January, 08 2010, 01:38pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Margaret Flowers, M.D., mdpnhp@gmail.com
Carol Paris, M.D.
Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org
As Probation Ends for 'Baucus 8,' Group Vows to Press for Single-Payer Health Reform
Members of the "Baucus 8," a group of doctors and health advocates
who were arrested at a Senate Finance Committee meeting last May for
standing up and asking why single-payer proponents were not being
allowed to testify, appeared at the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse today
for their final hearing following six months of probation and, for
three of them, 40 hours of community service.
WASHINGTON
Members of the "Baucus 8," a group of doctors and health advocates
who were arrested at a Senate Finance Committee meeting last May for
standing up and asking why single-payer proponents were not being
allowed to testify, appeared at the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse today
for their final hearing following six months of probation and, for
three of them, 40 hours of community service.
Dr. Pat Salomon, a retired pediatrician, commented on the
circumstances that prompted their original action. "When we looked at
the list of 41 people testifying in the three days of the Finance
Committee's roundtable on health care, we saw that not a single witness
was an advocate of the principle that health care should be a
fundamental human right for all in America, nor was there anyone to
speak for the majority of the American people who support single-payer
Medicare for All," she said.
Senator Max Baucus, D-Mont., chair of the Senate Finance Committee,
had convened the May 5 roundtable to kick off the public consideration
of the 111th Congress' legislative proposals for health care reform.
Weeks before, the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care, a
coalition of nurses, doctors, labor, faith, health advocate and
community groups representing over 20 million people nationwide, had
sent a request to the Finance Committee for one of its leaders testify.
When the request was denied, thousands of single-payer supporters
across the nation contacted the committee to request that single payer
be included in the discussion of health reform proposals, Salomon said.
"Despite the outpouring of requests, we were clearly told that we
would be excluded," said Katie Robbins of Healthcare-NOW. "This
cemented our growing impression that the health care debate was at
best, political theater, and that we would have to try a different
tactic in order that the only really affordable health reform solution
that addresses the real health care needs of 100 percent of our nation
be heard."
Robbins and the seven others then decided to stand up and speak out
in a dignified way, one by one, at the Finance Committee and risk
arrest for committing nonviolent civil disobedience. They were taken
into custody by the Capitol Police, charged with "disruption of
Congress" and released several hours later. Another five single-payer
advocates were arrested the following week after taking similar action.
Kevin Zeese of ProsperityAgenda.US called the committee "pay to
play" because, as he said, "Every seat at the roundtable was bought by
the lobbyists. Sen. Baucus received nearly $2 million in campaign
contributions from the health industry in 2008 and the entire Senate
Finance Committee received over $13 million in 2008."
"Congress and the White House keep calling the medical industry
corporations 'the stakeholders' in this reform process," said Dr.
Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).
"But we know that the true stakeholders are those who provide and
receive medical care, not those who profit off the current situation."
Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action said, "After we were
arrested, Senator Baucus admitted that it was a mistake to take single
payer off the table. Clearly it was. Both the House and Senate bills
would require Americans to buy a junk insurance at an inflated price.
This bill is a bailout of the insurance industry. Instead of bailing
out the private insurance companies, we ought to get rid of them and
replace them with one public insurance pool. Everybody in, nobody out.
Congress ought to defeat this monstrosity, start from scratch and pass
single payer. We will get single payer sooner or later. Better sooner."
Dr. Carol Paris, also of PNHP and a practicing physician in southern
Maryland, said, "Wendell Potter, formerly of CIGNA and Humana, calls
the legislation pending in Congress 'The Private Health Insurance
Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.' And we agree, because the final
legislation will benefit the medical corporations, further
strengthening their ability to buy members of Congress, and will
continue the expensive and complicated health situation that we have in
this country right now which makes it difficult for patients and
doctors to focus on health care."
In fact, as an example of the revolving door between those who are
lobbyists and those who are staff, several members of the group pointed
to Liz Fowler, former vice president of public policy at WellPoint, one
of the largest health insurers in the nation. Fowler left her lucrative
position to work as the point person in the Senate Finance Committee to
oversee the legislation, they said, and her name appears as the creator
of a Baucus document titled "Framework for Comprehensive Health Reform"
issued last September.
Mark Dudzic of the Labor Campaign for Single Payer said the group's
action has been vindicated by the subsequent actions in the Senate.
"The current deplorable proposals for health care reform under
consideration in Congress show what happens when you start bargaining
by conceding all of the terrain to your opponent. Any shop steward in
America would have done a better job than the leaders of the political
party in control of overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress."
In addition to requesting that the eight be put on probation, the
prosecutor insisted that the three defendants who lived in the
Washington area also perform 40 hours of community service.
"I spend every day serving my community," said Adam Schneider, who
is employed by Health Care for the Homeless. "I'm proud of the stand we
took and had no problem doing an extra 40 hours of service to my
community. But if there was any justice in the world, Sen. Baucus and
his corporate sponsors would have also been required to spend 40 hours
with my clients to understand their desperate need for access to health
care before they give a $500 billion bailout to the private health
insurance industry."
The group is unanimous that no matter what passes this year, the
push for genuine health care reform is not over. Patients will continue
to suffer and die needlessly, families will continue to face bankruptcy
and foreclosure because of medical debt until we have a national
publicly financed and privately delivered single-payer,
Medicare-for-All health system. Such a system would be transparent and
accountable to the public, unlike the current situation in which
private insurers are experts at hiding information from the public and
at violating their own written rules without recourse.
This year saw tremendous growth in a national movement for Medicare
for All, they said. They vowed to continue to do whatever it takes,
even facing arrest again, to get an honest and open-minded debate about
what type of health system is best, so that people of the United States
can be healthy and productive and stop worrying about what they will do
if accident or illness strikes.
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.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


