Health care should be guaranteed to children

Dear Editor,

Government-sponsored… Health care should be guaranteed to children

Dear Editor,

Government-sponsored health care that the Democrats are talking about is not the Leviathan Greg Schell made it out to be in his column “Redefining our rights.”

While I agree with him that Sen. Clinton’s health care plan, often dubbed “Hillary Care,” goes a bit too far in its requirements, Sen. Obama’s plan would only mandate that children younger than 18 years old be insured. We all see commercials for children living in squalid conditions in foreign countries and feel for their plight, but there are children in our own country going to sleep sick and untreated because their parents can’t afford health care.

We don’t have to give these kids $1 a day, all we have to do is tell our multi-billion-dollar-profiting health care industry to treat them. I ask Schell how he would defend his liberties to these kids.

He writes, “Your freedom to life doesn’t mandate me or anyone else to keep you alive.” Instead of fearing our loss of liberties we should fear for the day that a doctor tells this to a sick, uninsured child.

Core to American beliefs are our liberties and the notion that in the pursuit of happiness not everyone will end up the same.

But also core to our beliefs is the idea that in the pursuit of happiness everyone should at least have the same opportunity. This is why we provide public education and why we should provide public health care at least for all children.

By denying them the right to health care, you’re denying them the right to be healthy and by extension denying them the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I wonder how our Founding Fathers would feel about that.

Andrew Levy School of Arts and Sciences

Column correctly assesses implications of socialized medicine

Dear Editor,

As a physician, I was encouraged to read Gregg Schell’s accurate description and assessment of the socialized medicine plans being purveyed by the Democrat candidates for president.

As Schell correctly notes, all health care schemes that guarantee health care will do so only by destroying the rights of physicians, hospitals and insurance companies. It’s unfortunate that most Americans don’t think critically enough to realize that their desire for “universal health care” will come at the expense of liberty for health care providers and organizations. Hopefully, Schell’s piece will provoke readers to seriously consider the ramifications of what they may be advocating.

Amesh A. Adalja, M.D. UPMC

Letter appeals to fear rather than understanding in Middle East conflict

Dear Editor,

I was pleased to read Elham Khatami’s recent three-part series on her unique trip to Israel. I believe that it provided Pitt students with a first-hand account of some aspects of modern Israel that are not readily available through our mainstream media.

However, after reading the letter to the editor in response to the series, I am concerned with the very slanted view of the writer. While I am fully aware of the plight that has followed both the religions of Judaism and Islam in the last decades, I do not believe that flaunting emotionalism results in any solution. As long as the different sides of the conflict preach their own sufferings, the moral standards of post-Enlightenment will be bent in order to accommodate certain groups.

This is evident in the writer’s appeal to fear as a scapegoat for Israel’s policies. She writes, “I believe that no person should live in fear.” This is then followed by pathos, which is intended to justify the building of the “security barrier.” Is there really “no other choice” in regard to the conflict? I would argue that if a person is really longing for “understanding,” he or she would not be so quick to abandon other possible solutions.

No matter what is written on them or their objective, bombs do not differentiate between a Muslim child and a Jewish child.

Haris Fetahagic School Of Engineering

Health care

Dear Editor,

Using a playful anecdote is a great way to simplify a serious issue. However, the generalizations Gregg Schell presents seem to misrepresent the actual players. Perhaps a more real-life example could better explain the situation. So instead of the cute school kids, how about we replace them with their real word counterparts?

We now have the 47 million Americans without health care vs. the top 1 percent of citizens who control 39.7 percent of the nation’s financial wealth. Perhaps you thought this would hurt your argument and therefore left it out. I can see why.

A recent Gallup poll reports that only 17 percent of Americans are satisfied with the cost of health care. Furthermore, they report that better access to health care is among the top 10 issues citizens have for legislators. Another Gallup poll’s findings show that the majority of Americans believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health insurance to all citizens.

However, Schell’s argument appears to be based purely on morals rather than the wants and needs of the American public, and so that is what I’ll address. He states that it is completely unacceptable and immoral to take a few spare dollars from the upper class so that those who cannot afford to pay for themselves and their children can receive the same access to good health that we do. Well, sir, I believe it is immoral that you could even suggest that another person should have to suffer simply because they are unable to afford treatment.

Jake Kastrenakes School of Arts and Sciences