

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.
Today, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is partnering with Senate Democrats to introduce and rally around a Senate resolution calling for every American to have the choice of a public health insurance option. A broad progressive coalition will engage millions of Americans this week in support.
This Merkley-Schumer-Murray-Durbin-Sanders resolution is led in the Senate by Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Patty Murray (D-WA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and 22 other original co-sponsors (full list below).
A grassroots coalition led by the PCCC includes Presente.org, UltraViolet, Working Families Party, MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Daily Kos, and the AFL-CIO. Groups will engage their 14 million plus members nationwide on a petition in support of the resolution at WeWantAPublicOption.com and put in phone calls to Senate offices in support. The PCCC worked behind the scenes with senators and organizations on this strategy to elevate the public option in 2016 and put Democrats on offense when talking about health care.
"We see this as the most significant health care push by Democrats since the passage of Obamacare. This resolution supporting a public option for every American represents a Democratic Party increasingly unified behind a strategy of playing offense on big progressive ideas," said Stephanie Taylor, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder. "Aetna's failed extortion attempt and decision to pull out of 11 states has created new urgency in this moment for making a public option available to every American. With Hillary Clinton actively campaigning on big ideas like a public option, debt-free college, and expanding Social Security benefits, Democrats will earn a mandate in 2016 to govern boldly and progressively in 2017. Bernie Sanders' partnership with Senate leaders and grassroots groups on this push shows increasing Democratic unity around big progressive ideas."
Hillary Clinton called for a public option on May 9 and reaffirmed this support in a big economic speech on August 11. This was echoed by President Obama on July 11, an important signal that Democrats were ready to write the next chapter of health care reform after the Affordable Care Act.
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who filed the resolution, said: "The Affordable Care Act has already expanded health coverage to millions who were previously uninsured and given countless Americans greater peace of mind. We should build on this success by driving competition and holding insurance companies accountable with a public, Medicare-like option available to every American."
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a member of Democratic leadership, added: "Rather than refighting old political battles and trying to put insurance companies back in charge, Republicans should join Democrats in expanding choice for consumers by supporting a public health insurance option. We need more competition in the insurance markets, not less, and a public option would help reduce costs and provide consumers with more affordable options when it comes to their health insurance."
After laying out the case for the public option, the new Senate resolution states: "Resolved, that the Senate supports efforts to build on the Affordable Care Act by ensuring that, in addition to the coverage options provided by private insurers, every American has access to a public health insurance option which, when established, will strengthen competition, improve affordability for families by reducing premiums and increasing choices, and save American taxpayers billions of dollars."
The PCCC will hold a media call with Sen. Jeff Merkley, Prof. Jacob Hacker (creator of the public option), and others Thursday, 9/15, at 11am ET. To RSVP, email press@boldprogressives.org.
A GBA Strategies poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute in January 2015 shows a majority of likely 2016 voters support a public option, 71%-13%, including a majority of Republicans, 62%-22%. Among Hispanic voters, it is popular 64%-23%. Among African American voters, it is popular 86%-6%. Among women voters, it is popular 72%-13%. Among young voters, it is popular 81%-9%.
See statements from progressive grassroots coalition members and more senators below. Also see key Aetna/Clinton/Obama facts below.
Nita Chaudhary, Co-Executive Director, UltraViolet: "Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies have prioritized profits and mergers ahead of patients. When it comes to basic women's health care like birth control, insurers have attempted to force women to pay co-pays or denied their claims altogether. This is unacceptable and would not happen if we had a public option that provides a Medicare-like choice to keep health insurance companies honest."
Charles Chamberlain, Executive Director, Democracy For America: "If our leaders are serious about ensuring real competition in the health insurance market and driving down our out-of-control healthcare costs, giving every American the option to buy into a public, Medicare-like health insurance program is a no brainer that every single Democrat should support."
Joan McCarter, Senior Political Writer, Daily Kos: "The public option was a good idea in 2009, and it's a great idea today. It's time to expand the access to health insurance promised in the Affordable Care Act and make that 'affordable' part a reality, giving everyone an alternative to high-deductible, high-cost plans."
Matt Nelson, Executive Director, Presente.org: "While Obamacare has helped millions of Americans gain access to healthcare, nearly 10 million Latinx people remain uninsured. Now, Aetna and other corporate insurers are pulling out of states with high Latinx populations -- putting many in our communities at risk of losing the care they need and deserve. We need a public option that guarantees every American an affordable health care choice -- and to truly increase access such a public option should have a Spanish-language website and adequate services. Healthcare is a public good and should never have been entrusted to corporate insurers alone. A public option could save the lives of Latinxs who are still uninsured, and it would help hold corporate insurers responsible for their actions. We applaud senators for proposing this bold resolution and working with grassroots organizations to put the public option back in the national conversation."
