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.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been a leading proponent of extending the Medicare system to all Americans--a proposal that's gained popularity among the public in recent years as well as traction in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) strongly pushed back against Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz's argument--heard for years from centrist Democrats and Republicans, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary--that a Medicare for All system would be prohibitively expensive for the United States and is not a "realistic" proposal.
"I think his comment is dead wrong," Sanders told Chris Cuomo on CNN Thursday night. "You have a guy who thinks that the United States apparently should remain the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people."
Watch:
Schultz's comments came days after he announced he would step down as chairman of his $23 billion international coffee chain, fueling rumors that he may run for president in 2020.
"It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left," Schultz, who has been a major Democratic donor, told CNBC on Tuesday. "I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like single payer, people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's something realistic. I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises."
Despite Schultz's concern that Sanders's outspoken support for Medicare for All is indicative of a worldview that is out of touch with the American public, polls have found that a growing number of Americans support universal healthcare.
You should not have to choose between saving money on premiums while hoping you don't get sick, or having less money each week to pay rent just in case you do get sick. You wouldn't have to make that decision under single payer, which Schultz opposes, from his $25 million house. --Libby Watson, Splinter News
A Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll found earlier this year that 51 percent of the general public and about three-quarters of Democratic respondents supported a national, government-funded health plan.
Among Democrats who are rumored to be running for president in 2020, Schultz's disdain for bold progressive initiatives puts him in the minority.
Suspected contenders including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have all joined Sanders in co-sponsoring his Medicare for All bill.
"There is no mathematical reason why the U.S. government cannot 'afford' single-payer healthcare," wrote Eric Levitz at New York magazine on Thursday. "America has a higher per-capita GDP than Denmark, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and virtually all other European and Asian nations that boast universal health insurance systems. There is no question that America has the means to ensure that all of its residents have high-quality, affordable healthcare. The fact that the U.S. declines to do so is the product of political choices not technical necessities."
Should Schultz run for president in 2020, he will likely promote his decision to offer health insurance to part-time employees at Starbucks, predicted Libby Watson at Splinter News. But with deductibles of $3,000 to $6,000 for the company's least expensive plan, the company's offering is "a massive indictment of America's private health insurance system, and something that would vanish under single payer."
"You should not have to pay out-of-pocket for your healthcare at all, particularly while billionaires are a thing; you should not have to choose between saving money on premiums while hoping you don't get sick, or having less money each week to pay rent just in case you do get sick," wrote Watson. "You wouldn't have to make that decision under single payer, which Schultz opposes, from his $25 million house."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) strongly pushed back against Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz's argument--heard for years from centrist Democrats and Republicans, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary--that a Medicare for All system would be prohibitively expensive for the United States and is not a "realistic" proposal.
"I think his comment is dead wrong," Sanders told Chris Cuomo on CNN Thursday night. "You have a guy who thinks that the United States apparently should remain the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people."
Watch:
Schultz's comments came days after he announced he would step down as chairman of his $23 billion international coffee chain, fueling rumors that he may run for president in 2020.
"It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left," Schultz, who has been a major Democratic donor, told CNBC on Tuesday. "I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like single payer, people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's something realistic. I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises."
Despite Schultz's concern that Sanders's outspoken support for Medicare for All is indicative of a worldview that is out of touch with the American public, polls have found that a growing number of Americans support universal healthcare.
You should not have to choose between saving money on premiums while hoping you don't get sick, or having less money each week to pay rent just in case you do get sick. You wouldn't have to make that decision under single payer, which Schultz opposes, from his $25 million house. --Libby Watson, Splinter News
A Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll found earlier this year that 51 percent of the general public and about three-quarters of Democratic respondents supported a national, government-funded health plan.
Among Democrats who are rumored to be running for president in 2020, Schultz's disdain for bold progressive initiatives puts him in the minority.
Suspected contenders including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have all joined Sanders in co-sponsoring his Medicare for All bill.
"There is no mathematical reason why the U.S. government cannot 'afford' single-payer healthcare," wrote Eric Levitz at New York magazine on Thursday. "America has a higher per-capita GDP than Denmark, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and virtually all other European and Asian nations that boast universal health insurance systems. There is no question that America has the means to ensure that all of its residents have high-quality, affordable healthcare. The fact that the U.S. declines to do so is the product of political choices not technical necessities."
Should Schultz run for president in 2020, he will likely promote his decision to offer health insurance to part-time employees at Starbucks, predicted Libby Watson at Splinter News. But with deductibles of $3,000 to $6,000 for the company's least expensive plan, the company's offering is "a massive indictment of America's private health insurance system, and something that would vanish under single payer."
"You should not have to pay out-of-pocket for your healthcare at all, particularly while billionaires are a thing; you should not have to choose between saving money on premiums while hoping you don't get sick, or having less money each week to pay rent just in case you do get sick," wrote Watson. "You wouldn't have to make that decision under single payer, which Schultz opposes, from his $25 million house."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) strongly pushed back against Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz's argument--heard for years from centrist Democrats and Republicans, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary--that a Medicare for All system would be prohibitively expensive for the United States and is not a "realistic" proposal.
"I think his comment is dead wrong," Sanders told Chris Cuomo on CNN Thursday night. "You have a guy who thinks that the United States apparently should remain the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people."
Watch:
Schultz's comments came days after he announced he would step down as chairman of his $23 billion international coffee chain, fueling rumors that he may run for president in 2020.
"It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left," Schultz, who has been a major Democratic donor, told CNBC on Tuesday. "I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like single payer, people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's something realistic. I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises."
Despite Schultz's concern that Sanders's outspoken support for Medicare for All is indicative of a worldview that is out of touch with the American public, polls have found that a growing number of Americans support universal healthcare.
You should not have to choose between saving money on premiums while hoping you don't get sick, or having less money each week to pay rent just in case you do get sick. You wouldn't have to make that decision under single payer, which Schultz opposes, from his $25 million house. --Libby Watson, Splinter News
A Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll found earlier this year that 51 percent of the general public and about three-quarters of Democratic respondents supported a national, government-funded health plan.
Among Democrats who are rumored to be running for president in 2020, Schultz's disdain for bold progressive initiatives puts him in the minority.
Suspected contenders including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have all joined Sanders in co-sponsoring his Medicare for All bill.
"There is no mathematical reason why the U.S. government cannot 'afford' single-payer healthcare," wrote Eric Levitz at New York magazine on Thursday. "America has a higher per-capita GDP than Denmark, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and virtually all other European and Asian nations that boast universal health insurance systems. There is no question that America has the means to ensure that all of its residents have high-quality, affordable healthcare. The fact that the U.S. declines to do so is the product of political choices not technical necessities."
Should Schultz run for president in 2020, he will likely promote his decision to offer health insurance to part-time employees at Starbucks, predicted Libby Watson at Splinter News. But with deductibles of $3,000 to $6,000 for the company's least expensive plan, the company's offering is "a massive indictment of America's private health insurance system, and something that would vanish under single payer."
"You should not have to pay out-of-pocket for your healthcare at all, particularly while billionaires are a thing; you should not have to choose between saving money on premiums while hoping you don't get sick, or having less money each week to pay rent just in case you do get sick," wrote Watson. "You wouldn't have to make that decision under single payer, which Schultz opposes, from his $25 million house."