

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, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, 
mark@pnhp.org
Rising
to President Obama's challenge to others in his State of the Union
address that they come up with a better approach to health care reform
than his own, physicians who advocate for a single-payer program
stepped forward this morning to again make the case for their
alternative, which they say has solid public support.
Among them is Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrician and congressional
fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization of
17,000 physicians who support a single-payer system, who is traveling
to the White House today to deliver an open letter to the president calling on him to meet with her and other Medicare-for-All advocates.
Also speaking out today are Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David
Himmelstein, co-founders of PNHP, primary care physicians in Cambridge,
Mass., and professors at Harvard Medical School, who provided commentary in a blog in today's New York Times.
In her letter to Obama, Flowers notes how surprised she and others were
when single-payer advocates were excluded from the early stages of the
discussions on health reform. Flowers was one of several physicians,
nurses and reform advocates who were arrested at Senate Finance
Committee hearings last spring for standing up and asking in a
dignified way why the Medicare-for-All option was "off the table."
Flowers writes: "I am asking you to meet with me because the solution
is simple. Remove all of the industries who profit off of the American
health care catastrophe from the table. Replace them with those who are
knowledgeable in designing health systems and who are without ties to
the for-profit medical industries. And then allow them to design an
improved Medicare-for-All national health system."
Flowers then itemizes the advantages of adopting such a system, saying
that it would cover everyone, save thousands of lives, relieve medical
debt, control costs, help the economy, and restore the
physician-patient relationship. Obama himself is on record noting only
a single-payer plan would provide universal coverage: "The truth is
unless you have what's called a single-payer system in which everyone's
automatically covered, you're probably not going to reach every single
individual."
The full text of Flowers' letter, and the blog commentary by Woolhandler and Himmelstein, appear below.
All three, plus several other physicians, are available for comment on the president's speech last night.
There is still time for real reform, listen to the American people
By Margaret Flowers, M.D.
An Open Letter to President Obama on Health Care Reform
January 28, 2010
President Barack Obama|
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama,
I was overjoyed to hear you say in your State of the Union address last night:
"But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring
down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen
Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."
My colleagues, fellow health advocates and I have been trying to meet
with you for over a year now because we have an approach which will
meet all of your goals and more.
I am a pediatrician who, like many of my primary care colleagues, left
practice because it is nearly impossible to deliver high quality health
care in this environment. I have been volunteering for Physicians for a
National Health Program ever since. For over a year now, I have been
working with the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care/
National Single Payer Alliance. This alliance represents over 20
million people nationwide from doctors to nurses to labor, faith and
community groups who advocate on behalf of the majority of Americans,
including doctors, who favor a national Medicare-for-All health system.
I felt very optimistic when Congress took up health care reform last
January because I remember when you spoke to the Illinois AFL-CIO in
June, 2003 and said:
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care
program." [applause] "I see no reason why the United States of America,
the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent
of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic
health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about
when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan,
a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as
all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we
have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and
we have to take back the House."
And that is why I was so surprised when the voices of those who support
a national single-payer plan/Medicare for All were excluded in place of
the voices of the very health insurance and pharmaceutical industries
which profit off the current health care situation.
There was an opportunity this past year to create universal and
financially sustainable health care reform rather than expensive health
insurance reform. As you well know, the United States spends the most
per capita on health care in the world yet leaves millions of people
out and receives poor return on those health care dollars in terms of
health outcomes and efficiency. This poor value for our health care
dollar is due to the waste of having so many insurance companies. At
least a third of our health care dollars go towards activities that
have nothing to do with health care such as marketing, administration
and high executive salaries and bonuses. This represents over $400
billion per year which could be used to pay for health care for all of
those Americans who are suffering and dying from preventable causes.
The good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. You said that you
wanted to "keep what works" and that would be Medicare. Medicare is an
American legacy of which we can feel proud. It has guaranteed health
security to all who have it. Medicare has lifted senior citizens out of
poverty. Health disparities, which are rising in this nation, begin to
disappear as soon as patients reach 65 years of age. And patients and
doctors prefer Medicare to private insurance. Why, our Medicare has
even been used as a model by other nations which have developed and
implemented universal health systems.
Mr. President, we wanted to meet with you because we have the solution
to health care reform. The United States has enough money already and
we have the resources, including esteemed experts in public health,
health policy and health financing. Our very own Dr. William Hsiao at
Harvard has designed health systems in five other countries.
I am asking you to meet with me because the solution is simple. Remove
all of the industries who profit off of the American health care
catastrophe from the table. Replace them with those who are
knowledgeable in designing health systems and who are without ties to
the for-profit medical industries. And then allow them to design an
improved Medicare-for-All national health system. We can implement it
within a year of designing such a system.
What are the benefits of doing this?
* It will save tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of
American lives each year, not to mention the prevention of unnecessary
suffering.
* It will relieve families of medical debt, which is the number one
cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure despite the fact that most of those
who experienced bankruptcy had health insurance.
* It will relieve businesses of the growing burden of skyrocketing
health insurance premiums so that they can invest in innovation,
hiring, increased wages and other benefits and so they can compete in
the global market.