Dan Cantor, National Director, Working Families Party: "Congressional Republicans spent six years trying to destroy Obamacare. They failed, and thanks to Obamacare, fewer people than ever are uninsured. But our health insurance industry still needs reform, especially as corporations like Aetna put profit ahead of all else and pull out of the exchanges. It's time to revive a good idea and pass a public option for every American. All Americans need a quality, affordable health plan, whether big insurers want to play ball or not. Senators Sanders, Merkley, Schumer, Durbin and Murray are right to put it back on the table."
William Samuel, Government Affairs Director, AFL-CIO: "We strongly support this resolution calling for a public health insurance option that will be available to all Americans. A public plan will change the rules of our healthcare system, lowering costs for working people, employers and government, injecting competition into the health insurance market, and helping keep private insurers honest."
The petition by the coalition of groups at WeWantAPublicOption.com states: "We want a public option! All Americans should have the option of health insurance like Medicare that competes with private for-profit insurers. Members of Congress and candidates should embrace it in 2016 so we have momentum and can pass it under the next president."
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT): "The Affordable Care Act has made great progress in helping millions of people get access to health insurance. But at a time when 29 million people are still uninsured, and 31 million are underinsured, we must continue to make needed health care reforms so that the American people can have health care as a right, not a privilege. Insurance companies have shown they are more concerned with serving their shareholders than their customers. Every American deserves the choice of a public option in health insurance."
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA): "The passage of the Affordable Care Act was an important step toward making healthcare more affordable and accessible, but it shouldn't be the last step we take. "I believe that there should be a public option in our insurance marketplaces to help reduce premiums, compete with the insurance companies so that consumers are put first, and give working families across the country more affordable choices."
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): "Ensuring that everybody in America has access to quality affordable healthcare is something that generations of leaders have worked toward. The Affordable Care Act was a massive step toward that goal, but it's critical that we continue to push until we achieve it. A public option would get us there by increasing competition and accountability in the health insurance market and saving taxpayers billions of dollars."
Senator Al Franken (D-MN): "Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we've cut the rate of uninsured Minnesotans in half, people no longer have to worry about being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, and people no longer have to worry about being dropped from their coverage when they get sick. We need to protect these and other important gains we've made, but we must do more to help those who are still struggling to afford coverage. I pushed for a public option during ACA negotiations because I strongly believed then -- as I do now -- that a robust public option is one of the best ways to bring down costs, hold insurance companies accountable, and protect health coverage for Minnesotans. As a member of the Senate Health Committee, I'm going to fight to move the public option forward, and I'll keep working ensure that the Affordable Care Act serves the best interests of Minnesota."
On July 5, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini threatened to "leave the public exchange business entirely" if the DOJ opposed Aetna's merger with Humana. Two weeks later, the DOJ rejected this mega-merger as bad for competition.
Then, on August 15, Aetna announced it would pull out of 11 state exchanges: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Next year, one-third of ACA healthcare exchanges will be served by a single health insurer and more than half -- 55 percent -- may end up having two or fewer to choose from. Seven entire states are projected to have just one carrier in 2017: Alaska, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming.
Hillary Clinton called for a public option on May 9 and reaffirmed this support in a big economic speech on August 11. This was echoed by President Obama on July 11.
The Congressional Budget Office has found that a public health insurance option would save taxpayers $158 billion over 10 years and extend coverage to the nearly 29 million Americans who remain uninsured. Nearly 4 million adults, disproportionately people of color, lack coverage as a result of the decision in 19 states not to expand Medicaid.
In 2010, the PCCC and grassroots allies partnered with Sen. Michael Bennet and others on "The Bennet Letter" calling for passage of the public option through reconciliation -- a process that only requires 51 votes. The letter gained great momentum, and the PCCC aired TV ads showing 51 senators supported the public option.
A GBA Strategies poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute in January 2015 shows a majority of likely 2016 voters support a public option, 71%-13%, including a majority of Republicans, 62%-22%. Among Hispanic voters, it is popular 64%-23%. Among African American voters, it is popular 86%-6%. Among women voters, it is popular 72%-13%. Among young voters, it is popular 81%-9%.
|
|
S. Res.
Supporting efforts to increase competition and accountability in the health insurance marketplace, and extend accessible, quality, affordable health care coverage to every American through the choice of a public insurance plan.
