Volume 137, Issue 7
| Once again, America stands alone. But this isn't a war on foreign soil; this is a battle at home for a comprehensive health-care system that adequately serves everyone. America is one of the few industrialized nations that rely on market-based health care. And right now, America is in the middle of a health-care crisis. Nearly 43 million Americans are without health insurance, and those who are insured are becoming increas-ingly dissatisfied with their coverage. The World Health Organization has ranked America 37th in an analysis of world health systems. There are alternatives, such as a single-payer health care system. Besides getting support from former President Bill Clinton and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, a single-payer system has a proven track record in our neighbor to the north, Canada. A single-payer system is when the government acts as the insurance provider, paying doctors in private practice for care of patients. Businesses and citizens would fund it through payroll and income taxes that would replace all current insurance premiums, at a much lower cost to Americans. A 1993 Congressional Budget Office report said that a single-payer system would save money annually and that national health expenditures would decrease in time. Numerous state budget reports concur, with New Mexico reporting possible savings of over $150 million in 1994, had it adopted the system. Some worry that a single-payer health care system would increase waiting times for treatment and become a govern-ment-run bureaucratic mess. But a single-payer system would only involve government in payment. Doctors would still practice privately, meaning little government interference certainly far less interference than consumers get from HMO's today. America's health care infrastructure is rich and robust with resources including more hospitals and health care personnel per capita than any other nation, which refutes the idea of longer waiting times for treatment. A single-payer system would deliver equality and quality in health care, making for a healthier America. E-mail: opinionseditor@theguardsman.com. Put "Letter to the Editor" in the subject line. Barry
Bonds: Guilty Until Proven Innocent? BY
BEN SCHNEIDER For someone like Sen. George Allen to suggest that there should be an asterisk next to Barry Bond's name for all of his records is absolutely absurd. It's no secret that Bonds has had a terrible relation-ship with the media dating back to his college days at Arizona State. He has been known to be bad-mannered and disrespectful toward broadcasters, even seclud-ing himself from teammates and fans. None of this, however, gives the media the right to pronounce Bonds guilty of using steroids to enhance his performance on the field. Sportswriters finally have a good reason to disparage all his accomplishments. The juice didn't change Bonds from an everyday guy into the greatest ballplayer on the planet. Even if steroids helped Bonds crush 73 home runs, he still holds records for slugging percentage and walks, not to mention a batting title. This left fielder is an accomplished hitter, not a hulking, one-dimensional slugger, as steroids might create. He will never admit to using anabolic steroids, but his credibility has been washed down the drain just because of his association with personal trainer Greg Anderson. Bonds is arguably the best baseball player since Babe Ruth. Don't forget that Bonds grew up in the media's eye. He is godson to legendary Hall of Famer Willie Mays. He was winning MVP awards before any talk of steroids. So-called "sports experts" in the media need to lay off Bonds. We may never see another complete player like him ever. 'Guilt-Free' Atkins Diet Inconvenient for Carb-Starved Masses BY
JEREMY TANNER Beef sales are up, eggs and bacon are being consumed at 10-year highs and you can now buy a burger wrapped in lettuce leaves for a bun. Although fad diets have always existed, the new "guilt-free" Atkins Diet has had a revolutionary effect on America's culture and consumption habits, but can it keep us slim?
The driving force behind the Atkins Diet is convenience. Watch your waist shrink while eating all of those mouth-watering, high-fat, high-protein foods shun-ned by most dieticians. If that wasn't convenient enough, you can even have ready-to-eat Atkins meals delivered so you can diet without standing up and walking to get your food. The popularity of the Atkins Diet has made us forget why Americans are so fat in the first place: too much convenience. Ah yes, America. Home of the drive-through ATM, the escalator, the all-you-can-eat buffet and the super-sized meal. Some Americans won't even consider biking to the gym or taking the stairs, and they're surrounded by temptations. "But Atkins has made me so thin," you say. "My co-worker dropped two hundred pounds," you cry. Cutting out an entire food group (the widest part of the nutritional pyramid no less) will force your body to shed pounds quickly. Quick equals convenient and that's the hook. But convenience will also be the downfall of the Atkins faithful when they can no longer pass up those forbidden carbs. Even if you ignore the U.S. Department of Agricu-lture's findings of fecal matter in beef, or scoff at the American Heart Assoc-iation's recommendations, eventually it won't be co nvenient to pass up that fresh bread, those homemade pancakes or that rich, dark beer. It will be hard to satisfy yourself with a bun-less burger and a Michelob Ultra. So when that moment comes, will you be able to look convenience in the eye and continue denying yourself those tantalizing carbohydrates that surround us? Robert Atkins couldn't. When he died, he was 258 lbs. with a history of heart failure and high-blood pressure. Sound convenient? EMPIRE
OF DIRT BY
JORGE PARADA As President George W. Bush leads us in a prolonged war against Iraqi insurgency, it's likely we'll have a military draft next year. Never intended to stand alone during war, the volunteer armed forces are now undermanned. To counter this shortage, some believe Congress should reinstate the draft. Skeptical? Sen. Fritz Hol-lings, D-S.C., and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y, have introduced bills to authorize a draft of men and women ages 18-26. If this happens, YOU must be ready. But don't worry, I'll clue YOU in to the great American institution of dodging the draft! Gain Weight: McDiet anyone? They don't take the morbidly obese. Use Drugs: Marijuana leaves traces in your body for a long time. So, pass the dutchie to the left-hand side! Fail Intelligence Exam: This test determines what duties you are capable of performing. Be forewarned, though. This hurts if you are declared fit for service. Let me tell you, grave detail sucks! Feign Insanity: Malcolm X "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" the draft board to skip World War II. Become a Minister: Think about it. Access to grieving widows! Hardship Deferment: Finally a good reason to have kids. You just have to prove how serving in the military will cause hardship on your dependents. Conscientious Objec-tor: Apply for CO status because of "moral" or "religious" reasons. You must explain your beliefs and their influence on your life. If your claim is accepted, you will perform non-combat duties or alternate service. Exile: Your best bet may be to flee to Mexico or Canada. You will be a fugitive from justice, but possibly going to jail is preferable to dying in a worthless war. Once there, find a lawyer and apply for political asylum. Self-Injury: If exile is not an option, injure yourself during basic training. This will at delay your deployment while you're laid up in a military hospital. But be careful not to shoot off anything too important! Remember
kids, BY
MILES HARWELL The rise of Internet file-sharing programs like Napster and Kazaa has spawned a revolution in the way people get their music. Users can search online databases that access the hard drives of other users, making it impossible not to find something you like. Because of this, the purchase of music has became unnecessary. The Recording Industry Association of America has responded by tracking down and punishing people with the largest collections of illegally downloaded music, suing them for $750 a song. But despite attempts to stop downloading, free music is still readily available online. As a user of Kazaa and other online music programs, I find piracy of music beneficial to the general public. Why go out and pay $20 for something you can get for free? Organizations like the RIAA are clearly overreacting to a problem that isn't that serious. Rich artists have complained enough to spark investigations of illegal downloads, but why aren't they as concerned with the quality of their work as they're concerned with people stealing it? Think about it. Free music ultimately promotes artists' work, whether or not they make money. People will buy a hot album, but if they want one song, it's easier (not to mention cheaper) to download. Perhaps artists should put more into albums so people get more than what they would get if they just download it. As always, you can take it to the bank when it comes From the Mouth of Miles.
|
|
