The Power of a Good Suit
In the March issue, David Frum considered lessons from the pandemic and its aftermath.
David Frum asks why so many Americans resisted vaccines, and finds his answer in political strife, misinformation, and irrational responses. But rational mistrust of the health-care system also lay behind that resistance.
COVID came on the heels of the opioid crisis. Many people, especially in red states, were suffering from an addiction to a class of medicines once promoted as cutting-edge science. The opioid crisis is but one example of ethical failings in American health care. The essence of the Hippocratic oath—to place patient welfare over every other motive—has been assailed by incentives to both over- and undertreat, costing citizens time, blood, and money. Although I hope, with Frum, that the future belongs to those who help their country, we need to first agree that it is dead wrong for anyone, in any way, to profit from hurting people.
Sarah M. Brownsberger
Bellingham, Wash.
I really appreciate David Frum's writing, but I think this article brushed over valid skepticism of the government in a moment of crisis. The official advice was always presented as an edict. I didn't appreciate being told not to ask questions. Similarly, I understood why some were nervous about receiving rushed vaccines with brand-new mRNA technology. I would love to see both sides of this debate conduct an open postmortem. That would be good for all of us.
Mike Bergman
Minneapolis, Minn.
Thank you to David Frum for his analysis of why the COVID deniers won. But as a physician, I believe Frum missed one of the major reasons denying COVID paid off for Donald Trump. This factor is medical, not social, and if we are to avoid an even bigger disaster during the next pandemic, it's crucial that we understand it.
Trump lucked out in part because of the nature of the coronavirus, which was relatively less lethal than other viral species. Most deaths occurred in patients who were old, chronically ill, or suffering from other preexisting conditions. As a result, the pandemic, tragic as it was, lacked the element of horror that might accompany one caused by more inherently lethal viruses. No wonder people ended up sneering at masks and school closures. Right-wing media could spin COVID denial into a sensible response to what they presented as an epidemiological nonevent.
Unfortunately, Trump may not be so lucky next time. And a potential killer virus may be lurking just beyond the horizon: avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu. The World Health Organization views this virus with great alarm, because, having slashed through the poultry industry and many dairy herds, it is only a few mutations away from being able to pass from human to human. The death rate for bird flu is about 50 percent. Young people are not spared.
Any risks to the U.S. population would be magnified dramatically by President Trump's appointments and policies. The chances of quickly developing a vaccine, should bird flu begin infecting significant numbers of humans, appear small. It's not just the anti-vaxxers who will paralyze us: Our biomedical-research capabilities have been devastated by cuts to the National Institutes of Health's budget.
If an avian-influenza pandemic does hit, Trump could pull out the old COVID‑19 playbook. Why not? It worked the last time. But the viral character of the next pandemic could make it difficult for him to evade responsibility for the nightmare that may follow.
Brad Stuart, M.D.
Forestville, Calif.
David Frum replies:
In the first weeks after the coronavirus struck, many decisions had to be made quickly based on imperfect information. Unsurprisingly, many of those decisions now look wrong.
But the most lethal of all the bad decisions was the effort to discourage conservative-leaning Americans from receiving COVID vaccines. Tens of thousands of people died unnecessarily because they followed advice from leaders they trusted.
Lockdowns were too draconian. Masking was mostly useless. Blue-state schools should have reopened faster. But those mistakes all shrink in gravity compared with the malicious effort to disparage vaccination. So, yes, let's criticize the errors of the overzealous. But right now, the people who hold government power in the United States are those with the deadliest record—and no conscience.
Behold My Suit!
In the March issue, Gary Shteyngart wrote about his quest to end a lifetime of fashion misery.
Gary Shteyngart looks indescribably cool and writerly in his new suit! I'd offer to marry Gary based solely on how he looks in that suit, walking those New York streets like he owns them. Boston ladies love a man in a good suit.
Ruth Morss
Cambridge, Mass.
Reading 'Behold My Suit!' was gratifying on many levels. I wholly agree that women should not have all the fun with clothes. Some people dress to impress others, and some people dress to please themselves; perfection is reached when you can do both at once. I envy Shteyngart for hitting the bull's-eye.
Not that I would ever dream of claiming greater shoe expertise than Yohei Fukuda—but brown suede shoes with a blue suit? Brown shoes with a dark-blue suit are acceptable, but not preferred. Plus, the world's most elegant suede shoes are still informal. I'd never drop $3,000 on a pair of suede shoes, even if they had diamonds on their soles. And one final tip to the young men out there considering upping their fashion game: You can make even a $10,000 suit irrelevant if you don't bother to get a shave.
