C
an you put a value on a
human life? You probably
don’t know the answer
to that, and neither do I. Yet, our
policies and our politics
continue to reflect an
unintentional
answer
to that question: Yes,
we can. The latest effort
of
conservatives
in
Washington has been
to dismantle former
President
Barack
Obama’s
health-care
law, the Affordable Care
Act — legislation that
aimed to promote good
health for all Americans, not only
some. Conservatives’ long-awaited
replacement to one of Obama’s
trademark pieces of legislation has,
finally, come to fruition. Kind of.
Two
weeks
ago,
House
Republicans
announced
their
proposed plans to replace the ACA
with the American Health Care Act.
Yet, unsurprisingly, the plan was
met with disdain from Democrats
as well as hesitation from moderate
Republicans. Keeping up with their
historical opposition to Obamacare
and now, with the new president’s
concerted effort to take two steps
backward from the progress of the
past eight years, the GOP is taking
U.S. health care in a new direction.
A direction where subjective
politics is outweighing objective
health equity.
Under the AHCA, the budget
office predicts a rise in premiums in
the coming years and estimates that
52 million Americans will become
uninsured by 2026. While saving
$337 million, and subsequently
going along with conservative aims
to limit big government, the new
plan, if passed, would be a blow to
improving health equity across the
country. In contrast, its predecessor
reduced the number of uninsured
Americans and was the beginning
effort to close the health gap.
Further, the proposed plan,
approved by the House Budget
Committee, takes a toll on poorer
Americans, as the expansion of
Medicaid in states is predicted to
decrease. At the same time, older
Americans will be at risk. New
provisions of the replacement
would allow insurers to “charge
older adults five times more than
the young.” Without a doubt, the
proposed GOP replacement works
against the ideal of making health a
right, not a privilege, an ideal much
of Washington has yet to embrace.
Republicans got really good at
preaching
“repeal”
throughout
the Obama administration, but
their efforts to produce a good
replacement are thoroughly lacking.
Further, the new AHCA breaks a
promise Mr. Trump
made just two months
ago,
“We’re
going
to
have
insurance
for
everybody.”
Unfortunately,
that
doesn’t seem like the
case.
The
politics
surrounding
the
health-care
debate seem to be
overshadowing what’s
truly at risk: the well-being of
Americans. House Republicans,
unsurprisingly, are jumping at the
chance to get rid of the dreaded
ACA, but their efforts to re-align
political power has the potential
to take a devastating toll on
Americans across the country.
It begs the question: Is the new
law being driven by pure politics,
or by the millions of Americans
who depend on government aid
for a healthy life in mind? The
entrenched political polarization
when it comes to health care has
effects that go beyond the walls
of Congress; it is affecting real
Americans who need real insurance.
This isn’t to say that all
Republicans
are
backing
the
new replacement. In fact, four
Republican
governors
recently
spoke out against the proposal,
highlighting the flaws of the AHCA
when it comes to taking care of
lower-income Americans. But, even
more telling is the opposition by
the American Medical Association.
Last week, members of the group
sent letters to the House about
their concerns when it came to
providing affordable coverage to
low- and middle-income Americans.
Maybe, instead of leaving it up to
officials in Washington and the
divisive politics of it all, health
policy should take into account
the medical professionals and
experts whose daily lives revolve
around the health of Americans.
There is no question that health
care contributes to a healthy
population and, even more, a
productive population. The ACA
was a measure that, as its name
states, accounted for those who
could not afford health insurance,
and thus could not afford to take care
of themselves and their families
when sickness or injury arose.
However, while the ACA targeted
those who needed coverage the
most, the new health-care act is
backtracking. Instead, the AHCA
has the potential to make insurance
unaffordable for millions.
Unlike
Obamacare,
the
replacement no longer requires
every
American
to
become
insured. Instead, it approaches
health care with an age-rating
structure. This ultimately takes a
toll on the poor, sick and elderly,
as The Atlantic explains. But,
younger and therefore typically
healthier Americans will be paying
lower premiums while the elderly
will be paying more. That doesn’t
sound too bad for a post-grad who
will no longer be covered under
their parents’ insurance plan at 26.
