The hidden elitism of RFK's MAHA movement is making America more unhealthy
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy has a well-documented history of lying, and so it was reasonable to believe he was lying again during his January confirmation hearing when he said he is "not anti-vaccine" and promised he wasn't going to take vaccines away. Still, it's both alarming and remarkable how swiftly he's moved to take away COVID-19 boosters that have helped millions of Americans avoid becoming seriously ill from this still-novel virus. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to deny access to the vaccine for people under 65 without an underlying health condition.
This fits in with Kennedy's long-standing history of eugenics-tinged notions that disease is a good thing, falsely claiming that it strengthens the gene pool, and insinuating that it makes survivors stronger. (In reality, vaccines boost overall immunity while disease often weakens it.) But the particulars of the policy also reveal something about Kennedy's reactionary class politics, which contradict his family's history of progressivism. As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo noted on Bluesky, "I strongly suspect you're going to have doctors leaning forward on what constitutes a preexisting condition in this case." Which is to say, people who want the booster can get around the FDA ban by asking their doctor for a prescription.
But as many folks, including myself, immediately pointed out, forcing people to go to the doctor requires time and usually money. Previously, most people could get the vaccine, often with no copay, by breezing into a pharmacy while grocery shopping. The people who don't have the time or money to go through the onerous process of a doctor's appointment are more likely to be working class or poor. Even middle-class people who can afford a copay struggle to find the time to do so. This policy is turning what was once a 10-minute process into a half-day ordeal, if you're lucky. In effect, Kennedy isn't banning the vaccine — he's just making sure that only well-to-do people like himself have access.The "Make America Healthy Again" slogan — shortened to "MAHA" — has a lot of surface appeal. Worse, Kennedy is smart about floating attention-grabbing policy ideas, like banning artificial food dyes, that are unlikely to happen but snag a lot of headlines, misleading people into thinking he's serious about improving public health. Looking away from Kennedy's empty, lie-laden rhetoric to his actions, however, and another narrative emerges: He's taking away health care, with a special emphasis on limiting access for women, minorities, children, and working people. On the latest episode of my YouTube show, "Standing Room Only," journalist Lindsay Beyerstein and I discussed how much Kennedy is taking away.
Of course, the most prominent assault from Republicans on health care is Donald Trump's new tax bill, which aims to kick over 10 million eligible people off Medicaid. The mechanism for cheating people out of their coverage is phony "work requirements." In reality, it's a paperwork requirement that uses red tape to keep eligible people from accessing benefits. 'It's going to be creating this administrative bureaucracy and devastating amount of poor people who, despite being eligible, are going to lose coverage so that Congress can fund tax cuts for the wealthiest,' MaryBeth Musumeci of George Washington University told the Washington Post. Ironically, the people most affected will often be those who work full time, because they have the least free time to navigate the paperwork labyrinth.
Kennedy, who grew up in a famously progressive household, surely knows this. But he cynically joined in the lie that eligible people are "cheating" the system by penning a New York Times op-ed earlier this month that falsely claimed "able-bodied adults on welfare are not working at all" and "we don't even ask them to." Kennedy and his co-authors hope readers are picturing lazy young men who refuse to work so they can sit around playing video games. We know this because Jesse Watters rolled out the blunter form of this message on Fox News, claiming Medicaid recipients "play softball on the weekend, sell ecstasy on the side" and don't "even look for a job." As if young men don't have any need for money other than for paying their medical bills.
But, as John Knefel at Media Matters explained, "92% of people on Medicaid are working, have a disability, or are performing duties — such as going to school or caregiving — that could qualify for an exemption from meeting work requirements." Those 92% are in danger of losing access because of the paperwork maze requirements. Of the other 8%, four out of five are women. And they aren't young or lazy. On average, they're 41 years old and were recently forced out of the workforce, often to care for family members, especially elderly ones. Most have only a high school degree or less, and their median annual income is $0. That's not a typo. This is a group of very poor women.
This is where the GOP's traditional classism and racism meld with Kennedy's unsubtle eugenicist impulses. He speaks frequently of disabled people as if they are useless parasites. During his confirmation hearing, Kennedy said this about people with disabilities or chronic illnesses, a category which includes anyone with diabetes or asthma: "A healthy person has a thousand dreams. A sick person has only one." That was his scripted remark, and even then, he was arguing that a person with any chronic health condition, from someone in a wheelchair to someone who needs daily medication to manage depression, does not have a life worth living. Punishing for the "sin" of caring for disabled family members fits into this bleak, anti-human worldview.
It will not make America healthy to let people die because they don't have the wealth to pay for health care out of pocket. Social Darwinism was a bad idea in the 1900s. It's even dumber now. We have decades of medical evidence showing that robust, functioning health care systems are how you improve public health. The entire history of public health research shows that the "rising tide" model isn't just more humane, but more effective than the "culling the herd" model. Sickness spreads, often directly through viruses or indirectly by depleting family resources, putting stress on people that degrades their health. Taking away health care from the people Kennedy thinks are the undeserving sick will not make others healthier. That's not even really the goal of the Medicaid cuts, which are about funding massive tax cuts for the rich. Pulling a few food dyes out of your snacks is no substitute for what Americans need, which is the health care support for all to live full and productive lives.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk And Trump Go To War: Trump Rejects Musk's Truce Attempt (Live Updates)
President Donald Trump and Elon Musk's months-long alliance imploded in spectacular fashion Thursday as the world's richest man and the world's most powerful man engaged in a nasty, public back-and-forth on their respective social media platforms—just months after the two formed a friendship so close Musk sometimes slept at the White House. June 6, 8:17 told ABC News in a Friday morning interview he was 'not particularly' interested in talking to Musk right now, alleging Musk has 'lost his mind.' 7:00 price of Tesla's shares, which plummeted 14% on Thursday amid the clash, is up around 4.4% in premarket trading on Friday morning, after Musk signaled he is open to a truce with Trump. 4:00 signals of a truce, continued to attack the president's allies, like Steve Bannon, and Trump's signature spending bill. The billionaire later reposted a follower who said 'Republicans will likely lose the House in 2026.' 1 signaled he is willing to de-escalate his fight with Trump after hedge-fund billionaire Bill Ackman—who is both a Trump supporter and a Musk ally—tweeted that both of them 'should make peace for the benefit of our great are much stronger together than apart.' Musk replied: 'You're not wrong.' Trump has not yet commented on Musk's latest overture, but Politico reported that White House officials were working behind the scenes to 'persuade the president to temper his public criticism of Musk to avoid escalation,' and they have scheduled a call on Friday with Musk to 'broker peace.' 12:30 appeared to backtrack on his threat to decommission the SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after a follower urged him not to do so, prompting the billionaire to respond 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' June 5, 4:26 P.M. Musk, who previously disagreed with Trump's controversial tariff policies but had remained mostly reserved in his criticism of them in recent months, said the tariffs will trigger a recession in the second half of the year. 4:11 P.M. Musk endorsed one user's suggestion that Trump be impeached, writing 'Yes' in response to an X user who wrote 'President vs. Elon. Who wins? My money's on Elon. . . Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him.' 4:09 said he would decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft used by NASA to transport astronauts to the International Space Station. 3:10 P.M. Musk alleged on X, without evidence, the reason the White House has yet to fully release the 'Epstein files' detailing the FBI's investigation into the late, disgraced former financier Jeffrey Epstein is because Trump is implicated in them. 2:48 said it's 'such an obvious lie' and 'so sad' in response to Trump claiming he asked him to leave the White House because he was 'wearing thin,' then 'took away his EV Mandate,' causing the Tesla CEO to go 'CRAZY!'—referring to a provision in Trump's policy bill that would phase out the EV tax credit by 2026. 2:37 P.M. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote, adding, 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' 12:46 said 'without me,' Trump would have lost the election, Democrats would control the House, and Republicans would have a more narrow majority in the Senate, after Musk donated more than $250 million toward Trump's campaign, accusing Trump in a subsequent tweet of 'such ingratitude.' 12:25 accused Trump of lying saying he didn't turn on the bill after the EV tax credit was removed: 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Musk tweeted. 