The United States spends around $5.7 trillion on healthcare each year. However, millions of Americans remain uninsured or underinsured. A new Yale study estimates that a single-payer healthcare system could cover every American while also reducing annual healthcare spending by $1.04 trillion. It also projects that such a system could save around 114,000 lives each year. Sounds too good to be true, right? This study is not peer-reviewed research, nor is it a guarantee of the future; it is a modeled projection. But these numbers raise an important question: If a single-payer system could potentially save $1.04 trillion annually, where would these massive savings come from? Administrative waste is one of the clearest examples. Americans are not just paying for doctors and hospitals. We are also paying for a large bureaucracy designed to determine who gets covered, how much is covered, and which insurance company is responsible for paying the bill. Then, every insurance company has its own system: different deductibles, different networks, different rates, and different rules for what doctors can and cannot do. This creates an entire industry dedicated to navigating the healthcare system. Hospitals employ billing specialists, doctors employ insurance coordinators, and patients spend hours fighting denied claims. This is money being spent on healthcare administration without actually providing healthcare. On top of this, there is the insurance industry, which operates with a profit motive. Private insurance companies are businesses with executives, shareholders, marketing departments, administrative costs, and other expenses. A single-payer system would not eliminate all administrative work, but it could eliminate much of the duplication created by competing insurance companies. The same issue exists with prescription drugs. Americans should not have to pay dramatically more for the same medication simply because they live in the United States. A national healthcare system could use the purchasing power of more than 300 million Americans to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies. Critics argue that a single-payer system would require a significant increase in government spending. They are right. But Americans already pay for healthcare through taxes, premiums, employer benefits, deductibles, and medical bills. That money does not disappear simply because the government becomes the primary payer. We should not accept a system where having a full-time job does not guarantee that someone can afford a doctor’s visit, or where getting sick can ruin someone’s financial future. The Yale study identifies several areas where the projected $1.04 trillion in savings could come from, but those projections should still be carefully debated. Still, the study raises an important question: Is universal healthcare possible in the United States? Americans already pay for healthcare. The real question is whether we would rather see American healthcare dollars go toward providing care for Americans or continue to subsidize large insurance companies and other intermediaries. America does not necessarily have a healthcare spending problem. It has a healthcare allocation problem.
By Carter Lane
Jason Arday, a former Cambridge professor and known fraud, has reportedly taken his own life after resigning from his position due to plagiarism scandals. Before being hired at Cambridge, Arday had lied about many aspects of his life story and academic work, making several false claims about holding positions he never held, running 30 marathons in 35 days, that he couldn’t read or write until he was 18, or that a pig’s head was left outside his parents’ house. Many have described him as the “face of DEI,” stating that he was only hired because he was black and that he was able to con the DEI system to get the job in the first place. Ultimately, this proved true: after people looked into his background, it became clear that he was an academic fraud who had been placed in a high position without earning it. Now Arday has taken his own life, leaving his two children behind. Worst is that all of this could have been prevented. Had Cambridge the wherewithal to understand that placing unqualified people in positions they cannot handle, for the sake of diversity and not merit, is irresponsible. —Alexandra Miskewitz
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Iceland will soon vote on a referendum to reopen its application to formally join the European Union. After World War II, the European Continent transformed from one marked by centuries of violent conflict between competing superpowers into one marked by unparalleled stability under the European Union (EU), which today encompasses 27 member states across the continent. However, there are four additional countries economically connected to it via the European Single Market (ESM). The ESM is governed by the EU’s member states, which aim to spur economic growth across the continent by removing international barriers to trade and economic activity. Specifically, the ESM’s four freedoms: free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor, establish it as one of the world’s largest single markets, rivaling NAFTA in North America or Mercosur in South America, controlling trillions of dollars of the global GDP. The EU is not just an economic union but arguably the world’s only supranational one, meaning most of its laws take precedence over national regulations within its member states. Therefore, aspiring members of the EU must assess whether surrendering major aspects of their sovereignty is a worthy price to pay for the economic benefits of a broader market. One of the four ESM members that remain outside the EU is Iceland, which is set to vote on reopening talks to formally join the EU on August 29th. The island country’s current status denies it participation in the EU’s governance, in exchange for a partial exemption from the supranational union’s jurisdiction. Specifically, unlike EU members, Iceland does not have any members of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, or the European Commission, which act as the organization’s legislative body, nor does Iceland have veto power that is reserved for rare and consequential scenarios. More importantly, Iceland still participates in the single market in most industries and abides by their respective regulations, except for key sectors like fisheries and agriculture. Additionally, Iceland maintains independence over their monetary policy, nonrequirement for adopting the euro or joining the European Central Bank, and trade-policies with non EU states. However, the results of surrendering national sovereignty over domestic matters should compel Icelanders to appreciate their EU-lite membership status. Indeed, the benefits of a unified market have been vast, with trade increasing drastically across the continent and free immigration between states unlocking new employment opportunities for millions. However, the EU’s strangling regulations have hampered innovation, small businesses, and growth in key sectors. Administrative burdens from compliance costs and navigating the red tape cost over 150 billion euros annually. Its agricultural policies forced farmers into financial ruin, sparking widespread civil unrest and soaring food prices. Regarding fisheries, Greenland and Norway have remained outside the EU to restrict harvests and profits from their coveted North Atlantic seafood to their local fishers, and Iceland, with its similar geography, has made the same consideration. Regarding monetary policy, many EU members have been reluctant to adopt the euro due to their differing approaches to economic recovery from financial crises, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all policy is risky for such a diverse continent. As an economic union, the EU’s success is unequivocal. However, forcing political integration has arguably only left the continent more divided, with populist movements and figures such as Brexit, Orban, and the AfD gaining prominence amidst each crisis. Iceland currently sits on a healthy balance between full integration into the European economy and exclusive sovereignty over its domestic affairs. It should seek to preserve that at the end of this month.
By Edward Kim
Follow Us