However, when it boils down, the
irrefutable problem in the AHCA
remains: Those who need health
care the most are those who will be
facing the most obstacles to get it.
While the ACA was a step
forward in altering the way we
think about health in America,
it still did not fully embrace the
concept of health as a basic right.
Now, the proposed replacement
has thrown this idea out the
window.
By
making
health
care more expensive and thus
available to only those with the
economic resources to afford it,
we are valuing the health and
well-being of some Americans
over others. What’s more, we’re
not supporting the well-being of
those who need it the most. Low-
income and impoverished areas
are more susceptible to lower
life-expectancy than the rich, and
without affordable measures to
prevent disease and injury, the
disparity between health outcomes
will continue to increase. By letting
economic circumstances be the
dividing barrier between those
who have health services and those
who do not, we are placing more
value on some lives than others.
The way we talk about health
care right now is ridden with
politics. Yes, politics play a key role
in developing effective policy and
law. But issues of basic rights, like
the opportunity for a healthy life,
go beyond the liberal-conservative
debate.
More
importantly,
these rights are something that
everyone, regardless of party
and age, must fight to ensure and
preserve. The idea of taking care
of our own seems lost these days
and the AHCA seems like yet
another step away from a more
empathetic America.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, March 22, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
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
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Ibrahim Ijaz
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
New and unimproved
Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be reached
at anuroy@umich.edu.
I
nternational Women’s Day
this year was arguably the
most notable since the day’s
founding. As many people take
the time this month
to reflect on the work
women have done to
improve society and
their place in it, it is
impossible to ignore
how much is left for
women to accomplish.
The protests on March
8 are a reminder that
women will not rest
until they are heard.
But watching “Full
Frontal With Samantha Bee” forced
me to take a critical look at what
Bee and many others refer to as
“the resistance” — the people who
demonstrate and speak out against
Donald Trump and his policies. The
fact that millions of people marched
during the Women’s March and
many women participated in “A
Day Without a Woman” is great. It
is important that those against the
Trump administration, especially
those belonging to marginalized
groups like women, come together
and speak out. But showing solidarity
and marching are not the only things
that need to be done.
What do these strikes and
marches mean if we don’t vote? My
hope is that following these there
will be an increase in voter turnout
for local elections, but unfortunately
this has not been the case so far. It
doesn’t make sense that roughly
half a million to three-quarters of
a million people marched during
the Women’s March but there was
only about 12-percent turnout for
the Los Angeles mayoral election.
The lesson we all should have taken
away from the presidential election
is that for change to happen, we
need to use all of the tools that are
available to us. So if we’re going to
strike and march, we also need to
vote, write to our representatives and
take it upon ourselves to organize
grassroots movements within our
communities.
We also need to make sure
that everyone has a voice in this
movement.
It
needs
to
encompass
all
backgrounds.
This
is where I think the
recent strike, “A Day
Without a Woman,”
fell short. There were
three main points to
this protest: Women
were
encouraged
to take the day off
work (“from paid and
unpaid labor”), avoid
shopping (unless it was to purchase
something from a small women- or
minority-owned business) and wear
red to show solidarity.
Mobilizing people is great,
but for many low-income people,
taking part in this strike was not
possible. Taking off a day of work
literally costs these women. The
organizers of the strike noted
this and stated they “strike for
them.” But instead of striking or
protesting for them, organizers
of all modes of resistance need
to bring people who are most
marginalized into the discussion.
In addition to the protests and
strikes, we need to simultaneously
speak with our representatives,
vote in local elections and work to
ensure that every woman’s voice
is heard, not just those who can
afford to take off of work.
The answer to what happens
next rests on the shoulders of
every woman and supporter of
the resistance. It is not enough
to march once or post a status on
Facebook to show support. To keep
the momentum going, supporters
need to be more engaged in what’s
going on in their communities
and how they can effect change
where it affects the most. Each
community is different and while
many women across communities
face issues that are similar, it is
important to address issues unique
to different communities.
