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.
Michael Lighty, 510-772-8384,
Don Nielsen, 559-647-7732 or
Charles Idelson, 510-273-2246
SB 562, the Healthy California Act, would cut current spending on healthcare in California by 18 percent - and produce substantial savings for households in healthcare costs as a share of their income, and California businesses, which would also see reduced payroll costs for health care expenditures, according to new research findings released today.
Most importantly, the bill would guarantee full health coverage for all Californians, without the devastating deductibles and co-pays that prompt many to ration needed care. The study notes that 36 percent of all insured Californians, 12 million people, remain underinsured - paying for premiums but often unable to access care due to high out of pocket costs - and another 7.5 percent, 2.7 million Californians, remain fully uninsured, even with improvements under the Affordable Care Act.
Significantly the proposed plan would sharply reduce what middle-income California families now spend out of pocket for health care costs as a share of their income by up to 9 percent.
In sum- the savings amount to a 9 percent raise for California workers.
California businesses who currently provide health benefits for employees would also see a decline in their payroll costs by up to 22 percent for small businesses and up to 13 percent for medium size businesses - with the added benefit of a healthier, more productive population.
That's the findings of an "Economic Analysis of the Healthy California Single-Payer Health Care Proposal (SB 562)," a research study by a team of economists at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, led by Dr. Robert Pollin, a premiere U.S. economist and author of a number of books on economic policy. Dr. James Heintz, Dr. Peter Arno, and Dr. Jeannette Wicks-Lim, all of PERI, also authored the study. The California Nurses Association/National Nurses United sponsored the study.
Under the Healthy California Act, California's total spending on health care, with savings of 18 percent produced by reductions in administrative costs, the use of state bulk purchasing power, and improved patient care delivery, would drop to $331 billion. But that figure includes $225 billion of current taxpayer funded spending on Medicare, Medicaid, tax subsidies paid to insurers for health expenses of families and households.
With the savings produced by a single payer financing system, and the transfer of the 71 percent of taxpayer funded spending currently by Medicare, Medicaid and taxpayer subsidies to insurers for partial payment private insurance costs for families and households, an additional $106 billion will be needed - replacing the huge burden of what Californians now pay to insurers and other health care corporations in premiums, deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket health care costs, and the social impact that imposes for people who skip needed care due to debilitating cost.
The study proposes achieving that added revenue through two modest taxes, a 2.3 percent on gross business revenue receipts - exempting the first $2 million in receipts to eliminate the cost for small businesses - and a new 2.3 percent sales tax that would exempt all spending on housing, utilities, services, and food at home, to mitigate the impact for low and moderate income Californians. The lowest income Californians would receive a tax credit, fully offsetting their tax share.
"What this new study proves is that we can finally achieve the dream of guaranteeing health care for all Californians, without the punishment of crippling out of pocket costs, at far less than what was predicted by those who make enormous profits off the pain and suffering of everyday Californians," said RoseAnn DeMoro, CNA/NNU executive director.
"We know from the experiences of other countries across the world that we can reduce overall spending, and produce a more effective, humane health care system. Now it is up to us as a society to decide what are our priorities, what we consider should be the responsibility to ensure that health care is a right, a public good, and the moral choice to make as a people," DeMoro said.
SB 562 is eligible for a vote by the California Senate this week. It would establish an improved Medicare for all type system in California. State Senators Ricardo Lara and Toni G. Atkins introduced the bill, joined by Senators Benjamin Allen, Cathleen Galgiani, Mike McGuire, Nancy Skinner, and Scott Wiener as co-authors. CNA is the primary sponsor of the bill, joined by the Healthy California Campaign https://www.healthycaliforniaact.org/
Assembly Members Rob Bonta, David Chiu, Laura Friedman, Ash Kalra, Kevin McCarty, Adrin Nazarian, Mark Stone, and Tony Thurmond are also co-authors of the bill.
The threat of repeal of the ACA by Congress and the Trump Administration would further exacerbate the health crisis for many, making SB 562 even more timely.
Key features of SB 562 include:
* Every Californian eligible to enroll, regardless of age, income, employment or other status.
* No out of pocket costs, such as high deductibles and co-pays, for covered health services
* Comprehensive coverage, including hospital and outpatient medical care, primary and preventive care, vision, dental, hearing, women's reproductive health services, mental health, lab tests, rehab and other basic medical needs
* Lower prescription drug costs
* Long term care services provided under Medi-Cal continue, and will be expanded with an emphasis on community and in-home care
* No narrow insurance networks, one medical card, real patient choice of provider
* No insurance claims denials based on corporate profit goals
National Nurses United, with close to 185,000 members in every state, is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in US history.
(240) 235-2000"There is no legal justification for this military strike," said one Amnesty International campaigner. "The US must be held accountable."
President Donald Trump said Monday that the US carried out a fresh strike on what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one human rights campaigner called another "extrajudicial execution."
"This morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the [US Southern Command] area of responsibility," Trump said on his Truth Social network. "The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the US."
"These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to US National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital US Interests," the Republican president continued. "The Strike resulted in three male terrorists killed in action. No US Forces were harmed in this Strike."
"BE WARNED—IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!" Trump added. "The illicit activities by these cartels have wrought DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES, killing millions of American Citizens. NO LONGER. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!"
US President Trump just announced that a second drug smuggling boat from Venezuela was hit by a US airstrike in the Caribbean, killing 3 people on board the boat.#Venezuela pic.twitter.com/dO34gYr9GZ
— CNW (@ConflictsW) September 15, 2025
Responding to arguments by legal experts and Venezuelan officials that the September 2 strike was illegal, Trump said Sunday that "what's illegal are the drugs that were on the boat... and the fact that 300 million people died last year from drugs."
Only 62 million people died in the entire world of all causes last year, making Trump's claim impossibly false.
Monday's attack followed the September 2 bombing of a vessel allegedly transporting cocaine off the Venezuelan coast, a strike that killed 11 people. Venezuelan officials say none of the 11 men were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, as claimed by Trump.
On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Last month, the president reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force to combat drug cartels abroad, sparking fears of renewed US aggression in a region that has endured well over 100 US attacks, invasions, occupations, and other interventions since the issuance of the dubious Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
The Intercept's Nick Turse reported Monday that the Trump administration's recently rebranded Department of War "is thwarting congressional oversight" of the September 2 attack.
“I’m incredibly disturbed by this new reporting that the Trump administration launched multiple strikes on the boat off Venezuela,” Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said in response to Turse's reporting. “They didn’t even bother to seek congressional authorization, bragged about these killings—and teased more to come.”
Common Dreams reported last week that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced a war powers resolution seeking to restrain Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered "no legitimate justification" for the first boat strike.
It's not just congressional Democrats who have decried Trump's September 2 attack. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that "the recent drone attack on a small speedboat over 2,000 miles from our shore without identification of the occupants or the content of the boat is in no way part of a declared war, and defies our longstanding Coast Guard rules of engagement."
“What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial," Paul later added.
Paul also mirrored Democratic lawmakers' questioning of Trump's narrative that the boat bombed on September 2 was heading to the United States.
Echoing congressional critics, Daphne Eviatar, director of Amnesty International's Security With Human Rights program, said of Monday's attack, "Today, President Trump claimed his administration carried out another lethal strike against a boat in the Caribbean."
"This is an extrajudicial execution, which is murder," Eviatar added. "There is no legal justification for this military strike. The US must be held accountable."
"Cluster munitions are banned for a reason: Civilians, including children, account for the vast majority of casualties," said one rights advocate.
Human rights leaders on Monday called on the 112 countries that are party to a treaty banning cluster munitions to reinforce the ban and demand that other governments sign on to the agreement, as they released an annual report showing that the bombs only serve to cause civilian suffering—sometimes long after conflicts have ended.
The governance board of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) released the 16th annual Cluster Munition Monitor on Monday, compiling data on the impact of cluster munitions for 2024 and revealing that all reported cluster bomb casualties last year were civilians—and close to half, 42%, were children.
Cluster bombs are particularly dangerous to civilians because after being dropped from aircraft or fired by rockets or other weapon, they open in the air and send multiple submunitions over wide areas—often leaving unexploded bomblets that are sometimes mistaken by children for harmless toys, and can kill and injure people in populated areas for years or even decades after the initial bombing.
The report, which was released as officials prepare to convene in Geneva for the Cluster Munitions Conference, says at least 314 global casualties from cluster munitions were recorded in 202, with 193 civilians killed in attacks in Ukraine—plus 15 who were killed by unexploded munitions.
Since the Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted in 2008, none of the 112 signatories have used cluster bombs—but countries that are not party to the convention, including Russia and Ukraine, used the munitions throughout 2024 and into this year, and the US has said it transferred cluster bombs to Ukraine at least seven times between July 2023-October 2024.
The report details recent uses of cluster bombs, the impact of which may not be known for years as civilians remain at risk from the unexploded bombs, including by Thailand—by its own apparent admission—in its border conflict with Cambodia and allegedly by Iran, which Israel claimed used cluster munitions in its attack in June. Cluster munitions have also reportedly been used in recent years in Myanmar—including at schools—and Syria.
"Governments should now act to reinforce the stigma against these indiscriminate weapons and condemn their continued use."
This year, the withdrawal of Lithuania from the Convention on Cluster Munitions—an unprecedented step—garnered condemnation from at least 47 countries. While it had never previously used or stockpiled cluster bombs, the country said it was necessary to have the option of using the munitions "to face increased regional security threats."
The casualties that continued throughout 2024 and into 2025 "demonstrate the need to clear more contaminated land and to provide more assistance to victims," said Human Rights Watch, a co-founder of CMC.
"The Convention on Cluster Munitions has over many years made significant progress in reducing the human suffering caused by cluster munitions," said Mark Hiznay, associate crisis, conflict, and arms director for HRW. "Governments should now act to reinforce the stigma against these indiscriminate weapons and condemn their continued use."
The report notes that funding cuts by donor states including the US, which under the second term of President Donald Trump has cut funding for landmine and cluster bomb clearance and aid, have left many affected countries struggling to provide services to survivors.
Children, the report notes, are often particularly in need of aid after suffering the effects of cluster munitions, as they are "more vulnerable to injury and frequently require repeated surgeries, regular prosthetic replacements as they grow, and long-term opportunities to access physical rehabilitation and psychological support."
"Without adequate care for children, complications can worsen, affecting their schooling, social interactions, mental health, and overall well-being," explained IBCL and CMC.
At the Cluster Munitions Conference taking place from September 16-19, said Anne Héry, advocacy director for the group Humanity and Inclusion, states must "reaffirm their commitment to this vital treaty."
"Cluster munitions are banned for a reason: Civilians, including children, account for the vast majority of casualties," said Héry. "Questioning the convention is unacceptable. States convening at the annual Cluster Munition Conference must reaffirm their strong attachment to the treaty and their condemnation of any use by any party."
"The Post not only flagrantly disregarded standard disciplinary processes, it also undermined its own mandate to be a champion of free speech," said the Post Guild.
The union representing employees at The Washington Post on Monday condemned the paper for firing columnist Karen Attiah for comments she made about slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
In a statement, the Washington Post Guild said that firing Attiah betrayed the paper's mission to defend free speech in the United States.
"The Post not only flagrantly disregarded standard disciplinary processes, it also undermined its own mandate to be a champion of free speech," the union said. "The right to speak freely is the ultimate personal liberty and the foundation of Karen’s 11-year career at the Post."
The union also said it was "proud to call Karen a colleague and a longtime union sibling" and that it "stands with her and will continue to support her and defend her rights."
Attiah announced on Monday morning that she had been fired from the Post over social media posts in the wake of Kirk's murder that were critical of his legacy but in no way endorsed or celebrated any form of political violence.
"The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being 'unacceptable,' 'gross misconduct,' and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues—charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false," she explained. "They rushed to fire me without even a conversation. This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold."
Attiah only directly referenced Kirk once in her posts and said she had condemned the deadly attack on him “without engaging in excessive, false mourning for a man who routinely attacked Black women as a group, put academics in danger by putting them on watch lists, claimed falsely that Black people were better off in the era of Jim Crow, said that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, and favorably reviewed a book that called liberals 'Unhumans.'"
Independent progressive news site Drop Site News has published a running list on X documenting dozens of people who so far have been fired, suspended, or placed under investigation for their social media posts related to Kirk in the wake of his death. So far, says Drop Site News, over half of those targeted have been educators.