W
hen I was 13, I
slammed my thumb
in the door of my
mom’s blue Mini Cooper. In an
effort to show her just
how angry I was about
our
morning
fight
minutes before, my
melodramatic middle-
school self got out of
the car and slammed
the door closed, not
realizing
my
left
thumb was in the way.
I ended up breaking
a bone in my thumb
and crying in front of
everyone at the bus stop. But, in
a few short hours I was leaving
the hospital post-thumb surgery,
my left hand wrapped in bright
pink gauze and positioned with a
metal splint.
I am lucky. No, I am privileged.
Not only did I grow up with a
doctor in the family, but a family
where having health insurance
was never a question. Physicals,
checkups
and
prescriptions
were normal occurrences. A
broken bone? No problem. I
was rushed to the hospital and
fixed at once, expenses paid, no
issue. More than that, the rest
of my life was just as privileged.
I lived in a good neighborhood,
attended a well-funded public
school, had access to healthy
food and parents with steady
upper middle-class incomes. My
experience may be similar to
your own, but for others, good
health and good health care is a
different story.
As
President-elect
Donald
Trump begins to fill crucial
positions for his cabinet, he has
spared no time in giving us a
glimpse at his administration.
For many, it’s like sitting in a
waiting room at the doctor’s
office: You aren’t sure what the
doctor is going to say, what he’s
going to fix or whether he’ll be
able to fix it at all (or in Trump’s
case, try to fix it). It’s waiting to
see what policies will come out of
an unpredictable presidency and
how they will shape Americans’
lives. And of all the vital policies
at risk, the Affordable Care Act
is one that will affect millions.
A running mantra of Trump’s
campaign
was
repealing
Obamacare. However, several
days after winning the election,
Trump altered his position on
repeal, instead stating he’d keep
some provisions of Obamacare.
The ACA has been a highlight of
President Barack Obama’s career
and while its full effects are still
to be seen, the legislation has
dramatically lowered the number
of uninsured in the United States.
Republicans have long been
against
Obamacare,
and now they have
higher
hopes
to
repeal it once Trump
is sworn in. Though
as
a
Republican
president, Trump has
his party members to
answer to, he also has
to answer to those
who voted for him
and those two groups
prove
to
be
very
different from each other.
For the millions of Americans
whose
well-being
depends
on
accessible
health
care,
the
possibility
of
repealing
Obamacare, or devoting less
funding
to
improve
quality
of care, is life-changing. By
reducing
affordability,
you
reduce access. Health care then
becomes a privilege, something
that only a handful of people
get. Yet, health is not a privilege.
According to the World Health
Organization, it’s a human right.
Health care is a provision of
maintaining a human right.
As many have noted, the
biggest irony in Trump’s odyssey
to the White House is the
populism he ran on. Appealing to
working-class and lower-income
citizens, he essentially received
votes from those who benefit
the most from Obamacare. The
ACA’s centerpiece is to provide
affordable insurance to all by
requiring
Americans
to
get
insured
and
simultaneously
reducing
adverse
selection,
which drives up insurance costs.
Obamacare
especially
targets
those who may not get insured
otherwise due to socioeconomic
status
and
insufficient
or
expensive
employee
benefits.
In addition, widespread health
coverage is a way to reduce
disparities
in
health.
Those
who cannot afford to be insured
and thus maintain good health
suffer
economically.
Health
is not a mutually exclusive
component in our lives. Your
health affects economic, social
and emotional well-being. Thus,
good population health not only
benefits the productivity of an
individual but of the nation.
The irony of Trump continues.
The segment of society that
gains the most from affordable
health care is also the group that
voted for a man with plans and
an expectation from his party
to repeal it or at the minimum
reduce it. The New York Times
highlighted this political paradox
in a story on a woman who voted
for Trump and the next week
went to sign up for another year
of Obamacare.
We’re in the waiting room now.
We don’t know what path Trump
will take on health care. His
change from campaign to office
leaves too much uncertainty.
