

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Thursday is the anniversary of Medicare's enactment.
JOHN GEYMAN
Geyman is professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Washington. He is past president of Physicians for a National Health Program and author of the book "Shredding the Social Contract: The Privatization of Medicare.
He said today: "Medicare on its 44th birthday is remarkably successful. It's the one solid rock we have in our disjointed healthcare system. It covers 43 million Americans age 65 and older as well as some 2 million disabled people. It is consistently rated more highly than private insurance in terms of reliability and quality of coverage. It provides a comprehensive set of benefits, free choice of providers and hospitals anywhere in the country, and simplified administration with an overhead of only 3 percent -- versus administrative overhead and profit-taking five to nine times larger for private insurers.
"Medicare was passed in 1965 after a fierce political debate even more divisive than the one we're having now. Those opposed to reform today are saying that a government program will get between you and your doctor. But traditional unprivatized Medicare shows that to be untrue -- less bureaucracy than that of the private insurance industry, with its more than 1,300 insurers working hard to cherry pick the market for their maximal revenue by denying claims or even canceling coverage.
"Despite its successes, Medicare is not a perfect program. It would be even more successful were it not for political compromises along the way allowing it to be privatized. A good example is the Medicare legislation of 2003. The problem was soaring prices of prescription drugs. The result has been a bonanza for the drug and insurance industries. The new drug benefit was handed over to the private sector to manage, prices have continued up unabated, the government was prohibited from negotiating lower prices as the Veterans Administration does, and new subsidies were offered to private insurers for Medicare Advantage, private Medicare plans that seek out healthier Medicare beneficiaries.
"The same forces are at work today as healthcare reform proposals make their way through Congress. Under pressure from industry and their lobbyists, the public plan has been watered down to a small and ineffectual option at best, if it ever survives to being enacted. But the strengths of traditional Medicare as a system of social insurance, coupled with a private delivery system, remains a solid foundation upon which to build a better system in this country in terms of access, affordability, quality, efficiency and reliability."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
"Warsh's confirmation is another step in Trump's attempt to take over the Fed. That's not good for working families—it's good for Wall Street," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
The US Senate on Wednesday voted to confirm Kevin Warsh, the financier picked by President Donald Trump to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined with all Senate Republicans in voting to confirm Warsh, whose nomination was opposed by all other Senate Democrats except for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who did not vote.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent thanked Republican senators and Fetterman for backing Warsh's confirmation, which he predicted would "usher in a new day at an institution that is in need of accountability, sound policy guidance, and the renewed sense of purpose to help guide our economy."
Warsh's nomination has been controversial from the start given that Trump has repeatedly undermined the US central bank's independence by browbeating outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to lower interest rates.
After the confirmation vote, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned that Warsh would try to carry out Trump's demands to lower rates, even as key metrics show that inflation has accelerated in recent months thanks to the president's illegal war with Iran.
"Trump wants to control interest rates, and he nominated Kevin Warsh to be his sock puppet," wrote Warren in a social media post. "Warsh's confirmation is another step in Trump's attempt to take over the Fed. That's not good for working families—it's good for Wall Street."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he voted against Warsh's nomination because "working families are struggling more than ever to afford basic goods," and "they need a central bank that will fight for them, not the president and billionaires."
"I am not convinced that Warsh has the willingness to do what is best for the American people," Durbin added. "For that reason, I voted no on his nomination."
While Trump may want Warsh to start slashing interest rates to boost the economy, he likely faces an uphill climb in convincing other Fed board members.
Data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics this week showed the consumer price index posted a year-over-year increase of 3.8%, the highest rate of inflation since May 2023, driven by energy prices that surged nearly 18% from the year before.
Additionally, the latest producer price index, which measures wholesale prices paid by businesses and is considered a strong predictor of future inflation, posted a year-over-year increase of 6% in April, indicating inflation will likely accelerate in the coming months.
During Powell's final meeting as Fed chair last month, the board voted to hold interest rates steady, with several board members indicating opposition to projecting future rate cuts in the near term given signals of rising inflation.
Fetterman's vote comes as recent polling has shown the Iran war has grown more unpopular over time.
The US Senate on Wednesday once again voted down a resolution that would have restricted President Donald Trump's ability to use military force against Iran, and this time a Democratic senator was the deciding vote.
The resolution failed after Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) voted with the majority of Republican senators against a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
The resolution would would have passed had Fetterman supported it because Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) all voted in favor.
This is now the seventh time the Senate has blocked a war powers resolution on Iran since Trump illegally began the conflict in late February.
As noted by Zeteo reporter Prem Thakker, a poll taken two months ago found that Pennsylvania voters disapproved of the Iran war by 16 percentage points, and more recent national polling shows that the war has grown more unpopular over time.
"Nonetheless," Thakker commented, "John Fetterman was just a deciding vote to keep it going."
Fetterman has frequently been at odds with his party on a number of issues, including the war with Iran and building Trump's proposed luxury ballroom at the White House.
Despite the motion's failure, Ryan Costello, policy director of the National Iranian American Council, optimistically pointed out that this war powers resolution came closer to passing than any others, with Murkowski crossing the aisle for the first time to register her support.
"Sen. Murkowski moved in line with the vast majority of Americans who want this war to end," said Costello, "and did so right after hearing Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claim that the Trump administration did not need authorization from Congress to resume the war, and as gas prices in Alaska hit $5.26."
"While a few agrochemical giants shamelessly reap bumper profits, farmers are watching their livelihoods wither on the vine," said one Greenpeace campaigner.
Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday underscored how the US-Israeli war on Iran and Trump administration trade policies are hurting farmers and consumers while Big Ag profits from fast-rising fertilizer and food prices.
President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice has resulted in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 30% of the world's fertilizer and 20% of its oil previously passed. In addition to increasing the risk of a global food crisis, the strait's closure has sent fuel and fertilizer prices soaring, with US farm diesel costing nearly 50% more than it did on the war's eve in February and nitrogen fertilizer rising by a similar percentage.
Meanwhile, Trump's erratic tariff war has further squeezed farmers and consumers. Tariffs have increased short-term prices, market volatility, and farmer costs while temporarily reducing import flows.
Vermont farmers "are footing the bill for Trump's reckless war in Iran," Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said Wednesday on social media. "Fuel and fertilizer costs are surging right amid planting season, hitting family farms that are already stretched thin. This needs to end."
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) said on X that "food prices are skyrocketing because 70% of farmers can't afford fertilizer, due to Trump's reckless Iran War," adding that "perhaps Trump should help them out by lending some, given that he's full of crap."
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) noted Tuesday on Bluesky that "Minnesota’s farmers are dealing with tariffs, high fertilizer costs, expensive feed, and exorbitant fuel prices," while Trump is "planning to lay off dozens" of US Department of Agriculture workers "who help farmers protect their land and water."
The lawmakers' posts followed Tuesday's US Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on fertilizer market challenges, during which members of the Republican majority spoke vaguely of "trade disputes" and the "recent conflict in the Middle East" without naming names.
When it was her turn to speak, Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) noted the "direct link" between the soaring price of nitrogen fertilizer components and Trump's actions.
"In the months since the president started the war, with no consultation or authorization from Congress... urea has spiked more than 40%, the cost of diesel has hit near record highs in Midwest states," she said. "Now, why? Well, nearly half of the global urea goes through the Strait of Hormuz. Thirty percent of ammonia goes through the Strait of Hormuz."
Farmers are facing fertilizer prices that are through the roof because of the across-the-board tariffs, market consolidation, and uncertainties stemming from a war in Iran that was started with no consultation or authorization from Congress.
[image or embed]
— Senator Amy Klobuchar (@klobuchar.senate.gov) May 12, 2026 at 5:51 PM
"Yet, even before the war, farmers were walloped by the presence of across-the-board tariffs," Klobuchar continued. "An analysis by North Dakota State University... found that [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] tariffs added nearly $1 billion in costs to critical inputs like fertilizer, seed, machinery, and chemicals from February through October of last year."
"Acting now will ultimately help stabilize prices and give farmers the certainty they need," the senator added. "But it is going to have to be a combination of things: ending the tariffs, or reducing them, or making them much more targeted; ending this war; finding a way to resolve it, so the Strait of Hormuz is open again; and then going at this long-term systemic problem about the lack of competition in this area."
According to the advocacy group Farm Action, a handful of companies—primarily Nutrien, Mosaic, and CF Industries—dominate the North American fertilizer market, operating as an oligopoly that controls over 90% of nitrogen and potash production. Saskatchewan-based Nutrien, the world's leading potash producer, last week reported net first-quarter earnings of $139 million, up from $19 million one year ago.
"Fertilizer companies raise their prices because they can, and that's the market power that they have," Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said during Tuesday's hearing.
Noting record gains reaped amid the tumult of Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, Smith said that during 2021-22, "the nine largest fertilizer companies made an estimated $84 billion in profits."
"In 2022, major fertilizer companies saw profits increase somewhere between 100 and 200%," she continued. "Their input costs did not go up by that much... How much do you think the profits of the average farmer in South Dakota [went] up during that time period?"
Pointing to new reports of robust fertilizer industry profits, South Dakota Corn Farmers president Trent Kubik replied, "during these last 75 days, a lot of money was being made, but it wasn't by farmers."
Addressing the question of "what can we do to change the behavior of companies that are in a position where they can charge such high prices and get such exorbitant profits," Smith suggested considering a "windfall profits tax" to "make the market more fair, particularly for folks that are doing the work."
The Trump administration's plan to counter high fertilizer prices includes reopening the Biden-era Fertilizer Production Expansion Program, which provides grants and financing to build or expand domestic manufacturing capacity. Some critics have slammed the program as a form of corporate welfare.
The administration is also considering further expanding a multibillion-dollar bailout program, which critics say has mainly benefited large-scale, export-oriented commodity farms.
Responding to recent reports of strong profits for nitrogen fertilizer producers, Greenpeace Aotearoa (New Zealand) Big Ag project lead Amanda Larsson said Tuesday that “the illegal US-Israeli attack on Iran has sent global fertilizer prices soaring, and while a few agrochemical giants shamelessly reap bumper profits, farmers are watching their livelihoods wither on the vine."
"This is war profiteering facilitated by a broken, fossil fuel-dependent food system—with farmers and consumers paying the price," she continued.
“Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer causes water and climate pollution, while propping up a system of industrial over-production, particularly to produce monoculture feed crops for livestock," Larsson said. "We are sacrificing our rivers, our climate, and our financial security to prop up a system that serves billionaires, not communities."
“We cannot buy food security on a volatile global chemical market," she added. "The only path to true food sovereignty and resilience is through a transition to ecological farming. By moving away from synthetic fertilizers and toward diverse, nature-based practices, we can break the cycle of chemical dependence, protect our water, and ensure that the price of food is no longer dictated by the whims of war and corporate greed.”