

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.
Garrett Adams, M.D., president, PNHP
Margaret Flowers, M.D., congressional fellow, PNHP
David Himmelstein, M.D., co-founder, PNHP
Quentin Young, M.D., national coordinator, PNHP
Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org
A nationwide organization of doctors who favor a single-payer health care system today rejected calls by Republican leaders to repeal the new health law, noting that the law contains modest benefits for patients that should not be spurned.
At the same time, the doctors said that the enactment of a single-payer, Medicare-for-all program is the only way to assure high quality, comprehensive care to all Americans and the only way to rein in skyrocketing health care costs.
"We reject the call by Republican leaders to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), even as we recognize the new law is incapable of resolving our health care morass," said Dr. Garrett Adams, president of the 18,000-member Physicians for a National Health Program.
"The health law is flawed because it continues our nation's reliance on an inefficient and wasteful private-insurance-based model of financing care - a rickety structure that denies health care access to millions, bankrupts patients, ratchets up costs and frustrates efforts to improve quality," he said.
"That's why we need to move to a single-payer system," he said. "In doing so, we'll save about $400 billion annually by cutting out the unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy inflicted on us by the private insurers. We'll also gain the one-system bargaining power we need to negotiate lower prices for pharmaceutical drugs and medical supplies."
Adams said the "modest" benefits in the administration's health law include greater funding of community health centers, the expansion of Medicaid coverage, and "measures to restrict some of the most outrageous practices of the private health insurance companies like denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions or rescinding coverage when people get sick."
"These beneficial measures could have been enacted separately," Adams said. "But now that they're part of the law, we cannot in good conscience support the repeal of any provisions that might conceivably benefit our patients."
Adams said Republican leaders' call to repeal PPACA is especially objectionable, given that they have no serious alternative to offer by way of health care reform.
"The GOP and conservatives urge greater reliance on the private sector and 'free market' mechanisms, including less regulation of the insurance industry," Adams said. "Such measures include allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, which would lead them to buy junk insurance policies from companies in states where consumer protections have been all but eviscerated. It would mean a race to the bottom to even skimpier insurance policies than people have now."
He also dismissed claims by the Republican leadership that tort reform will significantly affect the U.S. health care scene, noting that research has shown malpractice suits have a marginal impact on the costs of medical care.
"The proposals emanating from the GOP leaders would do nothing to control costs or reduce the enormous administrative waste in our current health care system," he said. "They would do nothing to reduce the number of uninsured. In fact, the number of uninsured, now at 51 million, would likely rise much higher - worsening an already catastrophic situation."
Adams, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who resides in Louisville, Ky., said that, in his opinion, Republican leaders who are vowing to repeal the new health law are not really aiming to do so.
"Despite their bluster, GOP lawmakers don't really want to repeal the law because some of their chief financial backers, the health insurance companies, like its basic provisions," he said. "The insurers especially like PPACA's requirement that millions of people buy insurance from them and that at least $447 billion in federal subsidies will be coming their way over the next 10 years as part of this arrangement.
"We reject such political posturing at the expense of human suffering and human lives," Adams said. "We call for a real, sustainable solution to our health care woes. PPACA should be superseded by a comprehensive health reform that provides quality, affordable care to everyone - single-payer national health insurance, an improved Medicare for all."
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.
"Any bill that still allows members of Congress to own and trade stocks falls far short of what the American people want and deserve," said Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Seth Magaziner, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
A trio of Democrats in the US House of Representatives leading the fight for a congressional stock trading ban ripped Republican leadership's proposal as an inadequate replacement in a Monday statement released ahead of a scheduled committee markup.
Politico reported last month that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) briefed GOP lawmakers on their plan for a bill that would ban members of Congress from buying new stocks but let them keep what they already have.
Steil introduced the Stop Insider Trading Act on Monday and announced a Wednesday markup. Backed by Johnson and other GOP leaders, the legislation would also apply to lawmakers' spouses and dependent children, and require public notice a week before any of them sell stock.
However, Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) argued in a joint statement that "any bill that still allows members of Congress to own and trade stocks falls far short of what the American people want and deserve."
"We are disappointed that the bill introduced by Republican leadership today fails to deliver the reform that is needed and instead protects the wealthiest members of Congress by allowing them to continue to hold and sell stock," said the original co-sponsors of the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act.
House Republicans’ new legislation on Congressional stock trading falls far short of what the American people want and deserve. The House must move forward on our bipartisan consensus bill, the Restore Trust in Congress Act.My full statement with @magaziner.house.gov and @ocasio-cortez.house.gov:
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (@jayapal.house.gov) January 12, 2026 at 12:23 PM
The Democrats stressed that "while this bill prohibits members from buying new stocks, it does nothing to remove the conflict of interest that arises from owning or selling existing stocks. Members can still act on legislation, investigations, and briefings that directly influence the value of their stocks for personal benefit."
"The American public deserves to know that members of Congress are making decisions in the public interest, not in the interest of their own pocketbooks. The only way to restore Americans' trust is to ban members of Congress from owning and trading stocks," the trio continued.
"We hope that Speaker Johnson will find the courage to move the Restore Trust in Congress Act, a bipartisan consensus bill that has wide support from members of both parties and will end the practice of members of Congress owning and trading stocks once and for all," they concluded.
The Restore Trust in Congress Act would ban members of Congress, plus spouses and children, from trading individual stocks. It would give them 180 days to sell anything they hold and require divestment before newly elected lawmakers are sworn in.
When that bill was introduced in September, Jamie Neikrie, legislative director at the political reform group Issue One, said that "members of Congress have a responsibility to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, and passing the Restore Trust in Congress Act is how Congress shows it's serious about restoring trust and integrity in government."
As Politico detailed Monday:
Johnson and GOP leaders have been searching for a legislative compromise to appease Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and other rank-and-file House Republicans, who have for months been threatening to launch a discharge petition effort to circumvent leadership and force a floor vote on a full congressional stock trading ban.
Luna, in a promising sign for Johnson, said in an interview last week she supports the current legislation pending before the House Administration Committee because it would force a "disgorgement" period.
However, even if the new bill is able to get through the Republican-controlled House, it would face a GOP Senate majority so narrow that at least some Democratic support is required to advance most legislation to a final vote.
Last July, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) voted with all Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to advance another bill that would bar federal politicians from holding or trading stocks. To win over Hawley, Democrats had to agree to a carveout for President Donald Trump. As Business Insider noted Monday, "It has yet to receive a floor vote."
"If the Federal Reserve loses its independence, the stability of our markets and the broader economy will suffer."
The US Department of Justice's decision to open a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has ignited a major backlash that even has some Republican senators drawing a line in the sand.
Shortly after Powell released a video on Sunday accusing the Department of Justice (DOJ) of waging an "intimidation" campaign against him on behalf of President Donald Trump, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) blasted the administration, accusing them of trying to compromise the independence of America's central bank.
“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none,” said Tillis, who further vowed to "oppose the confirmation of any nominee for the Fed—including the upcoming Fed chair vacancy—until this legal matter is fully resolved."
On Monday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) backed up Tillis' pledge to oppose any nominees for the Federal Reserve until the criminal probe of Powell, whose term as Fed chair is due to end in May, has been resolved.
Murkowski also revealed that she spoke with Powell and determined that "it’s clear the administration’s investigation is nothing more than an attempt at coercion" aimed at affecting his decisions on US monetary policy.
"The stakes are too high to look the other way," Murkowski emphasized. "If the Federal Reserve loses its independence, the stability of our markets and the broader economy will suffer."
Trump can only afford to lose the support of four Republican senators in a vote for a new Fed chair, which means Tillis and Murkowski's vows not to support any nominee until the case against Powell is resolved carry significant weight.
A bipartisan group of economists who have served under US presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan—including former Federal Reserve Chairs Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellin—released a joint statement on Monday denouncing what they described as an effort to strong-arm the Federal Reserve into doing the president's bidding.
"The reported criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell is an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine... independence," they wrote. "This is how monetary policy is made in emerging markets with weak institutions, with highly negative consequences for inflation and the functioning of their economies more broadly. It has no place in the United States, whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is at the foundation of our economic success."
Trump, who nominated Powell to be Federal Reserve chairman in 2017, has been openly pressuring Powell for months to more aggressively cut interest rates in the face of a faltering jobs market.
Powell, however, has continued to take a more cautious approach, and has cited the price instability caused by Trump's tariffs as a reason to hold off on more aggressive rate cuts.
"Among people it will be also very, very negative," said EU defense commissioner Andrius Kubilius.
The European Union's defense commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, said Monday that Europe must build up its military capabilities as President Donald Trump threatens to rip up the central agreement that's underpinned the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for more than 75 years with his escalating demand that the US should be able to take control of Greenland—a semiautonomous territory of NATO founding member Denmark.
Kubilius said he agreed with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen's recent assessment that a US takeover of Greenland, home to about 56,000 people, "will be the end of NATO."
"But also among people it will be also very, very negative," Kubilius told Reuters at a security conference in Sweden.
Trump first expressed a desire to take control of Greenland during his first term. The vast island is in a geopolitically strategic location as countries begin to use the Arctic Ocean for shipping routes, and has stores of rare earth minerals.
The president has intensified his threats against the territory following his invasion of Venezuela and the US military's abduction of President Nicolás Maduro earlier this month, with White House officials saying Trump has the right to take control of any country he wants to in order to control their resources.
On Air Force One on Sunday, Trump told reporters that he has not yet proposed a deal to Denmark and said "Greenland should make the deal." He added that he does not care whether a takeover of Greenland "affects NATO."
"They need us more than we need them," said the president.
“If it affects NATO, it affects NATO. They need us more than we need them.”
Trump says Greenland should take a deal he admits he hasn’t offered, makes it clear he does not care if attacking Greenland ends NATO.
Again: ending NATO is a Putin goal. That is no coincidence. pic.twitter.com/9jTfHedgFJ
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) January 12, 2026
Trump also said in the Oval Office Sunday that owning Greenland is “psychologically important for me.”
"Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base," said Trump.
The US already owns a military base in Greenland, but Trump has claimed military presence in the territory is not enough to fend off what he claims are imminent threats from China and Russia.
Kubilius said that should NATO fall apart due to a US operation aimed at taking Greenland by force from its longtime ally, "it will be a very big challenge to be ready to defend Europe, being independent, being without the United States."
"The question would be how we can use in that case NATO structures, how they can be, you know, become a basis for European pillar of NATO," he said. "But NATO such as it is now definitely will not exist anymore."
Greenland's govermment on Monday issued a statement reiterating its previous warnings that it is "part of the kingdom of Denmark."
“As part of the Danish Commonwealth, Greenland is a member of NATO and the defense of Greenland must therefore be [done] through NATO," reads the statement.
Considering that six NATO member states in Europe have expressed firm opposition to Trump's plan, the government said, "Greenland will increase its efforts to ensure that the defense of Greenland takes place under the auspices of NATO."
"The government coalition in Greenland will therefore work with Denmark to ensure that the dialogue on and development of the defense in Greenland takes place within the framework of NATO cooperation," officials added.
In addition to the NATO agreement, Kublius said, Article 42.7 of the European Union Treaty obligates member states to come to Denmark's defense if Greenland is attacked.
"It will depend very much on Denmark, how they will react, what will be their position, but definitely there is such an obligation of member states to come for mutual assistance if another member state is facing military aggression," he said.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday also expressed concern that a military attack on Greenland would mean the US was at war "with Europe, with England, with France."
Chris Murphy: "Let's talk about what's at stake here. The president is spending every single day thinking about invading Greenland, managing the Venezuelan economy, building a ballroom. He's not thinking about the American people at all." pic.twitter.com/LVorATNTuZ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 11, 2026
"An attempt to 'annex' Greenland would be the functional end of NATO," said Murphy. "And final evidence that Trump is permanently distracted by things that have nothing to do with the American people—like Venezuela, his new White House ballroom, and now Greenland."