

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.

The Egyptian military should immediately end trials of civilians before military courts and release all those arbitrarily detained or convicted after unfair proceedings, Human Rights Watch said today. In the latest case, 28 civilians arrested in Cairo's Tahrir Square on April 12, 2011, went on trial as a group before a military court on April 28.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has tried more than 5,000 civilians before military tribunals since February, including many arrested following peaceful protests in Tahrir Square. Trials of civilians before the military courts constitute wholesale violations of basic fair trial rights, Human Rights Watch said. At the same time, senior officials in the government of former president Hosni Mubarak are being tried before civilian courts on charges of corruption and using lethal force against protesters.
"Egypt's military leadership has not explained why young protesters are being tried before unfair military courts while former Mubarak officials are being tried for corruption and killing protesters before regular criminal courts," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The generals' reliance on military trials threatens the rule of law by creating a parallel system that undermines Egypt's judiciary."
Since Egypt's military took over policing the streets from the Ministry of Interior at the end of January, it has arbitrarily arrested peaceful protesters. On February 26, March 6, March 9, April 9, and April 12, military police accompanied by other military personnel violently dispersed protesters and arrested at least 321 persons from Tahrir and Lazoughli squares. At least 76 of them remain in detention after unfair trials before military courts.
Human rights lawyer Adel Ramadan from the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, who has been representing defendants before military courts, told Human Rights Watch that, based on court rolls and case numbers, military courts handed down over 5,000 sentences across the country between February 11 and the middle of April. The military courts typically handle groups of between five and thirty defendants at a single trial, with a trial lasting 20 to 40 minutes.
Egypt's Emergency Law, in place since 1981, and the Code of Military Justice authorize the president to refer civilians for military trials. Under the Mubarak government, such trials were reserved for high-profile political cases, such as the 2008 conviction of the former deputy guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khairat al-Shatir, and 24 others; cases in which the defendants had been arrested in a military zone such as the Sinai; or bloggers who criticized the military.
Since February, however, the military has tried thousands of civilians before military courts under the Code of Military Justice. The code, in articles 5- 6, allows for such trials only under specified conditions, such as when the crime takes place in an area controlled by the military or if one of the parties involved is a military officer. In a live television interview on a local station, ON TV, on April 11, Gen. Ismail Etman, the military's head of Morale Affairs, said that "in cases where it affects the security of the armed forces or the security of the country such as thuggery, looting or destruction of property, theft, and especially if one of the parties is a military officer, we transfer it to military trials to be looked into immediately."
The Code of Military Justice should be amended to restrict the jurisdiction of the military courts to trials only of military personnel charged with offenses of an exclusively military nature, Human Rights Watch said.
The Egyptian military amended the country's penal code on March 1, under the legislative powers accorded to it by the Constitutional Declaration of February 13, to add the crime of "thuggery" in articles 375bis and 375bis (a) entitled "causing fear, intimidation and affecting sense of security." It defines "thuggery" as "displaying force or threatening to use force against a victim" with the "intention to intimidate or cause harm to him or his property."
The wholesale use of military courts to try civilians comes at a time when the military is trying to reassure Egyptians that it is taking a strong stance to suppress criminal activity. Since February 26, the military has sent faxes to Egyptian media listing the names and sentences of 647 civilians tried before military courts, lists that newspapers reproduced without providing any further information.
Based on these lists, over the past two months, military courts in Cairo, Alexandria, Ismailiyya, and other cities have sentenced civilians to prison terms ranging from six months to seven years - in at least three cases even 25 years' or life imprisonment. The charges typically were breaking curfew, possession of illegal weapons, destruction of public property, theft, assault, or threat of violence.
"Those who commit genuine crimes should be tried in regular criminal courts, as they have been in the past." Stork said. "Egyptian prisons are now filled with thousands of civilians who were convicted by fundamentally unfair military courts, often on dubious charges."
Defendants in military trials have no access to counsel of their own choosing, except in high-profile cases such as the blogger Maikel Nabil. Dozens of protesters arrested on March 9 were not allowed to speak to their court-appointed lawyers before or during the trial or to communicate with their families to request a lawyer. Military prosecution officials denied human rights lawyers access on at least three occasions when groups of protesters were being interrogated and tried.
Most Egyptian news media have been unwilling to report on arbitrary arrests and allegations of torture of protesters by the military police. The media also largely ignored two March news conferences by human rights lawyers in which a number of torture victims testified. Only a few opinion writers and TV hosts have been willing to raise the issue of torture and arbitrary arrests by the military.
On March 22, General Etman sent a letter to editors of Egyptian newspapers telling them "not to publish any articles/news/press releases/complaints/advertising/pictures concerning the armed forces or the leadership of the armed forces, except after consulting the Morale Affairs directorate and the Military Intelligence since these are the competent parties to examine such issues to protect the safety of the nation."
On April 14, the military said, in its Statement Number 36, that it would review the detentions of "all the youth ... tried in the recent period," an apparent reference to the protesters, but Human Rights Watch is unaware of any movement in their cases. The military had earlier announced that it was reviewing the sentencing of two protesters, Amr Eissa and Mohamed Adel, and also ordered the retrial of Walid Sami Saad.
Two lawyers, Khaled Ali and Taher Abul Nasr, brought a case before Egypt's Court of Administrative Justice on behalf of a former military detainee, Rasha Azab, challenging the military's administrative decision to try civilians before military courts. The court held the first session in the case on April 19 and adjourned the case until May 10.
If the court decides it is competent to rule on this issue, this would be the first step toward the judiciary reasserting control over the administration of criminal justice, Human Rights Watch said. Thus far, civilian judicial bodies have had little say over military abuses, and the Public Prosecutor has referred torture complaints against the military to military prosecutors.
International Law
Human Rights Watch strongly opposes any trials of civilians before military courts, where the proceedings do not protect due process rights and do not satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality of courts of law. International human rights bodies over the last 15 years have determined that trials of civilians before military tribunals violate the due process guarantees found in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which affirms that everyone has the right to be tried by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.
These bodies have consistently rejected the use of military prosecutors and courts in cases involving abuses against civilians, by stating that the jurisdiction of military courts should be limited to offenses that are strictly military in nature. The Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, presented before the former United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2005, state that "the jurisdiction of military tribunals must be restricted solely to specifically military offenses committed by military personnel, to the exclusion of human rights violations, which shall come under the jurisdiction of the ordinary domestic courts or, where appropriate, in the case of serious crimes under international law, of an international or internationalized criminal court."
The Human Rights Committee, the international expert body authorized to monitor compliance with the ICCPR, has stated that civilians should be tried by military courts only under exceptional circumstances and only under conditions that genuinely afford full due process. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, in interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, has said that military courts "should not, in any circumstances whatsoever, have jurisdiction over civilians."
Arbitrary Arrest and Military Convictions of Peaceful Protesters
February 26 Protest
One of those detained for participating in peaceful protest is Amr al-Beheiry, whose case alerted human rights lawyers to the fact that protesters were being brought before military courts.
Military officers arrested al-Beheiry, along with at least eight others, in the early hours of February 26 after forcibly evicting protesters from Tahrir Square. Mona Saif, an activist, told Human Rights Watch that she and her mother, Laila Soueif, intervened when they saw military officers first arrest al-Beheiry, and they were able to secure his release. Al-Beheiry had bruises on his face and told Saif that officers had beaten him. After they parted ways, military officers re-arrested him.
Al-Beheiry's family learned of his arrest from the newspaper and contacted Ramadan, the defense lawyer, who unsuccessfully tried to gain access to him at the military base on March 1 and only then learned that al-Beheiry had been tried and sentenced on February 28. Al-Beheiry is serving a five-year sentence in Wadi Gedid prison, 400 miles from his home, rather than in Tora prison outside Cairo.
March 9 Protest
Of the 173 detainees arrested on March 9 from Tahrir Square, at least 76 are believed to remain in prison after military courts sentenced them to prison terms ranging from one to three years on charges of breaking curfew, possession of explosives and knives, and destruction of property.
