is that
at least the consequences don't
involve your wallet. Unfortu-
nately for Krystal Kuczmera
- now an LSA alum - she lost
her health insurance one month
before an emergency appendec-
tomy became necessary to save
her life. The operation left her
$21,000 in debt.
This tragedy was made worse
by the fact that Kuczmera was
ineligible for MSupport - the
University's health care char-
ity fund - because she had had
the option of buying University
health care..While one could
argue the merits of MSupport's
eligibility requirements, the
real problem is that situations
like this are even occurring.
The University should feel a
responsibility to make sure all
students have health coverage
in the first place.
Kuczmera declined Univer-
sity health insurance because
she was covered by her moth-
er's employer at the time. But
there are plenty of students
who wrestle with the decision
to accept the University plan
even if they are not already
covered. This is an understand-
able dilemma for a seemingly
healthy college student - the
University's subsidized cover-
age costs more than $2,350. It
is difficult for economically dis-
advantaged students to choose
between paying for basic col-
lege needs and paying for some-
thing like health care.
Programs like MSupport are
designed to help the most des-
perate poor, so they disqualify
anyonewithaccesstosubsidized
health insurance from receiving
this charity. The problem with
this requirement is that it tries
to separate the poor from the
even poorer - both groups in
need of affordable health care.
The University's health insur-
ance plan does little good if
students are not financially able
to select it. The plan is actually
depriving students of help from
charity funds because they had,
in theory, the "choice" for subsi-
dized health insurance.
A University-level solution
to this problem is clearly nec-
essary, but this doesn't change
the fact that the state and the
country asa whole are failing in
their responsibility to provide
affordable health insurance
to all people. With any hope,
a presidential candidate who
understands the importance of
federal action on this issue will
win the White House in the
fall. But until the state and fed-
eral governments recognize the
basic human need for health
care, the University must man-
date health coverage to ensure
that needy students can receive
financial aid to help pay for it.
No student should be without
health insurance. The Universi-
ty must adopt a policy requiring
all of its students to buy Univer-
sity health insurance if they
aren't already covered by their
own plans. Mandating health
insurance as a cost of atten-
dance would mean that finan-
cial aid could help students who
can't afford it. The University's
insurance would decrease in
price as more people enroll in
it, making coverage even more
affordable. Implementing this
requirement is necessary to
ensure that all of its students
have access to health care.
When students must choose
between spending money they
don't have and winding up in
an astronomical amount of
debt, the University has to
intervene. The absence of state
and federal health care plans
doesn't excuse the insufficient
access to the University's cov-
erage - this absence makes a
University-level solution to the.
health care crisis more neces-
sary than ever.
impotent.
Last, Wednesday, the state's
Supreme Court justices came
to dual unanimous conclusions
in two separate cases involving
the 1976 act. The first found that
personal contact information for
staff members at the University
was off-limits to an educators'
union.
In a separate decision involv-
ing information about a police
investigation on Michigan
State University's campus, the
court decided that FOIA did not
entitled the staff of The State
News to information regarding
the case, even after part of the
record considered confidential
had been made public.
The limitations of FOIA,
aimed at protecting personal
privacy, are a good idea in theo-
ry. The problem is that in reality,
these limitations have expanded
so vastly that the act now strug-
gles to provide the transparency
it was created to facilitate.
And overbearing definitions
of privacy aren't the only prob-
lems - getting information
isn't cheap either. While prices
vary, some more extensive que-
ries can cost thousands of dol-
lars. There's also a tremendous
moral gray area created by the
fact that the party providing the
information gets to decide how
much that process costs. That
price ambiguity also creates a
convenient way to barricade
sensitive material by making it
cost-prohibitive.
The rules regulating what
can be obtained under FOIA are
equally frustrating. Applicants
need to know for what nugget of
knowledge they are searching to
a great degree of specificity. But
often, it's hard to know what to
look for without collecting back-
ground data that is similarly off-
limits, creating an impossible
catch-22.
While the state court's recent
decisions are frustrating set-
backs, the teachers' union and
The State News have the right
idea. It's only through continu-
ing to bring these cases to court
and, in. doing so, raising the
profile of FOIA's flaws that any
change can take place.
Editorial BoardMembers:
Elise Baun, Anindya Bhadra, Harun Buljina, Robert Soave
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU
Soave off target
on smoking ban
TO THE DAILY:
In spite of Robert Soave's dis-
claimer at the outset of his column
(Smoking them out, 07/14/2008), I
suspect that he has indeed inhal-
ing something - and something
more potent than tobacco smoke.
Without directly saying so,
Soave tries to frame the public
smoking ban as a civil rights issue,
even going so far as to claim that
smokers are "persecuted" under
such legislation. This is total non-
sense. It is a public health issue; ing ban for its bars and restau-
scientific study has firmly estab- rants without noticeable unrest
lished the serious health hazards or turmoil. If it can happen there,
of secondhand smoke. Thus, these it stands to reason that it can hap-
measures are meant to benefit and pen anywhere.
protect the welfare of the majority I also do not smoke and am
at a minor inconvenience to those largely indifferent to those who
who still choose to smoke. do. Perhaps a more interesting
Smokers aren't being deprived debate might result from consid-
of their habit; to borrow an old ering some employ'ers' policies
Springsteen line, the laws are sim- to not hire smokers based on the
ply saying, "Do what you like, just premise that they will place a
not here." Does Soave think drunk heavier burden on health insur-
drivers are persecuted by drunk ance outlays and, in the long run,
driving laws? I hope not. productivity than non-smokers.
In what would appear to be the
ultimate test case for this trend, Jeff Handt
New York City effected a smok- Alum
6
6