Protesting is pivotal, but it is
not just in the form of marches
or wearing red to show solidarity.
And when you think about
it, what becomes of all of the
marches and strikes if those same
people do not show up to vote
or do nothing to support their
community? Nothing.
So in addition to striking or
marching, people who support the
movement need to go a few steps
further. Thankfully, there are many
ways to do this: If you can, go to
a concert that will donate profits
to Planned Parenthood or donate
yourself to organizations like the
American Civil Liberties Union.
Learn about ballot proposals and
local elections in your area. If you’re
staying in Ann Arbor this summer,
make sure you’re registered to
vote for the upcoming City Council
primary. Also, stay informed about
all facets of the political system.
Don’t just focus on the latest crazy
thing that Trump has said, like the
“wiretapping.” Pay attention to the
real stuff — like the fact that Trump
plans to reduce funds for the Pell
Grant program and eliminate the
National Endowment for the Arts,
the National Endowment for the
Humanities and the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting. These
proposed cuts, and many others,
will affect every community, and
the University of Michigan is no
exception.
To effectively resist, we need
to stay informed and use our
energy
to
vote
and
organize
within our communities. By doing
this, hopefully Trump and other
lawmakers will think twice before
proposing legislation. They’ll learn
that resistance is not just a word that
follows a hashtag but something not
to be messed with.
Strengthening the resistance
COREY DULIN | COLUMN
Corey Dulin can be reached at
cydulin@umich.edu.
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY | COLUMN
ANU ROY-
CHAUDHURY
I
f you didn’t catch the
Movement
party’s
debut
video, you need to watch
it to make an informed vote in
the Central Student
Government elections.
Facebook
users
have been all over
Movement’s
video,
which amassed 44,000
views and more than
200
shares
as
of
March 21. Naturally,
polarization
quickly
ensued
between
Movement’s
fandom
and
those
calling
the party out for its problematic
campaign. Though polarization
can be harmful, it’s important to
recognize the need for hard-line
stances when issues like populism
are on the come-up. To be clear,
the
issues
with
Movement’s
campaign aren’t about political
leanings and policies, but with
the sheer implementation of the
same practices that we saw in
President Donald Trump’s 2016
campaign.
If you need one singular
piece of evidence showing the
similarities between Movement’s
presidential nominee Evan Rosen
and President Trump, here it is:
“I don’t think they’re hearing
this, I can rock the mike with no
CSG experience.” Rosen thinks
it’s cool or appealing to run for
office without being experienced,
but the crucial lesson to learn
from the first few months of
President Trump’s presidency
is that being unqualified isn’t
the best kind of qualification.
Being cool doesn’t mean you’re
good at understanding policy
and representation. Just ask the
“Trump Regretters” who wish
they hadn’t elected the star of “The
Apprentice” to the highest office.
Glancing through Movement’s
Facebook
album,
“Meet
the
Squad,” anyone can see the next
problem with the party. Out of
22 featured squad members,
which I guess are candidates, 14
are white males. Out of the eight
non-white males in the Squad,
five are white females, three are
men of color and zero are women
of color. The lack of diversity
among
the
party
members,
some of whom have titles such
as “Official DJ” and “Illuminati
Relations Chair,” is a strong
indicator that Movement cannot
represent
the
student
body.
What’s worse is that the party’s
platform, which identifies that
we need to “Ensure our campus is
a welcoming community for all,”
is hypocritical when compared to
their candidates.
Further damaging to the party’s
claims of diversity and inclusion
is the fact that the only women
featured in Movement’s entrancing
music video fawned over the
wannabe CSG president. As if
the lack of women representation
among the candidates
— especially women
of color — wasn’t bad
enough,
Movement’s
video
objectifies
women in a way that
is eerily nostalgic of
President Trump. This
kind of objectification
does not belong in
office and does not
deserve
the
vote
of
fair-minded
students. Instead, we should be
championing
underrepresented
leaders on campus to work toward
positive change.
Shortly after the recent CSG
debate, hosted by The Michigan
Daily, candidate Rosen answered
a few questions that the Editorial
Board had about the party’s lack of
diversity. He responded by saying
that although he tried to reach out to
as many people as possible to recruit
for his party, those who responded
were largely homogeneous. Despite
this homogeneity, he vowed to
increase
diversity
through
the
assembly
and
cabinet.
Rosen
hypocritically
thinks
that
his
inability to form a diverse party
before the elections will magically be
reversed once in office.
Don’t get me wrong. I would
never
argue
that
someone’s
demographics demonstrate their
capabilities. Nor do I think anyone
in Movement has anything but
the best of intentions. However,
when attempting to represent
students, many of whom feel
unsafe, it’s necessary to have a mix
of diversity and allyship. When
students called out Movement’s
music
video
for
female
objectification and Black culture
appropriation,
Rosen’s
initial
responses were dismissive and
deplorable. “We just made a rap,”
he said, completely ignoring the
concerns raised by a University
alum.
When
challenged
for
obnoxiously claiming to be the
“white
George
Washington
Carver,”
his
response
was,
“I’m an innovator.” Even when
opportunities to be an ally are
handed to Rosen, he dismisses the
very real concerns of those whom
he wants to represent, and fails
to be an effective ally. Although
Rosen issued an official apology
on March 21, Facebook users felt
the display of regret was too little,
too late.
If you don’t think the lack of
representation and dismissive
attitudes toward marginalized
students are crippling enough to
the party’s race to the Michigan
Union, how about Movement’s
blatant populism? As the refrain
of Rosen’s music video, the line
“Give the campus back to the
kids, they could use it,” deserves
some attention. Language is a
funny thing in that you can refer
to something without explicitly
saying
so.
When
President
Trump’s campaign promised to
“Make America Great Again,” it
evoked a reference to a previous
time when the nation was great.
Similarly, when Rosen preaches
about giving the campus back to
the kids, he is implicitly saying
that students don’t have the
campus in the first place. This
appeal to the masses of ordinary
“kids”
who
are
supposedly
unrepresented
and
voiceless
should be a classic, unproblematic
campaign move if the party were
representative. But when said
“kids” exclude marginalized and
truly underrepresented students,
it reminds me less of a campaign
move and more of a populist strategy
appealing to only one population:
non-marginalized
students.
The Economist recently defined
populism
as
a
non-ideological
framework that pits the population
against the corrupt establishment.
This call by Movement is subtle, but
once examined, is reminiscent of
President Trump’s calls for swamp-
draining and great-making.
But when it comes down to the
ballot, there’s one singular reason
why Rosen’s Movement party
shouldn’t be elected: It appears
that he thinks he alone can help
the University. In his op-ed for
The Michigan Daily, Rosen wrote,
“I created the Movement because
I want to go to a university that
lives up to its name, and because I
see a potential for this school that
I don’t think anyone else does.”
Most readers should be pausing at
this point, thinking about where
they’ve heard this exact same
rhetoric. If they need a clue, visit
whitehouse.gov. Two years ago,
then-officeless
Donald
Trump
said at the onset of his campaign,
“I am the only one who can make
America
truly
great
again!”
Even in his Republican National
Convention
speech,
President
Trump exclaimed with full hubris,
“I alone can fix it.” The go-it-alone
mentality is not endearing or
appealing. It has the potential to
perpetuate campus issues.
Clearly
the
complications
with Movement’s campaign are
problematic
in
many
different
regards. On March 22 and 23,
remember the problematic nature
of Movement’s campaign, which has
the potential to do more harm than
good, when electing your next CSG
president. Be sure to vote eMerge at
http://vote.umich.edu.
The wrong Movement
IBRAHIM IJAZ | COLUMN
Ibrahim Ijaz can be reached at
iijaz@umich.edu.
IBRAHIM
IJAZ
COREY
DULIN
ERIN WAKELAND | CONTACT ERIN AT ERINRAY@UMICH.EDU
Indie movie x chain sit-down restaurant