

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
The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program, www.pnhp.org. Their signatures appear below.
As
much as we would like to join the celebration of the House's passage of
the health bill last night, in good conscience we cannot. We take no
comfort in seeing aspirin dispensed for the treatment of cancer.
Instead
of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private
health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and
further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of
Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to
them vast amounts of public money.
The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:
*
About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That
figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually
and an incalculable toll of suffering.
*
Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial
health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but
covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses,
potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become
seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or,
if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays
and deductibles.
*
Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money
to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will
enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability
to block future reform.
*
The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to
safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who
will remain uninsured.
*
People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's
limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of
their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep
taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.
*
Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with
the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply
demonstrates.
*
The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the
basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks
to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation.
Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger
counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce
can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017.
*
Women's reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the
burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and for all
other medical services.
It
didn't have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained
in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers,
could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.
Similarly,
the expansion of Medicaid - a woefully underfunded program that
provides substandard care for the poor - could have been done
separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade
its quality.
But
instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled
Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new
taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the
insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented,
dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy
toll on our health and economy today.
This
bill's passage reflects political considerations, not sound health
policy. As physicians, we cannot accept this inversion of priorities.
We seek evidence-based remedies that will truly help our patients, not
placebos.
A
genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation
will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an
improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly
universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.
By
replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public
financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary,
wasteful administrative costs. That's enough to cover all the uninsured
and to upgrade everyone else's coverage without having to increase
overall U.S. health spending by one penny.
Moreover,
only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like
bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital
planning.
Polls
show nearly two-thirds of the public supports such an approach, and a
recent survey shows 59 percent of U.S. physicians support government
action to establish national health insurance. All that is required to
achieve it is the political will.
The
major provisions of the present bill do not go into effect until 2014.
Although we will be counseled to "wait and see" how this reform plays
out, we cannot wait, nor can our patients. The stakes are too high.
We
pledge to continue our work for the only equitable, financially
responsible and humane remedy for our health care mess: single-payer
national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for All.
| Oliver Fein, M.D. President | Garrett Adams, M.D. President-elect | Claudia Fegan, M.D. Past President |
| Margaret Flowers, M.D. Congressional Fellow | David Himmelstein, M.D. Co-founder | Steffie Woolhandler, M.D. Co-founder |
| Quentin Young, M.D. National Coordinator | Don McCanne, M.D. Senior Health Policy Fellow |
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.
"Trump calls Spain a 'terrible partner' because it accepts neither blackmail nor threats. Because we are a sovereign, democratic country that defends multilateralism and peace."
US President Donald Trump's call on Wednesday to "cut off all trade with Spain" over what he said is the NATO ally's failure to pull its own weight in the alliance was shrugged off by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez as "business as usual," but a member of the leftist leader's Cabinet responded to the largely infeasible threat by declaring that her government will not succumb to bullying.
Sitting alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the alliance's summit in the Turkish capital Ankara, Trump told reporters that “Spain is a wasted cause."
"We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore, by the way,” the Republican president continued. “Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate. They don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits. Watch them come running back. Oh, they’ll come running back."
President Trump says he is "not happy" with NATO and demands to cut trade ties with Spain: "I don't want anything to do with Spain... cut off all trade with Spain please, including visits... watch them come running back." pic.twitter.com/3WCTAZU5mA
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 8, 2026
According to NATO's official estimates for 2025, Spain spends 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, equivalent to about $35.7 billion, the seventh-highest amount in the alliance. Five other NATO members—Belgium, Czechia, Luxembourg, North Macedonia, and Portugal—also spend 2% of their GDP on their militaries, the lowest percentage in the alliance. NATO members have agreed to meet a defense spending goal of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, while Trump has repeatedly urged alliance nations to budget 5%.
Sánchez brushed off Trump's tirade as "business as usual" while touting Spain's "excellent" trade relations with the United States and vowing to respond "with calm and patience" to the president's threat.
"When you step back a bit from these kinds of actions, what you see is that relations between the United States and Spain are very, very positive socially, culturally, economically, and politically," he said.
"Spain is a country that strives to maintain the best possible relations with all countries, especially allied countries, with whom we have very consolidated ties that have transcended the ideological orientation of the administrations that have governed Spain or the United States over the decades," Sánchez added.
Spanish Health Minister Mónica García was more blunt in her response to Trump's remarks.
"Trump calls Spain a 'terrible partner' because it accepts neither blackmail nor threats," she said on social media. "Because we are a sovereign, democratic country that defends multilateralism and peace. What's terrible is confusing diplomacy with bullying."
Experts say that while the International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants US presidents broad authority to block or limit trade with countries, they must prove that targeted nations pose an "unusual or extraordinary threat" to national or economic security, which Spain clearly does not. Furthermore, as a European Union member, any trade negotiations must be conducted via Brussels, not Madrid.
This isn't the first time that Trump has floated cutting off commercial relations with Spain. Earlier this year, he threatened a full trade embargo on Spain over its refusal to allow use of its military bases to wage the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran. Spain's rejection of Trump's call for NATO members to spend 5% of their GDPs on defense, its formal support for South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, and its broader pro-Palestine stance have also angered the US leader.
Responding to Trump's renewed airstrikes on Iran and apparent abandonment of a frayed three-month ceasefire, Sánchez said Wednesday that "what we want is to avoid war."
"Wars are always bad news," the prime minister added, "especially for civilians, particularly children and women."
"Children were murdered in the first days of Trump’s illegal, pointless war that has wreaked havoc across the world," said Rep. Yassamin Ansari.
The House Democrat who introduced articles of impeachment against Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this year revived her call for his removal on Wednesday following news that top US military commanders bypassed warnings about the reliability of their targeting information before authorizing the bombing of an Iranian school, killing more than 150 people—mostly young children.
"This is unconscionable," Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), one of two Iranian Americans in Congress, wrote on social media in response to CNN's reporting on the US commanders' catastrophic decision. "Children were murdered in the first days of [President Donald] Trump’s illegal, pointless war that has wreaked havoc across the world. It is an abomination. It is a war crime. And it is why I’ve introduced articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth."
Ansari urged her colleagues to support the Hegseth impeachment articles, which state that the Pentagon chief "has authorized, condoned, or failed to prevent the use of military force in a manner inconsistent with the law of armed conflict" and "demonstrated a willful disregard for the Constitution," among other alleged violations.
Currently, just 16 House Democrats are listed as co-sponsors of Ansari's impeachment articles against Hegseth, who dismantled the Pentagon's civilian harm mitigation programs before the Trump administration attacked Iran in late February. According to ProPublica, "Hegseth made deep cuts to the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response programs and slashed CHMR staff at military commands by more than 90%."
"That included removing civilian harm specialists from target development strike teams and reducing the team of 10 at Central Command to only one full-time staffer," the outlet added.
CNN reported on Tuesday that senior US military commanders ignored warnings that intelligence pertaining to possible targets in Iran "was severely out of date and approved some strikes"—including the bombing of Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, an attack that human rights groups say should be investigated as a war crime.
Months later, the Pentagon has not publicly released the findings of its investigation into the strike, and Trump recently said he doesn't believe the US was responsible for the Minab school attack, despite now-abundant evidence to the contrary. The attack is seen as one of the worst massacres of civilians in recent US military history.
Last week, The Associated Press reported that when news of the school bombing emerged on the first day of the US-Israeli assault on Iran, "the US military knew they had conducted strikes in the vicinity—though it took the military time to verify the Iranian claims that a school was struck and begin a formal investigation."
"One former Pentagon official, similarly speaking on condition of anonymity, said the bombing came as a natural result of changes made by the Trump administration to reduce staff to mitigate civilian harm and Hegseth’s emphasis on lethality," the outlet noted. "When Hegseth took charge, he slashed the size of an office called the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, created at the direction of Congress in late 2022. That stopped the office’s work on updating 'no-strike lists,' which are lists of protected sites such as hospitals, schools, churches, and mosques, that the Pentagon keeps."
"These deals produce harm reliably enough that researchers can now count it."
Investigative journalist Ronan Farrow on Tuesday published a video on social media where he examines how private equity firms have been buying up hospitals throughout the US and saddling them with enormous debt burdens.
At the start of the video, Farrow notes that private equity firms such as The Carlyle Group, Cerberus, and Pinta have acquired hundreds of hospitals and nursing homes over the last 20 years.
"The pitch is generally: Infuse capital, cut inefficiency, and exit in five to seven years," Farrow explains. "And the deals work like this: A private equity firm puts some of its own money and borrows the rest. Typically, it'll borrow more than 70% of the purchase price."
"The twist is that debt doesn't sit on the firm's books," Farrow continues. "It gets placed on the facility itself, so the hospital or nursing home now carries the debt and the interest on it."
Studies now present a striking picture of what happens when private equity firms acquire hospitals and nursing homes: predictable increases in harm and deaths. One landmark study shows: patient deaths up about 11% after such acquisitions. pic.twitter.com/N6yfXJQIwW
— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) July 7, 2026
Farrow then cites research published by The Review of Financial Studies in 2023, which found healthcare facilities saw their interest payments more than triple after being acquired by private equity firms.
"In many cases," Farrow says, "private equity firms sold the nursing home's building shortly after acquiring it, returning the proceeds to investors, and then charging the facility rent on the building it used to own."
In addition to added debt burdens placed on hospitals and nursing homes, Farrow adds, the 2023 study found that private equity firms also cut staff hours after acquiring facilities, which has hurt patient care.
"The authors... found that private equity ownership can increase patient mortality by up to 11%," he says. "Over the study period, that translated to more than 20,000 lives lost."
Farrow then points to a 2025 study that found salaries of emergency room workers fall by an average of 18% in hospitals acquired by private equity firms, while hospital-acquired infections and complications rose by 25%.
Farrow concedes that not all private-equity deals turn out poorly and that some of the facilities are already in distress before being acquired.
However, he warns that "these deals produce harm reliably enough that researchers can now count it," adding that "so far, the industry has moved faster than the rules."
Research published Monday by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) warned that private equity firms have been increasingly relying on nonprofit joint ventures to expand their reach throughout the US healthcare industry and "siphon profits from health systems and critical healthcare infrastructure."
"Private equity's healthcare playbook is evolving,” said Jim Baker, executive director of PESP. “Our research documents how private equity has increasingly relied on joint ventures with nonprofits to expand its presence in healthcare. These arrangements have received far less attention than traditional private equity buyouts, even as they become more common across hospitals and other healthcare sectors."