Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, November 15, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
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
RILEY DEHR | COLUMN
Bone appetit!
EVAN STERN | COLUMN
MARY ROLFES | COLUMN
The impending nightmare of Medicare-For-All
Tea parties and tampons
Y
ou’ve probably heard of
the Affordable Care Act,
a
legislative
measure
signed by former President Barack
Obama that sought to address
some of the underlying issues in
our national health care system.
Now, however, Democrats are
overwhelmingly
supporting
“Medicare-for-All,” a dramatic
replacement
of
the
already-
controversial
“Obamacare”
program that would effectively
move all control of health care to
the federal government.
Health care in our nation
undoubtedly needs some fine-
tuning. In a December 2017
survey, Gallup found that 71
percent of Americans believe our
system “is in a state of crisis” or
“has major problems.” Though
the situation has improved in
recent years, tens of millions
of people remain uninsured,
while households continue to
be plagued by rising health care
costs.
Supporters of this proposal
widely argue its ability to bring
coverage
to
all
Americans
(including
those
who
have
experienced
difficulties
with
accessing care), reduce costs and
improve public health across
the board. And they seem to be
winning over supporters, with
some poll numbers revealing that
70 percent of Americans support
enacting the Medicare-for-All
system.
But while Medicare-for-All
is well-intentioned and aims
to deliver a better health care
system — especially for struggling
Americans — its promises seem
to exist more in fantasy than
reality. I’d like to challenge this
broad support and argue why
such a model would wreak havoc
on our economy and our lives.
A good place to start is the
sheer
cost
of
Medicare-for-
All. PBS NewsHour reported
that under the plan outlined
by
Senator
Bernie
Sanders,
I-Vt., the cost would near “$34
trillion dollars over 10 years,
more than the total cost of social
security, medicare and medicaid
combined.” With the United
States already in the midst of a
dangerous national debt crisis
(our total deficit already stands
at nearly $23 trillion), many
puzzle over how our fiscally
irresponsible government would
be able to handle this hefty price
tag.
In addition, it’s clear this
amount
of
money
won’t
materialize out of thin air. It
is going to have to be covered
somehow, and amid existing
financial problems, many experts
agree that our economy is going
to suffer. According to Robert
E. Moffit, senior fellow at the
Heritage Foundation, substantial
tax hikes under Medicare-for-
All are inevitable. “Taxpayers
would face enormous burdens,”
Moffit
stated.
“Roughly
70
percent of working households
would pay more than they do
today.” While advocates have
assured the American people
that most people will be saving
money somehow, a Bloomberg
article published in July advises
readers to take a closer look.
“The 181 million taxpayers with
employer-sponsored
coverage
could miss out on the benefits of
the Sanders plan, and even those
receiving Medicaid could pay
more,” according to writer Laura
Davison.
Ultimately,
without
substantial tax hikes (including
on the middle-class), the bulky
Medicare-for-All system won’t
even be able to get off the ground.
Even a 100-percent increase in
federal individual and corporate
income tax revenue would not
be enough to pay for Sanders’s
plan, as Charles Blahous, former
member of the Medicare Board
of Trustees, predicted. Blahous
went on to conclude that this
kind of increase in the scope
of
the
federal
government
operations would precipitate a
correspondingly large increase in
federal taxation or debt and would
be unprecedented if undertaken
as an enduring commitment.
More than anything else, rising
taxes and expanding debt equals
bad news for our economy.
And if this isn’t enough to sway
your opinion, there’s even more
evidence against the Medicare-
for-All model. With the idea
gaining popularity, many health
systems
across
the
country
continue to warn Americans that
they will see dramatic reductions
in the quality of their care.
According to Lauren Crawford
Shaver, executive director of the
Partnership for America’s Health
Care Future, “Medicare for all
would force Americans to pay
more and wait longer for lower-
quality health care” (Shaver notes
a public option could potentially
have this issue as well). We have
already seen from other countries,
such as Canada, that these single-
payer
systems
can
produce
greatly
undesirable
results.
