Embedded Files
Subscribe to our free biweekly newsletter!
Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.
Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.
Publishing since January 2024.
Domestic Stories
4 key domestic stories for the week:
1) Stopping the Shutdown Meera Menon
After some debate, the House passed a bill on Wednesday, September 25th to fund the government in order to avert a pending government shutdown that would have occurred on September 30th. Originally, Democrats and Republicans were divided on the budget as former President Trump insisted on implementing a measure which would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote. However, former President Trump agreed to drop the measure, creating agreement on this action between both parties. Now, the bill is now awaiting President Joe Biden's signature to become law before the shutdown deadline.
A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass adequate funding for federal government operations, which in turns, results in temporary closure or reduction in non-essential services. While essential services, such as national security and public safety, remain active and open, affected employees must work without pay until the shutdown is resolved. These shutdowns have broad and serious impacts, such as furloughs for federal workers, delays in public services like passport processing and small business loans, and potential effects on government benefits, national parks, and food safety inspections. Long-term effects may include disrupted scientific studies, deferred investments, and maintenance costs.
Former President Trump had urged congressional Republicans to tie government funding to the enactment of the SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voting. However, after the House rejected combining funding and the SAVE Act, House Speaker Mike Johnson removed the election legislation from the bill. To explain the decision, Johnson and other key Republicans emphasized the negative impact of a GOP-led shutdown close to Election Day and downplayed any defiance of Trump, asserting that both parties view the SAVE Act as crucial for ensuring election integrity. In the end, the Senate voted 78-18 Wednesday evening, shortly after the House passed the same measure on a 341-82 vote, with all opposition in both chambers coming from Republicans. As a result, with some negotiation the government will be funded at current levels through December 20, thereby avoiding a shutdown just before the holidays. A key adjustment to this legislation is the inclusion of additional funding for the Secret Service related to presidential campaign operations following apparent assassination attempts on Trump. The signed legislation provides an extra 231 million.
While passing the funding bill was crucial to maintain stability in government operations and helped to avoid the serious impacts of a shutdown on federal employees, public services, economy, and social programs, a shutdown can still remain a threat. Since this new and approved budget ends at the end of fiscal year 2025, there is sure to be more debates between parties over budgeting decisions next year.
Sources:
2) The Fight for Fair Maps in Ohio Christina Yang
It’s no surprise that Ohio has made the headlines once again, but this time for a reason not related to a TikTok trend (shocking). With the congressional election season approaching in November, Ohio strives to navigate a new redistricting plan that could redefine its political topography and subsequently redefine how other states approach redistricting issues as well.
According to the Constitution, each state must use census data to reanalyze its district boundaries every 10 years. However, in this day and age, it is not uncommon for states to engage in gerrymandering—a practice in which boundary lines are unfairly divided to favor one political party over another. Gerrymandering has resulted in a world where maps are scaled to manufacture desired election outcomes, rather than represent the actual perspectives of voters. Notably, Ohio has been one of the most gerrymandered states in the country, with its state legislature having a prominent history of making it an overly partisan process.
In the case of Ohio, Republicans have become the ones to benefit when it comes to redistricting. As a result of gerrymandering, Republicans occupy 79% of Ohio’s Senate seats with a ratio of 26 Republicans to 7 Democrats and occupy 67% of Ohio’s House of Representatives seats with a ratio of 67 Republicans to 32 Democrats. To put this into perspective, these astronomical majorities allow for Republicans to have enough votes to even override vetoes by the state governor. Given these numbers, the principal issue lies in the fact that the Republican majorities do not actually represent Ohio’s real political makeup, with 54% of its voters being Republican and 46% being Democratic. Therefore, voters of both parties have had high turnout in past elections, but only one party is truly reflected in the interests of policies.