12 making his first comments on Musk's criticism of his bill during an Oval Office press conference, insinuated the Tesla CEO opposes his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which Musk has been ranting about all week, because he is 'upset' the electric vehicle incentive was removed, adding he's not sure he'll remain friends with Musk and alleging Musk 'knew the inner workings of the bill.' Trump also suggested Musk is suffering from what he refers to as 'Trump derangement syndrome,' which Trump describes as people turning on the president after they leave his administration. 11:20 in his most direct attack on Trump amid his days-long rant against the policy bill, reposted a 2013 tweet from Trump that said he was in disbelief and 'embarrassed' Republicans were extending the debt ceiling, captioning the repost 'wise words,' after Trump said Wednesday the debt limit should be 'entirely scrapped' as a provision of the bill, which would raise the debt ceiling ahead of its expected expiration date in August. Musk said repeatedly last year he supports eliminating the EV tax credit—statements that hurt Trump's argument he only opposes the bill because it gets rid of the incentive. 'I think we should get rid of all credits,' Musk said in December when asked by a reporter on Capitol Hill if he supports getting rid of the electric vehicle tax credit, Politico reported. The House-passed version of the bill would phase out the $7,500 tax credit for some EV buyers by 2026. $2.4 trillion. That's how much the bill would add to the federal debt over the next decade, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released Wednesday that estimates it would cost $4.2 trillion, mostly from tax cuts, and save $1.8 trillion. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot,' Trump said while sitting next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office on Thursday. Musk—who left his White House role Friday—has fired off dozens of tweets this week attacking Trump's policy bill over the amount it's expected to add to the federal debt. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote Tuesday on X in his initial post bashing the legislation, calling it a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled . . . disgusting abomination.' Musk attacked Trump directly over the bill for the first time since he began his days-long rant moments before Trump sat down with Merz by reposting the president's 2013 tweet about the debt ceiling. In other tweets this week targeting the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' Musk threatened Republicans who voted for it, warning that 'in November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' and calling for lawmakers to 'KILL The BILL.' Until Trump's comments Thursday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.—who shepherded the bill through the House—was the top Republican defending the legislation against Musk's criticism. Johnson said Wednesday Trump is 'not delighted that Elon did a 180.' The bill, passed by the House in a party-line vote last month after last-minute revisions to appease Republican holdouts, is being negotiated by the Senate. Republican leaders have set a July 4 deadline to put the bill on Trump's desk for signage, but GOP resistance in the upper chamber—and some expressions of regret from a few House Republicans who said they were unaware of certain provisions—threaten to delay its passage. The legislation would fulfill Trump's key campaign promises, including an extension of his 2017 tax cuts, no taxes on tips and overtime and additional border security, paid for, in part, by cuts to Medicaid. Tesla shares dropped 14% as Musk clashed with Trump, closing at $284.70 and completely erasing a month's worth of gains it made in May. The fall marked the 11th-worst single trading day for the electric vehicle maker since it went public in 2010, according to FactSet. Musk, who owns about 12% of Tesla excluding options, saw his estimated net worth tumble by $27 billion to $388 billion (he still remains the world's wealthiest person by far). Trump Media & Technology Group's stock closed down 8% at $20.12, bringing shares to their lowest point since April 16. Multiple cryptocurrencies also slumped amid the spat, with ethereum falling 7%, Solana dropping 6% and the Musk-backed dogecoin sliding 9%. Bitcoin prices did not fall as sharply as its competitors' prices, but still sunk by 3% by Thursday evening. Tensions between Musk and Trump were palpable during the joint press conference they held Friday to mark Musk's last day leading the Department of Government Efficiency. While the two praised each other, their once-lighthearted rapport appeared stiff and uneasy. Musk in particular appeared to be in an odd mood, prompting social media users to claim he was 'tweaking out,' suggesting he may have been under the influence of drugs, as the press conference was held hours after a New York Times report alleging Musk engaged in heavy drug use while he campaigned for Trump last year. Musk also sported a black eye during the press conference, which the Tesla CEO claimed he got from his five-year-old son. 'KILL The BILL': Musk Deepens Rant Against Trump's Signature Policy Legislation (Forbes) Musk Calls For Ending Electric Vehicle Tax Credit—Which Could Help Tesla (Forbes) Musk Cuts Off Reporter Asking About Drug Use Allegations—Including Ketamine, Ecstasy And Adderall (Forbes)
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk escalates feud with Trump: 'Time to drop the really big bomb'
WASHINGTON – Elon Musk alleged that President Donald Trump's name is mentioned in undisclosed classified files related to the financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as a feud between Trump and the world's richest man devolved into deeply personal attacks. "Time to drop the really big bomb," Musk said in a June 5 post on X. "@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" Trump did not respond to shouted questions from reporters about Musk's Esptein claim following a White House event with Attorney General Pam Bondi and members of the National Fraternal Order of Police. The White House sent USA TODAY a statement from Trump press secretary Karoline Leavitt in response to the Epstein allegations. "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted. The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again," Leavitt said. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill Musk provided no evidence for his allegation but wrote: "Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out." His attack came after Trump, in posts on Truth Social, threatened to end government contracts with Musk's companies and said Musk left the White House's Department of Government Efficiency because Trump asked him to leave. More: Trump overpowers Musk's attacks on mega tax bill with blizzard of orders After hyping up the release of declassified government files on Epstein, Bondi on Feb. 27 disclosed about 200 pages of documents that implicated no one else in Epstein's orbit other than Epstein, who died in a federal prison in 2019. The 'Epstein list,' and the scandal surrounding the multimillionaire's exploitation of teenage girls offers plenty of red meat for partisans on the right and left. Trump and Epstein were filmed and photographed together at parties, and in 2002 he praised the wealthy businessman as a "terrific guy.' 'He's a lot of fun to be with," Trump told New York Magazine. "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Former President Bill Clinton, like Trump, appears on flight logs for Epstein's private jet. Clinton's spokesman said in 2019, after Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges, that the former president had flown on Epstein's jet to destinations in Europe, Africa and Asia. Earlier in the day, Trump said he was "very disappointed" with Musk and signaled his close relationship with the former top White House adviser was over as he publicly addressed Musk's efforts to kill his so-called "big, beautiful bill." Musk quickly fired back with several attacks, including saying that Trump wouldn't have won a second term and Republicans would be in the minority on both sides of Capitol Hill were it not for the quarter of a billion dollars he pumped into his 2024 campaign. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said in a post on X, the social media company he owns. "Such gratitude." Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Elon Musk turns on Trump: 'Time to drop the really big bomb'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace
A major fault line in contemporary society is that while our political lives are governed by democratic principles, our economic lives largely are not. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, Maple Leaf Foods experienced an outbreak in its Brandon, Man. factory. Not only were workers ordered to keep working in unsafe conditions, they were forced to work overtime. Walmart has long been accused of forbidding its cashiers from sitting down, even during long shifts. At one of its warehouses in Pennsylvania, Amazon allowed the temperature to reach an unbearable 102 F in 2011. When employees pleaded to open the loading doors to let in fresh air, management refused, claiming this would lead to employee theft. Instead, Amazon parked ambulances outside and waited for employees to collapse from heat stroke. Employees who were sent home because of the heat were given demerits for missing work, and fired if they accumulated too many. These examples reflect the fact that, in most workplaces, employees have no say in who manages them or how major decisions are made. Entering the workplace typically means leaving the freedoms of democratic society behind and entering a private domain unilaterally controlled by an employer. For most workers who are not in senior management, the main job of every job is to follow orders. Functionally speaking, workers are servants. In its governance structure, the modern workplace operates as a kind of mini dictatorship. Although workplace discipline isn't enforced with physical violence, supervisors still have the power to discipline or punish those who dissent. But what if there were an actual legal right to workplace democracy? My research scrutinized the pros and cons of such novel legislation by drawing on decades of research comparing conventional, top-down firms with democratic worker co-operatives (where workers collectively own the firm and elect the governing board). In large American firms, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is now a jaw-dropping 351 to one. As CEO, Jeff Bezos made roughly 360,000 times more than Amazon's minimum wage workers. This inequality ripples across society with significant consequences. By contrast, most worker co-ops maintain a pay ratio of three to one and only very rarely exceed 10 to one. There's also a stark difference in how workers are treated. While conventional firms lay off workers whenever it's profitable to do so, co-ops do everything in their power to save jobs. Top-down decision-making also breeds degradation and disrespect. A 2016 Oxfam report, for instance, documented how some Tyson Foods employees were prevented from using the bathroom to the point where some urinated themselves and other felt compelled to wear diapers to work. A Gallup survey from 2021 found that across the American economy as a whole, only 20 per cent of workers strongly agreed with the statement that 'my opinions seem to count.' In co-ops, workers are generally treated with more respect and dignity. They typically participate more in decision-making, have higher job satisfaction and have less antagonism with management. In conventional workplaces, many employees hate or fear their boss. Roughly 17 per cent of the workforce opt for self-employment in order to get away from the tyranny of the boss, even though self-employed workers typically earn about 15 per cent less than their salaried counterparts and receive less than half the benefits. Worker co-operatives are typically less dominating than conventional firms because workers elect their managers and can create self-managing teams where workers have more autonomy over matters like scheduling and how tasks are carried out. Though co-ops are far from perfect, with workers often feeling that they aren't able to participate in decision-making as much as they would like. Most workers have no viable alternative to undemocratic work, and so no choice but to suffer its harms. While in theory, workers can quit and rely on welfare or social assistance, in practice, this isn't viable because welfare rates are often too low to live on. Starting a business or becoming self-employed is another theoretical option, but it's too financially risky to be a serious alternative for most. Joining a worker co-operative is the most promising alternative, but there were less than 400 worker co-ops in Canada in 2022, representing less than one per cent of employment. Converting an existing workplace into a co-op faces serious barriers too. Even if the workers desperately want a conversion, if the employer doesn't, they're out of luck; their employer owns the organization and can simply say no. Canada needs a new law to expand democracy by granting workers the legal right to collectively buy into the firms they work for. The process would resemble how unionization works today. It would start after a majority of employees sign a declaration stating their intent to form a worker co-operative. After this threshold is reached, a formal process would be triggered: employers would be required to disclose all relevant financial documents with the workers, and workers would receive education on the managerial, technical and legal requirements of co-ops. Co-op development bankers would provide loans and financing options. Once this is done, workers would hold a final vote. If a simple majority (50 per cent plus one) votes in favour, the employer would be paid the fair market value for the firm and the business would be restructured as a worker co-operative. Importantly, the law would allow this transition even if the employer is opposed, just as collective bargaining legislation allows workers to unionize without employer approval. It would also ensure owners are fairly compensated; owners shouldn't lose their property, but they should lose the right to unilaterally govern other human beings in perpetuity, especially when those others are willing and ready to govern themselves. Of course, this law might bring some economic disruption. It's possible that certain owners might oppose democratic ownership so strongly that they would rather shut down the business altogether than work as equals, but such cases would likely be rare. On the other hand, research shows that worker co-ops are just as productive as conventional firms (if not more so) and they have similar survival rates. This is highly reassuring for the overall well-being of the economy. Moreover, workers would need to invest significant amounts of their own money in order to buy out the firm, so conversions will occur only after serious consideration. The bottom line is that while the costs of this legislation would likely be modest, the benefits to workers and society at large would be substantial: reduced inequality and domination, increased job security and respect. Canada should establish a right to buy-in as soon as possible. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Tom Malleson, Western University Read more: Canada's small businesses could be saved by converting them to co-operatives The key to a vibrant democracy may well lie in your workplace New budget offers Canada a chance to get employee ownership right Tom Malleson has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.