

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.
Mark Almberg, Physicians for a National Health Program,
(312) 782-6006, cell: (312) 622-0996,
mark@pnhp.org
Canada's publicly funded health insurance program known as medicare "is one of the best health care systems in the world," a leading U.S. health policy expert says, but is being threatened by government underfunding and by those who would partially privatize it under the guise of reducing wait times for elective medical procedures.
Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, writes in the Oct. 21 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) that Canada's health expenditures are half those in the United States - US$3,326 per person versus US$6,697. Yet, in sharp contrast to the U.S., Canada's health system guarantees essential medical care to all of the country's residents.
In addition, Angell says, since the full implementation of medicare in 1972, Canada's medical outcomes have surpassed those of the U.S. "The life expectancy of Americans is now 2.5 years shorter than that of Canadians," she writes. "Infant mortality rates are higher in the U.S., as is preventable mortality (death before the age of 75 from diseases that are amenable to treatment)." Americans also visit their doctors much less often than their Canadian counterparts.
Saying the only plausible explanation for the U.S. spending more and getting less than Canada is that the U.S. system is "enormously inefficient," an inefficiency that stems from relying "primarily on private, largely investor-owned corporations to provide health care."
These for-profit health insurance companies, hospitals, and "satellite businesses that have sprung up around the health care industry" like drug-management companies, utilization review companies and billing agencies siphon off about 31 percent of all health care spending in the U.S. for administrative costs, marketing and profits, she says.
By contrast, she writes, Canada's public system and the U.S. Medicare system incur administrative costs of 2 percent or less.
The main charge leveled against Canada's system is that it requires excessive wait times, particularly for elective procedures, Angell says.
Waiting times are a concern, she says. Some waits were lengthened when Canada adopted a 1984 law that essentially abolished user fees and extra charges. To compensate, system administrators tried to contain costs by controlling the supply of services like imaging and the use of surgical facilities, leading to longer waits.
Wait times also increased in the 1990s, when the Canadian system was badly underfunded. The funding became a political issue, and while subsequent funding improved the situation, today "waiting times are still too long for certain elective procedures, such as hip and knee replacements, and it takes time for increased funding to be translated into more facilities and specialists."
But waiting lists for these procedures are no reason to abandon what clearly amounts to a superior overall system of delivering health care, a system that provides essential health care to all based on medical need, not ability to pay, Angell says. Canadian medicare still remains popular with the public, she notes.
Those who say that privatizing part of Canada's system will reduce wait times have produced little evidence to back up their claim, she says. In fact, Angell believes the pressure to partially privatize the Canadian system has more to do with "the desire of businesses and some specialists to profit from the system, just as they do in the U.S.," combined with a desire on the part of federal and provincial governments to shift more health care costs onto individual patients.
Such steps toward privatization would backfire, she says, since "for-profit care is nearly always more expensive and often of lower quality."
Instead, she urges better funding for Canada's medicare. "The wisest course for Canada is to expand and reinforce its public system, not undermine it," Angell says.
Angell, the former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, notes that many Americans also appreciate the merits of a national health insurance system: "Polls have shown that about two-thirds of Americans would prefer a Canadian-style system, as would three-fifths of doctors."
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
One analyst said the Nexstar-Tegna merger was "yet another threat to our democracy, with fewer media companies controlling what gets reported on and how."
Free press advocates warned Thursday that the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to greenlight Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna further imperils US democracy by accelerating the consolidation of broadcast media and extending the reach of right-wing propaganda.
According to The New York Times, the $6.2 billion deal will form a conglomerate that will "oversee 265 television stations in 44 states and Washington, reaching about 80% of US households," making it by far the largest owner of local TV news in the country. Nexstar is headed by megamillionaire Perry Sook.
Commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat currently serving on the FCC, accused her colleagues of rushing approval of the Nexstar-Tegna merger while keeping the general public completely in the dark.
"This merger was approved behind closed doors with no open process, no full commission vote, and no transparency for the consumers and communities who will bear the consequences," said Gomez, who added that the entire process was "meant to avoid public scrutiny."
Several critics echoed Gomez's concerns in denouncing approval of the merger.
Matt Wood, general counsel and vice president of policy at Free Press, accused the FCC of ignoring its own rules limiting broadcast TV station ownership to create a right-wing propaganda machine aimed at pushing the agenda of President Donald Trump and his allies.
"This deal would create a massive broadcast conglomerate willing to put the political agenda of Donald Trump over the needs of the communities local television serves," said Wood. "[FCC Chairman Brendan] Carr and his allies in Nexstar’s executive suites have put up a smokescreen of rhetoric designed to dupe people into believing that these national conglomerates are truly local stations."
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, described the FCC's merger approval as "a betrayal of the agency’s legal obligations and the public it is supposed to serve." He predicted the deal would have a devastating impact on the quality of local TV news.
“In every market where Nexstar already operates multiple stations, it has consolidated news operations, merged newsrooms, and cut staff," Bergmayer said. "Nexstar’s CEO told investors the company analyzed the overlap markets ‘line by line, person by person’ to determine where to make cuts. Fewer owners means fewer reporters, fewer editorial voices, and fewer checks on local power."
Bergmayer added that the merger is "yet another threat to our democracy, with fewer media companies controlling what gets reported on and how."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, warned that the merger is part of "the creation of state media" under the Trump administration, and described it as "even more dangerous than Ellison Inc.," a reference to the proposed mega-merger between Paramount Skydance—a company controlled by the son of billionaire Trump donor Larry Ellison—and Warner Bros. Discovery.
Even with FCC approval, Nexstar's acquisition of Tegna is not yet a done deal, as eight state attorneys general this week filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the merger.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the state AGs involved in the lawsuit, described the Nexstar-Tegna deal as "illegal, plain and simple."
"When broadcast media is owned by a handful of companies, we get fewer voices, less competition," said Bonta, "and communities lose the critical check on power that local journalism delivers."
"Trump doesn't need Israel's permission to end this war," said one observer. "The longer he waits, the more Americans pay."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that "there has to be a ground component" to the war on Iran as a new survey of US voters showed just 7% support for a large-scale invasion involving American forces.
"It is often said that you can't win, you can't do revolutions from the air. That is true," Netanyahu told reporters during a press conference in Jerusalem. "You can do a lot of things from the air... but there has to be a ground component, as well. There are many possibilities for this ground component. And I take the liberty of not sharing with you all of those possibilities."
Netanyahu's insistence on the necessity of ground operations in Iran came as US President Donald Trump declared to reporters in the White House on Thursday, "I'm not putting troops anywhere."
"If I were," he added, "I certainly wouldn't tell you."
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday found that just 7% of US voters support the idea of a large-scale ground invasion of Iran—but 65% of Americans believe that Trump will order such an operation anyway.
Just 34% of US voters would support "deploying a small number of special forces troops" to Iran, the survey found, while 55% said they would oppose the use of any ground troops.
The survey came days after Reuters reported that the Trump administration is "considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran."
The Pentagon's push for $200 billion in supplemental funding from the US Congress, which did not authorize the Iran war, amplified concerns that the Trump administration is gearing up for a prolonged conflict that could involve American troops on the ground, despite Trump's repeated public insistence that the war will be over "very soon."
Both US and Israeli intelligence agencies have reportedly assessed that Iran's regime is not on the verge of collapse after nearly three weeks of relentless bombing.
"Western officials and analysts who study Iran said they see little near-term prospect of a 'regime change' end to the 47-year-old Islamic republic or the rise of a more democratic government," The Washington Post reported earlier this week. "The latter is a goal cited by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and sometimes by President Donald Trump, who has said he’ll know the war is over 'when I feel it in my bones.'"
Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at the pro-democracy group DAWN, said Thursday that "the United States and Israel are not fighting the same war," pointing to recent Israeli strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure. The strikes drew a public rebuke from Trump, who is facing soaring gas prices at home due to the illegal war he launched in partnership with Netanyahu.
"Trump wants a quick exit. Netanyahu wants to permanently destroy Iran as a regional power," said Shakir. "There is an exit. Trump doesn't need Israel's permission to end this war. He's done it before in Yemen. The longer he waits, the more Americans pay."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned Thursday that Trump may be running out of time to "convincingly declare victory and provide himself a face-saving exit."
"Israel will do all it can to sabotage any such off-ramp, including killing Iranian's negotiators," Parsi wrote. "But it will become increasingly clear—if it hasn't already—to Trump that all his escalatory options only deepen the lose-lose situation he has put himself in."
"That's why Trump should never have listened to Netanyahu in the first place," he added.
"People can't afford childcare," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that it is absurd for the Trump administration to demand another $200 billion from Congress for an illegal war on Iran after lawmakers already approved $1 trillion in military spending for the year—and while millions of people across the nation are struggling to afford basic necessities.
"You got people all over this country, 20% of households, spending 50% of their income on housing," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an appearance on MS NOW. "People can't afford healthcare. People can't afford childcare. And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
The senator's remarks came as President Donald Trump, who has not yet formally requested the funds from Congress, suggested another $200 billion would be a "small price to pay" as the US-Israeli war on Iran heads toward its fourth week with no end in sight.
"I think the Trump people are in a bit of panic," Sanders said Thursday. "They're losing ground. Gas prices are soaring. There is massive discontent against this war. It's got to end, and we've got to make sure that Trump is neutered in 2026."
With the Trump administration considering a plan to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East amid widespread fears of a ground invasion of Iran—which would explode the price tag of an already costly war—the National Priorities Project (NPP) released an analysis highlighting where the $200 billion requested by the Pentagon could be better spent.
The group estimated that $200 billion would be enough for all of the following this year:
"Pete Hegseth would rather the US bomb Iranian families than feed American families," wrote NPP's Lindsay Koshgarian, referring to the Pentagon secretary. "We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion. We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping struggling Americans, not feeding new forever wars."