This becomes a major issue not just in Ohio, but all across the country individuals feel disenfranchised as the current system has failed to represent all voices and interests to an equal extent. Since gerrymandering results in “safe districts” where lawmakers are guaranteed to win by a margin, lawmakers have less of an incentive to actually respond to what the voters want. Thus, as voters watch the worth of their ballot erode away and elections become more of a show for those who dictate the lines to sit back and watch, change is sought all across the horizons.
Historically, Ohio has tried to rewrite its fate with different gerrymandering legislation. For example, in 2015, over 70% of its voters voted in favor of an amendment to the state constitution that would change the redistricting process to make it less partisan. As a result, the Ohio Redistricting Commission emerged—a body made up of the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, and people in the General Assembly. However, this body was still composed of mostly Republican individuals, leading to an outcome that has been, well…predictable.
In recent years, Ohio has entertained the idea of taking the redistricting pen out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of the people. Currently, a group called Citizens Not Politicians dominates this movement, as their motto is quite literally “end gerrymandering.” Following countless Ohio Supreme Court rulings that declared maps drawn by the Ohio Redistricting Commission unconstitutional, Citizens Not Politicians developed a new saga to Ohio’s redistricting fight called Issue 1. Issue 1 is an amendment that would allow for an independent commission to draw the redistricting lines. It would establish a 15-member commission made up of everyday citizens consisting of five Republicans, five Democrats, and five independents that would represent diverse economic, ideological, and demographic views. Furthermore, Issue 1 would require the commission to operate under processes independent of partisan bias by banning current and former politicians and lobbyists from occupying commission seats.
Supporters of Issue 1 believe that this policy is essential to ensuring our constituents have the right to fair and transparent elections, preventing “safe” districts from allowing little to no competitiveness in elections, and allowing lawmaking bodies to better reflect the interests of the people. On the other hand, critics of Issue 1 believe that it will result in unaccountable bureaucracy and little qualifications among independent commission members. Regardless, it is clear that Issue 1 is endorsed by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike as they battle to reassert a balance of power between citizens and politicians.
Behind every vote is a voice, and the outcome of Ohio’s redistricting fight, especially with the potential passage of Issue 1, could set the precedent for other states to reform their gerrymandering processes to better reflect democratic values ahead of a high stake election season.
Read more here:
3) Hurricane Helene and Climate Change Rohan Dash
Having lived in Florida for over a decade, hurricanes seem to be almost joyful. Having no perception of the dangers of hurricanes means that as soon as I hear the words “school's canceled”, I celebrate (just kidding…). But just last week, Hurricane Helene ravaged across Florida and much of the southeastern continental United States.
From Hurricane Irma in 2017 to Ian in 2022, the Southeastern US has, again and again, suffered both in terms of humanitarian as well as economic damage. Hurricane Helene only added to this. As it formed over the Gulf Coast, Helene started as a tropical storm and quickly turned into a Category 4 hurricane. Schools across the region closed in preparations, and governors, as well as Biden declared a state of emergency. But despite all preparations, damage remained when the hurricane finally dissipated. Indeed, at least 89 people were killed due to falling debris or impact from the storm, and expected damage is as much as 100 billion dollars. Millions lost power or electricity. Over the next few weeks, as more information comes out, we'll really see the devastating impact of Helene.
But over the last three years, I’ve had three weeks of school canceled due to tropical storms alone. Over the last ten years, 173 storms have cost over 1.2 trillion dollars. And thousands have been left dead. That’s not okay.
While hurricanes are ‘natural disasters’, these catastrophes are becoming increasingly manmade. Hurricanes, and natural disasters in general, are becoming stronger thanks to climate change. The explanation for why it's happening is simple. Humans utilize fossil fuels that release greenhouse gasses into the air. In turn, these greenhouse gasses collect more heat than necessary and retain them on the planet. As the globe gets hotter, so does the air and ocean. With warm ocean water, hurricanes can collect more water, making it easier for the clouds to form that create what's known as a hurricane. That's why it's becoming significantly more likely for a tropical cyclone to become a hurricane.
