The Battalion
22,;; Inesday • July 33,1998
PINION
he weaker sex?
b r ^rosurgeons find evidence that
s more cannon fodder for the battle of the
sexes, a new study has been released detail
ing that women are
t'w, voi
e comp:
h'v saw
attome,
I’ni did; re intelligent than men
Grand week, a group of
' iropurgeons found the
fcKe jpbf the brain responsible
verbal usage and intelli-
r| un ice was more developed
’ sW [omen.
report is only the lat-
in sex-based studies.
t lSm rev[ous re P or * :s * n "
i her
de one claiming women
. chi ice as much as men
Ithe hotly debated
iham c
Wort:
bperatt
Joe
Schumacher
columnist
mm,
ortien cannot drive as
Ills men" study. If this report is to be consid-
d|accurate, one must examine the accuracy of
pious reports.
u j There are just as many studies that show men
[omakrB iarter or t * ae two sexes are equal. It appears
I, depend on how one interprets the information.
pBs most recent report could be used as fur-
Hvidence that women do in fact talk twice as
;i> ich as men. After all, if women use twice as
jea my words a day as men, then it would seem
^■l that the area of the brain responsible for
oupk:|? al usage would be more developed.
■ton a serious note, the report says women's
Like f baf skills are more developed.
n ; This seems to go hand in hand with the stereo-
ke witlBl notion that women excel in such academ-
| endeavors as English, while men achieve at
ithematics. Both of the stereotypes seem to be
lick, pnre socially driven than actual fact, and this
vow i|
.~d
- 0
-0
WVX3
wv'xg
"scientific" study does nothing to reinforce out
dated myths.
The effects of this report will probably have
merit until the next report on gender issues
comes out. Other studies show where there is
mutual respect for males and females makes a
workplace more effective. While this sounds like
common sense, reports like this undermine that
and reduce grown adults to classifications. This
report, and the ones previous to it, have done
nothing but reduce people to a third grade boys-
against-girls mentality.
This is the '90s. People should have figured
out by now that no section of humanity — black.
white, male, female, whatever— is smarter than
any other. People with exceptional intelligence
come from all walks of life. To say that one group
of people is intellectually superior is ridiculous.
Joe Schumacher is a senior journalism major.
I
: the d
IvvandJ
eld, Gil
jol, toi-:
1
I NVte Lockmch
HNlO
BEAM C&UNTERs
DINNER s
Americans deserve right to
choose health care provider
woVce
CHO
IpeT
Ito-H
SORRY BCB. YOUm*ElN\UCH
MANEUVER REQUEST
reviewed demveo.*
•Mite
Len
Callaway
columnist
feorge L ,
■ praii
ffidden ATM fees drain
merica’s bank accounts
any Americans today gra
ciously welcome technol-
■ ogy with open arms,
pfically computers, as a tools to
'them
nized,
tained
to allow
to
jeeffi-
ly do
jobs,
oday,
puters
/ery
friend-
the
't part,
one
Rich
Paddack
columnist
of computer that does not de-
e such acclaim — and is doing
eharm than good to the aver-
oaerican's pocket book — is
■ u f orna ted Teller Machine.
lea 1 'nee the introduction of the
m 1978, more and more
sncans have become depen-
tupon the speed and conve-
l ce AT Ms on a daily basis.
[ owever, ATMs have been de
left jng Americans out of their
dfi earned money with the hid-
ee s called surcharges.
I nT ^Vls have surcharges
ac G surcharges were rare un-
e cently — 1^ j(- j s g e j-(-i n g more
eu t to find surcharge-free
si* 1 ®' es pecially in college towns
sit e ere can be as many as 30
JPehng banks.
s have become a cash cow
T^erican banks. All banks
fgewhatis called an "inter-
— typically about 50
for using another bank's
This ‘
interchange fee" goes
to the owner of the ATM to cover
costs of maintaining the ATM.
Many ATMs (banks and, in
creasingly, other businesses)
have begun to collect additional
fees on top of the withdrawal
amount. These surcharges are
usually $1 or $1.50, but they can
be as high as $7 to $10. Currently,
there is no legal limit in most
states, although surcharges were
entirely prohibited in most states
until 1996.
These surcharges are often inad
equately disclosed or hidden. This
can create a problem for balancing
checkbooks — one can come up
$10 to $20 short.
Then, the bank wants to charge
a whopping $25 for customers be
ing overdrawn. The cycle of fees
and fines goes on until one feels as
if he or she is working for the bank.
Legislation has been proposed to
address this problem by requiring
the on-screen disclosure to set forth
all fees involved in the transaction.
However, this requirement
would be difficult to implement
and does not address the more im
portant problems with surcharges,
so it really is not worth the fight.
Banks and others who impose
surcharges argue that surcharges are
needed to cover the costs of installing
and maintaining ATMs, and without
surcharges consumers would not
have access to ATMs at all.
This is not true. Banks impose
ATM surcharges for the sole purpose
of profit, not because of their actual
costs of doing business.
In fact, tens of thousands of
ATMs were installed in the United
States before surcharges were al
lowed.
The latest ATM survey by the
U.S. General Accounting Office
shows that from February 1997 to
1998 that the overall rate of sur
charging increased 33 percent.
Banks claim ATMs are merely a
convenience, and argue that it is
OK for them to charge whatever
they please.
Yet, for many people, ATMs are
a necessity, such as those who are
required to receive their paycheck
or benefits checks electronically.
There are several ways to avoid
surcharges. People can use ATMs
that are owned by their bank or
look for other ATMs that do not
surcharge. Also, they can look for a
"no surcharge" sign or logo on the
machine and try to avoid using
ATMs in convenience stores, hotels
and outside bars.
Another method of obtaining
cash are gas stations that accept
ATM cards for purchases and will
add a cash withdrawal to the pur
chase price without adding a sur
charge.
Additionally, grocery stores and
other business often offer check cash
ing services that usually have lower
fees than ATM surcharges.
Banks claim consumers avoid
ATMs that surcharge at first, but
eventually give in and pay the sur
charges. Since there are ways
around these outrageous fees, do
not give in. By refusing to pay sur
charges Americans can send banks
a message: ripping off consumers
will cost the banks money in the
long run.
Rich Paddack is a
junior journalism major.
O ver the past few
years, Americans
have watched in
horror as politicians have
attempted to take charge
of the health care system.
While one would as
sume that politicians were
attempting solve pertinent
health-care issues —
specifically, privacy, low
ering health care costs, al
lowing more freedom for
patients to choose their
physicians as well as tackling malpractice.
The bottom line is the United States has the
best health care system in the world when all fac
tors are considered. Aside from a little fine tun
ing, there really is not that big of a problem.
So how did this health care debate begin?
Well, here is the problem.
Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs)
began a decade or so ago with the goal of being
agents for the little man in health care.
An HMO will take on and advertise clients,
then broker with certain
physicians to provide care for
their patients.
The clients are required to
see specific physicians that
have a relationship with the
HMO.
In return, the physician
will discount Americans' ser
vices because they feel secure
they are one of the few local
physicians subscribing to the
HMO in question and are
therefore guaranteed clients.
HMOs work on behalf of ——
the patient by paying these physicians a flat fee
for each patient that list each doctor as his/her
primary care physician.
However, the HMO works directly against the
patient by limiting the dollar amount of each in-
office procedure for which the HMO will actual
ly pay the physician.
If the physician exceeds the yearly dollar
amount, they receive a bill form the HMO for the
balance.
The physicians are put into a position where
they have to worry about whether prescribing
the necessary medication for each patient is go
ing to end up costing them out-of-pocket money.
In reality, the HMOs have put physicians in
the position of bearing financial responsibility
for the health of their patients.
It is not right for a physician to have to worry
about whether giving a patient the proper care
will cost them money in the long run. But it sure
is profitable.
If the HMO can limit the amount of service a
physician provides, then they can manage the
amount of claims they have to pay.
Unfortunately, the little man keeps getting lost
in the shuffle.
However, in a quasi effort to correct the situa-
Once something is
kept on computers,
the risk of violating
one’s privacy is
eminent.
tion. Democrats on the Hill brought the national
health card back out of the closet.
The health card is probably the worst idea in
the history of health care reform, and it is hard to
believe that they will not just drop it.
Democrats want to take all personal health
care information, put it in a computer file and ac
cess it with a card so that any physician any
where will be able to see a citizen's complete
medical history.
The card is one step closer to national health
care, and Americans should be wary.
Once something is kept on computers, as evi
denced by the social security number and credit
fiascoes of late, the risk of violating one's privacy
is eminent.
When the marvelous and generous HMOs
mentioned above get access to the files and are
able to use the card as part of their internal un
derwriting process, they will know everything —
every medicine, every hospital visit, every diag
nosis, everything.
The possibility exists that insurance compa
nies could use a citizen's private health informa
tion without his or her permission to determine
whether he or she qualifies for spe
cific types of insurance.
The national health care card is
dangerous at best, and the search
for alternatives is just being con
ducted in the wrong manner.
Since the United States relies on
a market economy for its liveli
hood, Americans must also recog
nize the inherent freedom that
comes with this arrangement. Citi
zens have the freedom to choose
their health care provider just like
they choose their cars, homes and
friends.
Americans have the option to maintain a
healthy lifestyle and become easily insurable, or
they have the option to smoke, drink and eat
double cheeseburgers, on their way to a heart at
tack at age 45.
Americans do not have to stand in hour-long
lines for flu shots, nor does America need the
government dictate their priority in seeking
treatment. A more appropriate approach might
be to take a look at the huge bureaucratic abyss
that accompanies anything the government regu
lates.
Then, Americans can decide whether it is go
ing to be a hindrance or a help to allow govern
ment a greater role in the health care.
While there are no easy answers to the health
care quandary, there are more valid areas in
which improvement could be made.
Until that happens, the health care system in
the United States is really the best around —
there is really not much to correct.
Len Callazvai/ is a senior
journalism major.