* It will control health care costs in a rational way through global
budgeting and negotiation for fair prices for pharmaceuticals and
services.
* It will allow patients the freedom to choose wherever they want to go
for health care and will allow patients and their caregivers to
determine which care is best without denials by insurance
administrators.
* It will restore the physician-patient relationship and bring
satisfaction back to the practice of medicine so that more doctors will
stay in or return to practice.
* It will allow our people in our nation to be healthy and productive and able to support themselves and their families.
* It will create a legacy for your administration that may someday
elevate you to the same hero status as Tommy Douglas has in Canada.
Mr. President, there are more benefits, but I believe you get the
point. I look forward to meeting with you and am so pleased that you
are open to our ideas. The Medicare-for-All campaign is growing rapidly
and is ready to support you as we move forward on health care reform
that will provide America with one of the best health systems in the
world. And that is something of which all Americans can be proud.
With great anticipation and deep respect,
 Margaret Flowers, M.D.
 Congressional Fellow, Physicians for a National Health Program
[This article originally appeared in OpEd News: https://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-Still-Time-For-Re-by-Margaret-Flowers--100127-703.html ]
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.
An unknown number of Palestinians abducted by Israel died or were killed while in custody; living former prisoners have described horrific and sometimes deadly torture.
Israel on Wednesday returned the bodies of dozens of Palestinians abducted during the Gaza genocide showing "signs of torture, mutilation, and execution," as one US-based news site reported—a description consistent with the testimonies of former prisoners held by the Israeli forces over the past two years.
So far, Israel has returned 90 bodies, with more expected to be handed over soon, as part ofo the ceasefire agreement reached with Hamas last week. The Gaza Health Ministry's forensic team said that some of the bodies were blindfolded and bound, and bore signs of torture similar to those seen on many of the living Palestinian prisoners freed by Israel on Monday.
Some of the dead prisoners appeared to be victims of field executions—a war crime Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops have allegedly committed against men, women, and children alike.
Furthermore, Israel's obliteration of Gaza's healthcare and medical infrastructure is making it difficult for Palestinian forensic personnel to identify the bodies returned by Israel, which are in various states of decomposition.
"The horrific scenes visible on the bodies of the martyrs returned by the occupation, bearing marks of torture, abuse, and field executions, clearly reveal the criminal and fascist nature of the occupation army and the moral and human decadence this entity has reached," Hamas said in a statement.
"We call upon international rights groups, foremost among them the [United Nations] and [its] Human Rights Council, to document these atrocious crimes, open an urgent and comprehensive investigation into them, and bring the occupation leaders to trial before relevant international courts, as they are responsible for committing unprecedented crimes against humanity in our modern history," the statement added.
🟢 New Press Statement - Hamas:—The horrific scenes visible on the bodies of the martyrs returned by the occupation, bearing marks of torture, abuse, and field executions, clearly reveal the criminal and fascist nature of the occupation army and the moral and human decadence this entity has...
[image or embed]
— Drop Site (@dropsitenews.com) October 16, 2025 at 10:22 AM
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation. The International Court of Justice is also weighing an ongoing genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and supported by around two dozen nations.
Although warned by their Israeli captors against speaking out, Palestinians freed from Israeli imprisonment this week described being held in a "slaughterhouse" rife with torture and abuse, including beatings, electrocution, and being shot with rubber-coated steel bullets.
Palestinians imprisoned by Israeli forces—including children—have described being raped and sexually assaulted by male and female soldiers, electrocuted, mauled by dogs, soaked with cold water, denied food and water, deprived of sleep, and blasted with loud music. Dozens of detainees have died in Israeli custody, including one who died after allegedly being sodomized with an electric baton. IDF officers allegedly brought Israeli civilians into detention centers and allowed them to watch and film Palestinian prisoners being tortured
Israeli physicians who served at the notorious Sde Teiman torture prison also described widespread severe injuries caused by 24-hour shackling of hands and feet that sometimes required amputations.
Hamas' treatment of the Israelis it abducted during the October 7, 2023 attack is more complicated, with some freed captives saying they suffered torture and other abuse while others—especially those released early during the war—said they were treated relatively well. An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier captured after the rest of his tank crew were killed said that although he was tortured, his captors granted his request for religious materials including a Torah. One woman even pushed back against Israeli media lies claiming she was wounded by her captors, when in fact it was an Israeli airstrike that injured her.
So far, Hamas has returned the bodies of nine Israeli and other hostages. Israel is calling on Hamas to “make all necessary efforts” to find and hand over the bodies of 21 remaining dead hostages still unaccounted for. 
"The sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech."
Over 30 Democrats in the US House of Representatives wrote to President Donald Trump on Thursday to condemn his designation of antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and a related memorandum targeting the Republican's opponents.
Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) led the letter, which builds on criticism that has mounted since late last month, when Trump issued the executive order against antifa—even though the nationwide anti-fascist movement has no central organizational structure or leaders.
Days later, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which, as the letter details, "directs federal officials to crack down on organized political violence, which you define to include 'anti-Christianity,' 'anti-capitalism,' and 'hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.'"
The lawmakers wrote that "while protecting public safety and countering genuine threats are essential responsibilities of government, the sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech."
"Regardless of whether the president agrees with someone's political views, the Constitution guarantees their right to speak and assemble peacefully," they stressed. They also noted that "neither the memo nor the executive order clearly defines 'antifa' as a specific entity. Instead, the executive order conflates nonviolent protest and activism with doxing and violent behavior."
"While the threat of political violence demands vigilance, your administration must not use this moment to undermine the very constitutional and democratic principles we are sworn to uphold," they concluded. "These actions are illegal, and we demand you immediately rescind both the memorandum and the executive order. We stand ready to take legislative action should you fail to do so."
The letter, which its organizers began circulating earlier this month, was sent to Trump ahead of a second round of "No Kings" protests planned for Saturday. Demonstrators intend to take to the streets in over 2,500 US communities to denounce the president's unprecedented and accelerating attacks on democracy. A key ally of Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), on Wednesday called for passing his bill to "prosecute" funders of the rallies.
In addition to dozens of House Democrats—including lawmakers from Illinois and Oregon, where Trump has deployed immigration agents and tried to federalize the National Guard, sparking court battles—the letter is endorsed by American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Amnesty International, Council for Global Equality, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, Immigration Equality, MPact Global Action, National Women's Law Center, and Secular Coalition for America.
The order and memo are just part of the Trump administration's broad crackdown on dissent, which has also included trying to deport foreign students who criticize Israel's US-backed genocide in the Gaza Strip, cutting reporters off from the Pentagon for refusing to sign a "flatly unconstitutional" press policy, and bullying Disney-owned ABC into temporarily suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Brown University, the University of Southern California, and the University of Pennsylvania—the president's alma mater—all rejected the proposal.
Three more leading US universities have joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in rejecting President Donald Trump's compact that critics have condemned as an "extortion agreement" and "loyalty oath" for federal funding.
Brown University's Wednesday decision and Thursday announcements from the University of Southern California and the University of Pennsylvania came ahead of the Trump administration's October 20 deadline for the nine initially invited schools to respond to the "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education."
Although the University of Texas said it was "honored" to receive the offer, it has not officially signed on to the compact to receive priority access to federal funding and other "benefits." Neither has any of the other institutions: the University of Arizona, Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia.
Bloomberg reported Monday that "a few days after MIT rebuffed the proposal, the administration extended the offering to all higher education institutions," citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter.
Brown's president, Christina Paxson, released her full letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other Trump officials on Wednesday. She pointed out that "on July 30, Brown signed a voluntary resolution agreement with the government that advances a number of the high-level principles articulated in the compact, while maintaining core tenets of academic freedom and self-governance that have sustained the excellence of American higher education across generations."
"While a number of provisions in the compact reflect similar principles as the July agreement—as well as our own commitments to affordability and the free exchange of ideas—I am concerned that the compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown's governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission," Paxson wrote. "While we value our long-held and well-regarded partnership with the federal government, Brown is respectfully declining to join the compact."
Penn, also part of the Ivy League, rejected the compact on Thursday. In a statement, its president, Dr. J. Larry Jameson, said that "for 285 years, Penn has been anchored and guided by continuous self-improvement, using education as a ladder for opportunity, and advancing discoveries that serve our community, our nation, and the world."
"I have sought input from faculty, alumni, trustees, students, staff, and others who care deeply about Penn," with the goal of ensuring that "our response reflected our values and the perspectives of our broad community," Jameson detailed. "Penn respectfully declines to sign the proposed compact," and provided the US Department of Education with "focused feedback highlighting areas of existing alignment as well as substantive concerns."
"At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability," he added. "The long-standing partnership between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress."
As The Daily Pennsylvanian, the campus newspaper, noted:
At a Wednesday meeting, Penn's Faculty Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging the University to reject the agreement.
"The 'compact’ erodes the foundation on which higher education in the United States is built," the October 15 resolution read. "The University of Pennsylvania Faculty Senate urges President Jameson and the Board of Trustees to reject it and any other proposal that similarly threatens our mission and values."
Penn is the alma mater of Trump and Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity financier who helped craft the compact.
The Trump White House told the student newspaper that "any higher education institution unwilling to assume accountability and confront these overdue and necessary reforms will find itself without future government and taxpayers' support."
Despite the risk of funding loss, the University of Southern California also rejected the proposal on Thursday. In a statement to the campus paper, the Daily Trojan, interim president Beong-Soo Kim said that "although USC has declined to join the proposed compact, we look forward to contributing our perspectives, insights, and Trojan values to an important national conversation about the future of higher education."
Critics of the compact have called on educational leaders to oppose it. In a joint statement earlier this month, American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten urged "all college and university governing boards, campus administrations, academic disciplinary organizations, and higher education trade groups to reject such collusion with the Trump administration and to stand firmly on the side of free expression and higher education as the anchor of opportunity for all."
Acquiescing, they argued, "would be a profound betrayal of your students, staff, faculty, the public, higher education, and our shared democracy—one that would irretrievably tarnish your personal reputation and compromise your institution's legacy. We urge you not to capitulate and not to negotiate but to unite now in defense of democracy and higher education."