“Waiting
for
treatment
has
become a defining characteristic
of Canadian health care,” as
stated by the Fraser Institute in
a December 2018 account of the
issue. “Wait times can, and do,
have serious consequences such
as increased pain, suffering,
and mental anguish … In many
instances, patients may also have
to forgo their wages while they
wait for treatment, resulting in an
economic cost to the individuals
themselves and the economy
in general.” While Sanders and
others argue that access across
the board to health care will
widen, it is clear that there will be
a significant underlying cost that
we don’t hear about much.
On top of this, all Americans,
even those who are happy with
their current health care plan
from the private market, will be
forced to switch to the single-
payer
platform,
something
that will surely be a logistical
nightmare and lead to extensive
frustration. Single-payer health
care
advocate
Rep.
Pramila
Jayapal, D-Wash., affirmed this,
telling NBC News that Medicare-
for-All
is
“a
system
where
there are no private insurance
companies” whatsoever.
Finally, if history is to serve
as a guide, it tells us that central
government control of large
programs is a perfect recipe
for
substantial
waste,
fraud
and abuse, and Medicare-for-
All will be no exception. One
of the most glaring examples
of this is the Veterans Health
Administration,
which
takes
after the single-payer model and
truly displays the inability of our
federal government to effectively
manage large-scale programs.
Furthermore,
the
current,
smaller Medicare system has
already seen significant abuse
that officials have been unable to
effectively deal with.
Many people may wonder how
a plan this absurd, with such
evident flaws, could gain such
prominence and make it this far,
to the point that it is one of the
centerpieces of the Democratic
agenda.
Ultimately,
broad
misunderstanding
exists
over
the sheer price tag of Medicare-
for-All and who will have to bear
the burden of this health care
system. In the end, proponents
of this system have routinely
dodged facts, cut corners and
disregarded the greater effect on
the American people.
Already, a number of more
modest proposals have been
floated, and while I do not
personally
support
many
of
them, they offer some of the
benefits
of
Medicare-for-All
and are safer and truly better
options for the American people.
Many Democratic presidential
candidates, including former Vice
President Joe Biden and others,
realize the inherent limitations
of Medicare-for-All and have set
forth more modest options that
deserve serious consideration.
In the end, it is obvious that
something needs to change. It
is our duty, as Americans, to
help our fellow citizens and
work to deliver quality health
care to those in need at a fair
cost. But given our wide range
of options, that duty assuredly
does not entail implementing this
disastrous proposal.
Evan Stern can be reached at
erstern@umich.edu.
T
he first time I visited
Boston was the summer
before my junior year
of high school, and I was far
more interested in the city’s
opportunities higher education
than its history. However, my
mother
mandated
one
day
must be spent on sightseeing
rather than solely college visits.
After walking the entirety of
the city’s Freedom Trail — a
2.5-mile walk that felt much
longer — we went to a museum
dedicated to the Boston Tea
Party, commemorating Dec. 16,
1773, the night alleged members
of the Sons of Liberty destroyed
an entire shipment of East India
Company tea by throwing it
into Boston Harbor in protest of
taxation without representation.
The visit included a cheesy
re-enactment of the protest — my
chance to throw a fake box of tea,
attached to the ship by a rope,
into the harbor while giggling
and weakly shouting “Huzzah!”
just like a real Founding Father.
I wonder if the Sons of Liberty
had any idea that nearly 250 years
later, it wouldn’t be boxes of tea
their nation’s daughters would
want to throw into the harbor. It
would be boxes of tampons.
Currently, 35 states — including
Michigan — continue to classify
tampons and other menstrual
products as luxury goods. Unlike
lip balm, anti-dandruff shampoo
and even Viagra, tampons can still
be taxed as non-essential items in
most of the country. I am certain
any person who menstruates
can agree that tampons are not
a luxury. The amount of money
added to the purchase of a box
of tampons by this tax may seem
inconsequential, but over time
that extra charge on already
overpriced period products adds
up. For example, Michigan’s
6 percent sales tax raises the
average price of $7 for a box of
tampons an additional 42 cents.