In the Senate of the United States, Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SANDERS, Mrs. STABENOW, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. UDALL, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. REED, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. CASEY, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. BENNET, Mrs. BALDWIN, Mrs. WARREN, Mr. PETERS and Mr. SCHATZ) submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
RESOLUTION
Purpose: Supporting efforts to increase competition and accountability in the health insurance marketplace, and advance the goal of accessible, quality, affordable health care for everyone in America as a basic human right by offering the choice of a public insurance plan.
Whereas under the Affordable Care Act, 20 million Americans have gained health insurance coverage, including 11 million individuals that have coverage on the public exchanges created by the law;
Whereas the uninsured rate is at its lowest point in history; however, there is still more work to be done to provide access to coverage for Americans that remain uninsured and reduce deductibles and out of pocket costs for the 31 million Americans currently underinsured;
Whereas before the Affordable Care Act millions of individuals with pre-existing conditions were denied health coverage by insurance companies that controlled who received care in the United States;
Whereas profound disparities persist in health outcomes based on race, ethnicity, and geography, and nearly four million adults, disproportionately people of color, lack coverage as a result of the failure of 19 states to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act;
Whereas public insurance options for workers' compensation insurance have resulted in lower rates for small businesses and more competition in several states;
Whereas giving all Americans the choice of a public, nonprofit health insurance option would lead to increased competition, reduced premiums, cut wasteful spending on administration, marketing, and executive pay, and ensure consumers have the affordable choices they deserve;
Whereas establishing a state-based public health insurance plan is possible today through the use of State Innovation Waivers as created by the Affordable Care Act which allow states to promote unique, creative and innovative approaches to implementing meaningful health care reform including a public option;
Whereas public programs like Medicare often deliver care more cost-effectively by limiting administrative overhead and securing better prices from providers;
Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has found that a public health insurance option would save taxpayers billions of dollars;
Resolved, that the Senate supports efforts--
to build on the Affordable Care Act by ensuring that, in addition to the coverage options provided by private insurers, every American has access to a public health insurance option which, when established, will strengthen competition, improve affordability for families by reducing premiums and increasing choices, and save American taxpayers billions of dollars.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (BoldProgressives.org) is a million-member grassroots organization building power at the local, state and federal levels. It engages in electoral work and issue advocacy work -- fighting on democracy issues and for economic populist priorities like expanding Social Security, Medicare For All, a Green New Deal, student debt cancellation, and Wall Street reform. PCCC has been a proud supporter of Elizabeth Warren since her first run for Senate and was the first national political organization to endorse her for president in the 2020 election.
"The so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Nearly every member of the House Republican caucus voted Wednesday in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that experts say would result in massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, nutrition assistance, and other key federal programs.
The proposed amendment, led by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), would effectively prohibit the federal government from deficit spending, with an exception for declared wars. The final House vote on the amendment was 211-207, well short of the two-thirds support required for passage of a constitutional amendment.
Every Republican who took part in Wednesday's vote backed the proposed amendment. Just one Democrat—Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas—joined the GOP in voting yes.
The vote came as congressional Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, continued to reject efforts to halt a war that is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion a day—a price tag that some in the GOP have openly embraced.
The vote also came less than a year after congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump approved a sprawling reconciliation package that delivered another round of tax cuts primarily to the richest Americans and large corporations, while enacting unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
Nonpartisan analysts have estimated that the GOP budget law would add more than $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
“American families don’t need a lecture on fiscal responsibility from the same politicians who just added $4 trillion to the debt with their so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’—one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in American history,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “When it comes to cutting taxes for billionaires, they have never had a problem blowing up the deficit. This amendment is nothing more than a show to cover up their hypocrisy on the debt.”
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said following Wednesday's vote that "the so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits."
"It would force drastic cuts to Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, veterans’ benefits, and other programs American families depend on," said Larson. "My Republican colleagues can say this amendment is about fiscal responsibility all they want, but the reality is that the budget they passed last year ballooned our deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and give ICE a slush fund larger than most nations' militaries."
"Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Ahead of the amendment vote, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) warned that the amendment's passage and ratification by US states would "immediately devastate programs that are appropriated annually, such as housing assistance, education, and scientific and medical research."
"And eventually it would require cutting programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and food assistance," the think tank added. "Claims that these programs would ultimately be protected ring hollow, given their share of the budget. If policymakers decide to shield those programs from cuts, the amendment would require lawmakers to devastate the rest of the federal budget—including Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, education, scientific and medical research, farm aid, national parks, transportation, airport security, mine safety—since revenue increases would be so hard to achieve."
