

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.
STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER, M.D., M.P.H.
MARGARET FLOWERS, M.D.
QUENTIN YOUNG, M.D.
MARK ALMBERG
Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization of 17,000 doctors who support a single-payer, Medicare-for-All approach to reform, said today: "Regrettably, the president's proposal is built on some of the worst aspects of the Senate bill. For example, the president's proposal would ship hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the private health insurance industry in the form of subsidies. And to help finance this, it would impose a new tax on health benefits of workers, especially those in high-cost states.
"Its individual mandate would force millions of middle-income uninsured Americans to buy insurers' skimpy products -- insurance policies full of gaps like ever-rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums. Such policies already leave middle-class American families vulnerable to economic hardship and medical bankruptcy in the event of a serious illness like cancer.
"Even so, at least 23 million people would remain uninsured. We know that being uninsured raises your chance of dying by about 40 percent. That translates into about 23,000 unnecessary deaths each year. As physicians, we find this completely unacceptable.
"In short, this proposal is an insurance company bonanza -- not good, evidence-based health reform. The president would do better by abandoning the insurance and drug companies and instead taking up the single-payer approach. By building on and improving the already popular Medicare program, we could put our patients' interests first. Were President Obama to do so, he would meet with strong public support, including from the medical community."
Although the physicians' group requested an invitation to Thursday's summit at Blair House, no reply from the White House has been forthcoming, Young said. The group also noted: "Similarly, requests from Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Anthony Weiner of New York and Peter Welch of Vermont that single-payer advocates be included in the meeting have apparently gone unanswered."
Young knew Obama while he was in Chicago. His partner, Dr. David Scheiner, also a PNHP member, was Obama's personal physician.
Outside the Blair House on Thursday, a grassroots "Sidewalk Summit for Medicare for All" organized by PNHP and other groups will begin at 9 a.m.
Woolhandler is co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Flowers is a pediatrician who leads PNHP's Maryland chapter, and Almberg is the group's communications director.
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
Sen. Bernie Sanders said his new bill would "guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us—not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer."
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday announced he will soon introduce legislation that would give the American public "a direct ownership stake" in the largest artificial intelligence companies in the US by establishing a sovereign wealth fund, which would ensure everyone benefits from the rapidly advancing technology.
Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a New York Times op-ed that his American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act would create the new fund by imposing a one-time, 50% tax on the stock of OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI behemoths. The sovereign wealth fund, a government-owned investment vehicle, would both "give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology" and "guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us—not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer."
The senator emphasized that "this is not an original idea," noting that scholars and even leading AI companies have proposed some version of a public wealth fund to broadly distribute AI-related gains. Sanders also observed that Norway and Alaska have sovereign wealth funds, and that "even President [Donald] Trump, in an executive order, has proposed establishing an American sovereign wealth fund."
"I recognize that for the government to have a major stake in a company, particularly one for which AI is only part of its business, is complicated," Sanders wrote. "More details—including the specific spending priorities and the mechanics of implementation—will be included in the legislation I unveil in the coming weeks."
"But the principle is simple: When a public resource generates wealth, the public should share in that wealth. AI is being built on a public resource far more valuable than oil: the accumulated knowledge, creativity, and labor of mankind," he continued. "The future of AI and the fate of humanity must not be decided behind closed doors in Silicon Valley. It must not be dictated by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit. It must be decided by workers, parents, teachers, artists, scientists, communities and the American people. It’s our future. We must decide it."
Sanders has been among the most prominent voices expressing grave concerns about the potential for AI to turbocharge inequality and spark catastrophic unemployment. Last year, Sanders' office released a report warning that AI could eliminate nearly 100 million US jobs over the next decade.
"Corporations are already using AI to cut jobs. Amazon, Walmart, UnitedHealth Group, JPMorgan Chase, and other companies are openly telling investors that AI will allow them to slash payrolls—even as they post tens of billions in profits and reward CEOs with pay packages of $25 million, $35 million or more," the report said.
Sanders' call for an AI sovereign wealth fund comes days after a pair of progressive lawmakers—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas)—separately called for new taxes on AI to fund jobs initiatives, universal healthcare, and other programs to prevent the kinds of large-scale economic displacement that experts and corporate executives say is looming.
“Taxing AI is one way we make sure the winnings from AI benefit all Americans, rather than channeling them only to the wealthy few," Warren wrote in TIME last week. "If millions of people lose their jobs to AI, we’ll need the funds to deliver universal healthcare so those workers are not bankrupted by a visit to the doctor."
"An Israeli politician who oversaw genocide? Here's a red carpet!" one critic said in response to the ban.
The UK government is drawing heavy criticism for barring Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker, two prominent critics of Israel, from entering the country.
According to a Monday report from The Guardian, the UK's Home Office cancelled electronic travel authorizations (ETA) for both Uygur and Piker on grounds that their presence in the country "may not be conducive to the public good."
Uygur took to social media shortly afterward and said the UK banned him due to his criticisms of Israeli influence over US policy.
"I didn't get banned for criticizing the UK, but for criticizing Israel," Uygur wrote. "They broke the irony record by saying it was because I said Israel might control other governments."
"Think about it," Uygur added, "if I had said that the Israeli government controls the British government so thoroughly that they'll ban someone from coming to the UK just for criticizing Israel, they would have said that was an antisemitic statement. This is absolutely Kafkaesque."
Shortly after Uygur's post, Piker, who is Uygur's nephew, accused the UK government of barring him for similar reasons.
"The UK has revoked my visa as well," Piker wrote. "All at the behest of Israel. The west is betraying 'liberal values' for a genocidal fascist foreign government."
UK commentator Owen Jones noted the "double standard" in the UK's decision to bar Israel critics such as Uygur and Piker, but not applying the same restrictions to Israeli politicians who have engaged in genocidal rhetoric against Palestinians.
"An Israeli politician who oversaw genocide? Here's a red carpet!" wrote Jones. "And you can say anything, however murderous, about Palestinians and freely enter. If you say: 'I'm glad Israel wiped Gaza from the face of the earth,' in you come!"
Jeremy Corbyn, former leader of the UK Labour Party, the current ruling party whose government decided to bar the two Israel critics, described the move as "an absurd and cowardly decision from an increasingly authoritarian government."
"Let us call this what it is," Corbyn added, "an attack on the freedom to criticize Israel, as well as the UK government’s own complicity in genocide."
Jemimah Steinfeld, chief executive of the Index on Censorship, told The Guardian that the ban is "paternalistic" on the government's part because it "assumes we are just passive consumers of views rather than people who can think, judge, and challenge."
Steinfeld also predicted that the ban would ultimately be ineffective.
"It confers an underdog status to the people not allowed to enter, it could embolden other countries to follow suit, and it feels fairly meaningless in the internet age where people can simply go online to hear what they have to say," she said. "Free speech is tested by hard cases and, in this instance, the UK is failing."
A spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry slammed the leadership of the European Union for "blaming Iran for exercising its right to self-defense against US aggression launched from bases in neighboring countries."
Iran's government on Monday condemned the European Union's response to Iranian attacks on US military installations in the Middle East as "a masterclass in selective moral outrage" as the Trump administration launched new strikes against Iran over the weekend, with peace talks still at an impasse.
Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, accused EU leaders of "blaming Iran for exercising its right to self-defense against US aggression launched from bases in neighboring countries," referring to Iran's attacks on US air bases in Kuwait. Baqaei said Iran's strikes "against those bases and assets that are used to launch unlawful attacks against Iran are a lawful exercise of self-defense."
"The EU must remain faithful to the rule of law and the principles of the UN Charter that it has long claimed to uphold. It must stop appeasing aggressors while blaming those who respond to unlawful attacks," Baqaei added. "States have an established legal obligation not to allow their territory or assets to be used for invading other countries."
Baqaei's statement came in response to remarks from a European Commission spokesperson condemning an Iranian attack on a US air base in Kuwait last week, calling it a violation of Kuwait's sovereignty. The attack reportedly injured at least four US servicemembers and several American contractors.
The Iranian military said it targeted another US air base on Sunday in response to new attacks by the Trump administration, which launched its illegal war against Iran in late February. While Iran did not specify the location of its target, Kuwait said late Sunday that its "air defenses are currently confronting hostile missile and drone attacks."
The Iranian attacks followed the US military's announcement that it carried out strikes on "Iranian radar and command and control sites for drones" over the weekend. The US Central Command (CENTCOM) described the attacks as "self-defense strikes" and as a "measured and deliberate response" to "aggressive Iranian actions."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote in response to CENTCOM's statement that "this administration’s use of the terms 'aggression' and 'self-defense' [is] thoroughly in 'war is peace' territory."
The US military also attacked a Gambia-flagged commercial ship in the Gulf of Oman over the weekend, enforcing a Trump administration naval blockade that Iran has condemned as illegal and said must be lifted as part of any peace agreement.
CBS News reported Saturday that "the broad strokes" of a peace deal under consideration "include a 60-day cessation of violence, along with clauses that call for reopening the strait and a framework to reopen negotiations on Iran's nuclear program."
"Multiple sources told CBS that the arrangement also involves the potential of waivers or sanctions relief to Iran that could allow it to access billions in frozen assets depending on the progress of the diplomacy," the outlet added.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's top negotiator, said early Monday that the Trump administration's naval blockade and Israel's "escalation of war crimes in Lebanon" represent "clear evidence of US noncompliance with the ceasefire."
"Every choice has a price, and the bill comes due," he added. "It will all fall into place."
US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, wrote on his social media platform that "Iran really wants to make a deal, and it will be a good one for the USA and those that are with us."
"Just sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end," Trump declared.