Austin, Texas
The Last Great Yiddish Novel
In the April issue, Judith Shulevitz considered how Chaim Grade's Sons and Daughters rescues a destroyed world.
I translated four of Chaim Grade's books and placed them with U.S. publishers in the 1970s. I had a wonderful personal relationship with Grade, a kind of uncle-nephew bond. I'm proud to have helped put him on the map: When I finished translating Grade's two-volume masterwork, The Yeshiva, I found a home for it with the venerable Bobbs-Merrill, a more famous publisher than those that had issued my earlier translations. It also published my first novel, The Yemenite Girl.
Many ultra-Orthodox Jews read Grade's work, including Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the worldwide Chabad organization. Grade told me that Schneerson once called him to ask how he was feeling, somehow sensing that he was ill.
'Rebbe, how did you know I was not well?' Grade asked.
'Because for two weeks I did not see your weekly chapter of The Yeshiva in the Morgn-Journal,' the Rebbe answered. 'So I thought something must be the matter.' The Morgn-Journal was a Yiddish daily to which Grade contributed fiction.
Shulevitz is right to note that, aside from his Holocaust memoir, The Seven Little Lanes, Grade did not mention the Holocaust in his work. But if you read carefully the last page of The Yeshiva, where the two protagonists stand on a platform full of people awaiting the arrival of a train, one cannot help but feel in Grade's elegiac tone a recognition that other trains will soon be coming.
Behind the Cover
In this month's cover story, ' Donald Trump Is Enjoying This,' Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer offer a definitive account of the president's political comeback. They discussed with Trump how he is using his power, and drawing on the lessons of his first term, to run the country (and, in his words, 'the world'). For our cover image, the illustrator Dale Stephanos rendered in pencil a photograph of Trump taken in North Las Vegas last fall.
— Paul Spella, Senior Art Director
Corrections
'Growing Up Murdoch' (April) originally stated that a line in King Lear was directed at Cordelia. In fact, it was directed at Goneril. 'Turtleboy Will Not Be Stopped' (April) misstated the number of nights Karen Read has spent in jail. She has spent two nights in jail, not one. 'The Cranky Visionary' (April) originally stated that the Barnes Foundation was effectively America's first museum of modern art. In fact, it was among the first.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Forget running or 'Jeffing' — neuroscientist says this is the secret to longevity and hitting 150 minutes of cardio per week
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Low-impact cardio is bang on trend, not only because it has been repeatedly picked up and repackaged by fitness influencers — think viral challenges like the 'Hot Girl Walk' or the 30/30/30 method — but because the science heavily backs this form of exercise, and so does neuroscientist Andrew Huberman. Huberman says in a YouTube video: 'The scientific data tells us that we should all be getting anywhere from 150 to 200 minutes per week minimum of Zone 2 cardio for the sake of cardiovascular health.' As we know, strong cardiovascular health is linked to longevity and health span. But there's something else — you don't need to run to achieve your cardio minutes and boost longevity. Here's what Huberman says you can do instead, what Zone 2 cardio means, benefits and how it can help you reach your weekly movement goals and boost longevity with (or without) one of the best fitness trackers to measure your progress. Zone 2 training, also known as heart rate zone training, means working out at roughly 60-70% of your max heart rate (MHR). This means an easy effort without overexerting yourself, and if you're still unsure, you can use heart rate zones on most fitness trackers, including your Garmin or Apple Watch, to help you stay on track. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 150-300 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week to help battle the effects of sedentary lifestyles, which increase the likelihood of injury and the development of chronic illness. Steady-state cardio is credited with increasing endurance, improving the efficiency of your energy systems, building aerobic capacity and cardiovascular health, plus tackling bone density loss and muscle atrophy. Andrew Huberman, a neuroscientist and professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford University School of Medicine, says he schedules 60 to 90 minutes of easy-pace running into his weekly routine one day per week (usually on a Sunday) to contribute toward the minimum number of minutes recommended. But what if you hate running? Not everyone fancies a jog on any given day, and some people don't even enjoy 'Jeffing' — a combination of walking and running intervals that many, including my colleague, swear by for taking off the intensity. It's good news because you can still hit the minimum of 150 minutes of Zone 2 cardio without it. First of all, you can remain low effort — during Huberman's runs, he says he can 'maintain nasal breathing,' which means he is moving in a way that allows him to keep up a conversation with himself or friends or family. Sometimes, he says, he may take a hike between one and four hours instead. Although you can do this anywhere, Huberman enjoys taking his Zone 2 cardio outdoors, where he can enjoy fresh air, nature and sunshine. Studies show that exercising in nature has proven to boost mood, increase creativity and reduce feelings of stress and anxiety, all of which help improve longevity. Huberman refers to a conversation he had with Dr. Andy Galpin, explaining that he can't always hit his designated cardio minutes per week through a run or hike. Galpin, a scientist and tenured professor who is the Executive Director of the Human Performance Center at Parker University, responded with something simple: He doesn't think of Zone 2 cardio as 'exercise' at all. In fact, it should enhance (rather than impede) other types of movement you do during the week, like hypertrophy or strength training, or speed work. What does he mean by that? Well, he tells Huberman that you can simply increase the total amount of movement and walking you do during the week with a focus on pace and speed. Regular brisk walking can slash your biological age by up to 16 years, according to a new study, but even increasing your total physical activity throughout the week can be beneficial, too. This plays into something called Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT), which accounts for any activity you do during the week, like playing with your kids or taking a work call standing up. Huberman paraphrases Galpin's advice by stating: 'Zone 2 cardio can be meshed throughout the daily activities that I and everybody else generally have to do.' This is great news if you find life gets busy and you don't have the hours to dedicate to the gym. You can still hit the minimum 150 minutes of Zone 2 by spreading it out across the week, taking brisk walks and increasing pace where possible, or incorporating slow-paced, easy effort jogs if you don't mind running. This should come as a relief if you find it difficult to schedule exercise into the week or if your priority, like mine, is strength training. Instead, Huberman says it takes the pressure off and allows you to consider Zone 2 cardio as regular daily life while gaining the benefits of cardio at the same time. Forget running and swimming — study finds this sport adds 10 years to your life I thought power walking was weird — here's what happened when I tried it 30 minutes a day for one week I review running watches and these are my top 3 suggestions for most people
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill Impacts Medicaid Users: Experts Weigh In
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Billions in Medicaid cuts passed by Republicans as part of President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" will have widespread negative implications on people across the United States, multiple experts told Newsweek. Why It Matters Trump's touted tax overhaul and spending cuts package, which passed Thursday on a 218-214 vote in the House after months of haggling in both chambers of Congress, has provoked broader concerns about health care access and funding—notably to vulnerable populations who rely on Medicaid and the social safety net. The CBO estimates the roughly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade will result in 12 million people losing coverage by 2034. Trump had repeatedly promised not to cut Medicaid benefits, including by the White House's own admission as recently as March. The cuts are deeply unpopular, according to polls, and present a political challenge for Republicans ahead of next year's midterm elections. What Is the Big, Beautiful Bill? The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a sweeping reconciliation package that advances Trump's domestic policy agenda. It includes major tax reforms, spending cuts, and regulatory changes across multiple sectors. The bill passed the House and Senate along party lines and is positioned as a cornerstone of Trump's second-term legislative goals. Numerous experts predict that Medicaid cuts and new requirements in President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" will have widespread implications on Americans and state, federal funding mechanisms. Numerous experts predict that Medicaid cuts and new requirements in President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" will have widespread implications on Americans and state, federal funding mechanisms. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva The 1,200‑page package will: Permanently extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, while exempting overtime pay, tips and some Social Security income from taxation. Impose 80‑hour‑per‑month work requirements on many adults receiving Medicaid and apply existing SNAP work rules to additional beneficiaries. Repeal most clean‑energy tax credits created under President Biden. Authorize a $40 billion border security surge and fund a nationwide deportation initiative. Raise the federal debt ceiling by $5 trillion, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that it could add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. When Did the Big, Beautiful Bill Pass the Senate? The bill narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday after an overnight session. The 50-50 vote generally along partisan lines was tipped in Republicans' favor by Vice President JD Vance, who cast the decisive tiebreaker vote. Has the Big, Beautiful Bill Been Signed? President Trump signed his package of tax breaks and spending cuts into law Friday during a White House ceremony. How the Big, Beautiful Bill Will Impact Medicaid Beneficiaries The bill includes changes to eligibility for Medicaid, including mandating that Medicaid recipients must carry out some kind of work for at least 80 hours a month, which has prompted many health care experts and lawmakers to warn that it will only push millions off the program. Other