To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Medicare for All advocates on Wednesday noted that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow employers to refuse to cover contraceptives presented a clear argument in favor of a universal healthcare system under which employment would not be tied to healthcare. (Photo: NNU/flickr/cc)
Healthcare advocates Wednesday charged that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on birth control access is just the latest evidence that the federal government must expand Medicare coverage to all Americans, eliminating the for-profit system in which employment is tied to people's ability to obtain medical care.
Shortly after the 7-2 ruling in Trump vs. Pennsylvania declared the Trump administration was correct to exempt employers from having to cover birth control for employees on religious or moral grounds, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pointed out how such rulings make clear that under the current for-profit healthcare system, medical decisions will never simply be between a patient and doctor.
"Patients' ability to get contraception shouldn't be up to employers. It should be a decision between patients and their doctors," tweeted Sanders, whose Medicare for All Act of 2019 has 14 co-sponsors in the Senate. "Healthcare--including birth control--is a right, not an employee benefit."
Sanders' outrage over the ruling echoed that of national reproductive rights groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood, but those organizations did not suggest fundamentally reforming the healthcare system by covering everyone in the U.S. under the existing Medicare system and taking women's healthcare decisions out of the hands of their employers.
"We must fight Trump's rollback of these rights by passing Medicare for All," said Sanders.
\u201cPatients\u2019 ability to get contraception shouldn\u2019t be up to employers. It should be a decision between patients and their doctors. \n\nHealth care\u2014including birth control\u2014is a right, not an employee benefit.\n\nWe must fight Trump\u2019s rollback of these rights by passing Medicare for All.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1594221499
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) wrote later in the day that "this wouldn't even be an issue if healthcare wasn't tied to employment."
\u201cEmployers shouldn't be able to use their religion to deny birth control coverage under the ACA.\n\nThis wouldn't even be an issue if health care wasn't tied to employment.\n\nWith Medicare for All, contraceptives would be free regardless of where you work.\nhttps://t.co/vUKlRoxsqk\u201d— Ro Khanna (@Ro Khanna) 1594231500
The ruling was the latest example for Medicare for All advocates to point to as they decry the dangerous risks inherent in the current for-profit health insurance system.
The Economic Policy Institute estimated in May that since the coronavirus pandemic began in the U.S., 16.2 million Americans have lost the health coverage they had access to through their employers, as the unemployment crisis caused by the public health emergency has left more than 32 million without work. EPI and others have recommended since the pandemic began that Medicare and Medicaid be expanded to cope with the economic effects.
Progressive congressional candidates Christopher Hale, who is running in Tennessee, and Beth Doglio, who is running in Washington, also wrote on social media that women's access to birth control should not be up to one's employer.
\u201cIf you're understandably upset with the Supreme Court ruling that employers with religious objections can be exempt from the ACA's birth control mandate, you should support Medicare-for-all.\n\nBoth Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church support it. https://t.co/07QUot7rMT\u201d— Christopher Hale (@Christopher Hale) 1594230792
\u201cBirth control is essential healthcare and we need to expand access, not restrict it. This is another prime example of why we need Medicare for All \u2014 the healthcare services you receive should not be left up to your employer!\u201d— Beth Doglio (@Beth Doglio) 1594228688
In 2014, after the Supreme Court first ruled that employers can refuse to cover contraceptives in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, Hale wrote at Time magazine that the decision revealed "that Obamacare--for all the good it's done in increasing access to quality and affordable healthcare--is a messy law."
"It asks employees to be at the whim of its employers' objectives and mission for what healthcare benefits they receive," Hale wrote. "This isn't sustainable. A person's access to quality healthcare shouldn't depend on who their boss is."
Medicare for All would represent "freedom" to Americans, wrote Justice Democrats co-founder and radio host Kyle Kulinski, while the for-profit employment-based system is "tyranny."
\u201cSingle-payer medicare for all = freedom. Our current private, for-profit employer based health insurance racket = tyranny. Your boss can get in between you and your doctor because *they* believe in religious fundamentalism. Pathetic.\u201d— Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99 (@Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99) 1594220202
"Do you know what would be great? If employers and insurance companies weren't involved in birth control or healthcare at all," tweeted Holly Stallcup, executive director of Rise, a faith-based women's organization in Texas. "If all medically related decisions really were between doctor and patient. Medicare for All would be happy to help."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Healthcare advocates Wednesday charged that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on birth control access is just the latest evidence that the federal government must expand Medicare coverage to all Americans, eliminating the for-profit system in which employment is tied to people's ability to obtain medical care.