Human Rights Watch has interviewed 16 men and women who testified to being tortured by beating, electroshocks, and whipping by military officers on March 9 in the grounds of the Egyptian Museum, adjacent to Tahrir Square. Ahmed al-Sharkawy, one of 22 men released on March 12, told Human Rights Watch:
I was one of the protesters in Tahrir. Military officers beat me at the museum on March 9, used electroshocks on my legs and my neck and whipped me on my back with an electric cable. Later they moved us to the military camp S28 where a camera crew filmed us at a table with sticks, knives and Molotov cocktails placed before us, saying we were thugs. My father saw this on state television that evening and that's how he knew I'd been arrested.
The next day they took us to the military prison and brought each of us before the prosecutor. He asked me what I was doing in Tahrir and I said I was just walking past. He told me was charging me with being a thug and I denied all the charges. I was with him for around 15 minutes.
A while later they took me along with 29 others before a military judge. There were three court-appointed lawyers - I tried to ask their names but they told us they couldn't speak to us. He asked us one question "Why were you in Tahrir?" The whole process took around 20 minutes and then they took us to our cells. On Saturday [March 12], an officer came and called me out of the cell. He released me along with 21 other men and the 17 women.
Some of the protesters were able to alert lawyers shortly after they were arrested. Ramadan and Omran went to the military prosecutor's office on March 9 and requested access to the detainees, but officials there denied the detainees were being interrogated and said they would not be brought to trial until March 12. When Ramadan returned on March 12, military officials at the military prosecutor's office told him the group had been tried and sentenced on March 9.
Human Rights Watch interviewed 11 members of the group tried by military courts on March 9. They all said military police and other military officers had arrested them where they were protesting in Tahrir Square, and that military officers beat them in the grounds of the Egyptian Museum. They also said they had no access to lawyers prior to their trials or the chance to speak to court-appointed lawyers at the proceedings. They did not learn about their sentences until, at the earliest, six days later, when their families visited them in prison and saw their sentences on the visiting list.
Human Rights Watch has interviewed six people, received letters from prisoners, reviewed video footage of the events of March 9, and spoken with four prisoners' families to confirm the following cases of protesters who remain inside Tora's high security prison:
Rai'f Kashef, 22, a second-year business student, was arrested at the same time as his brother Ragui in Tahrir Square. Ragui told Human Rights Watch that military officers arrested them and took them to the museum, where the officers beat and subjected the brothers to shocks with electric stun devices. The officers then brought them to a military base, where military prosecutors questioned them separately and brought them before military judges for trial in groups of 25 to 30. Military officers released Ragui Kashef on March 12 along with 21 other men but sentenced his brother to a year in prison.
Amr Eissa, 26, an artist, was arrested along with Ragui Kashef and Khaled Sadek in front of the KFC restaurant in Tahrir Square and sentenced to three years in prison, his brother, Mostafa, told Human Rights Watch.
Eissa's was one of the two cases the military said it would review. In its Statement 30 on March 28, in which it ordered a review of the legal proceedings against him, the military stated that,
"The Egyptian armed forces announced its position at the beginning of the January 25 revolution toward the youth of the revolution that it will not stand against the free youth and that all of the legal measures that have been taken in the past period have been solely directed against acts of thuggery which have terrorized the people."
As of April 18, however, Eissa remained in Tora's high security prison. Mostafa Eissa has been campaigning on his brother's behalf, but said there had been no developments since the military announced it was reviewing the conviction.
Mustafa Abdelmoneim, 25, works in an advertising production company and took part in the Tahrir Square demonstrations from the beginning. On March 9, he was standing next to the tents protesters had set up when army officers, together with men in civilian clothes, started breaking down the tents and arresting demonstrators. In a letter written from his Tora prison cell, he wrote that he had been arrested by two military police officers, who took him to the museum and beat him on his back and his legs and used electric stun guns on him, then took him to the military camp and then before the military prosecutor and court. He told them he was tried in a group of about 30 before a military judge in a hearing that lasted 20 minutes. He said he first learned of his three-year prison sentence from his family when they came to visit him.
