Schools Dangle Carrot Snacks, but It’s a Tough Sale

The New York Times

letters@nytimes.com

October 3, 2011

To the editor:

Re: “Schools Dangle Carrot Snacks, but It’s a Tough Sale,” Oct. 3: This article portrays a few high schools in Long Island, New York and how they have worked to create better food options for their students. It highlights a positive way to encourage healthy eating habits in school environments that often don’t have nutritious options.

Testing new, healthy vending machines is a great way for students to practice what they learn in school about nutrition and how to eat healthy in their everyday lives. However, I do not understand why schools only target vending machines as oppose to cafeteria food as well. With the increasing rate of obesity in children, healthy snack options for younger kids would have a large impact on the choices children make now and in the future. Coming from a public health mind-set, it would be more beneficial to take a preventative stance and target elementary schools to try to change eating habits at a younger age.

If children are introduced to healthy options in vending machines during elementary school then they are more likely to choose healthier snacks at an older age. By not only teaching them about nutrition in school, but also modeling healthy food options, children will naturally pick up these habits.

Sara Veliz

2710 Channing Way

Berkeley, CA 94704

(818) 309-3179

saraveliz@berkeley.edu

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/education/04vending.html?pagewanted=1

NY administration rejects Medicaid sex-changes

Letter to the Editor

The Sacramento Bee

viewpoints@sacbee.com

October 1, 2011

Dear Editor:

In your article “NY administration rejects Medicaid sex-changes,” you reported that New York has dropped the idea of using Medicaid to provide coverage for transgender surgery/hormone replacement therapy and treatment. This is interesting because I find this issue to be somewhat controversial.

As a Public Health major, my perspective remains neutral. It is great seeing how more attention is given to the transgender population, especially those who cannot afford to receive surgery or treatment. However, when taking Medicaid funding into consideration, it is also reasonable to see Americans oppose it because as you have stated, 50% of the Medicaid program budget comes from federal funding and 40% from the state. Some taxpayers may think that there are people who really need that money for more serious medical problems. In my opinion, neither the transgender community nor the taxpayers should be neglected. Instead, I think there should be a system to prioritize how serious the need for transgender surgery or treatment is on an individual basis to determine how much should be covered by Medicaid. This may help reduce opposition to this issue.

I am very interested in seeing how this issue will unfold in the future.

Sincerely,

Helen Woo

Article link: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/29/3948936/ny-considers-medicaid-for-transgender.html#storylink=misearch

Closing SF Health Care Loophole Debate heats up.

Letter to the Editor

San Francisco Chronicle

metro@sfchronicle.com.

03 October 2011

Dear Editor,

While the provision provides a possible solution to the problems of uninsured employees, it does not provide the most efficient solution since it requires that consumers pay taxes to fund the health care reimbursement accounts and the employers can close the accounts after a year of being unused. What this means is that employers are incentivized to increase consumer taxes, discourage the use of these funds by their employees, and make use of unused funds. Furthermore, the amount that is usually disbursed to employees is very small compared to how much is actually available in these accounts. An alternative provision that would address these issues is that employers purchase employee health insurance. Employers and employees agree to pay a portion of the premium thus eliminating the possibility of a “use it or lose it scenario" because employers will not be able to retrieve this money for their own benefit and employees have access to health care so long as they are insured. Also, employees are more aware of the health benefits offered by their employment because they are actually contributing a portion of the premium whereas with reimbursement accounts these benefits are not so transparent because employers control these accounts.

Sincerely,

Rosalina Penaloza

2424 Haste St. Berkeley CA

Rosalina.penaloza@berkeley.edu

3239009925

Confirmation page:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/company/info/feedbackThanks

Link to article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/01/BA3B1LBVH5.DTL

RE: New Survey Projects Higher Employee Health Premiums

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

October 4^th, 2011

Dear Editor:

On Sunday, you reported that health premiums are increasing for employees in America. This is taking a lot of money out of U.S. workers’ paycheck and can have many negative impacts on their lives and our country’s economy.