But, with a Republican majority
in Congress, and the recent
nomination of Obamacare critic
Tom Price to the Department
of Health and Human Services,
reform is on the horizon.
At this point, we have the
lowest
rate
of
uninsured
Americans in the last 50 years.
Obamacare has made enormous
strides in making health care
more of a right than a privilege.
In a Reuters poll, Americans
viewed health care as the most
pressing issue to be addressed
by the new presidency. Yet,
health care is only one aspect
in the greater issue of health.
Health care is a means to solving
health disparities and improving
population health, but it is not the
singular solution. The root cause
of health disparities between
Americans doesn’t come from
a lack of health care, but rather
the social, economic and cultural
structures Americans live in
every day.
When it comes to health policy,
the United States is an anomaly.
We spend more money than most
other developed countries on
health care, but still exhibit lower
life expectancy and worsening
health outcomes. It’s a paradox —
a paradox of our own doing.
I don’t believe we can depend
on the Trump administration to
approach health policy in a new
way by putting more money into
social services. However, these
social roots of health disparities,
lack of education and, most
importantly,
inequality
in
economic
stability
and
employment, are problems that
have been experienced by many
of his supporters. Therefore,
Trump
could
benefit
from
taking an alternate approach
to health policy and working to
mend the social factors that lead
to health inequity by making
good health a right and not a
privilege for those millions who
voted for him.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, December 1, 2016
The future of health policy
Rational vs. wishful thinking
JINHUI CHEN | OP-ED
A
s
a
graduate
of
the
University of Michigan, I
have been paying extreme
attention to the 2016 presidential
campaign. My change from being a
Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008
to a Donald Trump supporter in
2016 isn’t typical. I barely knew
about Trump after he declared
he would run for president. In
the very beginning, I treated him
and his behavior like a joke — this
guy was so funny as a billionaire
businessman. Like most people,
the information I knew was from
the mainstream media. I didn’t
believe he could win the election,
and his speaking style was quite
entertaining if you didn’t take
what he’s saying seriously.
But things changed gradually.
When the news outlets reported
more about Trump, not in a
positive way, I began to feel a
little skeptical: Is he as bad as
the media reports? I decided to
do my own research by using the
powerful Google search engine
(thank you, Larry Page, you are
wonderful) and listening to his
speeches. I found out Trump
wasn’t the exact image that the
mainstream media painted.
What’s going on with that?
He did say some quite politically
incorrect
things,
but
the
mainstream media had a political
agenda aligned with Clinton’s
campaign
strategy,
spinning
everything Trump said without
context and even reversing his
meanings — it was really like an
American version of the Cultural
Revolution — by labeling him to
be “racist, sexist, homophobic,
xenophobic,
Islamophobic”
while
Clinton
labeled
his
community of supporters as a
“basket of deplorables.”
Unlike Clinton, who was busy
meeting her big donors, Trump
held rallies, one after another,
and he really cared about the
real challenges of this country.
He came to hold rallies seven
times in total in Arizona, and I
attended three of them, including
his rally for the primary election
at
Fountain
Hills.
Trump’s
policies are all on his campaign
website. I don’t have to agree
with everything he said and
indeed, I took an iSideWith test
and only got 56 percent match
with Trump and 36 percent with
Clinton. I listened to many of his
talks from different rallies and he
knew what the American people
really need and want to change.
Unfortunately, his real voice was
spun by the mainstream media
and further incited by more
misleading
information.
Race
card, gender card, religious card
became the tools to smear Trump
and his supporters.
I don’t have to be a conservative
or a liberal, but a neutral resident
watching this great election.
I wanted to learn something
in this election, so I needed to
keep reading and analyzing the
information
I
received
from
the internet (not from TV). As a
result, I predicted that Trump
would win 324 Electoral College
votes
including
the
critical
votes from swing states: 16 from
Michigan, 10 from Wisconsin,
20 from Pennsylvania, 29 from
Florida and 18 from Ohio, but I
was wrong on Colorado, Nevada
and New Hampshire and 1 vote
from a district in Maine.
How could Trump win in a
landslide? He really listened to
the voters and the voters listened
to him, too, and gave him a trust
vote. But, where was Clinton?
Even
though
Trump
won
the election, the media keeps
misleading
many
Clinton
supporters who have been long
brainwashed by the media to
believe
that
their
candidate
would never lose. They couldn’t
believe their long hope resulted
in nothing. They couldn’t accept
a result contrary to the belief they
held onto for so long. Protests,
riots, emotional ventilations and
the like are the only way they could
express their disappointments.
Nonetheless, could they step out
of the box, their comfort zone, and
empathize why so many people
support Trump?
It’s quite pathetic to note after
eight years of President Barack
Obama’s
administration,
the
law and order, racial tension
and gender discrimination and
many other conflicts are messed
up. But how could you blame a
presidential candidate, and now
president-elect, for Obama’s toxic
presidential leadership and the
mainstream media’s faults? Now
you are on the left side, and we
are on the right side. Should you
and I start a fight? What does
democracy mean in this election?
Since Clinton couldn’t win the
election, please blame her for her
own faults. If you want to win,
please be prepared for the next
election in four years. Attend
rallies early, rather than protest
or riot after, when you are too late.
In the end, right now, win
or loss, this election provides a
lesson everyone can learn from. It
isn’t about “we won, you lost,” it’s
about putting America first and
how to make America great again.
LAURA SCHINAGLE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
SHOHAM GEVA
Editor in Chief
CLAIRE BRYAN
and REGAN DETWILER
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan
Regan Detwiler
Brett Graham
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
A/PIA Studies crucial to diversity
MICHELLE LIN-LUSE | OP-ED
A
s Asian/Pacific Islander
American students and
alumni of the University
of Michigan, we are called to
action as we witness everything
we love about our campus and
nation coming under assault. We
are moved to join with and help
lead the majority of Wolverines
and Americans who say “no” to
racism,
misogyny,
xenophobia,
homophobia, transphobia, religious
intolerance, ableism and bigotry
of all kinds. “Go Blue” must be a
rallying cry for democracy, for
social justice and for science and
education in the public interest.
We have seen a presidential
campaign
motivated
by
scapegoating, hatred and revenge
manifest on our campus, as well as
a campaign of domestic terrorism
through white supremacist posters
in our communities. While there
are new threats we must name and
confront, we must not forget that
our fight against racist ignorance
and attacks on campus, in Ann
Arbor and in the United States goes
back decades. Those in power have
never guaranteed safe spaces for our
communities. We are the ones who
have fought and organized to create
our own spaces of consciousness,
liberation and solidarity.
That is why we need Asian/
Pacific Islander American Studies
now more than ever. A/PIA Studies
and Ethnic Studies were born out
of the struggle against global and
domestic warfare and oppression,
when student activists demanded a
relevant education that overturned
Eurocentric biases and reflected the
diverse perspectives and concerns
of our communities. We are a
product of that struggle, and no
analysis of racism, intersectionality
or social justice would be possible
today without it.
When
full-time
faculty
and employment and student
involvement peaked in A/PIA
Studies at the University, we were
part of a nationally renowned
program offering a wide range of
courses addressing race and justice.
We had engaged faculty whose
activities extended far beyond the
classroom and whose mentoring
served our organizations and
programs on nights and weekends.
Though A/PIA Studies had limited
resources, no office space and no
staff, we worked with these faculty
to build cultural and educational
programs, including large-scale
events such as the Out of the
Margins
activism
conference,
which drew hundreds of attendees
from diverse backgrounds to
address the social issues that
impact us and the entire nation.
We had the incredible honor
to learn from and work with
community
leaders,
including
legendary scholar-activist Grace
Lee Boggs. Boggs taught us,
“You cannot change any society
unless you take responsibility
for it, unless you see yourself as
belonging to it, and responsible
for changing it.” Education has
been our foundation, as we have
become socially conscious alumni,
community organizers, educators,
policy-makers,
professionals,
attorneys, health care providers,
parents and much more.
