

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.

American taxpayers could save as much as $541 billion by 2022 if Congress and the President enable Medicare to negotiate drug prices like other wealthy countries, according to an issue brief released today by an economics research group. As Washington wrestles with tax and spending decisions designed to reduce the budget deficit, a grassroots campaign is being launched to educate the public and lawmakers about the substantial benefits that drug-price negotiations could deliver.
The massive savings were estimated by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which today issued "Reducing Waste With an Efficient Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit." The data show that by having Medicare negotiate drug prices comparable to those in other advanced nations, the federal government could save from $230 billion to $541 billion over the next 10 years. Additionally, state governments could save from $31 billion to $72 billion, and consumers could save from $48 billion to $112 billion over the same period.
To launch the grassroots campaign, Seattle-based Alliance for a Just Society gathered support from nearly 300 organizations nationwide to urge Congress and the President to enable Medicare to negotiate prescription prices with drug makers and suppliers. Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is coordinating legislative and field activity in states across the country to achieve the goal.
"It's ridiculous for Medicare to be paying drug companies two and three times as much money for drugs as other countries at a time when we are cutting essential programs," said Dean Baker, co-director of CEPR and author of the analysis. "This fix alone would go far towards hitting anyone's deficit target."
Minnesota's two Democratic U.S. senators, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, are among the leading advocates for a way to bring down excessive pharmaceutical costs. "We shouldn't be saddling our seniors with inflated drug prices for vital medications," said Klobuchar. "This is a matter of fairness for our seniors, who deserve affordable prices for their prescription drugs, and it is a matter of fairness for America's taxpayers, who deserve less waste in our system. That's why I introduced legislation to allow more affordable drugs for seniors and bring real savings for Medicare."
Franken has also filed a bill to address the problem. "When I travel around Minnesota, I always hear from seniors that they're still paying far too much for prescription drugs," said Franken. "I've reintroduced a bill to help make prescription drugs more affordable for Medicare beneficiaries across the country and to save taxpayers billions of dollars. This is a commonsense measure that will cut spending without cutting any vital services that Medicare recipients rely on."
"In the choice between saving money or saving lives, the reality is that we can do both," says LeeAnn Hall, executive director of the Alliance. "The President in his State of the Union address said as a country we need to cut the cost of prescription drugs. Here is an answer. The only question is if there is political will to take this all the way."
Health care advocates expect strong opposition to this cost-savings policy. "The GOP would rather cut life-saving benefits for seniors than bring some of the most profitable companies on earth to the negotiating table," said HCAN Executive Director Ethan Rome. "Medicare is one of the industry's biggest customers, and negotiating with pharmaceutical companies will save substantial dollars."
The CEPR brief shows that the savings are undoubtedly achievable, as has been demonstrated for many years by numerous wealthy countries that pay significantly less for prescription drugs than the U.S. does. Some may object that lower prices would sap much of the revenue and incentive for financing research and development of new drugs, but the brief points out that they would also disincentivize improper marketing of medications and misrepresentation of quality and safety of drugs, which occurred in the case of Vioxx, the report said. There is a strong argument for developing a more efficient mechanism for financing drug research, and there is little reason for people in the United States to continue to overpay for a system that serves us poorly, according to CEPR.
The full report by CEPR is available at https://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/reducing-waste-with... .
A comprehensive list of organizations that signed the letter can be found at https://allianceforajustsociety.org/save-costs-save-lives.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380"We are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time," said one analyst.
The Pentagon reportedly wants Congress to approve more than $200 billion in supplemental funding for US President Donald Trump's unauthorized and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the administration weighs deploying thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, signaling a drawn-out conflict and a possible ground invasion.
The Washington Post reported late Wednesday that the Pentagon has asked the White House to sign off on the supplemental funding request as the financial and human costs of the Iran war balloon. The $200 billion figure, which drew immediate backlash and vows of opposition from several Democratic lawmakers, is quadruple the number widely floated in recent days as the department's likely supplemental request.
"This should be an absolute nonstarter," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in response to the Post's reporting. "The best way to end this war, protect our troops, save civilian lives, and rein in a lawless administration is to cut off funding. I’m a hell no."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that "at the height of combat the Iraq War cost around $140 billion per year."
"If the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion they are asking for a long war," Gallego added. "The answer is a simple no."
Any funding package would need 60 votes to get through the US Senate, requiring some Democratic support. As of this writing, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has responded to reports of the Pentagon's request.
The Post reported Wednesday that "it remains unclear how much the White House will ultimately ask congressional lawmakers to approve," and that "some White House officials do not think the Pentagon’s request has a realistic shot of being approved in Congress."
