

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.
Proposals floated by Republican leaders won't achieve President Trump's campaign promises of more coverage, better benefits, and lower costs, but a single-payer reform would, according to a commentary published today [Tuesday, Feb. 21] in Annals of Internal Medicine, one of the nation's most prestigious and widely cited medical journals.
Republicans promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act on the first day of the Trump presidency. But the health reform effort has stalled because Republicans in Congress have been unable to come up with a better replacement and fear a backlash against plans that would deprive millions of coverage and raise deductibles.
In today's Annals commentary, longtime health policy experts Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein warn that the proposals by Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Secretary of HHS Tom Price would slash Medicaid spending for the poor, shift the ACA's subsidies from the near-poor to wealthier Americans, and replace Medicare with a voucher program, even as they would cut Medicare's funding and raise the program's eligibility age.
Woolhandler and Himmelstein review evidence that, in contrast, single-payer reform could provide comprehensive first-dollar coverage to all Americans within the current budgetary envelope because of vast savings on health care bureaucracy and profits. The authors estimate that a streamlined, publicly financed single-payer program would save $504 billion annually on health care paperwork and profits, including $220 billion on insurance overhead, $150 billion in hospital billing and administration and $75 billion doctors' billing and paperwork. They estimate that an additional $113 billion could be saved each year by hard bargaining with drug companies over prices. A table in the paper summarizes these savings.
The savings would cover the cost of expanding insurance to the 26 million who remain uninsured despite the ACA, as well as "plugging the gaps in existing coverage - abolishing copayments and deductibles, covering such services as dental and long-term care that many policies exclude."
The lead author of the commentary, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, is an internist, distinguished professor of public health and health policy at CUNY's Hunter College, and lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School. She said: "We're wasting hundreds of billions of health care dollars on insurance paperwork and profits. Private insurers take more than 12 cents of every premium dollar for their overhead and profit, as compared to just over 2 cents in Medicare. Meanwhile, 26 million are still uninsured and millions more with coverage can't afford care. It's time we make our health care system cater to patients instead of bending over backward to help insurance companies."
Dr. David Himmelstein, the senior author, is a primary care doctor and, like Woolhander, a distinguished professor at CUNY's Hunter College and lecturer at Harvard Medical School. He noted: "We urgently need reform that moves forward from the ACA, but the Price and Ryan plans would replace Obamacare with something much worse. Polls show that most Americans - including most people who want the ACA repealed, and even a strong minority of Republicans - want single-payer reform. And doctors are crying out for such reform. The Annals of Internal Medicine is one of the most respected and traditional medical journals. Their willingness to publish a call for single payer signals that it's a mainstream idea in our profession."
The Annals of Internal Medicine is the flagship journal of the American College of Physicians (ACP), the nation's largest medical specialty organization with 148,000 internal medicine physicians (internists), related subspecialists, and medical students. In 2007, the Annals published a lengthy policy article in which the ACP said a single-payer system was one pathway to achieving universal coverage. In early 2008, the journal published a study showing 59 percent of U.S. physicians support "government legislation to establish national health insurance," a leap of 10 percentage points from five years before.
Today's commentary is believed to be the first full-length call for single payer, or national health insurance, that the journal has published in its 90-year history.
*****
"Single-Payer Reform: The Only Way to Fulfill the President's Pledge of More Coverage, Better Benefits, and Lower Costs," by Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D. Annals of Internal Medicine. Published online first, Feb. 21, 2017. doi:10.7326/M17-0302.
Disclosures: Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org), a nonprofit educational and research organization that supports a single-payer national health plan; they also served as advisers to Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. Neither the Sanders campaign nor PNHP played any role in funding or otherwise supporting the commentary.
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.
"Congress needs to pass legislation in 2029 that will automatically undo all major mergers occurring under this corrupt regime," said one antitrust advocate.
Gail Slater, once heralded as the leader of the "surging MAGA antitrust movement," announced Thursday that she is leaving her role as the top antitrust official at the US Justice Department after repeatedly clashing with Trump administration leadership over corporate merger enforcement.
Slater said in a statement that "it is with great sadness and abiding hope that I leave my role as [assistant attorney general] for antitrust today," but reporting indicates she was forced out. According to The Guardian, Slater was "given the option to resign or be let go." CBS News reported that "top Trump administration officials had decided to oust" Slater and "had discussions with her shortly before she announced on social media that she was leaving the department."
Matt Stoller, research director at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement that Congress must "aggressively investigate" the circumstances surrounding Slater's departure, noting that it came shortly before the closely watched Live Nation-Ticketmaster antitrust trial is set to begin next month.
Live Nation's stock price jumped following Slater's announcement, and at least one lobbyist openly celebrated the news.
Days before Slater's apparent removal, Semafor reported that Live Nation executives and lobbyists "have been negotiating with senior DOJ officials outside the antitrust division to avert a trial over whether the company is operating an illegal monopoly that has driven up concert prices."
" Wall Street expects there will be a settlement to block this trial at the behest of the lobbyists who engineered this ouster," said Stoller. "Congress needs to pass legislation in 2029 that will automatically undo all major mergers occurring under this corrupt regime, as well as breaking up companies who have their monopolization cases settled. In addition, the next Justice Department needs to organize an aggressive white-collar criminal law section to jail the lawyers, bankers, and lobbyists enabling this seeming crime spree."
Huge L for the populists on the right as lobbyists successfully got Trump's head of antitrust fired. I have not been a fan of Gail Slater, and this firing has been a long time coming. Things were bad under Gail, they could get worse now. https://t.co/zzyhXA3iWo
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) February 12, 2026
Slater's tenure at the head of the DOJ's antitrust division was marked by a power struggle with pro-corporate officials within—and at the top of—the department, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former corporate lobbyist.
Last summer, top Justice Department officials reportedly bypassed Slater and cut a sweetheart merger settlement deal with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks. Weeks later, DOJ leadership removed two of Slater's deputies for "insubordination."
Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said Thursday that Slater's departure "is very bad news for small businesses who had hoped for some faithful enforcement of the antitrust laws against monopolies like Ticketmaster."
"Instead, it looks like pure corruption reigns at the DOJ—pay the right people and you can freely crush your small rivals," Mitchell added.