

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.
Deborah Richter, M.D.
Ali Thebert, Vermont Physicians for a National Health
Program, (802) 595-2820, ali@pnhp.org
Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org
Longtime reform advocate and Vermont
family physician Dr. Deborah Richter hailed Wednesday's report of
health system
expert William Hsiao to the Vermont Legislature, particularly
Hsiao's findings
that a single-payer system would be the best remedy for what he
called the
state's "broken" and "unsustainable" way of paying for care.
Longtime reform advocate and Vermont
family physician Dr. Deborah Richter hailed Wednesday's report of
health system
expert William Hsiao to the Vermont Legislature, particularly
Hsiao's findings
that a single-payer system would be the best remedy for what he
called the
state's "broken" and "unsustainable" way of paying for care.
"Dr. Hsiao's team of researchers found that a streamlined,
single-payer system for financing health care would save money by
reducing
excess paperwork and bureaucracy, cover everyone in Vermont with no
increase in
health spending, reduce or eliminate patient co-pays, promote job
growth and
economic development, and control costs," Richter said.
"Although the devil is in the details, the broad outlines of
his single-payer proposals are very promising," she said. "They
represent a
major step in the right direction.
"This thoughtful, evidence-based approach to solving our
state's health care problems - an approach that involves our new
governor, our
congressional delegation and state lawmakers poised to take swift,
positive
action to translate reform proposals into law - stands in stark
contrast to the
noisy goings-on in Washington this week," Richter said, alluding to
the
Republican party's symbolic vote in the House to repeal the federal
health law.
While her overall attitude toward Hsiao's draft report was
very positive, Richter said that her group, the Vermont chapter of
Physicians for a National
Health Program, would be making recommendations to improve the
single-payer
models to maximize administrative savings and strengthen cost
control even
further. After a period of public comment, a final report from Hsiao
is due
Feb. 17.
"Only a one-payer system can maximize the efficiencies and
cost savings," Richter said. "So it will be important to fully
incorporate
Medicare and Medicaid into the system as soon as possible. We will
also be
recommending the use of single-payer tools like separate operating
and capital
budgets for hospitals."
"Optimally, a single-payer program would also prohibit the
participation of investor-owned, for-profit delivery systems, which
studies
show drive up costs and produce worse medical outcomes," she said.
Hsiao is a professor of economics at the Harvard School of
Public Health and an internationally recognized authority on health
care
systems. Last year he and his team were commissioned by the
Legislature to
analyze three models for state health reform, including a
single-payer model,
where private insurers are excluded from the system and all medical
bills are
paid by a single public or quasi-public authority.
In his presentation to Vermont lawmakers, Hsiao outlined the three
models: a public single-payer plan, a plan that builds on the new
federal
health law but adds a so-called public option, and his team's
recommended plan.
Hsiao's team found that the "public option" plan would yield
the poorest results, having only a very modest impact on reducing
costs and
having almost no impact on reducing the number of the uninsured.
While citing the merits of a publicly administered
single-payer plan, Hsiao's team ended up by recommending a
"public-private
hybrid single-payer" model that would be managed by an independent
board and
that would contract-out the job of claims processing to private and
public
bidders. A private company like Vermont Blue Cross Blue Shield, for
example,
could be hired to process the claims, as is done currently by
Medicare.
Richter likes the idea of the independent board and says
physicians in Vermont
favor single payer because it's the only approach that gives them a
voice and
negotiating power - something they lack with insurers today. Single
payer will
also benefit the state's physicians by simplifying billing and
giving them a
choice of practice options. "It will make primary care very
attractive in Vermont," she said.
"We'll be able to choose where we want to practice and patients will
be able to
freely choose their doctors."
She also would like to see the enactment of a plan that
provides for comprehensive care.
Richter practices family medicine in Montpelier,
and has pushed for single payer in Vermont
for more than two decades. She is a past president of Physicians for
a National
Health Program, a nationwide organization of 18,000 doctors who
favor
single-payer national health insurance, commonly referred to as an
improved
Medicare for all.
"Dr. Hsiao has performed an extraordinary service," Richter
said. "Vermont
has an historic opportunity to lead the nation on fundamental health
reform."
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.
"This is militarized authoritarianism," said one advocacy group. "We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict."
Protests broke out at US diplomatic outposts across the globe Saturday and Sunday following the Trump administration's deadly attack on Venezuela and abduction of the nation's president, brazen violations of international law that—according to the American president—were just the start of a sustained intervention in Venezuela's politics and oil industry.
Demonstrators took to the streets of Brussels, Madrid, Ankara, Mexico City, Los Angeles, and other major cities worldwide to voice opposition to the US assault on Venezuela and Trump administration officials' pledge to "run" the country's government for an unspecified period of time, a plan that Venezuelan leaders have publicly met with defiance.
The US Mission to Mexico—one of several Latin American countries Trump threatened in the aftermath of the attack on Venezuela—warned in an alert issued Saturday that "a protest denouncing US actions against Venezuela continues to take place in front of the US Embassy in the Polanco neighborhood of Mexico City."
"Protestors have thrown rocks and painted vandalism on exterior walls," the alert read. "Social media posts about the protest have included anti-American sentiment. Embassy personnel have been advised to avoid the area."





The global demonstrations came as some world leaders, including top European officials, faced backlash for failing to adequately condemn—or condemn at all—the US attack on Venezuela and continued menacing of a sovereign nation.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she supports "a peaceful and democratic transition," without mentioning or denouncing the illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and US bombings that reportedly killed at least 40 people, including civilians.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis declared that "this is not the time to comment on the legality of the recent actions" as protesters gathered in Athens in opposition to the US assault.
"If you still believe that the European Union cares about international law, then look no further," wrote Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler, pointing to Mitsotakis' statement.
"We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Mass protests and demands for international action to halt US aggression proliferated amid ongoing questions about how the Trump administration intends to carry out its stated plan to control Venezuela and exploit its oil reserves—objectives that experts say would run afoul of domestic and international law.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who played a central role in planning the Venezuela attack and has been chosen by Trump to manage the aftermath, said Sunday that the administration intends to keep in place a military "quarantine" around the South American nation—including the massive naval force amassed in the Caribbean in recent months—to pressure the country's leadership to bow to US demands.
"That's a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes, not just to further the national interest of the United States, which is number one, but also that lead to a better future for the people of Venezuela," Rubio said in a television interview.
Rubio also suggested the president could deploy US troops to Venezuela and dodged questions about the legal authority the Trump administration has to intervene in the country. The administration has not sought congressional authorization for any of its attacks on vessels in the Caribbean or Venezuela directly.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Sunday that "in recent history, we've tried 'running' multiple countries in Latin America and the Middle East. It's been a disaster for us, and for them, every single time."
"Congress must pass a War Powers Resolution to get our military back to defending the US, instead of 'running' Venezuela," Casar added.
Progressive Democrats of America echoed that demand, saying in a statement that "this is militarized authoritarianism."
"We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict," the group added. "We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America."
US President Donald Trump left no doubt on Saturday that a—or perhaps the—primary driver of his decision to illegally attack Venezuela, abduct its president, and pledge to indefinitely run its government was his desire to control and exploit the country's oil reserves, which are believed to be the largest in the world.
Over the course of Trump's lengthy press conference following Saturday's assault, the word "oil" was mentioned dozens of times as the president vowed to unleash powerful fossil fuel giants on the South American nation and begin "taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground"—with a healthy cut of it going to the US "in the form of reimbursement" for the supposed "damages caused us" by Venezuela.
"We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country," Trump said, suggesting American troops could be deployed, without congressional authorization, to bolster such efforts.
"We're going to get the oil flowing the way it should be," he added.
Currently, Chevron is the only US-based oil giant operating in Venezuela, whose oil industry and broader economy have been badly hampered by US sanctions. In a statement on Saturday, a Chevron spokesperson said the company is "prepared to work constructively with the US government during this period, leveraging our experience and presence to strengthen US energy security."
Other oil behemoths, some of which helped bankroll Trump's presidential campaign, are likely licking their chops—even if they've been mostly quiet in the wake of the US attack, which was widely condemned as unlawful and potentially catastrophic for the region. Amnesty International said Saturday that "the stated US intention to run Venezuela and control its oil resources" likely "constitutes a violation of international law."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos."
Thomas O'Donnell, an energy and geopolitical strategist, told Reuters that "the company that probably will be very interested in going back [to Venezuela] is Conoco," noting that an international arbitration tribunal has ordered Caracas to pay the company around $10 billion for alleged "unlawful expropriation" of oil investments.
The Houston Chronicle reported that "Exxon, America’s largest oil company, which has for years grown its presence in South America, would be among the most likely US oil companies to tap Venezuela’s deep oil reserves. The company, along with fellow Houston giant ConocoPhillips, had a number of failed contract attempts with Venezuela under Maduro and former President Hugo Chavez."
Elizabeth Bast, executive director of the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement Saturday that the Trump administration's escalation in Venezuela "follows a historic playbook: undermine leftist governments, create instability, and clear the path for extractive companies to profit."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos and carve up one of the world's most oil-rich territories," said Bast. "The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that the president's own words make plain that his attack on Venezuela and attempt to impose his will there are "about trying to grab Venezuela's oil for Trump's billionaire buddies."
In a statement, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) echoed that sentiment, calling Trump's assault on Venezuela "rank imperialism."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world."
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," said Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro, said in a televised address Saturday that "we will never again be a colony of any empire," defying the Trump administration's plan to indefinitely control Venezuela's government and exploit its vast oil reserves.
“We are determined to be free,” declared Rodríguez, who demanded that the US release Maduro from custody and said he is still Venezuela's president.
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," she added.
Rodríguez's defiant remarks came after US President Donald Trump claimed he is "designating various people" to run Venezuela's government, suggested American troops could be deployed, and threatened a "second wave" of attacks on the country if its political officials don't bow to the Trump administration's demands.
Trump also threatened "all political and military figures in Venezuela," warning that "what happened to Maduro can happen to them." Maduro is currently detained in Brooklyn and facing fresh US charges.
Rodríguez's public remarks contradicted the US president's claim that she privately pledged compliance with the Trump administration's attempts to control Venezuela's political system and oil infrastructure. The interim president delivered her remarks alongside top Venezuelan officials, including legislative and judicial leaders, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, a projection of unity in the face of US aggression.
"Doesn’t feel like a nation that is ready to let Donald Trump and Marco Rubio 'run it,'" said US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who condemned the Trump administration for "starting an illegal war with Venezuela that Americans didn’t ask for and has nothing to do with our security."