Prior to the start of the Iran assault, Trump called for a $1.5 trillion US military budget for the coming fiscal year even after the Pentagon failed its eighth consecutive audit.
The Pentagon's push for $200 billion in Iran war funding comes after US investigators reportedly determined that American forces were responsible for the bombing—on the first day of the war—of an Iranian elementary school that killed around 175 people, mostly young children.
News of the Pentagon's funding request came as Reuters reported that the Trump administration is "considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran."
"The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding US operations, with the Iran war well into its third week," Reuters reported. "Those options include securing safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a mission that would be accomplished primarily through air and naval forces, the sources said. But securing the Strait could also mean deploying U.S. troops to Iran's shoreline, said four sources, including two U.S. officials."
"The Trump administration has also discussed options to send ground forces to Iran's Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran's oil exports," Reuters added. "One of the officials said such an operation would be very risky. Iran has the ability to reach the island with missiles and drones."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said Wednesday that "we are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time."
"Asking US taxpayers to spend $50 billion on a war Trump claims we have already won was outrageous enough," said Williams. "Quadrupling that within a week shows a total lack of understanding or control over what he has gotten us into."
Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, author of the Diplomatic newsletter, wrote Wednesday that "Trump blundered into what he thought would be a few day 'excursion' as he calls it, maybe Venezuela 2.0."
"That is not what Israel had in mind, the military has hit all of its targets," Rozen added. "He has no idea what he is doing, his intelligence and other aides were appointed not to tell him anything he does not want to hear; not a single one of them can explain what the goal is. Congressional Republicans have their heads deep in the sand, and now talk of a $200 billion Pentagon supplemental and sending more potential ground troops."
Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, highlighted the Post's reporting on social media and called $200 billion "the tip of the iceberg."
"Ordinary Americans can thank Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the trillion-dollar 'Israel First tax' that's about to hit the US economy," he wrote.
"Chicagoans and all Americans suffer from a healthcare system that is insanely complicated, medically unsound, and ruinously expensive for individuals, businesses, and the nation as a whole."
As Americans contend with skyrocketing health insurance premiums and a Republican congressional majority unwilling to extend even meager subsidies, the City Council in the third-largest US city—Chicago, Illinois—on Wednesday unanimously approved a resolution pressuring Congress to pass Medicare for All legislation.
Chicago's resolution from Alderwoman Ruth Cruz, a Democrat representing Ward 30, "enthusiastically" endorses the Medicare for All Act introduced last year by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), and calls on federal legislators "to work toward its swift enactment."
The resolution notes that if passed, the congressional bill would cover "all necessary primary, preventative, and medical care; including hospital, surgical, and outpatient services, prescription drugs, mental health, and substance abuse treatment; emergency services; reproductive care; dental, hearing and vision care; and long-term care" for all Americans throughout lifetimes without without co-payments, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs.
Speaking at Wednesday's five-hour meeting, Cruz declared that "healthcare is a human right."
"Chicagoans and all Americans suffer from a healthcare system that is insanely complicated, medically unsound, and ruinously expensive for individuals, businesses, and the nation as a whole," Cruz said in a statement. "Medicare for All would put actual medical care back at the center of our healthcare system, leading to better outcomes and lower costs for millions of Americans."
"Every other developed nation on Earth—and some developing nations as well!—has figured out how to provide universal health coverage to their people," she continued. "It is long past time for Congress to do the rational, responsible thing and adopt Medicare for All in the United States."
Chicago has now joined dozens of US cities and counties that have, in recent years, formally supported replacing the nation's for-profit healthcare system with a public single-payer one. The Board of Commissioners for Illinois' Cook County—which includes Chicago—approved a similar resolution in 2019.
US Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), a cosponsor of the federal bill and "proud" supporter of the Chicago resolution, argued Wednesday that "Medicare for All is the right step toward addressing high costs and inequalities in the current system, which particularly affect underserved populations and minorities."
García, who plans to retire after this term, represents Illinois' 4th Congressional District, which spans parts of Cook and DuPage counties. He said that "my district in Chicago has a 14% uninsurance rate, and many cannot afford healthcare even though they work full time."
President Donald Trump's "cruel spending bill passed in 2025 will leave 10 million more people nationwide without health insurance by 2034, because of changes his bill made to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid," he highlighted, referring to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. "Passing the Medicare for All Act is more urgent than ever."
"At a time when people are struggling to pay for medications, groceries, and gasoline because of President Trump's policies, Medicare for All will guarantee that all Chicago and other US residents will be fully covered for healthcare anywhere in the United States, regardless of employment status, marital status, citizenship status, income, age, or geography," García concluded. "We owe it to America. We owe it to the hardworking people in our communities."
Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that fights for a single-payer system at the federal level, pointed out on social media Wednesday that "this makes Chicago the biggest city in the country to endorse Medicare for All."
Breaking news: Chicago’s City Council has voted unanimously to pass a resolution in support of Medicare for All 🎉This makes Chicago the biggest city in the country to endorse Medicare for All, and sends a message to federal legislators that their constituents expect them to support single payer.
[image or embed]
— Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) (@pnhp.bsky.social) March 18, 2026 at 9:01 PM
The Chicago-based group's national coordinator, Dr. Claudia Fegan, retired as chief medical officer of Cook County Health in December 2024. While publicly advocating for the resolution earlier this month, she said that "I am reminded of a woman I admitted to the hospital one night a few years ago. Both of her breasts were rock hard. They were infiltrated with cancer with palpable lymph nodes in her axilla. She worked as a hairdresser, owned her own shop, but had no health insurance."
"She was sitting at home waiting to die," Fegan explained. "She believed she had no other choice. She knew she could not afford her care. Her daughter made her come in. Remarkably, we were able to get a dramatic response with treatment. No one should ever have to sit at home waiting to die in this country, when we have treatments that can be lifesaving."
Eagan Kemp, healthcare policy advocate at another national group, Public Citizen, said Wednesday that "the fragmentation of our healthcare system creates instability and inequity for Chicago residents every day."
"Right now, the situation is dire," Kemp acknowledged, "with the recent actions by the Trump administration and its MAGA allies in Congress to further unravel an already tenuous system that leaves tens of millions of Americans without coverage and even more without adequate coverage."
"But the federal government already has the capacity and funding to efficiently address this through a universal insurance program," the advocate emphasized. "Thankfully, we also have an excellent plan for how to accomplish that in the Medicare for All Act of 2025. This resolution ushers the solution into the spotlight as a key demand for Americans to voice to our government."
After the Chicago resolution's approval, Susan Hurley, executive director of the Illinois Single Payer Coalition, which organized communities to advance the measure, stressed that "our collective misery, suffering, and impoverishment is allowed to happen so that health insurance CEOs and others in our bloated, corrupt system can make hundreds of millions of dollars."
"The companies hoard billions in profits," Hurley said. "It is monstrous madness to allow this to continue for no other reason than satisfying greed beyond all comprehension at the expense of human lives."
The city's Wednesday move came on the heels of Illinois' primary elections, in which state residents chose Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, a supporter of Medicare for All, in a nationally watched race to run for retiring US Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) seat in November, when Democrats aim to reclaim both chambers of Congress.
Undaunted, the New Jersey Democrat vowed to introduce similar measures "again and again and again as more Americans on both sides of the aisle see this war for what it is."
Republican senators on Wednesday blocked Sen. Cory Booker from forcing a final vote on a resolution to curb President Donald Trump's ability to continue waging the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran without congressional authorization.
"All of us—all 100—swore an oath to the Constitution," Booker (D-NJ) said on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday's 47-53 vote against the measure. "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the authority to declare war and authorize the use of military force, but in this case, Congress and the United States Senate in particular has done nothing."
"This is why I urge my colleagues soon to support the motion to discharge Senate Joint Resolution 118," Booker continued. "I ask for that because of what is at stake: Billions of taxpayer dollars. Hundreds of American lives. What is at stake is the Constitution of the United States of America."
All 100 Senators swore an oath not to Donald Trump, but to the Constitution. That’s why I’m fighting in the Senate tonight to end this reckless war.
[image or embed]
— Sen. Cory Booker (@booker.senate.gov) March 18, 2026 at 3:24 PM
The resolution would have ordered the "removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress."
"We swore an oath. We have an obligation.This is the moment now," the senator added. "This is not left or right; this is a moral moment and a solemn, sacred, patriotic duty to uphold the Constitution—especially when the president of the United States is so willfully violating it."
Every Democrat except Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted to advance Booker's resolution. Every Republican with the exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky voted "no." Both Independent senators—Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Maine's Angus King—voted "yes."
Earlier this month, Fetterman joined all upper chamber Republicans save Paul in blocking a war powers resolution aimed at reining in Trump's US-Israeli war on Iran.
On Sunday, Booker said that "both parties have been feckless in allowing the growth of the power of the presidency."
"At this scale, at this magnitude, at this cost, why is Congress just laying down and doing nothing?” he added.
Undaunted by Wednesday's defeat, Booker vowed to introduce similar resolutions "again and again and again as more Americans on both sides of the aisle see this war for what it is: one president's decision costing all Americans."
According to a poll published Wednesday by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, nearly 8 in 10 Trump voters want the war to end quickly.
"Even after this vote, there are many of us here in this body who will fight to uphold the Constitution," Booker said.