Hani Maher Mikhail, 26, from Imbaba, was also one of the demonstrators in Tahrir Square from the beginning. On March 9 men in civilian clothes came into the tent area to take down the tents. Mikhail went to nearby Talaat Harb Street and on his way back to the square, two officers in uniform and two men in civilian clothes arrested him and took him to the museum, where military officers beat him and used electric stun guns on him. A military judge sentenced him to three years in prison, along with a group of about 30 others.
Tamer al-Shishtawy, from Tanta, took part in the Tahrir demonstrations beginning on January 28. Military officers took him to the museum on March 9 and beat him. He said that he was tried together with 30 others by the military judge and was not permitted to speak to a lawyer.
"It is outrageous that those who peacefully protested against Mubarak should now be imprisoned after unfair military trials for peacefully protesting against the new authorities," Stork said. "The military should release all those held arbitrarily and retry any persons suspected of a criminal offence in fair proceedings before civilian courts."
The names of 76 of the protesters now imprisoned in Tora and Wadi Gedid prisons after sentences by military courts are:
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Medicare drug price negotiation is about to deliver tangible lower costs to seniors in Medicare, unlike Trump’s ceremonial events with Big Pharma CEOs in the Oval Office," said one Democratic senator.
The Trump administration on Tuesday announced newly negotiated prices for more than a dozen prescription drugs covered by Medicare, an achievement made possible by a Biden-era law that has faced relentless attacks from the pharmaceutical industry, GOP lawmakers, and the Republican president.
The announcement marks the end of the second round of Medicare drug price negotiations required under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a measure passed in 2022 without the support of a single Republican in Congress. Last year, House GOP leaders said the law was "disastrous" and decried what they called "the mandate from bureaucrats to artificially set prescription drug prices."
The new list contains 15 drugs, including the diabetes and weight loss medication Ozempic, the breast cancer drug Ibrance, and the prostate cancer drug Xtandi. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated that if the new prices—which take effect in 2027—had been in effect last year, Medicare would have saved $12 billion.
President Donald Trump campaigned on rolling back the IRA, which for the first time allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. Since taking office, Trump has taken steps to weaken the law, including by signing a measure that will exempt certain high-priced drugs from Medicare negotiations—a multibillion-dollar handout to Big Pharma.
But in statements on Tuesday, Trump-appointed officials hailed the newly negotiated prices. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, said the negotiation results stemmed from a Trump directive to "stop at nothing to lower healthcare costs for the American people."
CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz declared that the second round of negotiations was more successful than the first, which was held under the Biden administration. Experts said that claim is specious at best.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to highlight Republican opposition to the IRA, and continued attacks on the law, in response to the newly negotiated prices.
"Democrats took on Big Pharma by giving Medicare the power to negotiate on behalf of the tens of millions of seniors that want lower drug prices while every Republican voted against it,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. “Today’s announcement is a result of that effort by Democrats to lower health costs for older Americans."
"Medicare drug price negotiation is about to deliver tangible lower costs to seniors in Medicare, unlike Trump’s ceremonial events with Big Pharma CEOs in the Oval Office," Wyden added. "Republicans neutered future Medicare drug price negotiations by adding delays and exemptions to some of the most expensive drugs, especially cancer drugs like Keytruda."
Tuesday's announcement came less than a week after the pharmaceutical industry suffered its 16th defeat in court as it continues its legal campaign against the Medicare price negotiations. The industry is also lobbying aggressively in support of legislation that would further weaken the IRA price-negotiation provisions.
"Drug corporations already secured a $9 billion giveaway from President Trump and congressional Republicans paid for by taxpayers and cancer patients through the Big Ugly Bill, and they are trying to go even further to delay and exempt price negotiations for more blockbuster drugs," said Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen.
"Policymakers must reject these efforts to undermine Medicare drug price negotiations," Knievel added. "Instead they should build on the program’s success by providing everyone access to negotiated prices, negotiating lower prices for more drugs sooner, and ensuring drug corporations can no longer rip us off by charging the highest prices in the world for medications."