Shortly after the 7-2 ruling in Trump vs. Pennsylvania declared the Trump administration was correct to exempt employers from having to cover birth control for employees on religious or moral grounds, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pointed out how such rulings make clear that under the current for-profit healthcare system, medical decisions will never simply be between a patient and doctor.
"Patients' ability to get contraception shouldn't be up to employers. It should be a decision between patients and their doctors," tweeted Sanders, whose Medicare for All Act of 2019 has 14 co-sponsors in the Senate. "Healthcare--including birth control--is a right, not an employee benefit."
Sanders' outrage over the ruling echoed that of national reproductive rights groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood, but those organizations did not suggest fundamentally reforming the healthcare system by covering everyone in the U.S. under the existing Medicare system and taking women's healthcare decisions out of the hands of their employers.
"We must fight Trump's rollback of these rights by passing Medicare for All," said Sanders.
\u201cPatients\u2019 ability to get contraception shouldn\u2019t be up to employers. It should be a decision between patients and their doctors. \n\nHealth care\u2014including birth control\u2014is a right, not an employee benefit.\n\nWe must fight Trump\u2019s rollback of these rights by passing Medicare for All.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1594221499
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) wrote later in the day that "this wouldn't even be an issue if healthcare wasn't tied to employment."
\u201cEmployers shouldn't be able to use their religion to deny birth control coverage under the ACA.\n\nThis wouldn't even be an issue if health care wasn't tied to employment.\n\nWith Medicare for All, contraceptives would be free regardless of where you work.\nhttps://t.co/vUKlRoxsqk\u201d— Ro Khanna (@Ro Khanna) 1594231500
The ruling was the latest example for Medicare for All advocates to point to as they decry the dangerous risks inherent in the current for-profit health insurance system.
The Economic Policy Institute estimated in May that since the coronavirus pandemic began in the U.S., 16.2 million Americans have lost the health coverage they had access to through their employers, as the unemployment crisis caused by the public health emergency has left more than 32 million without work. EPI and others have recommended since the pandemic began that Medicare and Medicaid be expanded to cope with the economic effects.
Progressive congressional candidates Christopher Hale, who is running in Tennessee, and Beth Doglio, who is running in Washington, also wrote on social media that women's access to birth control should not be up to one's employer.
\u201cIf you're understandably upset with the Supreme Court ruling that employers with religious objections can be exempt from the ACA's birth control mandate, you should support Medicare-for-all.\n\nBoth Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church support it. https://t.co/07QUot7rMT\u201d— Christopher Hale (@Christopher Hale) 1594230792
\u201cBirth control is essential healthcare and we need to expand access, not restrict it. This is another prime example of why we need Medicare for All \u2014 the healthcare services you receive should not be left up to your employer!\u201d— Beth Doglio (@Beth Doglio) 1594228688
In 2014, after the Supreme Court first ruled that employers can refuse to cover contraceptives in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, Hale wrote at Time magazine that the decision revealed "that Obamacare--for all the good it's done in increasing access to quality and affordable healthcare--is a messy law."
"It asks employees to be at the whim of its employers' objectives and mission for what healthcare benefits they receive," Hale wrote. "This isn't sustainable. A person's access to quality healthcare shouldn't depend on who their boss is."
Medicare for All would represent "freedom" to Americans, wrote Justice Democrats co-founder and radio host Kyle Kulinski, while the for-profit employment-based system is "tyranny."
\u201cSingle-payer medicare for all = freedom. Our current private, for-profit employer based health insurance racket = tyranny. Your boss can get in between you and your doctor because *they* believe in religious fundamentalism. Pathetic.\u201d— Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99 (@Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99) 1594220202
"Do you know what would be great? If employers and insurance companies weren't involved in birth control or healthcare at all," tweeted Holly Stallcup, executive director of Rise, a faith-based women's organization in Texas. "If all medically related decisions really were between doctor and patient. Medicare for All would be happy to help."
Healthcare advocates Wednesday charged that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on birth control access is just the latest evidence that the federal government must expand Medicare coverage to all Americans, eliminating the for-profit system in which employment is tied to people's ability to obtain medical care.
Shortly after the 7-2 ruling in Trump vs. Pennsylvania declared the Trump administration was correct to exempt employers from having to cover birth control for employees on religious or moral grounds, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pointed out how such rulings make clear that under the current for-profit healthcare system, medical decisions will never simply be between a patient and doctor.
"Patients' ability to get contraception shouldn't be up to employers. It should be a decision between patients and their doctors," tweeted Sanders, whose Medicare for All Act of 2019 has 14 co-sponsors in the Senate. "Healthcare--including birth control--is a right, not an employee benefit."
Sanders' outrage over the ruling echoed that of national reproductive rights groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood, but those organizations did not suggest fundamentally reforming the healthcare system by covering everyone in the U.S. under the existing Medicare system and taking women's healthcare decisions out of the hands of their employers.
"We must fight Trump's rollback of these rights by passing Medicare for All," said Sanders.
\u201cPatients\u2019 ability to get contraception shouldn\u2019t be up to employers. It should be a decision between patients and their doctors. \n\nHealth care\u2014including birth control\u2014is a right, not an employee benefit.\n\nWe must fight Trump\u2019s rollback of these rights by passing Medicare for All.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1594221499
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) wrote later in the day that "this wouldn't even be an issue if healthcare wasn't tied to employment."
\u201cEmployers shouldn't be able to use their religion to deny birth control coverage under the ACA.\n\nThis wouldn't even be an issue if health care wasn't tied to employment.\n\nWith Medicare for All, contraceptives would be free regardless of where you work.\nhttps://t.co/vUKlRoxsqk\u201d— Ro Khanna (@Ro Khanna) 1594231500
The ruling was the latest example for Medicare for All advocates to point to as they decry the dangerous risks inherent in the current for-profit health insurance system.
The Economic Policy Institute estimated in May that since the coronavirus pandemic began in the U.S., 16.2 million Americans have lost the health coverage they had access to through their employers, as the unemployment crisis caused by the public health emergency has left more than 32 million without work. EPI and others have recommended since the pandemic began that Medicare and Medicaid be expanded to cope with the economic effects.
Progressive congressional candidates Christopher Hale, who is running in Tennessee, and Beth Doglio, who is running in Washington, also wrote on social media that women's access to birth control should not be up to one's employer.
\u201cIf you're understandably upset with the Supreme Court ruling that employers with religious objections can be exempt from the ACA's birth control mandate, you should support Medicare-for-all.\n\nBoth Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church support it. https://t.co/07QUot7rMT\u201d— Christopher Hale (@Christopher Hale) 1594230792
\u201cBirth control is essential healthcare and we need to expand access, not restrict it. This is another prime example of why we need Medicare for All \u2014 the healthcare services you receive should not be left up to your employer!\u201d— Beth Doglio (@Beth Doglio) 1594228688
In 2014, after the Supreme Court first ruled that employers can refuse to cover contraceptives in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, Hale wrote at Time magazine that the decision revealed "that Obamacare--for all the good it's done in increasing access to quality and affordable healthcare--is a messy law."
"It asks employees to be at the whim of its employers' objectives and mission for what healthcare benefits they receive," Hale wrote. "This isn't sustainable. A person's access to quality healthcare shouldn't depend on who their boss is."
Medicare for All would represent "freedom" to Americans, wrote Justice Democrats co-founder and radio host Kyle Kulinski, while the for-profit employment-based system is "tyranny."
\u201cSingle-payer medicare for all = freedom. Our current private, for-profit employer based health insurance racket = tyranny. Your boss can get in between you and your doctor because *they* believe in religious fundamentalism. Pathetic.\u201d— Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99 (@Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99) 1594220202
"Do you know what would be great? If employers and insurance companies weren't involved in birth control or healthcare at all," tweeted Holly Stallcup, executive director of Rise, a faith-based women's organization in Texas. "If all medically related decisions really were between doctor and patient. Medicare for All would be happy to help."
