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

