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