O
dailyorange.com
4 april 14, 2014
opinion@dailyorange.com
conservative
Affordable Care Act needs alternatives outside of single-payer system
E
ven with all the major aspects of the Affordable Care Act now in effect, conservative criticism of the law is still here. Thirty-one million Americans are still uninsured. Many who signed up on the exchanges still haven’t paid their first premiums. All this is bolstered by the resignation of Kathy Sibelius, who oversaw the rough website rollout, which confirms for many how flawed the law has been. But I have one huge piece of advice for conservatives: stop criticizing the law without a better way to reform healthcare. Criticism without an alternative will push the U.S. closer to a singlepayer system, where the government owns and pays for everyone’s health insurance. Despite some good the ACA has done, people will look for ways to fix its flaws when they’re constantly pointed out. If people on the right can’t give a solution, people on the left will propose a single-payer system. People will soon be able to point to Vermont, the state working to pass a universal coverage law by 2017, as a national model. The same way Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare law inspired the ACA, Vermont’s could do the same if it succeeds. The answer to this dilemma is simple: The biggest issue in healthcare today that the ACA
MAX ANTONUCCI ESCAPING THE ECHO CHAMBER
doesn’t address is the high costs compared to other countries. For example, angiograms on average cost $914 in the US, but only $35 each in Canada. This is the biggest factor driving up prices and premiums, making it harder for millions of Americans to get treatment. The ACA tries to bring more people in the insurance market so their payments will better cover high costs. This is dancing around the issue of directly bringing down costs, though. If conservatives can fix this, the odds of single-payer reaching the U.S. are much lower. The huge roadblock, however, is that there isn’t a real conservative answer to this yet. The most common one I’ve heard is a free-market solution. But as much as I love the free-market, it doesn’t work on healthcare. Consumer options are limited by location, due to medical emergencies or the person not being healthy enough to travel, letting providers hold local monopolies on prices. Plus, when people see a service that’s
expensive, they can’t just decide not buy it and wait for something cheaper like in a good free market — they need that service to stay alive. If the choice is between emptying their savings and dying, people will choose the former. A desire for profits doesn’t drive down prices in America’s healthcare; it drives up prices for customers. The liberal answer to the issue is single-payer, but conservatives are against it for many reasons. There are often much higher waiting times due to fewer companies chosen by the government providing services for many more people. The government also has total control on what healthcare it provides and which stays in the private sector. Plus, obviously, this system isn’t cheap. Vermont needs to raise $2 billion for its own system, while its highest tax only covers $624 million a year, so they’ll likely be getting a big tax increase, according to a April 9 Vox article. All this adds up to conservatives wanting a better alternative that keeps taxes lower and government smaller. So the ultimate question is, what’s the conservative answer to lower healthcare costs? Some starting ideas are making physicians’ pay based on a salary instead of services they give, or setting maximum price limits based on the costs of services, just to start.
The only clear fact is that none will be totally free-market friendly. But if conservatives aren’t willing to make a compromise on free-market ideas in healthcare, in a few years there’ll likely be actual socialized medicine spreading from Vermont to the U.S. Decide which choice is worse. Max Antonucci is a junior newspaper and online journalism major. His column appears weekly. You can find him on Twitter @DigitalMaxToday or email him at meantonu@syr.edu.
Letter to the Editor policy To have a letter to the editor printed in The Daily Orange, use the following guidelines: • Limit your letter to 400 words. • Letters must be submitted by 4 p.m. the day before you would like it to run. The D.O. cannot guarantee publication if it is submitted past the deadline. • Emailed to opinion@dailyorange.com. • Include your full name, major; year of graduation; or position on campus. If you are not affiliated with SU, please include your town of residence. • Include a phone number and e-mail address where you can be reached.
women and gender
Feminist roles should not be limited by stereotypical image
W
hat do you think of when you picture a feminist? For many, an image of a strong, independent woman who can support herself in all ways comes up. But that shouldn’t be the only image of a feminist available. Still, a lot of feminists who believe firmly in that image were upset when Kirsten Dunst told Harper’s Bazaar UK on April 2 that she believes traditional gender roles should be more accepted. In her interview for Harper’s Bazaar UK’s May issue, Dunst ventured off the topic of movies and acting and touched upon her opinion on gender and femininity. She explained that traditional gender roles are undervalued in today’s society, saying, “I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued.” Dunst acknowledged the importance of working and being independent but also asserted that there is value in “staying at home, nurturing, being the mother.” She feels that sometimes “you need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman.” Although our society isn’t exactly a feminist sanctuary, a lot of people were upset and perplexed by Dunst’s statements, especially feminist bloggers. Whereas some publications like The Washington Post had a neutral standpoint and used her statements to fuel a discussion, other publications like Jezebel and Uproxx chose to outright attack Dunst. Jezebel’s counter-argument to Dunst’s statements was that she “is not paid to write gender theory so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’s kind of dumb about it.” Uproxx chose to call Dunst an assh*le and explain that her statements solidify the fact that she’s an “insufferable person.” In short, these publications and many others like it choose to insult Dunst as a person simply because she disagrees with them. Aside from the fact that these publications
MANDISA SHIELDS
WHAT A GIRL WANTS
didn’t actually counter-argue Dunst’s points and instead chose to take a route that mirrors the actions of a 10-year-old, these bloggers don’t actually have an argument against her. All Dunst said was that there is value in traditional gender roles and in women who decide to stay at home instead of work, and there is. The point of the feminist movement isn’t to pigeon-hole women into the role of the independent working woman with no kids. How is that any different than pigeon-holing women into the role of the doting house-wife who cooks and cleans all day? When bloggers and publications like Jezebel and Uproxx attack people for their differing views on feminism, it seems more like they’re arguing about the traits of a storybook character than actual people. Women should be able to make choices and live their lives as they see fit, not be forced into some archetype because of someone else’s definition of a woman. Feminism is about choice. As long as a woman is making the decision to stay at home or to work or to be anywhere else on the spectrum, there shouldn’t be a problem. By attacking Dunst or anyone who agrees with her, simply for close-minded opinions, bloggers are indicating that there is only one way to be a feminist and perhaps there is only one way to be a woman and that’s the very thing the feminist movement is trying to abolish. Mandisa Shields is a freshman newspaper and online journalism major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at meshiedl@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @mandisashields.