As a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Executive M.B.A. program, I can only empathize with the graduates of the West Virginia University Executive M.B.A. program ("WVU Made 'Flawed' Decision," April 24).

I can clearly remember the opening remarks of our dean when we began our program. He made it very clear that they would not be "handing us a diploma." Everything and more would be expected from us, as was expected from anyone else receiving an M.B.A., and besides, we just would not feel good about ourselves if we got an easier ride.

Aside from the unlimited coffee and doughnuts we received and the intimate classroom environment, any lingering illusions I may have had were quickly dispelled after my first accounting exam.

I was amused by Ms. Bresch's claim that she was able to exchange "life experience" for actual classroom participation. Somehow she missed the point of what the Executive M.B.A. experience is all about. You could not even be admitted to the program without several years of work experience. The real value and joy of the program was the sharing of these experiences with fellow participants who were all juggling managerial and family responsibilities.

It appears that the recent report on this matter has found this to be an isolated case of favoritism. I am sure the graduates of the WVU Executive M.B.A. program can rightfully feel and claim the same sense of accomplishment as I felt when I completed my program.

MICHAEL TOBIAS
Squirrel Hill

---

Are big business and big government compatible with truth, knowledge or education?

While reading the article "WVU Made 'Flawed' Decision" (April 24), I read the following paragraph:

"Ms. Bresch's relationships with the governor, WVU and Mylan, whose chairman, Milan Puskar, is WVU's biggest benefactor, had no influence on the decision, Mr. Lang said."

I kept reading, looking for the explanation as to what did influence the decision making. Did this man mean to say that this same situation could have occurred with any one of the thousands of alumni or students who had attended but never graduated? I, for one, find that difficult to believe -- although I could possibly be convinced otherwise -- since it has never happened before.

I'm just wondering if the authors of the article ever even asked for an alternate explanation, if they just accepted the answer at face value, or if they too believed it to be unlikely but were too polite to say so in the article.

KEVIN McELDOWNEY
Bellevue

---

Regarding the April 20 Forum article "Medicare for All: Australia Does It. We Can, Too": The author made all of the points in favor of saving money and providing better service, but she totally missed the point of our health-care system. It is a money-making system for our highly skilled medical practitioners and their support groups comprising the specialists in diagnosis, radiology, insurance and government relations.

Our unique health-care system is geared to providing quality employment to large numbers of middle-class citizens whose livelihoods would be seriously threatened by universal coverage that would not allow spending on unneeded tests and services of questionable value. I have not seen any statistics from anyone that include estimates of the numbers of peripheral health-care industry companies and employees who would no longer be needed.

The huge amount of money that is available for health care in the United States has created an enormous special-interest group that is well organized and will not give up the power that has been handed to it. We cannot reasonably expect our government to listen to the unorganized individuals who lack health care when the well-organized providers are making such a good living under the existing conditions.

PHIL JONES
Mt. Lebanon

---

Thank you for publishing the excellent commentary by Sarah Flanders, M.D. ("Medicare for All," April 20). Her experience working as a psychiatrist in Pittsburgh for nine years, followed by a year practicing in Australia, provided her an opportunity to compare Australia's Universal Medicare system with our fragmented, multipayer system.

I was also pleased to see that alongside Dr. Flanders' article, your paper provided an Internet link to the PBS Frontline special "Sick Around the World." That program compared the health-care systems of five countries -- Britain, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- to that of the United States. All rank higher than our country on many outcome measures, while being much less expensive per capita and covering all.

Taiwan, which carefully researched reform options before choosing its solution to 40 percent uninsurance, decided to select a single-payer model. That model, like our traditional Medicare, offers the lowest administrative cost by cutting out the insurance company middlemen, while allowing people a full choice of providers, who remain private. In Taiwan, a "smart card" is presented by the patient to the provider for electronic billing and medical records; the administrative cost is under 2 percent. In the United States, traditional Medicare costs 3 percent to administer.

This is a time for humility. Our system is not the best. Moreover, our reliance on the private insurance industry has weakened us. I hope that we are smart and caring enough to learn from others and insist on a system that is affordable and provides excellent coverage for all of America's people.

SANDRA FOX
Squirrel Hill

The writer is co-chair, Western PA Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare (www.WPaSinglePayer.org).

---

Sarah Flanders' excellent contribution to the health-care debate in the April 20 Forum clearly described how "Medicare for all" can address our dysfunctional profit-driven system.

HR 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act -- "Expanded and Improved Medicare for All" -- will provide affordable single-payer health care for all of us. Hundreds of medical, labor, faith-based and government organizations have endorsed this bill nationwide.

Locally, U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle is one of 88 representatives who have already co-sponsored HR 676. Pittsburgh has developed its own powerful grass-roots organization, the Western PA Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare. We are working together to transform this wasteful, ineffective health-care mess so that our country will provide the high-quality health care its people deserve.

VIRGINIA C. ESKRIDGE
Shadyside

---

In America, patriotism can apparently be directly measured by the wearing of a flag lapel pin. Myself being a truly loyal American, I am seeking advice on how to best display my patriotism. I understand that the pin must be worn every day and all day.

A single lapel pin on a business suit is patriotic, but is it so even if the pin is made in China? Does the size of the pin matter? Are larger flag pins better? Are more expensive flag pins better? Am I more patriotic if my stars are actual diamonds? If one pin is good, then am I twice as patriotic if I wear two pins, one in each lapel? What about casual wear? Should I wear a lapel pin with a T-shirt? Or maybe I should just always dress in red, white and blue. What should I do if I am going to the beach? I am not really sure that a flag motif Speedo is patriotic.

As you can see, I am having a real patriotic fashion emergency and need help.

E. JOHNS
Mt. Lebanon

---

We are all guilty of working a bit too hard at times to justify our preferences in an election year. In her April 13 Forum piece "Sexism Meets Racism," Marcia Angell acknowledges as much at the end of her opinion piece when she says she wants Hillary Clinton to win because she is a woman.

While there is nothing objectionable about that, there are fundamental problems with the arguments she uses toward that end. The theme that emerges is that sexism is greater than racism in a primary race but that racism will trump all in the general election (as sexism inexplicably fades away now that an older white male is the opponent).

When Clinton supporters hint that race will ultimately doom Barack Obama in a general election, they are somehow not using race to win the primary election. Instead, they are just whispering about the realistic role that race will play once Republicans are involved.

Persuasive? Hardly, but certainly convenient.

BRIAN GABRIEL
Highland Park

---