Consider that many people are
buying multiple products, often
for multiple people, and the
unnecessary burden this tax is
imposing on individuals becomes
clear. For the many people in this
country living on tight budgets,
this tax can mean the choice
between period products and
medications, diapers or dinner
for the week. It’s time to bring an
end to this senseless and sexist
tax in Michigan and throughout
the country.
The Sons of Liberty certainly
got their message across through
their protest; unfortunately, they
destroyed a whole lot of perfectly
good tea in the process. Instead of
protesting through destruction,
let’s protest through support.
Rather than throwing that box of
tampons into the Huron River, we
can demonstrate our dedication
to ending period poverty by
donating our extra tampons to
a local women’s shelter or food
bank. Through activism, we
can empower ourselves and our
fellow menstruators to bleed
without shame. In fact, you don’t
even have to menstruate to be
a supporter of the tampon tax
reform. We need men to be more
than just comfortable talking
about periods. They should be
willing to fight for an end to
period poverty.
Around
the
world,
this
fight has already begun. Other
countries, such as Canada and
Australia, have abolished taxes
on period products nationwide,
starting
an
important
trend
that is also beginning to catch
on in the United States. Several
states have passed legislation
ending the tampon tax, including
Minnesota, Nevada and — the
home of the fight against unfair
taxation
—
Massachusetts.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t been
smooth sailing for the rest of the
states, exemplified by the 22 bills
introduced in state legislatures
to repeal the tampon tax that
ultimately
were
not
signed
into law. Here in Michigan, the
journey
has
been
especially
rocky, with the bill to end the
tampon tax becoming known as a
“zombie” in the state legislature,
returning session after session
only to die on the floor, or even
in committee, every time due to
concerns about lost tax revenue.
Michigan’s state legislature has
seemingly
demonstrated
that
reforming tampon tax and taking
the first step toward menstrual
equity isn’t worth the effort of
rearranging the budget. We can
change this attitude through
action and advocacy. It’s time
to steer a smoother course for
tampon tax reform through
political activism. Whether you
hail from Michigan or one of the
many states that still tax tampons,
call your state representative and
let them know you’re not just
going to go with the flow when
it comes to menstrual equality.
It’s time for the rest of the nation
to catch up to the international
trend and bring an end to the
taxation of menstrual products
across the country.
A safe, healthy period is
fundamental to wellness. Being
unable to afford period products
can significantly hinder one’s
ability to thrive — nearly one in
five girls in the United States miss
school due to period poverty,
and women in situations of
homelessness and incarceration
must face additional hardship
due to menstrual inequality. Like
access to nutritional food and
clean water, access to feminine
hygiene products is a basic human
need. The tampons that many
states deem non-essential goods
are demonstrably and absolutely
essential. Menstrual products are
not a choice — they are a health
care necessity. The removal of the
tampon tax is an imperative first
step on the path toward ending
period poverty. No more taxation
of menstruation. Huzzah!
W
e
drifted
around
campus, feeling the
glares
of
college
students rushing past us to
class. Everyone was in awe at
the overload of information
that spouted out of our tour
guide as we spun the cube and
tiptoed over the block ‘M’ in
the Diag. From the grandiose
architecture to the towering
trees,
everything
seemed
special, even the legendary
friendly squirrels.
Now a junior, I still smile at
the tiny, tree-dwelling rodents
that
seem
to
outnumber
humans in Ann Arbor. On a
daily basis, as I drive home to
walk my dogs, I find myself
slamming on my brakes as
one of those fluffballs darts
into the road. I haven’t killed
one yet, but occasionally I’ll
see a squirrel who wasn’t so
lucky. Each dead squirrel is
a sad reminder of Michigan’s
disastrous roadkill problem.
I see it on my weekly drive
to Ypsilanti to volunteer: the
mangled corpses of almost a
dozen animals in the span of
a few miles. Skunks, possums,
deer, coyotes, foxes, turtles,
dogs, cats and every other road-
adjacent animal in Michigan,
smeared onto the highway.
It’s
no
surprise
these
busy
highways
are
almost
insurmountable obstacles for
Michigan’s critters, with a
cement median blocking them
from reaching the other side
and effectively trapping them
on the road. In Ann Arbor,
animal
vehicle
collisions
have become so frequent that
they’ve impacted a major local
issue: the deer cull.
This
man-made
issue,
caused by the extermination
of the deer’s predators like
gray wolves, has caused the
number of deer-vehicle crashes
to rise 73 percent between 2015
and 2016 and has pushed the
government to hire professional
sharpshooters to thin out the
herd since 2016. They have
killed hundreds of deer so far,
but not without a fair amount
of outcry from animal-loving
citizens who point to the lack
of crash fatalities as reason to
call off the $370,000 program.
Roadkill has become a major
issue throughout the entire
nation, costing $5.75 billion
each
year.
The
solutions,
like
wildlife
crossings
and
preventive
fencing,
are
relatively
cheap
compared
to
the
effects
of
animal-
vehicle collisions, which cost
Michiganders alone more than
$130 million in 2018.
Unlike in the forest, where
scavengers and decomposers
eat the corpses, roadkill often
rots on the road or is taken to
a landfill. Without the other
critters of the forest able to
recycle the corpses’ nutrients
into
the
ecosystem,
the
carbon dioxide stored in these
organisms
is
released
into
the atmosphere, contributing
to climate change. Without
preventative measures in place,
some folks have come up with
their own unique and delicious
way of alleviating the issue,
opting out of the deli for the
open road by choosing to eat
roadkill.
While it may seem taboo,
eating roadkill is legal in some
form in 30 states, including
Michigan. Michigan state law
allows people to keep all forms
of roadkill after undertaking
the proper legal procedures.
This allows venison and bear
meat enthusiasts to use the
hundreds of pounds of fresh,
free-range
meat
that
may
happen to find itself strewn
across their bumpers.
Environmentalists
are
in love with the idea. By
consuming what would have
otherwise gone on to harm
the environment, this eating
habit has the potential to be
more environmentally friendly
(and a lot easier) than even
veganism. Advocates even call
the animals’ cause of death
“humane” in comparison to
the horrific practices used to
raise and slaughter most store-
bought meat.
There’s already a thriving
subculture based around eating
a wide variety of roadkill. I
was surprised by how good
the
recipes
sounded,
from
fox lasagna to Pennsylvania
possum pot pie and a dish
featuring my friends in the
Diag: squirrel in cream. Some
communities have chosen to
utilize this free and nutritious
source of protein to help solve
hunger in their communities.
In the parks of Denver this
summer, thousands of geese
were rounded up after extreme
measures to depopulate them
failed.
About
1,662
were
killed and donated to local
food banks to feed the city’s
homeless
population.
While
this is perhaps a cruel example,
it reflects the idea of feeding
vulnerable populations with
fresh, wild game while saving
cities thousands of dollars on
meat that would otherwise have
been donated or purchased.
Programs
using
the
country’s
vast
amounts
of
roadkill make financial and
moral sense for communities
with chronic deer problems like
Ann Arbor. Instead of making
these animals’ deaths mean
nothing, perhaps they can be
used to better our society and
help those in need. A program
similar to one already in place
for the city’s culled deer could
bring the community together
over the smell of delicious
venison
stew
rather
than
fracture it over the stench of
rotting deer corpses.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Its promises seem
to exist more
in fantasy than
reality
Riley Dehr can be reached at
rdehr@umich.edu.
While it may
seem taboo, eating
roadkill is legal in
some form in 30
states
Mary Rolfes can be reached at
morolfes@umich.edu.
I am certain
any person who
menstruates
can agree that
tampons are not a
luxury