concerns include diminished care in rural communities and increased out-of-pocket costs for doctors' visits. To accommodate the bill's signature tax cuts, which mostly benefit the wealthy, the cuts have to come from somewhere, according to Miranda Yaver, assistant professor of health policy and management at the University of Pittsburgh. Consistent with prior Republican approaches, the cuts are coming from America's safety net programs, she said. "One in five Americans relies on Medicaid for their health coverage, and one in seven Americans relies on SNAP for their food security, so cutting these critical programs will be devastating," Yaver said. Roughly 92 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries are already working or would be exempt, according to KFF. But what threatens their coverage is not noncompliance with work hours; rather, the administrative burdens of documenting their work or exemption, according to Yaver. "For that reason, the requirement can be better characterized not as a work requirement, but rather as a paperwork requirement. ... Some have characterized Medicaid paperwork requirements as a solution in search of a problem, because contrary to some characterizations of people playing video games in basements, most people on Medicaid are working or would be exempt," she said. A Medicaid accepted here sign in Kokomo, Indiana, in September 2019. A Medicaid accepted here sign in Kokomo, Indiana, in September 2019. GETTY "I don't think it's a solution in search of a problem so much as it is a solution to a different problem: low-income Americans being provided health insurance." Jake Haselswerdt, associate professor at the Truman School of Government & Public Affairs at the University of Missouri, agreed that the paperwork aspect is likely going to be an issue. "We're going to have to see, what are the regulations look like? How do states implement this?" Haselswerdt told Newsweek. "But I'm not optimistic, especially coming from a Missouri standpoint. "We have maybe the worst Medicaid agency in the country. The call center wait times at times have been the worst in the country." Chris Howard, professor of government and public policy at William & Mary, told Newsweek that cuts to Medicaid and to the Affordable Care Act [ACA] will have "profound effects" at the state level. Millions of people across the country will lose health insurance, he said, including an estimated 300,000 in his state of Virginia. "Basically, Republicans are trying to undermine big parts of the [Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare] without having to replace them," Howard said. "They learned that 'repeal and replace' did not work in Trump's first term, so now they just want to repeal." Large rural populations in some of the hardest hit states, like Virginia and Kentucky which have expanded Medicaid under the ACA, will receive reduced federal funding for individuals who rely on Medicaid. "States can't run budget deficits, and they are highly unlikely to replace all the lost funds," Howard said. "More people will lose coverage. In the health care system, every dollar of benefit to someone is also a dollar of income to someone else. "Hospitals and nursing homes, especially in rural areas, depend heavily on Medicaid dollars. Many of them will have to lay off workers or close down. If hospitals have to provide more uncompensated care to the uninsured, there will be pressure on private insurance to raise rates." Rural hospital closures not only increase driving distances for medical care, Yaver said, but they can also deter businesses from operating in communities with economic downturn. She called the rural hospital fund in the bill "a drop in the bucket relative to the devastation headed their way." Haselswerdt said the ramifications on Americans' health and well-being will also take a hit. The rural hospital fund, around $25 billion, won't be enough across all 50 states, he said. "Nothing's permanent because policy can change, but we think of them as permanent cuts—this kind of short-term, financial Band-Aid," Haselswerdt said. "I don't really think makes that much of a difference. [When] people lose coverage that means these hospitals are delivering more freer charity care that never gets paid for. "That was something that was demonstrated with the ACA. When coverage expanded under the ACA, it helped hospitals; they had less uncompensated care to deal with. So, if you change policy in such a way that more people are showing up at hospitals without health coverage, it's not going to be good for those hospitals." President Donald Trump, from left, speaks as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, listen during an event in the... President Donald Trump, from left, speaks as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, listen during an event in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, Monday, May 12, 2025, in Washington. More Associated Press What the White House Has Said About Impact on Medicaid A "Myth vs. Fact" sheet released by the White House on June 29 responds to numerous critiques of the One Big Beautiful Bill, including on Medicaid. The White House called it a "myth" that the legislation "kicks American families off Medicaid." "As the President has said numerous times, there will be no cuts to Medicaid," the statement reads. "The One Big Beautiful Bill protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it—pregnant women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. "The One Big Beautiful Bill removes illegal aliens, enforces work requirements, and protects Medicaid for the truly vulnerable."