It's not just hurricanes, however, that are becoming excessively damaging as a result of climate change. In Arizona, this summer was the hottest summer the state ever saw, with Phoenix having 100 consecutive days of a temperature at or above 100 degrees. Across California, wildfires continue to worsen, creating a loop of repetition as these very fires release carbon directly into the atmosphere. The only type of storm that's not getting worse is snow, and that's because the air is getting so warm that precipitation comes in the form of rain, not snow.
This needs to change. To some extent, we can invest in early warning systems, use artificial intelligence to track hurricanes, and make preparations ahead of time, but that doesn't address the root cause. Reducing climate change does. How can that be done? Renewable energy is a clear alternative. Although expensive, no amount of money is worth more than having a planet remaining for future generations. Governments need to pass legislation to limit human activities that leave our planet in a more dangerous space. And, as individuals, there’s quite a few bad habits that can be quit to save the planet.
Hurricane Helene was just the latest indicator of how bad this planet is performing. It’s our choice for the future of our planet, and if this storm doesn’t open eyes, then no one can be sure what will.
Read more here:
4) The Next Big Break (Up) in Medicine Sasha Morel
CVS Health’s acquisition of Aetna in 2018 was a bold move to integrate pharmacy services with health insurance, creating one of the most comprehensive healthcare models in the U.S. CVS’s vision was to streamline healthcare delivery by bringing together insurance coverage with direct care services like pharmacy, retail health clinics, and pharmacy benefits management. This allowed for greater efficiency, cost savings, and better patient outcomes, while also positioning CVS as a major player in healthcare beyond its traditional role as a pharmacy chain.
The strategic integration enabled CVS to offer a holistic model of care. Patients with Aetna insurance could not only get coverage but also conveniently access care at CVS’s pharmacy locations, including its MinuteClinics and HealthHUBs. This synergy was supposed to control healthcare costs, improve health outcomes, and offer personalized care to patients, with both pharmacy and insurance arms working in close coordination. However, despite this optimism, CVS has faced significant financial challenges recently.
Over the past three consecutive quarters, CVS has reported declining profits, forcing the company to reevaluate its business structure. Several factors have contributed to these financial difficulties, including rising competition in the pharmacy and health insurance markets, increased healthcare costs, and regulatory pressures
These financial struggles have led CVS to explore strategic options, including a possible breakup of the company. This would represent one of the largest restructurings in healthcare history, potentially involving the separation of key divisions like Aetna or the company’s retail pharmacy operations.
For consumers, this breakup could lead to significant changes in how they access healthcare services. One of the primary benefits of the CVS-Aetna merger was the integrated care model, making it easier for patients to receive both insurance and care from the same provider. A breakup could lead to the fragmentation of these services, requiring consumers to navigate more complex healthcare networks. The separation could also impact pricing, as the efficiencies from combining pharmacy and insurance services may no longer exist, potentially driving up costs.
The potential impacts on CVS’s retail clinics and HealthHUBs are also important to consider. These clinics have provided accessible and affordable care in neighborhoods across the U.S., a cornerstone of CVS’s strategy to become a healthcare hub. If CVS divests some of these assets, it could reduce the availability of convenient healthcare options for many Americans as CVS explores options including potential break-up.
In conclusion, CVS’s exploration of a breakup marks a significant shift in its business model. What began as a groundbreaking integration of healthcare services could soon unravel, affecting the broader healthcare landscape. As CVS considers its options, both consumers and industry stakeholders will be watching closely to see how this decision may impact the future of healthcare in the U.S.
The Red Folder is brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the News Brief Team:
Paul Robinson
Boyana Nikolova
Sasha Morel
Roshan Shivnani
Rowan Seipp
Anthony Babu
Daniel Song
Rohan Dash
Charlie Hui
Justin Palazzolo
Ruhaan Sood
Evelyn Ding
Robert Zhang
Sahana Srikanth
Meera Menon
Andy Choy
Max Guo
Christina Yang
Interested in becoming a contributor? You can apply to join our staff team here.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse