

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.

The nation's largest union and professional organization of
registered nurses today called on House members to hold the line in
opposing a tax on workers' healthcare benefits, and called for other
changes in the final healthcare legislation to expand affordability and
crack down on insurance industry abuses.
The nation's largest union and professional organization of
registered nurses today called on House members to hold the line in
opposing a tax on workers' healthcare benefits, and called for other
changes in the final healthcare legislation to expand affordability and
crack down on insurance industry abuses.
"It is unconscionable that workers and families with
employer-sponsored health plans, who receive virtually no benefits from
the proposed legislation, would have their health coverage taxed and
seriously eroded," said Deborah Burger, RN, co-president of the 150,000
member National Nurses United, formed last month through a unification
of the California Nurses Association/NNOC, United American Nurses, and
the Massachusetts Nurses Association.
"Enactment of this tax would be a disgraceful betrayal of working families and their yearning for genuine reform," Burger said.
The excise tax on workers' benefits is a central plank of the Senate
version of the bill, and is supported by the White House, in contrast
to the House bill which instead sets new taxes on the highest-income
earners. Congressional Budget estimates say the tax would affect 19
percent of employer-paid plans, or 30 million Americans by 2016, a
number that Citizens for Tax Justice says will soar to 58 million
people by 2019.
"Advocates of the tax have made clear their intent: to force
working people into cheaper, high deductible plans that provide less
coverage and shift more costs to employees. The inevitable effect will
be more people skipping needed medical care, enduring much higher
out-of-pocket costs and risking financial ruin due to medical bills,"
said NNU Co-president Karen Higgins, RN.
A Towers-Perrin employer survey last September found 86 percent of
employers would pass along their higher costs to employees, "an
especially bitter pill for those working families who were assured that
health reform would not undermine their present coverage," said NNU
Co-president Jean Ross, RN. "They will be saddled with higher costs and
less coverage, while insurance companies will still have free rein to
raise premiums, co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance and other fees, and
continue to routinely deny needed medical care."
"Enactment of the tax, whose central premise is to control
healthcare costs by reducing utilization of needed medical care while
failing to control the pricing practices of the healthcare industry,
would symbolize a central failing of the proposed legislation, ceding
far too much to the insurers and the rest of the healthcare industry,"
Burger added.
In addition to calling on Congressional leaders to drop the excise
tax, NNU is calling on Congress to make other changes in the final
bill, including:
1. A state waiver to ERISA, the federal employee retirement system,
to allow states to pass Medicare for all/single-payer reforms without a
court challenge from healthcare corporations.
2. Medicaid expansion to 150 percent of the poverty level (the House
version) rather than the more limited Senate Medicaid expansion. Half
of the increased coverage under the bill comes through Medicaid
expansion; with the failure of Congress to stop the price gouging of
the insurers and drug companies, the broadest possible increase in
Medicaid eligibility is essential for American families.
3. Closure of the loopholes on the insurance regulations in the
bills that ostensibly ban rescissions (insurers dropping people when
they get sick) and refusal to sell policies to people with pre-existing
conditions.
Among the ways to close those loopholes are:
A. Eliminate the state-based exchanges in favor of a strongly
regulated federal exchange, to prohibit insurers from avoiding strong
consumer-won protections in some states by issuing the policies in
unregulated states.
B. Prohibit rescissions under any circumstances. The current bill
allows patients to be dropped for "fraud or intentional
misrepresentation," the same pretext insurers commonly use now.
C. Prevent insurers from being able to charge up to four times more
based on age, or more for certain conditions. No age-based premiums
should be allowed, and the bill should include a direct prohibition on
marketing gimmicks that enable insurers to avoid sicker enrollees.
D. Bar the higher charges allowed for employees who fail "wellness"
programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high
cholesterol readings or other chronic conditions.
"The repeated concessions Congress and the White House have made to
opponents and obstructionists have gravely weakened the promise of
reform," said Higgins. "Nurses will continue to campaign for more cost
effective, comprehensive reform by expanding Medicare to cover
everyone, and passing single payer bills in individual states."
"In the meantime, Congress has one final opportunity to fix some of
the worst problems in this legislation. We will be closely monitoring
the votes of our legislators on the final bill," Ross said. "We ask and
expect members of the House of Representatives to vote no on any bill
providing for an excise tax on health care benefits."
National Nurses United, with close to 185,000 members in every state, is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in US history.
(240) 235-2000The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."
Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”