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Rural hospitals brace for financial hits or even closure under Republicans' $1 trillion Medicaid cut
OMAHA, Neb. — Tyler Sherman, a nurse at a rural Nebraska hospital, is used to the area's aging farmers delaying care until they end up in his emergency room. Now, with the Trump administration planning around $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years, he fears those farmers and the more than 3,000 residents of Webster County could lose not just the ER, but also the clinic and nursing home tied to the hospital. 'Our budget is pretty heavily reliant on the Medicaid reimbursement, so if we do see a cut of that, it'll be difficult to keep the doors open,' said Sherman, who works at Webster County Community Hospital in the small Nebraska town of Red Cloud just north of the Kansas border. If those facilities close, many locals would see their five-minute trip to Webster County hospital turn into a nearly hour-long ride to the nearest hospital offering the same services. 'That's a long way for an emergency,' Sherman said. 'Some won't make it.' States and rural health advocacy groups warn that cutting Medicaid — a program serving millions of low-income and disabled Americans — would hit already fragile rural hospitals hard and could force hundreds to close, stranding some people in remote areas without nearby emergency care. More than 300 hospitals could be at risk for closure under the 'Big Beautiful Bill Act,' according to an analysis by the Cecil G. Sheps Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which tracks rural hospital closures. Even as Congress haggled over the controversial bill, a health clinic in the southwest Nebraska town of Curtis announced Wednesday it would close in the coming months, in part blaming the anticipated Medicaid cuts. Bruce Shay of Pomfret, Conn., fears he and his wife could be among those left in the lurch. At 70, they're both in good health, he said. But that likely means that if either needs to go to a hospital, 'it's going to be an emergency.' Day Kimball Hospital is nearby in Putnam, but it has faced recent financial challenges. Day Kimball's CEO R. Kyle Kramer acknowledged that the bill passed Thursday — estimated to cut federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by $155 billion over 10 years — would further hurt his facility's bottom line. Roughly 30% of Day Kimball's current patients receive Medicaid benefits, a figure that's even higher for specific, critical services like obstetrics and behavioral health. 'An emergency means I'm 45 minutes to an hour away from the nearest hospital, and that's a problem,' Shay said. And he and his wife wouldn't be the only ones having to make that trip. 'You've got, I'm sure, thousands of people who rely on Day Kimball Hospital. If it closed, thousands of people would have to go to another hospital,' he said. 'That's a huge load to suddenly impose on a hospital system that's probably already stretched thin.' Rural hospitals have long operated on the financial edge, especially in recent years as Medicaid payments have continuously fallen below the actual cost to provide healthcare. More than 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where Medicaid covers 1 in 4 adults, according to the nonprofit KFF, which studies healthcare issues. President Trump's $4.5-trillion tax breaks and spending cuts plan would worsen rural hospitals' struggles by cutting a key federal program that helps states fund Medicaid payments to healthcare providers. To help offset the lost tax revenue, the package includes $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other social safety net programs — cuts they insist only root out fraud and waste in the system. But public outcry over Medicaid cuts led Republicans to include a provision that will provide $10 billion annually to buttress rural hospitals over the next five years, or $50 billion in total. Many rural hospital advocates are wary that it won't be enough to cover the shortfall. Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer with the National Rural Health Assn., said rural hospitals already struggle to break even, citing a recent American Hospital Assn. report that found that hospitals in 2023 got nearly $28 billion less from Medicaid than the actual cost of treating Medicaid patients. 'We see rural hospitals throughout the country really operating on either negative or very small operating margins,' Cochran-McClain said. 'Meaning that any amount of cut to a payer — especially a payer like Medicaid that makes up a significant portion of rural provider funding — is going to be consequential to the rural hospitals' ability to provide certain services or maybe even keep their doors open at the end of the day.' A KFF report shows 36 states losing $1 billion or more over 10 years in Medicaid funding for rural areas under the Republican bill, even with the $50 billion rural fund. No state stands to lose more than Kentucky. The report estimates the Bluegrass State would lose a whopping $12.3 billion — nearly $5 billion more than the next state on the list. That's because the bill ends Kentucky's unique Medicaid reimbursement system and reduces it to Medicare reimbursement levels. Kentucky currently has one of the lowest Medicare reimbursement rates in the country. It also has one of the highest poverty rates, leading to a third of its population being covered by Medicaid. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a two-term Democrat widely seen as a potential candidate for president in 2028, said the bill would close 35 hospitals in his state and pull healthcare coverage for 200,000 residents. 'Half of Kentucky's kids are covered under Medicaid. They lose their coverage and you are scrambling over that next prescription,' Beshear said during an appearance on MSNBC. 'This is going to impact the life of every single American negatively. It is going to hammer our economy.' Beck and Haigh write for the Associated Press. Haigh reported from Hartford, Conn.
