Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 30, 1993)
Opinion ne 30,1993 Wednesday, June 30,1993 The Battalion Page 5 *' egHEWMEge THE KUWAIT ^ rr ^Ave» ueize that you^e The Battalion Editorial Board Jason Loughman, editor in chief Mark Evans, managing editor Stephanie Pattillo, city editor Kyle Burnett, sports editor Dave Thomas, night news editor Anas Ben-Musa, Aggielife editor Mack Harrison, morning news editor Billy Moran, photo editor The Battalion 100 years at Texas A&M ) flic Biiltahon eceive go Editorial ________________________________ Cable vs. broadcast ort Johnston,! ?r propone; nston didt n telephoi ics of the ct to comme: e doi V,* vhisl- . tes at of pn Tort : mat that's hap d "tentatit its 34 ] ithin the ft r commenl :ould irder, says D PRESS expert on . behavior t the capi- a Houston Consumers lose Television reception in the Brazos Valley has never been that great, but the ramifications of a bill passed by Congress last year make the picture even more bleak. Brazos Valley residents are trapped in an electromagnetic wasteland. Television reception here is so poor that viewers without cable can get only three, possibly four broad cast stations: Bryan CBS affiliate KBTX-TV (channel 3), the Texas A&M-run PBS station KAMU-TV (channel 15), independent Fox sta tion KWKT-TV out of Waco and — if conditions are just right — Waco ABC affiliate KXXV-TV (channel 25). Cable subscribers have had no problem receiving local stations — until now. A new cable regulation bill has driven a wedge between broadcasters and cable companies. Since the advent of cable televi sion, the Federal Communications Commission has mandated that ca ble companies carry the signals of all local broadcast stations. This is the reason, for example, that TCA Cable carries two ABC affiliates, one from Houston and one from Waco, because both stations are what the FCC defines as "local." The Cable Act of 1992 has changed all that. This law, intended to protect consumers by bringing some regulation back to the cable industry, has instead put the cable in signal dispute companies in an awkward position. The act gives broadcasters the op tion of seeking reimbursement for allowing cable companies to run their signal. This option, called retransmission consent, was intended to protect broadcast stations threatened by the booming cable industry. Although this plan might work in large cities where broadcast television signals are powerful enough to reach a large population, Bryan-College Sta tion's lack of stations means sub scribers have no viewing alternative if the cable company decides not to pay broadcast stations for their sig nals. Although some stations have opt ed for a "must carry" status, which means the cable company cannot drop the signal but the station can't charge for it, other broadcasters have asked for retransmission con sent. If TCA agrees, it will pass the costs along to its subscribers. If the cable company refuses, these sta tions will no longer be seen on cable which means a drop in audience and therefore advertising revenue — not to mention the loss to the viewers. It is in the public's and the broad casters' best interest for these sta tions to remain on cable. Unless the broadcast stations request to be car ried free of charge, they — as well as the viewers — will lose. Nationalism sweeps up everyone Before jumping to conclusions, remember other side L ast Saturday was just a usual summer Saturday for me. I was hard at work dismem bering my motorcycle, while trying to achieve a state of mind unencum bered by thoughts of studying, the meaning of existence, rent money, or any other mundane student con cerns. Things were going so very well. The rain stopped, the mosqui toes vanished, engine parts actually fit properly this time, and I could al most hear my thoughts swirling and gurgling down my brain drain. Because watching television is the next best thing there is to mental Drano, I slumped down on the couch, remote in hand, to dissolve my last remaining cogni tive clogs. The next thing I know, "Uncle Bill" Clinton is on the tube looking mighty somber and explaining why 23 American Tomahawk missiles were launched at Baghdad. Apparently, U.S. Intelligence discovered a plot secured by Iraqi Intelligence to assassinate George Bush last April. As blood surged back into my brain, my first response was, "Yeah!! Blast those bastards silly for even thinking of such a thing!" An American flag my roommate had hung over the T.V. inspired me further, prompting clenched fists and swinging arms (I almost spilled my Budweiser onto my hot dog). About this time a commentator mentioned the inevitability of civilian casualties as "unfortunate," even though the missiles hit the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters, as intended. The thinking process I tried so hard to wash away re-en tered my mind with a vengeance. There I was, relaxing on the couch, a college student with his own car, an air condi tioned pad, and beer in the fridge. My biggest concerns being the reassembly of my motorcycle and my purpose in life (in that order). How on earth can I, or anyone else for that matter, possibly pass judgment on a military action in a land so different from ours, against a people who live and think so differently than we do? I am in no way condoning the actions of the Iraqi gov ernment in their reported attempt on the former president's life, but can anyone possibly believe that destroying their headquarters will stun them into submission? Anyone who's ever kicked a fire-ant hill certainly knows better. Since they were already madder-than-hell, I would guess that now they're madder-than-hell with a cherry on top. We also mustn't forget that Saddam Hussein and only a handful of politicians/military officials are responsible for Iraqi military action. Many terrorists, "West-hating" civil ians, and American flag burners are exhibiting their sense of nationalism and religious solidarity, not too unlike the Irish and British animosity. Desert Storm T-shirts, or my enthusiastic arm waving at the news of the bombing in Baghdad. The citizens of a country are almost always going to fer vently defend the actions and attitudes of their military or religious affiliation. Americans are certainly no different in this regard. If "we" decide to bomb a country, let's just do it, vaporize it. We shouldn't hide behind a self-righteous belief system (e.g. loving the Kuwaitis, not their oil). Does just thinking we're right make us right? Does it make them wrong? Is America, the country God loves most, the best country in the world? People around the globe love their countries as passionately as we do. If we were all born and raised in Jordan, wouldn't we think Jordan was worth dy ing for? This whole Middle East vs. West thing is following just a little too closely on the heels of the Cold War, and a little too similarly as well. The Arab countries who hate us are primarily Muslim, and tied together by that fact. They, for the most part, view Western intervention as a Christian at tack on the Nation of Islam, and ours being a predominant ly Christian Nation, doesn't seem to mind the deaths of a few Muslims here and there. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that there are two sides to every international conflict, regardless of who's in volved. We should all make a special effort to "check our emotions and patriotism at the door" and see the situation from both points of view before deciding who deserves to die and who doesn't. We should also realize that just be lieving something to be true, politically or religiously, does not make it true. As any Aggie-American knows, Russians are the enemy, Muslims are crazed terrorists, Christians are God's people, and everything about t.u. sucks. Texas, however, really is the best state in the country. No, really. Really. Stanford is a graduate student in philosophy FRANK STANFORD Columnist (?>®sso®EKnr ©IK)S©K[L(1@T That Aidid Fellow in Somalia. Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia leged Plot to Kill er president Bush... Budget Deficit: Still Going Khmer Rouge in Cambodia Ethnic Cleansing in Sudan State Sponsored Terrorism.. Gavs in the Military.. [Next Page] ing music ;sta rap ed the de late troop- director of /ersity of o, testified ess in the of Ronald ; n1v affect ussy said ap music because of repetitive ays claim a to shoot >lic Safety idson h • intense, ;ic he was ic trooper r Victoria- ae music crease the Tmld take >ut of all (most) to ," Steussy based ph- ) has con- e several avidson in re, in pah, vas being ison. Government-subsidized system inflates health O ne of the un fortu nate aspects of America's health care debate is that the question why health care costs are escalating is often ignored. Paradoxically, health care costs too much because it costs us too lit tle. Trouble cer tainly looms ahead: Health care spending totaled $839.5 billion in 1992, over 14 percent of the nation's to tal economic output, and is expected to reach over $1 trillion in 1994. This is a serious social problem because the rate of increase in health care expenditures has been twice the rate of increase of the nation's total economic output. Because health care is a service in dustry, it tends to be more labor-inten sive than manufacturing industries. Emptying bedpans will take approxi mately as much time today as it did a hundred years ago. Some operations defy mechanization and higher pro ductivity, keeping prices up relative to manufactured goods. Also, health care is a "superior good." A superior good's consumption increases disproportionately with in come growth. For instance, health economists have found that for every 10 percent increase in per capita in come there is a 13 percent increase in per capita health care consumption. Ninety percent of the difference in health care expenditures among devel oped countries derives from income differences between countries, and this holds true whether health care spend ing is financed via the market, the po litical system or quasi-public institu tions. But these factors are only part of the total equation. Third-party payers (em ployer, insurance company or govern ment) pay most of the nation's health care bills. For every dollar we spend at the hospital, 95 cents are paid by a third party. Likewise, for every dollar we spend on physicians' fees, over 80 cents are paid by a third party. For the health care system as a whole, over 76 cents are paid by third parties for every $1 that we consume. That is why health care is "cheap": it's subsidized. So consumers have little incentive to restrain consumption, so demand soars, as do prices. That's why health care "costs too much." The government subsidizes this third-party payer system. By law, health insurance premiums paid through employers escapes, for in stance, a 20 percent income tax, a 15.3 percent Social Security tax, and in some states, a state income tax. The subsidy ensures that employees will overin sure, preferring greater, even wasteful, insurance to higher wages. Incidentally, this is why we now have a debate on "stagnating wages" in this country. Because wages do not in clude rapidly growing untaxed bene fits, wages appear to be stagnating or even falling. But total compensation, which accounts for wages and benefits, is increasing. Workers are converting wages into untaxed benefits, the main incentive being the government sub sidy of insurance premiums. The American health care system is hardly a free market system. As of 1990, the government's (federal, state and local) share of health care ^pend ing, counting tax subsidies for health insurance, was over half of all health care spending. Just two federal pro grams, Medicare and Medicaid, ac counted for 28 percent of total health care spending, up from 5.9 percent in 1967. Much of this increased spending in creases prices rather than services. Ac cording to the Health Care Financing Administration, which oversees Medicare, every extra dollar spent on health care increases prices by 65 cents and buys only 35 cents in real services. This explains the rampant health care inflation. Unfortunately, much of the health care debate centers upon the demo- nization of some allegedly greedy par ty and not upon the incentives that the government has created. Take the Clinton administration's fa vorite targets, drug companies and doctors. Both allegedly make too much money. But if the drug company prof its are cut by half, health care costs would drop less than one percent. If doctors' net incomes were cut by 20 percent, health care costs would fall by less than two percent. There is no solu tion here. Because the federal laws have shaped so much of our health care cri sis, they are in dire need of reform. In a rational world, reforms would em- MATT DICKERSON Columnist care costs phasize health insurance that is a dollar for dollar substitute for wages — elimi nating the current subsidy — and take insurance program control from em ployers and give them back to employ ees who now are afraid to leave jobs because health benefits are not trans portable. Individuals need to be given the incentive to control their own med ical consumption decisions. Dickerson is a sophomore economics ma jor Ecftorids oppetarig n The BoHoSon refect the views of the editorial board. They do not necessarily refect the opinions of other Bert talon staff members, the Texas A&M student body, regents, admnistrertion. faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, and Ma3 Cal items express the opinions of the authors. The Battabon encourages letters to the eeftor end wf print as many as space allows n the Mail Cal section, tetters must be 300 words or less and include the author's name. dass. and phone number. Contact the editor or managing editor for information on submitting guest columns. We reserve the to edit letters and guest columns for length, style, and accuracy. tetters should be addressed to: The Battalion - Mai CoS 01 3 Reed McDonald /Med stop 1111 Texas A&M UntversSy Colege Station. TX 77843