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