We want and need for today’s
students to benefit from A/PIA
Studies in the ways that we were
able to when we were in school.
Since 2013, A/PIA Studies has
been reduced to a shadow of its
former self because of top-down
decisions by administrators lacking
proper knowledge and expertise
to appreciate the program’s value
and potential. The most dedicated
faculty have been fired or pushed
away. The classes and programs
we built up have disappeared.
Because of this, the climate for A/
PIA students and many students
at the University has become less
inclusive and more hostile. Our
efforts to get answers and provide
support for rebuilding the program
have been tokenized and ignored.
The A/PIA Studies program
was once a social justice leader on
campus. Its professors were always
at the forefront of organizing teach-
ins in response to national crises,
supporting student organizations,
advocating for students of color,
defending survivors of hate crimes
and sexual assault and holding the
administration accountable to its
diversity promises. Our campus
and our nation need a renewal of
that vital presence.
We are encouraged to see the
LSA’s October 2016 Diversity,
Equity
&
Inclusion
Strategic
Plan finally recognize that past
leadership failures have made
students, staff and faculty feel
“isolated
and
disrespected
based on their social identities”
and
suffer
“depression
and
stigmatization
resulting
from
a lack of understanding and
compassion.” LSA has specifically
acknowledged that “Asian and
Asian-American faculty, students,
and staff have felt left out of the
conversation altogether.”
But
we’ve
already
heard
countless
promises
about
diversity, equity and inclusion
from leadership. This time must
be different. LSA’s Strategic Plan
does not in any way name how its
prior missteps undermined A/PIA
Studies, and its “36 Strategic Goals”
do not commit to any positive
steps to rebuild and promote the
program. Three years of slow
progress, inadequate measures and
a lack of transparency are too much.
LSA and the University must
recognize
the
incredible
past
accomplishments of A/PIA Studies
and make it a cornerstone of the
campaign for diversity, equity
and inclusion. The University
has the power within its grasp to
restore national leadership in the
field of A/PIA Studies. We call
on students, alumni, faculty, staff
and off-campus supporters from
all backgrounds to embrace the
following proposals. We commit
ourselves not only to implementing
these steps, but also to working
with everyone struggling to move
diversity, equity and inclusion from
the realm of rhetoric to reality.
We call for the full restoration of
the eight full-time faculty in A/PIA
Studies who have been lost since
2008, including the restoration of
the courses, scholarly expertise and
student mentoring that has been lost.
We call for the University to meet
the demand for staff, funding and
physical space that students, faculty
and staff deem necessary to fulfill
the curricular and co-curricular
needs of A/PIA Studies and related
A/PIA cultural programming and
activities. We call for a restoration
of direct involvement by students,
alumni, staff and community
allies in setting priorities, decision
making and governance of the
A/PIA Studies program. We call
for institutional structures that
ensure the A/PIA Studies program
has the autonomy to be led by its
own stakeholders who are central
to the work of the program and
possess the expertise needed to
promote its success.
We can never again allow A/
PIA Studies to be undermined
by short-sighted administrators
or department chairs who lack
the best interests of the program.
We call for the formation of a
commission of external Asian
American and Pacific Islander
Studies
experts
to
identify
additional steps the University
must take to become “the Leaders
and the Best” in Asian American
and
Pacific
Islander
Studies.
This commission must outline
a pathway for A/PIA Studies to
achieve departmental status.
University alumni for A/PIA studies
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURTY | COLUMN
Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be reached
at anuroy@umich.edu.
ANU ROY-
CHAUDHURTY
MICHELLE LIN-LUSE
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU
Jinhui Chen, Ph.D.
Rackham alum, ‘09
Read the full list of signatures at
michigandaily.com
“Two Lives”
JINHUI CHEN