Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Gillian Rath in her May 7 commentary, “Why we protested at the University of Minnesota,” takes the most recent stab at revisionist history. She attempts to paint the recent pro-Palestinian protests at the University of Minnesota to be ones of divestment only. However, the demonstrations were anything but that. They were consistently anti-Zionist, and many of the comments, chants, signs and sidewalk slogans were outright antisemitic. “Victory to Al-Aqsa flood,” which was written on the sidewalk along the encampment, is Hamas’ code name for the Oct. 7 attack on Israel. “Nothing but hate for Israel and Zionism” and “Solidarity means attack” (posted on flyers) were very clear in their meaning. Are any of us OK with “Death to America,” which was also etched into marble pillars on campus, according to a state legislator?
Jewish students at the two Hillel-sponsored news conferences repeatedly talked about fearing for their safety, both in the classroom and outside it. Rath describes how interim President Jeff Ettinger finally “conceded” to all of the coalition’s demands, but in her summary of those demands, she neglects to mention the inclusion of “Thawabit” in their demands and the final agreement. Thawabit represents the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among which is the “right to resistance.” Nowhere in her commentary or in the demonstrations was there any mention to the atrocities carried out by Hamas on Oct. 7, including the murder of 1,200 individuals, raping and murdering their victims and then taking 240 children and adults hostage — of which 133 remain in captivity.
Make no doubt that the groups protesting at the U and elsewhere are not just about divestment but ultimately about the destruction of Israel.
Sheldon Berkowitz, St. Paul
HEALTH CARE
Every player contributes to the mess
I recently finished reading the April 30 commentary “Nonprofit hospitals and health systems are not predatory” by Rahul Koranne. I’m confused. I agree that insurers are culpable in not covering the care required for our health and well-being. When I was 64, I had a heart attack. I was a self-employed piano teacher, so my coverage was in the MNsure individual market for insurance. That meant high-deductible coverage. I’ll be paying on that deductible for years to come. Darn, my body just did not wait until I turned 65! (Such an arbitrary number for coverage!) I also had issues with Blue Cross Blue Shield when I was 58 following a serious hamstring injury. I ended up having to involve then-Attorney General Lori Swanson. I’m 67 now, and have a Medicare/Blue Cross Blue Shield Advantage plan.
What confuses me in the commentary is the lack of mention of the hospital costs themselves. Why can’t patients and insurance companies get clear, transparent pricing for procedures? I know there are variables in treatment, as well as unexpected events in care, but why can’t a patient and insurance company see how much care for specific procedures actually costs? An example of a billing statement from Blue Cross Blue Shield I recently received says the “total billed” was $1,436.25, the “total provider responsibility” was $1,054.89, and the “total benefits approved” was $381.36! That’s a long way from the original billed amount! My copay is still $100 on a bill that ended up being $381.36. The insurance company ended up not having to pay much for this procedure after all. But I did.
I’m confused by this money game being played out between hospitals and insurance companies. The patient is being treated as a nonentity. Our health care system is too complicated. This has been said many times for many years, and nothing changes. The lack of transparency in cost of care perpetuates, and I’m not seeing any progress toward changing this reality in our legislatures. My confusion continues.
Cynthia Mortensen, Vadnais Heights
•••
Sen. John Marty and Rep. Liz Reyer propose that Minnesota Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) return to nonprofit status (“It’s time to remove for-profit HMOs from Minnesota,” Opinion Exchange, May 6). That calls into question some basic presumptions about organizing our health care system and its financial basis.
In recent decades, we seem to have presumed that enterprises run for private profit are efficient and deliver their product at the best possible price while government-run services are wasteful and expensive. Governments at all levels were encouraged to outsource as many functions as possible.
We have learned that it ain’t necessarily so. In health care, for example, government-run Medicare’s percentage of revenue devoted to administrative overhead is about 2%, one-tenth the amount eaten up by many private insurers. In addition to administrative bloat, private enterprise is disadvantaged by the lack of real price competition in health care. Many patients are locked into their private health system by, for example, employer-based contracts. Further, rampant consolidation of health systems removes much of the price competition that may have once existed.
On top of these deficiencies, there is Reyer’s and Marty’s basic argument that pursuit of profit often comes at the expense of pursuing good health care.
Thus, there is no very good reason to allow profiteering in our health care system, and there are solid reasons to disallow it. The Legislature should pass the Reyer/Marty bill.
Joel Clemmer, St. Paul
The writer is a member of Health Care For All, Minnesota.
•••
Reyer and Marty say that “access to health care is a human right.” That statement has been made many times by Democratic politicians and appeals to many people; however, I don’t think it is a good policy.
The state and federal governments currently provide considerable help in purchasing health insurance. If someone is unable to afford health insurance, the government either helps pay for it by offering tax credits via the MNsure exchange or provides it entirely through Medical Assistance. However, the current philosophy is that the individual is responsible for it and the government provides help when necessary.
Switching to a philosophy where health care is a right reduces the individual’s incentive to work. If health care is a right, the government must provide it. The individual health care recipient is free to work less or not work at all, but the taxpayer is forced to pay higher taxes to provide health insurance for everyone. That philosophy provides incentives to work less and disincentives to work more.
Government policies should encourage everyone to take care of themselves as much as possible. Calling health care a human right does the opposite of that and would lead to fewer people working and higher tax rates.
James Brandt, New Brighton
TEACHING HISTORY
Underestimating student apathy
I have worked in local schools for decades. I have been in many American history classes, so I am qualified to comment on history curricula (“Your naiveté is showing,” Readers Write, May 4, “Into American history without fear,” Opinion Exchange, May 3, and “Extremist ideology has already hijacked state’s public schools,” Opinion Exchange, April 7). The sad fact is that the overwhelming number of students don’t care about American history. Student knowledge of history is arguably the lowest of any academic subject. Material learned, if it is learned at all, is quickly forgotten. Students care about phones, fun, friends, fashion, food and fornication. Facts about American history are interesting to few. Whatever ideology that drives the curricula does not matter. The students are not paying attention. “Woke” history will put students to sleep as fast as traditional teaching.
The ideological partisans behind whatever curricula offered are exaggerating the appeal and effect history teaching has on a captive student audience.
David Wiljamaa, Minneapolis