"We cannot out-organize a fascist administration while simultaneously bankrolling the companies profiting from its cruelty," said the head of Beyond the Ballot.
A Gen Z-led advocacy group fighting for working-class priorities on Tuesday announced a boycott campaign targeting major corporations "that enable, profit from, or directly collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the broader racist policies of the Trump administration."
Beyond the Ballot launched "Not With My Dollars: ICE Out of My Wallet" as President Donald Trump's violent crackdown on immigrants in diverse communities across the United States continues and just days before Black Friday kicks off the winter holiday shopping season.
"We cannot out-organize a fascist administration while simultaneously bankrolling the companies profiting from its cruelty," said Victor Rivera, the organization's executive director, in a statement. "Every dollar spent at a complicit corporation is a dollar funding the abduction and disappearance of our neighbors. It’' time to make corporate complicity unprofitable, for good."
The group is taking aim at e-commerce behemoth Amazon and its grocery subsidiary, Whole Foods; tech giants Dell and Microsoft; Home Depot; streaming platform Spotify; and retail chain Target. The boycott webpage explains the reason each is listed, actions shoppers should take, and the campaign's demands. In some cases, it also offers alternative companies.
Target is under fire for its "broad range of cooperation with the Trump administration's racist policies." The campaign is calling on the company to not only publicly commit to refusing collaboration with ICE but also immediately reinstate its scrapped diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
Spotify is on the list for airing ICE recruitment ads—a decision that also recently prompted a boycott call from the group Indivisible.
The campaign site calls out Home Depot because it has "repeatedly allowed ICE agents to patrol and detain workers and customers in its parking lots and stores, usually without presenting judicial warrants or establishing probable cause," and demands an end to those practices.
The group is urging Microsoft to end its "$19.4 million contract with ICE to provide artificial intelligence capabilities and processing data." The Dell section highlights that it has provided $18.8 million to "support the office of ICE's chief information officer through the purchase of Microsoft enterprise software licenses," and similarly calls for terminating that contract with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Amazon section states:
REASON: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the digital backbone of ICE's machinery, selling the cloud power that helps track, target, and tear families apart.
ACTION: Stop shopping on Amazon where possible; cancel Prime subscriptions if feasible; push universities, unions, nonprofits, and campaigns to move off AWS when and where feasible, and to issue statements condemning Amazon’s role in corporate-sponsored mass deportations.
DEMAND: End all ICE/DHS immigration enforcement contracts and data hosting that enable deportations; adopt a binding human-rights policy banning support for immigration policing.
ALTERNATIVES: Bookshop.org and local bookstores; direct-from-brand purchasing; cooperatives; independent retailers.
The site also stresses that "every dollar spent at Whole Foods directly strengthens Amazon, whose AWS platform is the digital backbone of ICE's machinery, powering the tools used to track, target, and tear families apart."
While the campaign is beginning just before Black Friday, boycott organizers aim to ensure it will "not disappear" after this week.
"Unlike other consumer boycotts, Not With My Dollars is designed for long-term pressure and escalation," Beyond the Ballot said. "To be removed from the boycott list, each targeted corporation must fulfill the specific demands outlined for its company. Anything less is not accountability, just more corporate PR."
"If you bankroll a violent, unaccountable agency that terrorizes our communities, you will not do it with our money," the group added. "Across the country, poor and working-class migrant families are facing a wave of state-sponsored abductions, violence, and political policing under the fascist Trump administration. Corporations that choose to partner with, advertise on, bankroll, or provide critical infrastructure to ICE are not neutral; they are complicit."
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
As President Donald Trump postpones unveiling his supposed plan to tackle soaring US healthcare costs—reportedly after pushback from congressional Republicans—Medicare for All advocates have renewed calls for shifting to a single-payer system.
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, said on social media Monday afternoon. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
The union National Nurses United also called for Medicare for All on Monday, pointing to a recent West Health/Gallup poll that found 47% of US adults are worried they won't be able to afford healthcare next year, the highest level since they began tracking in 2021.
"The urgency around this is real," West Health president Timothy Lash told NBC News. "When you look at the economic strain that is on families right now, even if healthcare prices didn't rise, the costs are rising elsewhere, which only exacerbates the problem."
Over objections from progressives, including Sanders, a small group of Senate Democrats earlier this month agreed to help GOP lawmakers end the longest federal government shutdown in US history in exchange for just the promise of a mid-December vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to help over 20 million Americans who face skyrocketing premiums.
Citing unnamed White House officials, MS NOW reported Sunday that Trump was set to introduce the Healthcare Price Cuts Act to combat what the sources called "surprise premium hikes" as soon as Monday.
"The plan would also eliminate 'zero-premium' subsidies currently offered under the ACA, intending to stop 'ghost beneficiaries,' a frequent Republican concern about alleged fraudulent policy recipients, by requiring a small minimum payment as a means to verify eligibility to receive benefits," according to the outlet.
"The nascent plan also features a deposit program that would incentivize lower-premium options on the ACA exchange," MS NOW continued. "For individuals who downgrade coverage, the difference in coverage costs would be distributed to a 'Health Savings Account' provided with taxpayer dollars."
However, as Politico detailed Monday, also citing unnamed sources, "Trump's healthcare plan is in limbo after pushback from Republicans who were caught off guard by the president's forthcoming proposal—questioning, in particular, whether it would include additional abortion restrictions."
As parts of Trump's proposal continued to leak in the absence of its formal introduction, the American Prospect's Ryan Cooper and David Dayen wrote Tuesday that "all told, there's a good chance that Democrats will accept this offer, or something like it, as the best they're likely to get for the time being."
"If they are ever in power again, they can fix the ACA permanently, and avoid the danger of subsidies expiring (as the Prospect advocated back in 2021). But it's quite revealing as to the total bankruptcy of the Republican Party when it comes to healthcare policy," the duo added. "The GOP will flinch from more than doubling health insurance premiums—at least if middle-class people and up are the most affected—but only if they can also make the insurance worse, and make poor people pay more."
Last week, in a pair of op-eds and a letter to Democratic lawmakers, Sanders argued that "at a time when the Republicans have been forced to finally talk about the healthcare crisis facing our country, it is essential that the Democratic Caucus unify behind a set of commonsense policies that will make healthcare more affordable and accessible."
He called for not only extending the ACA tax credits, but also repealing Trump and congressional Republicans' $1 trillion in cuts to the ACA and Medicaid; expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing; cutting prescription drug costs by requiring pharmaceutical companies to charge no more for medications in the United States than they do in Europe or Canada; investing in expanding primary healthcare; and banning stock buybacks and dividends, and restricting CEO compensation.
Although Medicare for All lacks majority support in the Democratic Caucus, Sanders—the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—also emphasized his belief that it remains the ideal long-term solution. He reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (Mich.).
Other single-payer advocates have also seized on current concerns and debates about the ACA. In a column for Truthdig last Thursday, Conor Lynch wrote that "with Republicans spotlighting the greed, corruption, and inefficiency of US healthcare, progressive Democrats have an opening to take Medicare for All off the back burner and renew the push for a comprehensive overhaul."
"The fact that Republicans are calling out insurance companies for their profiteering shows how much the national mood has changed since the passage of the ACA," he continued. "With Republicans unable to offer anything but a return to an intolerable status quo ante, Democrats should make the case for moving beyond the broken status quo."
The previous week, CJ Mikkelsen, a retired firefighter and paramedic now leading a small nonprofit in Michigan, made the case in the Midland Daily News that "we need a system like every other country in the developed world has."
Mikkelsen shared some of his and his wife's health struggles and stressed the society-wide benefits: "Medicare for All would mean that everyone is covered for everything at all times. No more losing coverage because you’ve lost your job, want to go back to school, or are starting your own business. The last thing I want you to know about Medicare for All, and pay attention here—IT’S CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW."