

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.

Comprehensive legislation was introduced today in the Senate to reauthorize and expand the Older Americans Act, the landmark law that supports Meals on Wheels and other essential programs for seniors.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, and 14 co-sponsors introduced the bill, which provides basic necessities such as meals, home care and job training. The co-sponsors include Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Senate leader, and Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).
"Millions of seniors today are hurting financially and we must give them the support they need to stay healthy in their homes and communities," said Sanders. The Older Americans Act has saved taxpayer dollars, he stressed, by reducing health care expenses. "Investing in proper nutrition saves the government money by keeping people out of emergency rooms and hospitals and allows them to stay at home where they want to be."
Originally enacted in 1965 along with Medicare and Medicaid, the Older Americans Act was the first initiative by the federal government to provide comprehensive assistance to seniors. With 10,000 Baby Boomers turning 65 every day and with the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, help for seniors is needed now more than ever.
Mikulski said, "I believe that 'Honor Thy Father and Mother' is a good commandment to live by and a good policy to govern by. That's why I'm fighting to improve the Older Americans Act to better serve our seniors. Through these improvements, we are working to honor the responsibilities we have to our elderly. We must commit ourselves to meeting the needs of our growing and changing senior population and their caregivers. This bill ensures that the services our seniors need are available to help them live more independent and active lives."
"As Vermont's population ages, we must ensure that seniors have the support they need to continue to lead healthy and productive lives," Leahy said. "This renewal bill offered by Sen. Sanders will help achieve that goal by offering continued federal support for such vital efforts as nutrition programs, home care, coordination of long-term care and health care, job training and legal services."
"For almost five decades, the Older Americans Act has been the bridge to independence for millions of older Americans, persons with disabilities and their families. If this law isn't funded, renewed and updated to reflect the challenges seniors face today, the progress we've made will be at risk and seniors will lose the services they depend on," said Kerry.
"With our senior populations rapidly expanding, reauthorizing the Older Americans Act is needed now more than ever," said Begich. "The bill delivers essential services to our seniors while saving taxpayer dollars, allowing them to maintain their independence and keeping them safe from potential elder abuse."
Blumenthal said, "The Older Americans Act is critical to seniors because it supports nutrition, housing and social services programs in Connecticut and across the country. Particularly important, this measure is a vital tool in the fight against elder abuse, which requires better screening and reporting so we can end this scourge. I fully support the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, and I am committed to doing all I can to help our nation's seniors."
"Seniors deserve high quality care that keeps them healthy and safe," said Klobuchar. "This important bill contains my provisions to protect seniors from bad actors who could take advantage of them and reduce the burdens on families who are caring for their loved ones."
Gillibrand, a member of the Senate's Special Committee on Aging, said, "When seniors stay in their homes and maintain their independence, they live longer, healthier, happier lives, and taxpayers save millions. From opportunities to continue living independently, to access to better nutrition, empowering our seniors with better financial literacy and protecting them from abuse, these are the priorities I will be fighting for to ensure the Older Americans Act works for New York's seniors."
Among the new programs for seniors and their families, the legislation would authorize funding for the coordination of dental care to low-income older Americans, focus more on economic security and provide special assistance to veterans, Holocaust survivors and LGBT seniors. The legislation also includes increased support for family caregivers and would make gerontologists and geriatricians eligible for the National Health Services Corps.
Under another initiative, the Bureau of Labor Statistics would be required to improve how it calculates inflation to more accurately reflect seniors' out-of-pocket expenses for health care and prescription drugs. A cost-of-living measure tailored to the real-world expenses of seniors could be used to make more accurate annual adjustments in Social Security benefits, for example. The Alliance for Retired Americans said that the provision in the bill is "vital to the health and economic security of millions of older Americans and their families."
To see the bill, click here.
Brown University, the University of Southern California, and the University of Pennsylvania—the president's alma mater—all rejected the proposal.
Three more leading US universities have joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in rejecting President Donald Trump's compact that critics have condemned as an "extortion agreement" and "loyalty oath" for federal funding.
Brown University's Wednesday decision and Thursday announcements from the University of Southern California and the University of Pennsylvania came ahead of the Trump administration's October 20 deadline for the nine initially invited schools to respond to the "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education."
Although the University of Texas said it was "honored" to receive the offer, it has not officially signed on to the compact to receive priority access to federal funding and other "benefits." Neither has any of the other institutions: the University of Arizona, Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia.
Bloomberg reported Monday that "a few days after MIT rebuffed the proposal, the administration extended the offering to all higher education institutions," citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter.
Brown's president, Christina Paxson, released her full letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other Trump officials on Wednesday. She pointed out that "on July 30, Brown signed a voluntary resolution agreement with the government that advances a number of the high-level principles articulated in the compact, while maintaining core tenets of academic freedom and self-governance that have sustained the excellence of American higher education across generations."
"While a number of provisions in the compact reflect similar principles as the July agreement—as well as our own commitments to affordability and the free exchange of ideas—I am concerned that the compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown's governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission," Paxson wrote. "While we value our long-held and well-regarded partnership with the federal government, Brown is respectfully declining to join the compact."
Penn, also part of the Ivy League, rejected the compact on Thursday. In a statement, its president, Dr. J. Larry Jameson, said that "for 285 years, Penn has been anchored and guided by continuous self-improvement, using education as a ladder for opportunity, and advancing discoveries that serve our community, our nation, and the world."
"I have sought input from faculty, alumni, trustees, students, staff, and others who care deeply about Penn," with the goal of ensuring that "our response reflected our values and the perspectives of our broad community," Jameson detailed. "Penn respectfully declines to sign the proposed compact," and provided the US Department of Education with "focused feedback highlighting areas of existing alignment as well as substantive concerns."
"At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability," he added. "The long-standing partnership between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress."
As The Daily Pennsylvanian, the campus newspaper, noted:
At a Wednesday meeting, Penn's Faculty Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging the University to reject the agreement.
"The 'compact’ erodes the foundation on which higher education in the United States is built," the October 15 resolution read. "The University of Pennsylvania Faculty Senate urges President Jameson and the Board of Trustees to reject it and any other proposal that similarly threatens our mission and values."
Penn is the alma mater of Trump and Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity financier who helped craft the compact.
The Trump White House told the student newspaper that "any higher education institution unwilling to assume accountability and confront these overdue and necessary reforms will find itself without future government and taxpayers' support."
Despite the risk of funding loss, the University of Southern California also rejected the proposal on Thursday. In a statement to the campus paper, the Daily Trojan, interim president Beong-Soo Kim said that "although USC has declined to join the proposed compact, we look forward to contributing our perspectives, insights, and Trojan values to an important national conversation about the future of higher education."
Critics of the compact have called on educational leaders to oppose it. In a joint statement earlier this month, American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten urged "all college and university governing boards, campus administrations, academic disciplinary organizations, and higher education trade groups to reject such collusion with the Trump administration and to stand firmly on the side of free expression and higher education as the anchor of opportunity for all."
Acquiescing, they argued, "would be a profound betrayal of your students, staff, faculty, the public, higher education, and our shared democracy—one that would irretrievably tarnish your personal reputation and compromise your institution's legacy. We urge you not to capitulate and not to negotiate but to unite now in defense of democracy and higher education."
"AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic," wrote one observer.
A centrist Democratic lawmaker on Thursday surprised many political observers when he announced he would be returning donations he'd received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), said that he was rejecting donations from AIPAC because it had aligned itself too closely with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who last year was accused of committing crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.
"I'm a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC's mission is to back that government," Moulton said in a social media post. "I don't support that direction."
As flagged by New York Times reporter Annie Karni, Moulton is now the fourth Democratic lawmaker who once received heavy support from AIPAC to reject their donations, following Reps. Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), Deborah Ross (D-NC), and Valerie Foushee (D-NC).
Hamid Bendaas, communications director for the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, observed in a post on X that Moulton appeared to be ignoring advice given by a prominent Democratic consultant over the summer to not focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict because polls showed it wasn't important to voters.
Dylan Williams, the vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, argued that Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash showed how far the organization's reputation with the electorate has fallen over the past several years.
"AIPAC is now so toxic to Democratic voters that support from it is widely seen as a political liability," he wrote. "The NRA-ization of AIPAC is nearly complete."
Ishaan Tharoor, a Washington Post global affairs columnist, also reflected on how much AIPAC's brand has been damaged over the last two years of war in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 68,000 Palestinians.
"There was a time when people would refer to AIPAC as the gold standard in lobbying," he wrote. "So many in India and the Indian diaspora have talked about a future 'Indian AIPAC' one day influencing US politics in similar fashion. But AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic."
