All should care about health care debate

In response to the Sept. 22 article "Health care debate causes hysteria," I would like to outline the many reasons why it's important for the American people to take action in the current health care debate. The author downplays the importance of the issue, denouncing the extent of media coverage on the several elements of the 1,017-page House bill. He goes on to outline the conservative resistance as being "fueled by misinformation and violent media framing." The entire sentiment of the article is critical of conservatives and the fact that some Americans are passionate enough to take this fight to the streets. I find this to be absurd.

American history has been centered on this passion, particularly during the revolution. The people felt their freedoms and liberties were being invaded, and they responded, even to the point of military battle. In the health care debate, the conservative movement has simply created protests in the form of tea parties to show their passion.

They have also shown up to town halls to prove this passion, which I feel is a healthy practice for a free society. Remember, in this country we have representatives, not rulers. They need to understand the feelings of their constituencies and vote accordingly. The author incorrectly paints these people as being racist by claiming they chant "He's a Muslim" (regarding Obama). This is not the case and if so, it's a very small contingency of people. Only Jimmy Carter would be willing to defend this point.

To argue that the public option is not a challenge to capitalism, and that the people arguing this point sound stupid, is simply ridiculous. Health care accounts for roughly 20 percent of our GDP. A public option would eventually result in complete government control of the health care industry. The reasoning for this is based on the government's unlimited ability to tax and as a result keep prices low. Private companies must operate on profit alone and in the long run, will not survive against the low prices offered by the government. Government control of such a large portion of private industry would be a sharp turn in favor of a social democracy and will result in rationed as well as a lower quality of health care.

Also, the bill contains a lot of very questionable practices. Although some may use these issues as a scare tactic, it does not change their importance. For instance, under the House version of the bill, everyone will be required to have health insurance and face a fine if they don't. How is this not an invasion of my individual freedoms? If this is included in the final bill, I question whether it would survive in the courts based on constitutionality.

In conclusion, I would encourage everyone, regardless of which side you support, to be involved in this process. We have a government by the people, for the people, and apathy is its greatest enemy. To be critical of the conservative movement for its passion is simply un-American. The government continues to invade our lives in small ways, but this would be a big one.

I will leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson that should make you think about our current situation. "When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

Cory Bailey BAILEYCD@MUOHIO.EDU

Article distorts truth about food hormone

While the Sept. 22 article "Battle for the burrito" did a nice job of outlining the benefits and effects of the soon-to-open Chipotle, I feel part of the article addressing recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) misled readers. Prefacing the commentary on rBGH, the author states Chipotle "may be better for you." Following with details about the rBGH controversy, I'm willing to bet that a decent percentage of readers now make the relation that rBGH = unhealthy food. While I'm not arguing that rBGH-treated cows produce 100 percent natural products, the article seemed to cast a negative light on its use. The fact is the FDA approves the products of these cows for human consumption, and that wouldn't be the case if these products were any less healthier than their natural counterparts.

The notion that natural cheese is "better for you" is unsupported by scientific data. In the modern debate over genetically-modified foods and products, many people are persuaded to associate negative connotations with words like "recombinant" or "synthetic." In reality, the technology that allows for the possibility of rBGH injections in cows is the same that provides insulin for diabetics or replacement hormone treatment for sufferers of many metabolic disorders. In many cases, recombinant DNA technology has allowed for the discovery and mass-production of drugs we all take for granted.

So for a trivial thing like cheese, pick yours based on whatever qualities you desire but don't be misled into turning your nose up at technology that might save your life, whether you realize it or not.

Matt Smola SMOLAMJ@MUOHIO.EDU