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