Your editorial on Obama’s support for penalizing those without health insurance concludes that even though overall health care costs will decrease, “in reality” it will increase costs for young people. But no one, especially not Obama, has ever denied that. You seem to understand the argument in favor of mandatory coverage: it’s not fair to those who do pay, because we have laws saying that even those without insurance must be treated in emergency rooms at the expense of others. A serious discussion of alternatives for young people might be interesting, but you actually suggest that “Obama should fight to repeal laws that demand the payless servitude of our medical professionals”. Does that mean that when uninsured people are brought to emergency rooms, doctors should watch them die? What exactly are you saying? I wish you had spent more than a single line on your proposed solution to this aspect of a massive problem. It may seem wise to take up a position that, extremely superficially, benefits your youthful readership, but it would be nice if your position was a little more defensible. Simon Gruber University graduate student