hwchronicle.com/opinion
march 3, 2020
A broken system
Stay gold, USA
By Spencer KlinK
T
he United States is supposedly the most developed nation in the world, yet one look at the country’s poorly-structured healthcare system indicates otherwise. Although the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 made important strides for healthcare accessibility by offering insurance subsidies to lowincome families, 29 million Americans still lack healthcare coverage altogether, according to a Gallup poll. This problem is not a minor oversight; rather, the widespread lack of healthcare coverage is embedded within the very structure of the U.S. healthcare system. Because private insurance companies have the power to set premiums at unreasonable prices, poor families with incomes barely above the threshold for ACA subsidies risk losing access to necessary medical treatments and procedures. The best solution to the issue is single-payer healthcare in which the federal government is the sole financial contributor and provider of medical services. A socialized program of this sort would certainly be effective. A 2012 study conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine found that three states with substantial Medicaid increases were more effective at minimizing disease and infection-related deaths than neighboring states. Additionally, Canada’s universal healthcare system proves that, even in large and decentralized states, government-sponsored medical programs can be managed and organized properly. Although many are quick to label single-payer healthcare as economically unwise, this position relies on an idealized and inaccurate vision of the current U.S. healthcare system.
The current decentralized model has created a patchwork of public and private healthcare, which results in a significant waste of resources, according to Ed Weisbart, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. Additionally, according to City University of New York health policy professor David Himmelstein, the excessive resources given to the U.S. healthcare industry results in a direct trade-off with the wellbeing of other industries. Single-payer healthcare is a cure to both of these flaws. Another counterargument to single-payer healthcare is that such a program stifles the private sector’s ability to innovate. However, this argument is oblivious to reality, as non-profit, publicly-funded research is largely responsible for producing the latest groundbreaking medical innovations, as Harvard Medical School professor Aaron Kesselheim writes. Similarly, while privatelyproduced insulin and EpiPen technologies have seen no drastic improvements, their prices have surged throughout the past decade. This demonstrates the necessity of government intervention in the healthcare industry. The U.S. can take two courses of action as the healthcare predicament festers: either address the symptoms of a broken system with small-scale reforms or stop the virus at its core by enacting single-payer healthcare. Failure to embrace nationalized healthcare will continue to leave 29 million lives on the line.
By lucaS lee
A
s the 2020 presidential candidate field narrows, healthcare has emerged as a central issue this election, being debated and discussed extensively on the national stage. On the progressive end of the spectrum, Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren lead the initiative for Medicare for All, whereas the more moderate candidates such as former mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg simply advocate for a public healthcare program. Despite the small differences between the plans, the candidates all support greater government involvement and increased spending on healthcare. While the healthcare debate typically examines the implications of specific plans, the more important issues to consider are the overarching moral implications of these new programs, instead of dwelling on minute details of highly specific plans for universal healthcare. The greatest flaw to any form of universal healthcare in America is the unconstitutional precedent that it sets. Currently, President Donald Trump is working to undo former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which raised taxes on citizens in order to provide accessible healthcare for those with financial constraints. With another four years of Trump, we can expect to see little change in the healthcare world. It is clear that Trump is trying to restore the private sector and, even if Democrats hold majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Trump’s veto power would prevent any changes. The idea of universal healthcare oversteps the role of the government. Under the constitution, people are
The primary narrative By Siobhan harmS
I
could not help but feel energized as I pushed my way through dozens of supporters, all committed to making their way to the front of the line. At the doorway of Democratic Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang’s brimming conference room, I slipped past the security guards fighting to hold back the growing crowd. Inside, the energy was palpable. Almost everyone, excluding the reporters, was clad in Yang’s signature navy blue ‘math’ merchandise. Yang’s rally was the first event I attended during the weekend of the Iowa Caucuses, and it did not disappoint, less because of the rally itself, but more because of who I met. Outside of the conference room where Yang held his rally, our Chronicle
adviser Jim Burns and former Chronicle Editor-in-Chief Sammi Handler ’17 were kind enough to point out that MSNBC’s Katy Tur was interviewing supporters. My eyes widened as I excitedly replied, “Where?” I had no clue where to look, and it seemed almost impossible to quickly locate someone in the crowd. But, lucky for me, an older woman grabbed my arm and guided me a few feet away to a clearer vantage point. She extended her arm and pointed. I thanked her profusely and went in search of one of my all-time favorite reporters, Katy Tur. I introduced myself to her and we talked about our
opinion A11
given the right to “life,” not a subscription to a service that they will not necessarily use or need. Universal healthcare would be similar to the benefits we get as citizens from libraries and parks. We have these services and we can choose to use them as little or much as we want, but regardless of how much we use them, we all get taxed for it. With the introduction of government-controlled healthcare, the government assumes the responsibility of protecting one’s health. The implications of such a duty are far too vast for any government to provide. Once the government becomes the agency that maintains public health, it assumes all the normal roles that an insurance provider would carry out. Serving as the national healthcare provider, the government would profit when members pay for the subscription and do not use it. Therefore, it would be in the government’s best interest to ensure the overall health of its citizens to cut medical expenses. While universal healthcare produces an incentive for a healthier population, it also gives the government enormous control over our free choice. This means that the government would be motivated to ban or disincentivize anything that it deems as a potential threat to public health, with the justification that it would be for the greater good of the public. This entails sin taxes and national bans that would disrupt one of the most prided features of America—the free market economy. Universal healthcare gives the government dangerous control over civil activities which are even slightly detrimental to one’s overall health.
Of 152 students polled,
ILLUSTRATION BY CHLOE SCHAEFFER AND ALEXA DRUYANOFF
A Chronicle Assistant Features Editor writes about her experiences at various Democratic candidates’ rallies during the Iowa Caucus ahead of the 2020 primary election.
school’s rivalries. She was a Brentwood alumna, and she told me her colleague, Jacob Soboroff, was a Harvard-Westlake alumnus. Tur brought up the rivalry we have between our two schools and I jokingly tossed back that there was not much of a rivalry. Her advice to me was simple: never take no for an answer and never give up. This resonated to my core because it not only applies to journalism but to everyday life. We would be nowhere if not for the risks we take. The next few days were a blur. I spoke to countless campaign staffers, most notably Lis Smith, SY Lee and TJ Ducklo. At a Joe Biden rally,
I snapped a picture with the former Vice President and he told me to remember the meeting when I become the next President of the United States. The line was clearly a signature of his, but it nonetheless made me feel special. I never imagined that the former Vice President would ever speak to me. On the day of the caucuses, I went to a taping of Tur’s show at Java Joes, a coffee shop. When she wrapped up her show, she came over and gave me a hug. Then she had the executive producer of the show give me a tour of the backstage area and show me the satellite trucks. Later that night, as Tur went around the gym where this particular caucus was being held, the crowd started to loudly chant
her name. Looking back, I do not think anything can match the adrenaline rush of that weekend. It was fun to meet extraordinarily talented journalists and campaign staffers, all while getting an eyeful of the nuances surrounding American democracy. In the midst of the political fervor, I realized how often we take for granted our ability to share our opinions and thoughts. Not everyone in the world is guaranteed that privilege. So, during the coming presidential election, I ask that everyone fully immerse themselves in politics. To not do so would be a slap in the face to everyone who fought for the opportunities we currently have. ILLUSTRATION BY CAROLINE JACOBY