Under the proposed amendment, two-thirds support in each chamber of Congress would be required to approve any new tax or increase in the tax rate, hamstringing lawmakers' ability to raise revenue.
"Ultimately, meeting longstanding and broadly popular commitments to seniors’ retirement and healthcare, and managing the future risks associated with higher debt, will require substantially more revenue," said CBPP's Brendan Duke. "This constitutional amendment moves in the opposite direction. Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Federal immigration agents are required to allow parents to "make alternative care arrangements" for their children before they're detained.
The Trump administration's directive to federal immigration agents on the detention and deportation of parents of minor children is clear: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents must accommodate a parent's "efforts to make alternative care arrangements for their minor child(ren) prior to detention."
But a report released Wednesday by the Women's Refugee Commission (WRC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) reveals that many parents, including dozens whom the groups interviewed at deportee reception centers in Honduras, have been forced to quickly leave their children in the "informal care" of friends, relatives, or even babysitters—many of whom are also vulnerable to deportation under the Trump administration—leaving them in precarious situations while traumatizing both parents and children.
According to the recently deported parents the group's researchers interviewed—many of whom reported symptoms associated with psychological trauma, such as an inability to eat or sleep, physical pain, and "acute emotional distress" with "uncontrollable crying and visible panic"—ICE agents frequently did not follow the agency's own guidelines to ask anyone they arrest whether they have children and to give parents an opportunity to take their children with them.
"They didn’t ask me anything," said one 22-year-old mother of a two-year-old. "They didn’t talk to me, only to yell at me, to humiliate. They never said: ‘You have a daughter, you can bring her,’ because I would have brought [my daughter], she is very attached to me."
Some parents told the researchers they had been ignored when they told arresting officers that they had children. One mother had three of her children with her when she was detained outside a hospital where she had gone to a medical appointment, and her three other children were at home. She was "dismissed" when she told the officers about her other children, and the family was separated.
Parents told researchers about being forced to abruptly leave their children in precarious situations—or even entirely alone.
A father who was arrested after leaving his three-year-old daughter with a babysitter said he begged the federal agents to allow him to go inside and tell the caretaker what was happening; his wife had already been detained.
"They didn’t ask me anything. They didn’t talk to me, only to yell at me, to humiliate. They never said: ‘You have a daughter, you can bring her,’ because I would have brought [my daughter], she is very attached to me."
“They just kept yelling at me to get on the ground,” he told the researchers. “I tried to get away but they threw me to the ground and wouldn’t let me say anything. They beat me really badly.”
The babysitter stayed with the child for 11 days when the father didn't return home.
A mother whose husband had previously been deported was forced to leave her four children entirely alone until their grandmother could get to them from out-of-state.
Michele Heisler, a physician with PHR, told The Guardian Thursday that ICE's refusal to follow its own directives on detaining parents "is going to create a really high burden of mental health distress."
“For a toddler, they are left with a sense of abandonment that’s kind of imprinted,” she said. “It’s hard for all of us to understand why there is this gratuitous level of cruelty happening."
DHS has repeatedly claimed that it does not separate children from their parents despite numerous reports showing otherwise.
The Trump administration weakened its protections for families in its "Detained Parents Directive" last year, eliminating a guideline that stipulated ICE agents must take into consideration whether or not an individual is a parent or legal guardian when deciding whether to detain or deport them at all.
But agents are still required to allow parents to bring their children if they are deported, and to decide what happens to their children when they are detained or removed from the country.
WRC and PHR called on Congress to codify parental interest protections, including a right to reunification with their children before and after deportation. They also urged Congress to require ICE to coordinate with state child welfare agencies to facilitate reunification and to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to appoint a national coordinator on child welfare.
DHS appropriations bills must prevent "ICE, CBP, and other immigration agencies from using any appropriated funds for enforcement that violates laws or DHS policy pertaining to family separation, specifically the Detained Parents Directive."
Democrats in the Senate have vowed to block funding for ICE and other DHS agencies until the Trump administration agrees to immigration enforcement reforms, with the demands mainly relating to federal agents wearing masks during enforcement operations and entering private property without judicial warrants.
The report released Wednesday warned that the "scope and scale of these types of family separations is likely to worsen" as the impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—the law that provided $170 billion for immigration enforcement—are "fully realized" in the coming months.
WRC and PHR said they "aim to prevent further family separations and reunify separated families by documenting systemic violations of existing family unity policies, identifying reforms to protect children and parents, and working with receiving countries like Honduras to establish systems to ensure prompt reunification of separated families."
"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.