100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

August 03, 2017 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4

Thursday, August 3, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION

NISA KHAN

EDITOR IN CHIEF

SARAH KHAN

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

DAYTON HARE

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at

the University of Michigan since 1890.

Naming the nameless

BRENNAN POPE | COLUMN

LENA
DREVES

Why they voted no

I

n a rush to repeal the Affordable
Care Act, Republican leaders
introduced the Health Care

Freedom Act to the Senate floor at
approximately 10 p.m. Thursday night.
More
famously

known as the
“skinny repeal”
health care bill,
the
lawmakers

were only given
a few hours to make a decision on their
vote. The Senate Republicans needed
50 votes total to pass the bill, with
the assumption that Vice President
Mike Pence would break the tie. Early
Friday morning, the bill failed at a vote
of 51-49; most famously as a result of
Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.) voting ‘no.’
Two other senators, Susan Collins of
Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
also opposed their party by voting
against the bill.

Often,
first
glances
at
the

media
coverage
of
the
Trump

administration’s recent actions tells us
little of the practical implications and
results such actions will have. When
the “skinny repeal” bill failed on the
Senate floor, the highlights of the event
drew partisan reactions on both sides.
Though Collin’s and Murkowski’s “no”
votes were not necessarily surprises,
their lack of support to a Republican-
written bill has the right-wing feeling
betrayed by their own party. McCain’s
surprise vote, however, left a deeper
feeling of resentment, and as a result,
the headlines the next morning
portrayed him as both the hero and the
villain. It seems as though the pressing
issue of health care law in the United
States was taken over by the drama of
partisan disagreement. The knowledge
of the vote is widespread, but the
knowledge about the substance and
implication of the health care repeal bill
seems less understood. The partisan
divide has ruptured divides along
party lines, yet more imperatively, it
has served as a bitter distraction from
the substance and the importance of
the law in context.

The bill was not released to the

public until after the vote. The secrecy
and haste of the bill promoted the idea
that repealing the ACA held greater
priority over the quality of the health
care reform. Thrown together quickly
in hopes of dismantling Obamacare,
the bill held major flaws that would
have resulted in many negative
consequences for the American people.
If passed, the health care legislation
would have repealed the ACA’s
controversial individual and employer
mandate and also make room for
states to allow other insurances that
don’t fall under the ACA’s regulations.

This means that there is a no financial
penalty for (most) Americans who
decide to not carry health insurance.
This is good news for those who
keep their bodies healthy, especially
younger Americans. However, the
“skinny repeal” bill lacks incentive
for the majority of Americans to stay
continuously insured, which is essential
to avoid ever-increasing premiums and
for the market to stay healthy. This
new legislation would have made the
adverse selection problem much more
serious to the death spiral result of
insurers leaving the market. According
to the Congressional Budget Office,
14 million more Americans would go
uninsured in 2018 with the “skinny
repeal” than under the ACA. Premiums
would increase 20 percent by next year.

The answer to the problem of health

care in the United States exists in the
improvement of the current plan or
in a truly and substantively improved
replacement plan. The Health Care
Freedom Act is neither of those. It is
rather a result of a partisan conflict,
which has only grown to the point
where the real priority of health care
accessibility becomes second place to
the reputations of the political party
and
presidential
administration.

Before making his vote, McCain made
a statement assuredly enlightening his
reasoning for voting no on the bill.

“Merely preventing your political

opponents from doing what they
want isn’t the most inspiring work,”
he said. “There’s greater satisfaction
in respecting our differences, but
not letting them prevent agreements
that don’t require abandonment of
core principles, agreements made in
good faith that help improve lives and
protect the American people.”

Susan Collins released her reasoning

on Twitter following her vote, stating,
“When dealing w/ a complex issue
that affects millions of Americans
& 1/6th of our economy, we must
proceed carefully.” The statements of
each Senator show their value of the
protection of the health of American
citizens and their welfare. Regardless
of the administration’s pressure, party
loyalty and the recognition they may
have received from their own party,
each Senator acted according to their
belief that the welfare of the American
people take precedence over the
achievements of any administration
and to whose party it belongs.

