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...