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.