—Lena Dreves can be reached

at ldreves@umich.edu.

U

s college students seem
to have a lot to complain
about — stressful classes,

struggling
relationships,
severe

lack of sleep and, perhaps most of
all, lack of income. With tuition
costs climbing every year and the
adolescent population increasiime to
recognize its value.

Last week, another attempt to

repeal the Affordable Care Act failed
in dramatic fashion. A video of Sen.
John McCain (R–Ariz.) voting down
the initiative showed overwhelming
shock
and
surprise
from
the

senators
present.
The
liberal

world met McCain with praise and
gratitude for stepping over party
lines and defending health care.
And this is for good reason; his vote
helped save health care for millions
of Americans.

However, what a lot of liberal

publications are criticizing is that
Sens. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and
Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) also
voted against the bill and are not
praised to the same extent. While
McCain is being heralded as the force
that saved health care, these female
senators aren’t given any credit.

This is a prime example of the

media throwing women into the
shadows of men. This happens every
day, but many poignant examples
came
from
the
2016
Summer

Olympics. The media coverage of
women athletes often was centered
on their husbands or their male
coaches. For example, when Katinka
Hosszu of Hungary set a world record
and won her first gold medal in the
400-meter Individual Medley, the
media focused their attention on her
husband and coach, Shane Tusup.
An NBC commentator went as far to
say, “There’s the guy responsible for
turning Katinka Hosszu, his wife,
into a whole different swimmer.”

So, to criticize the coverage of

McCain and the lack of coverage of
Collins and Murkowski is completely
valid and necessary. There needs to
be a reform in the media’s coverage
of women, and women need to
be given the credit they deserve.
What Collins and Murkowski did
was equally if not more courageous
than what McCain did, as these
less established senators have
much more to lose than McCain
does.

This being said, while the rest

of the public has heard primarily
about
McCain,
myself,
being

in a liberal circle, have mostly
heard about these two women.
I have read many articles about
these two women and have heard
many of my friends complain that
these two women aren’t getting
any credit. But when I say I have
mostly heard about these two
women, I literally mean that I’ve
heard about “these two women.”
Whenever I have heard about
this from my liberal friends or
my liberal publications, they all
fail to even say Murkowski’s or
Collins’ names. It’s sad that issue
of credit is compounding itself on
both sides. On one side they don’t
exist, and on the other they are
nameless women who are praised

but are still silhouettes in the
shadow the household name
John McCain casts.

In fact, so many of the articles

fail to even mention Murkowski
or Collins in the headline. The
Independent reads, “Forget John
McCain — these two Republican
women saved Obamacare.” It’s
hard to forget John McCain
when he’s the only name in the
headline. Refinery29, a publication
about and for women, published a
headline with a similar message,
“Thanks
John
McCain,
But

These Women Are The Real
Heroes.”
The
sentiments
are

pointed in the correct direction
with these articles but even some
publications looking to shine the
light on Murkowski and Collins
chose to leave them nameless.
This is probably part of “clickbait”
culture, using the more-popular-
than-ever McCain to draw in more
readers and in turn more revenue.
So “these women” are very well
casualties to clicks in this instance.

It’s great to see a push back

against their lack of coverage, but
let’s also push to remember the
names of Murkowski and Collins.
Their contribution toward the
fight to preserve health care could
not be overstated. Additionally, if
you ever see the phrases, “these
women,” “this woman,” “the wife
of” or anything in between, take
a moment to think of the names
behind these silhouettes and push
to reform how the media treat the
nameless.

— Brennan Pope can be

reached at popeb@umich.edu.

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Summer Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

There needs to

be a reform in the
media’s coverage of

women...

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan