Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
 4 — Friday, February 1, 2019

The left’s folly in Medicare-for-all

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
 MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Effectively addressing climate change

ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN

E

nvironmentally-friend-
ly policies have tradi-
tionally been associated 
with more liberal 
politicians. This has 
stayed 
somewhat 
consistent 
— 
the 
first hearings on cli-
mate change were 
held by former Rep. 
Al Gore Jr. in 1976 
and 
today, 
from 
much news cover-
age, it seems that 
the progressive left 
is the only group 
trying to seriously address 
anthropogenic global warm-
ing.
However, this is far from 
the case. There are a number 
of policies that can effectively 
address climate change that 
do not receive the support that 
they should from the left. I 
want to focus on two of these— 
nuclear energy and carbon 
capture.
Nuclear energy is a policy 
that does not have much sup-
port because there is a large 
amount of fear of another 
nuclear disaster like Fuku-
shima in Japan. However, this 
is unfounded. As Bill Gates 
wrote in his end-of-year letter 
for 2018, “Nuclear is ideal for 
dealing with climate change, 
because it is the only carbon-
free, scalable energy source 
that’s available 24 hours a day. 
The problems with today’s 
reactors, such as the risk 
of accidents, can be solved 
through innovation.”
Nuclear energy is clearly 
a net positive and one would 
hope that more plants would 
be opened. However, this is 
not happening and nuclear 
plants are being unnecessar-
ily shuttered. As of 2016, the 
amount of energy lost by clos-
ing five nuclear plants was 
almost equivalent to all solar 
energy in the United States. 
This leaves a gap that must be 
filled, and what tends to fill it 
is natural gas and other, dirtier 
sources of energy. Per the Rho-
dium Group, “over 75% of the 
lost generation from at-risk 
nukes would be replaced by 

fossil generation, largely from 
natural gas combined cycle 
(NGCC) power plants.” Swap-
ping out a zero-
emissions 
source 
for 
natural 
gas 
seems foolish and 
the exact opposite 
of what those who 
were interested in 
actually addressing 
carbon 
emissions 
would do and yet 
here we are.
Carbon emissions 
trading is one of the 
most efficient ways to reduce 
carbon put into the atmo-
sphere. The way it would work 
is there would be a set num-
ber of carbon credits and they 
would be distributed among 
firms. Each would have a cer-
tain number of carbon credits 
— allowing the owner to pro-
duce a certain amount of car-
bon. If a firm was to run out, 
they would then be allowed 

to purchase additional credits 
from those who have not used 
their credits.
The reason the progressive 
groups who put together the 
Green New Deal are opposed 
to this is that if a company 
needs to purchase more cred-
its, the cost would probably 
be passed on to the consumer 
and they disagree with this. 
They think that the company 
alone should have to shoulder 
the burden. However, this is 
unfair. If a person is buying 
something that takes extra 
carbon to produce, from a fair-
ness standpoint, why should 
they be exempt from the bur-
den?
The policy that both would 
have the biggest impact on 

carbon emissions in the U.S. 
and has the biggest chance of 
passing is a carbon tax. In the 
last Congress, a bipartisan car-
bon tax bill was introduced 
in the Senate by Sen. Chris 
Coons, D-Del., and former 
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. This 
was similar to the bill intro-
duced in the House, which 
was also done in a bipartisan 
manner featuring moderate 
Republicans and Democrats 
from all over the country. 
Per the Washington Exam-
iner, should the House bill 
become law, the bill’s authors 
say it would “reduce U.S. car-
bon emissions 45 percent by 
2030 compared to 2015 levels, 
and 80 to 90 percent by 2050, 
well beyond the pace of the 
Obama administration’s target 
under the Paris climate agree-
ment that President Trump 
rejected.” There is agreement 
across the spectrum on this 
— every living chair of the 
Council of Economic Advis-
ers, every living chair of the 
Federal Reserve and a number 
of Nobel Economic laureates 
signed an open letter in the 
Wall Street Journal calling for 
exactly this.
Climate change is happen-
ing and the window to do 
something is closing quickly. 
There needs to be large-scale 
decarbonization and two of 
the main methods of doing so 
(carbon capture and nucle-
ar energy) are specifically 
denounced in the Green New 
Deal which is supposed to be a 
plan for large-scale decarbon-
ization. Carbon taxes are also 
not as popular as solar or wind 
energy. In the 48-page PDF, 
the phrase “carbon tax” is only 
mentioned three times and not 
one of them discusses what a 
reasonable number would be. 
Addressing climate change 
is something that can only be 
done in a bipartisan manner 
and I hope that cooler heads 
prevail over this political dis-
pute.

SOFI ZERTUCHE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT SOFZER@UMICH.EDU

MARIA ULAYYET | COLUMN

W

ho 
would’ve 
thought such a sim-
ple, everyday ques-
tion could trigger so much 
anxiety and dread?

Hi, my name is Maria. 

Pronounced 
MAH-ree-ya 
— 

not 
mah-REE-ya. 
Taking 
it 

upon myself to correct the 

pronunciation of my name is 

my way of reclaiming both 

my narrative and my identity. 

And it’s about time my fellow 

uniquely named individuals did 

so as well.

When my parents, Fahed and 

Nour, immigrated to America 

in the 1980s from Syria, they 

faced a lot of prejudice. From 

their 
“strange 
accents” 
to 

their 
“weird 
names,” 
they 

continuously felt out of place. 

Soon enough, in a professional 

space, Fahed became Fred and 

Nour became Nora.

Though 
my 
parents 

cherished the beauty and depth 

of the Arabic language and 

culture, they never wanted their 

kids to feel the same isolation 

and alienation they once felt. 

Out of love and protection, they 

gave me and my three siblings 

“hybrid” names. At home, I was 

Maria (MAH-ree-ya) but at 

school or sports practice, I was 

Maria (mah-REE-ya).

A quick Google search on 

“changing your name to get 

a job” will reveal a plethora 

of 
articles 
and 
studies 

regarding the effects of “name-

whitening.” The “whiter” your 

name sounds, the more likely 

you are to fit a certain image 

and gain better opportunities 

such as a higher-paying job.

My 
parents 
weren’t 

crazy to think that a little 

bit of accommodation would 

translate to a lifetime of easier 

and simpler interactions.

While this may seem like 

such a small inconvenience, 

what 
my 
parents 
once 

did 
to 
safeguard 
me 
from 

discrimination, 
inevitably 

served as the erasure of my Arab 

identity that I proudly carry. 

The concoction of my fair skin, 

my light brown hair and my 

name all give me a very white-

passing identity. While I can’t 

deny the social advantages this 

may have given me throughout 

my life, I never wanted to hide 

my true self behind this facade.

Throughout middle school 

and high school, I switched 

between the “white” version 

of my name and the “Arab” 

version. Should I settle for the 

ease of a quick introduction 

or play a game of trial-and-

error for the sake of a “proper” 

greeting. For most of my life, if 

we were close, I was MAH-ree-

ya. If we weren’t, I was mah-

REE-ya.

The duality of my name 

contributed to this “double-

agent” feeling I grew up with 

and 
carried 
with 
me 
into 

adulthood.

The reality is our names 

carry a lot of meaning. The 

first 
impression. 
The 
first 

semblance to who we are. 

Freshman year of college, I 

switched between Maria and 

Maria, Maria and Maria. It took 

until now, the second semester 

of my sophomore year to start 

correcting 
my 
professors 

when they take roll in class. 

To formally introduce myself 

to everyone I meet the “right” 

way. To stop minimizing the 

beauty of my unique name for 

the sake of easing it for other 

people.

The assumptions we make 

on a daily basis solely on the 

grounds of someone’s name 

signal 
the 
extreme 
bigotry 

we face today as a society in 

modern America. While we 

pride ourselves on being a 

melting pot nation of people 

from any and every background 

imaginable, 
the 
landscape 

of our society is far from 

reflecting such an idea. With 

the rise of an emphasis on 

diversity and inclusion, it is 

time to end this trend of white-

washing and Americanization 

for the sake of fitting in.

For now, I will do my part 

and continue to use the correct 

pronunciation of my name to 

highlight the beauty of where I 

come from.

“Hey, what’s your name?”

Maria Ulayyet can be reached at 

mulayyet@umich.edu.

D

uring the 2016 presiden-
tial campaign, then-can-
didate Hillary Clinton 
proclaimed that sin-
gle-payer healthcare 
will “never, ever” 
happen, 
citing 
its 
impracticality. 
Despite Clinton’s vic-
tory over progressive 
standard-bearer Sen. 
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., 
in the primary, Dem-
ocrats have made a 
stunning lurch to the 
left on health care 
and a whole other host of issues 
since the 2016 election. Only 
three years after Clinton sound-
ly rejected single-payer health 
care, support for a Medicare-for-
all single-payer health care plan 
has swept into the Democratic 
mainstream. A large part of the 
surge in support for single-payer 
health care is because of support 
from young people, especially 
students.
Contrary to talking points 
from some conservatives, youth 
support for single-payer health 
care isn’t the result of our gen-
eration’s laziness and desire for 
“free stuff.” Instead, it’s because 
our current health care system 
is so exorbitantly expensive 
that young people simply can-
not afford healthcare. In fact, 
an NPR study found that more 
than 40 percent of those under 
35 have had trouble paying for 
health care. As a result, young 
people are forced to choose 
between taking care of their 
health, paying back student 
loans and covering basic new-
cessities. In the United States, 
that’s unacceptable.
The American Dream is the 
idea that if you get an education 
and work hard, you’ll be able to 
live comfortably and pass on a 
better life to the next generation. 
Our leaders in Washington, of 
both parties, have fallen short by 
allowing the American Dream 
to fade from reality. In bringing 
Washington’s failure to secure 
quality, affordable health care 
for the American people to the 
forefront, youth activists are 
doing a service to our nation. 
Despite their noble intentions, 
however, single-payer health 
care isn’t the answer. Beyond its 
enticing title, there’s no coherent 
plan behind Medicare-for-all 
other than the wholesale gov-
ernment takeover of the Ameri-
can health care system. Any 
hasty embrace of a European-
style government takeover of 
our health care system would 
have catastrophic effects on 
Americans’ physical well-being 
and the nation’s economy.
First and foremost, a move to 

single-payer health care would 
force millions of Americans to 
abandon their private health 
care plans in favor of 
government-rationed 
care. 
Earlier 
this 
week, Sen. Kamala 
Harris, D-Calif., a 
Democratic 
presi-
dential 
candidate, 
kicked off her cam-
paign saying, “We 
need to have Medi-
care-for-all” 
and 
that she feels “very 
strongly” about the 
issue. When asked what would 
happen to the private health 
insurance plans nearly 136.5 
million adult Americans under 
65 rely on, Harris said, “Let’s 
eliminate all of that. Let’s move 
on.”
At the very least, one has to 
appreciate 
Harris’s 
honesty 
about her dreadful ideas on 
health care. Instead of emulat-
ing President Obama by falsely 
promising the American people, 
“If you like your health care 
plan, you can keep it,” Harris is 
admitting from the outset that 
her plan would take away health 
care from those Americans on 
private insurance. Instead of 
providing Americans with a 
choice regarding their own well-
being, Harris and other support-
ers of single-payer health care 
would replace the patient-insur-
ance company relationship with 
big government.
One doesn’t have to look fur-
ther than the Veterans Affairs 
Administration to see the bleak 
results of single-payer govern-
ment-rationed care. When given 
the task of providing veterans 
with quality health care, the 
government allowed the VA’s 
“waiting lists” for care. In 2015 
alone, more than 200 veterans 
died while waiting for care at the 
VA facility in Phoenix. One can 
only shudder thinking of all the 
needless suffering our veterans 
went through while waiting for 
care. The government’s failure 
to care for our nation’s heroes 
is a national disgrace. Given the 
grim results at the VA, it would 
be a profound mistake to expand 
the VA’s single-payer model of 
government-rationed care to 
our entire healthcare system 
with Medicare-for-all.
Beyond the grave conse-
quences Medicare-for-all would 
have on our national health, it 
would also prove debilitating 
to our economy. According to 
the Mercatus Center, Bernie 
Sanders’s Medicare for All Act 
would add $32.6 trillion to the 
federal budget in the first 10 
years of its implementation. In 
order to even attempt to pay for 

this, Emory University professor 
Kenneth Thorpe, a former Clin-
ton administration official, esti-
mates the government would 
have to implement historically 
high taxes. Thorpe estimates 
that the total tax burden result-
ing from Medicare-for-all would 
equal 20 percent of the national 
payroll and cause 70 percent of 
working households to pay more 
in taxes.
These 
astronomical 
tax 
increases resulting from Medi-
care-for-all 
would 
put 
the 
American Dream even further 
out of reach for the vast major-
ity of working Americans. Even 
Sanders’s home state of Vermont 
rejected Medicare-for-all after 
initial enthusiasm when the 
crushing fiscal realities set in. 
The rest of the country ought 
to join Sanders’s home state in 
rejecting such damaging poli-
cies.
However, we cannot allow 
Washington to continue abdi-
cating its responsibility to build 
a health care system that works 
for all Americans. For an issue 
as momentous as health care, 
Washington must work togeth-
er for an American solution — 
not a Republican or Democratic 
one. Going forward, we need to 
improve our health care system 
so that it provides quality care at 
low costs while covering those 
with pre-existing conditions. 
Addressing the opioid crisis is 
also a must.
This task is undoubtedly lofty 
for a government that is unable 
to come together even to fund 
basic services. However, it’s pos-
sible if Washington starts with 
common sense issues that most 
Americans agree on, regardless 
of party. For example, remov-
ing regulations that prevent 
Americans from purchas-
ing insurance across state 
lines and small businesses 
from pooling together to 
buy insurance would go a 
long way in boosting com-
petition, which would likely 
lower prices and improve 
quality. 
In 
implementing 
these bipartisan reforms, 
Washington would show its 
ability to bring back some 
much-needed 
bipartisan 
common sense to politics. 
The future of the Ameri-
can Dream for generations 
to come depends on Wash-
ington’s ability to reject 
extreme 
proposals 
like 
Medicare-for-all in favor of 
common-sense reforms.

DYLAN BERGER | COLUMN

Dylan Berger can be reached at 

dylberge@umich.edu.

The reality is our 
names carry a lot 
of meaning

DYLAN
BERGER

Anik Joshi can be reached at 

anikj@umich.edu.

ANIK
JOSHI

Climate change 
is happening and 
the window to 
do something is 
closing quickly.