As a student, I believe premiums can be lowered if older adults start living healthily, and companies can help employees by promoting healthy lifestyles. Companies should put a small gym in their building and replace vending machines with organic and nutritious food. Furthermore, they should provide nap times for employees. Based on a study on sleep and the workplace by the National Sleep Foundation, American employees do not get enough sleep, and they become prone to illnesses because of suppressed immune systems. Additionally, companies need to reward employees when they jog for a certain number of hours at the office gym or eradicate junk food from their cubicles. Over time, insurance companies may assume less health risk from employees and premiums may be lowered.

Sincerely,

Gavin Hui

2321 Dwight Way #203,

Berkeley CA 94720

Gavin_hui@berkeley.edu

(626) 689-1211

Is thegovernment hiding something about swine flu?

Article Link:

http://news.yahoo.com/government-hiding-something-swine-flu-021605558.html

Letter to the Editor

Forbes Magazine

readers@forbes.com

October 3rd, 2011

Dear Editor:

Yesterday, you reported on how the CDC is potentially withholding much of its genetic data on viruses such as swine flu and H1N1. As you mentioned the CDC is a publicly funded entity and it is irresponsible of them to withhold this data. Keeping this information from circulating globally, suffocates the likelihood of international cooperation on the issue. These types of viruses such as swine flu and H1N1 pose huge risks to millions of lives. The more data that the biomedical community has on these viruses, the better the chance that we will control them in the future and keep people safe. As a public health student at UC Berkeley, my opinion is that this organization should be forced to disclose all of its research in order to not only better inform the public on health issues but also help cultivate an international dialogue on the subject. By forcing the CDC to release its data on the genetic sequences of viruses, other countries might follow in suit. My question to you is whether this sort of mandate on the CDC to release data, could have negative repercussions?

Sincerely,

Bryan Frederick Marks

2815 Channing Way Berkeley Ca, 94920

bryan.f.marks@berkeley.edu

(510)-896-9364

Foreclosures are Killing Us

Letters to the Editor

The New York Times

letters@nytimes.com

To the Editor:

“Foreclosures are Killing Us” was a timely reminder of the interconnectedness of economic and health policies and their often grim effects on human lives. The fact that one’s state of employment generally determines one’s health care coverage in the US is nonsensical since, as the article highlights, the relationship between health and employment is cyclical. A healthy workforce creates a healthy economy and vice versa. Universal healthcare through periods of unemployment is a moral imperative with economic incentive. While some argue that such a system can’t function in the US, the thoroughly capitalist Germany has modeled that a successful transition can occur when the correct political moment presents itself. As we approach the 2012 elections, those in support of health care reform would be wise to consider it part of a comprehensive economic relief program. In this “1% nation”, money is readily available; its allocation, however, is the real issue.

Sincerely,

Megan Dalessio

Link to article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/opinion/foreclosures-are-killing-us.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper

In Cuts to Health Programs, Experts See Difficult Task in Protecting Patients

Letters to the Editor
New York Times
letters@nytimes.com

September 22, 2011

Dear Robert Pear,

Obama’s new plan to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid received much
criticism. Opposition is much deserved. It will hurt beneficiaries, and
further cuts will only lead to many of them not being able to find a
doctor that will accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Furthermore,
reductions to the funding of these programs will lead to less money being
put towards the hospitals, which spend much of their funding on salaries.
Reducing their funding will only lead to more layoffs, which is ironic if
you take into consideration Obama’s new jobs plan. If Obama wishes to
decrease health care spending, we need to be focusing on providing
incentives to providers for more efficiency and preventative care.
Improvements upon service delivery and educational reform will lead to a
healthier America and an overall decrease in health expenditures, thereby accomplishing his overarching goal. .

Sincerely,

Vanessa Ridley

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/us/politics/wielding-the-ax-on-medicaid-and-medicare-without-wounding-the-patient.html