Journalist Ryan Grim had a one-word reaction to Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash: "Wow."
"I might die if I stop going to the doctor," said one Tennessee resident whose premiums jumped from $10 to $1,140 a month.
More than 20 million Americans are expected to see their health insurance premiums more than double next year after Republicans refused to extend a tax credit for those who purchase health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
And as the GOP remains firm in its stance that it will not vote to extend the credits in order to end the government shutdown entering its third week and the open enrollment period for ACA insurance fast approaching, Americans in some states are already getting a glimpse into how the price of their insurance will skyrocket in 2026.
On Wednesday, ACA health insurance marketplaces in six states—California, Maine, Minnesota, Vermont, Oregon, and Kentucky—launched "window shopping" tools that allow residents to compare their current insurance premiums with the ones they can expect to pay next year.
Across each of these states, the advocacy group Protect Our Care found plans that are expected to increase dramatically, sometimes to prices several times higher than they were this year.
“There is no longer any doubt about the healthcare disaster Republicans have created,” said the group's chair, Leslie Dach. “Working families can now log onto a computer and see the Republican healthcare betrayal right before their eyes."
Middle-income Americans who are older, but not yet old enough to receive Medicare, are expected to see the steepest increases in their premiums, according to KFF. When Protect Our Care looked at plans for 60-year-old couples making $85,000 a year, the group found staggering results in each state.
In Clay County, Kentucky, the group found that a Clear Silver plan, which charges that couple a premium of $559 per month this year, will cost $2,736—nearly five times that amount—next year after subsidies expire.

In Mission Viejo, California, premiums for the same couple's Anthem Blue Cross Silver plan would more than quadruple, from $516 per month this year to $2,188 next year.
The same is true in Medford, Oregon, where a Moda Health Silver plan would increase from $622 this year to $2,644.
In Burlington, Vermont, an MVP Silver plan that costs $602 per month this year will spike to $2,577.
While these are particularly egregious examples, KFF estimated earlier this month that the average ACA recipient will see their premiums increase by 114% next year, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects will result in more than 4 million people becoming unable to afford health insurance.
State-level estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that across the states that have opened window shopping, costs for many families were doubling, tripling, or worse.
Residents across the country are beginning to grapple with the extraordinary rise in costs they are about to face.
In Tennessee, where more than half a million people pay lower premiums due to the ACA subsidies, a 62-year-old Chattanooga resident, Cheri Roberts, told the Chattanooga Times Free Press that if they are allowed to expire, her current $10 a month premium will explode to $1,140 next year.
"I just had no idea," Roberts said about the expiring tax credits, adding that she sees eight different specialists for varying health issues and has multiple surgeries planned. "I'm not trying to exaggerate, but I might die if I stop going to the doctor."
Julia Tilley, a resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, told PennLive/The Patriot-News that she fears her premiums will soar as Pennsylvania's insurance department predicts a premium increase of 102% on average for its 530,000 ACA recipients.
Though she says she has not yet received a letter from her insurer, Tilley said one of her friends was told their family's premiums were ballooning from $100 to $1,800 a month.
“There’s really no way to prepare for it,” Tilley said. “I mean, how do you suddenly come up with $15,000 more a year? My husband can’t work more because he has a head injury."
Tilley says she already works full-time taking care of her adult daughter, who has autism. "It’s not like I can go get another job," she says. "So we’re stuck.”
She says she has tried on multiple occasions to reach out to her Republican congressman, Rep. Scott Perry, but has not heard back.
According to KFF, 57% of ACA recipients live in congressional districts represented by Republicans, and polls by the organization have suggested that failure to extend the subsidies may hurt their electoral chances.
A poll from early October found that 78% of adults say that Congress should extend the subsidies, including the vast majority of Democrats and independents and even 57% of self-identified "MAGA" Republicans. If the subsidies are not extended, 39% who support extending them have said they'd blame US President Donald Trump, while another 37% say they'd blame Republicans in Congress. Just 22% say they'd blame Democrats.
"Virtually all marketplace enrollees—across states, ages, family sizes, and income levels—will see big premium increases," said Gideon Lukens, a senior fellow and director of health policy research for CBPP. "These are real people facing real consequences if Congress doesn’t act to extend the enhancements as soon as possible."