Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 7, 1993)
^ Net>raskan Tuesday, Dacambar 7,1993 Editorial Board University of Nebraska-Lincoln Jeremy Fitzpatrick.Editor, 472-1766 Kathy Steinauer.Opinion Page Editor Wendy Molt. Managing Editor Todd Cooper.Sports Editor Chris Hopfensperger.Copy Desk Chief Kim Spurlock. Sower Editor Kiley Timperley.Senior Photographer --i Stay longer NU should require yearlong residency The NU Board of Regents in January will discuss asking the Legislature to increase the requirement non-resident stu dents must meet before they can pay the lower resident tuition. The regents should consider boosting the current requirement of six months to at least a year, which is a common amount of time many universities across the country require before students can become residents. Students at any NU campus who are not Nebraska residents pay quite a bit more for tuition because they do not already pay Nebraska state taxes. As soon as they establish residency, they can pay the lower resident tuition. The regents are considering the higher requirement because the current requirements are “too liberal,” NU Corporation Secretary J.B. Millikcn said. The new requirement would gain more money for the state of Nebraska while not being too extreme. If other universities require a yearlong residency or more, so should Nebraska. Otherwise, the state loses money it should rightfully get. Statistics also show that Nebraska graduates often do not stay to work in the state. Perhaps out-of-state students who have established residency will consider working in Nebraska after graduation if they have to invest more time and money to get that residency. It is reasonable for NU students from other states to pay more for tuition when others have been paying for the university through taxes for years. Tougher standards may bring higher quality students to this state and encourage them to stay longer after graduation. Averting accident Missiles should be reduced, not re-aimed Now that the Cold War is over, the United States and the former Soviet Union are working on a plan to reduce the chance of an accidental nuclear war. The plan is to target nuclear missiles from both countries at remote ocean locations, instead of cities and military bases. The Associated Press quoted an unidentified U.S. general as saying that re-aiming the missiles would eliminate the risk of the two countries going to war if a missile was accidentally launched. “If somehow a missile was launched accidentally, the idea is that it would come down in the Arctic or North Atlantic, and our main worry would be hitting a bunch of whales,” the general said. Reducing the risk of nuclear war by re-aiming missiles is a good idea. We have a better one: Get rid of the missiles, and then accidental war won’t be a problem. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have not done enough to make significant reductions in their nuclear stockpiles. Still capable of destroying the world, the missiles remain in their silos. Now some military genius has come up with the idea of aiming the missiles into the ocean so we won’t have a nuclear war. The plan has the added bonus that if there is ever another serious conflict between the United States and Russia, it will only take about 15 minutes to re-aim the missiles at people and cities. President Clinton should ignore this ridiculous plan and instead call for more rapid elimination of nuclear weapons by both the United States and Russia. We can never be completely rid of nuclear missiles, but their numbers — and their danger — can be reduced. SUIT editorials represent the official policy of the Fall 1993 Daily Nebraskan Policy ii set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents Editorial columns represent the opinion of the author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its students The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others Letters will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity, originality, timeliness and space available The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject all material submitted Readers also are welcome to submit material as guest opinions. The editor decides whether material should run as a guest opinion. Letters and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become the property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Letters should included the author's name, year in school, major and group affiliation, ifany. Requests to withhold names will not be granted Submit material to the Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448 --1 I-1 Health care plan a ‘good deal’ Editor's note: The following is a guest editorial submitted by the (J.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Secretary. ake a moment to look at the person next to you in class, your roommate and the friends you’ve made. Chances are, most stu dents at the University of Nebraska Lincoln arc in excellent health. In real ity, you’re a lot more vulner able than you think. Let me tell a story that explains why. Last year in Missouri, a 20-year old named Kim Patck was paralyzed in a car accident. That tragedy was compounded when Kim’s family learned its insur ance pol icy would not cover her cost ly medical bills. Just before the acci dent Kim had left college, so she was no longer insured. Because of this common loophole, Kim’s family is now on the brink of financial ruin. That’s just one story, but it’s em blematic of the failure of our health care system to provide security for all Americans, especially young Ameri cans. In today’s system, about 2.2 mil lion people lose their insurance every month—some for a few weeks, some for months or years. Overall, a larger percentage of young people are unin sured than in any other age group: 30 percent of people ages 21 to 24, and 23 percent of people ages 25 to 29. Some young Americans lose cov erage without realizing it, like Kim Patek. Some take jobs that don’t pro vide coverage. And some choose not to purchase insurance, naively as suming that they won’t get sick or injured. There are perilous windows of vulnerability. The president’s Health That’s just one story, but it’s emblematic of the failure of our health care system to provide security for all Americans, espe cially young Americans. Security Act will slam them shut for good. Here’s how we’re going to do it: Under President Bil 1 Clinton’s plan, all Americans will be guaranteed a comprehensive package ofhealth ben efits, including preventive care and prescription drugs. In the new system, all employers will contribute to the cost of insurance coverage for their full- and part-time employees. Full-time students under age 24 will continue to receive cover age through their family plan. Inde pendent students and people who are unemployed will be able to obtain affordable insurance through local health alliances that will be set up in all areas of the country. This means that if you take a se mester off to do an internship or to earn tuition money, you’ll still be covered If you work as a volunteer after graduation, you’ll still be covered. If you go for broke and start your own business, you’ll still be covered. And most important, if you get sick or injured, you’ll still be covered — and you won’t have to deal with skyrocketing insurance premiums. The Health Security Act offers another major benefit for your gener ation: By controlling the steep rise in health care costs, it lays the ground work for expanded economic oppor tunity in the future. Escalating health costs weaken American businesses, which must devote larger and larger portions of their payrolls to employee heal th ben efits. This leads to stagnating wages and the erosion of jobs that provide health coverage. It also contributes to “career lock”—in which well-trained young people wait tables for a couple of years because they can’t find jobs in their areas of expertise. Spiraling costs also jack up the | federal deficit. They increase the pub lic cost of providing health care for the elderly, the disabled and the poor. They reduce the amount of public money available for investments in education and job training. And they raise interest rates on everything from school loans to mortgages. All of these facts weaken our econ omy and create roadblocks for you. the work force of tomorrow. The Health Security Act helps ev eryone — but only if everyone takes responsibility for doing his or her part. Our plan says to doctors: We’ll get the lawyers off your backs and cut your paperwork, but we need you to help us keep costs down. Our plan says to employers: We’ll control your costs and give you dis counts, but we need you to contribute to your employees’ health care. And our plan says to all of you: We’ll expect you to take responsibil ity for your own heal th and to contrib ute to your health coverage through out your working lives. In return, you’ll get health security for your selves and your families, and a much brighter economic future. It’s a good deal for college stu dents. It’s a good deal for all of us. ‘Illegitimacy’ Becky Boswell, I agree that we need a new definition of illegitimacy (DN, Dec. 6). Let’s not be evil and outdated. But I’m frightened of our society’s warped impression of parenting where only those “beings” whose mothers do not allow them to go through nine months of pregnancy and countless hours of labor are con sidered illegitimate. Mark T. Voss junior business administration Free speech Regent Robert Allen’s proposed resolution that it be considered whether or not chancellors such as Del Weber of UNO may speak publicly on issues of major change is ridiculous. Of course Weber should be allowed his opinion publicly and privately. Of course public debate should be spon sored. This is the United States of America, where free speech is guar anteed in our Constitution. Regent Robert Allen is pulling up ideas from a dying age of secrecy and hidden knowledge. Perhaps his reso lutions might have been appropriate 30 or 40 years ago, but they are silly today. They are especially unfitted to a place of learning, a place where democracy is taught. Allen favored the removal of the pink triangle stickers. He wanted to hide the issue of homosexuality as well. Now he has moved into an even more dangerous area of wanting to hide knowledge. > ; Allen, this is our university, too. We deserve to know what is happen ing in your circle and elsewhere. You cannot declare who can speak and what they can say. Such thoughts were behind book burnings and cen sorship found in the ’50s and ’60s. I ask that Allen realize that his actions mentioned above are point less and inappropriate and that he refrain from further, similar behav ior. If he does not, it will not be long before those of us from Hastings who espouse the First Amendment are forced, through shame and embar rassment, to shrug our shoulders and say we’re from somewhere around Grand Island. Stephanie Call sophomore * teachers college