

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.
Clare Fauke, 312-782-6006, clare@pnhp.org
Households' payments for medical premiums, copayments and deductibles pushed more than 7 million Americans into poverty in 2014, according to a study appearing in today's American Journal of Public Health. Such payments also dramatically worsened overall income inequality.
The researchers analyzed data on household medical payments from the Census Bureau's 2010-2015 Current Population Survey, the standard source for estimating income and poverty. First, the researchers calculated the number of people who were below the poverty level before taking into account their medical expenses. Then they compared that to the number whose income fell below the poverty level after subtracting payments for health insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
After taking account of households' medical payments, the incomes of the poorest 10% of the population fell by 47.6 percent. In addition, the burden of health care spending fell steadily as income rose. Such spending cut the incomes of households at the median income by about 8 percent, while it reduced the income of the wealthiest 1 percent by only 1.3 percent.
In their analysis, the researchers found that families' health care spending markedly increased overall income inequality. Using economists' standard measure of income inequality, the Gini index, they found that the index worsened by 1.37 points after taking account of health care expenditures. If employer-paid premiums were considered part of an employee's compensation (a standard assumption in economics), the effect of medical payments on income inequality was even greater, a worsening of 1.70 points. These health spending impacts on incomes were equivalent to transferring between $149.6 billion (1.37 percent) and $185.6 billion (1.70 percent) from households with incomes below $75,738 to wealthier households in 2014.
The study also found that the Affordable Care Act slightly improved this pattern (by 0.10 points) even before considering the effects of its $22 billion increase in Medicare taxes on the top 2 percent of earners.
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a study author who is a distinguished professor of public health at the City University of New York at Hunter College (CUNY/Hunter) and lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School commented: "In many other countries, health care helps cushion the effects of poverty. But our health care financing system drives millions of Americans into poverty and worsens inequality. That's not just a financial problem, it's a medical one because poverty breeds ill-health."
According to Dr. David Himmelstein, a distinguished professor at CUNY/Hunter and staff physician at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx: "In recent years, the gaps between rich and poor in both income and life expectancy have widened. Today, the richest Americans live 10 to 15 years longer than the poorest. A national health insurance program funded from progressive taxes instead of premiums and out-of-pocket payments would shift the financing burden to those who can afford it, and improve the health of our nation."
"The Effects of Household Medical Expenditures on Income Inequality in the United States" by Andrea Christopher, M.D., M.P.H., David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., and Danny McCormick, M.D. American Journal of Public Health, published online ahead of print January 18, 2018.
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.
The new estimate comes amid warnings that the war, now in its fourth week, could "cost the US trillions of dollars in the decades to come."
The price tag of US President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran is on track to surpass $25 billion by the end of this week as more American troops head to the Middle East, signaling a protracted conflict and possible ground invasion that would explode the war's already massive financial and human costs.
The latest estimate of the dollar cost of the Iran assault to US taxpayers, who are also facing significantly higher prices at the pump because of the war, comes from the Center for American Progress (CAP). The liberal think tank noted Tuesday that, based on a combination of official figures from the Pentagon and outside estimates, "the Iran war’s cost has likely surpassed $20 billion already and will likely surpass $25 billion by the end of this week."
CAP found that $25 billion would be enough to provide Medicaid coverage to around 3.1 million people for a year, or fund free school lunches for more than 29 million children for a full school year.
"While the cost of the war is funded through the Pentagon’s budget, and that money could not have been legally spent on domestic social programs, the spending nonetheless reflects a choice both Congress and the president made in allocating the country’s limited resources," wrote Bobby Kogan, CAP's senior director for federal budget policy. "This trade-off is particularly salient as Congress considers the president’s upcoming request."
"Before Congress chooses to provide $200 billion in new funding for the US Department of Defense," Kogan added, "it should seriously consider other ways that funding could be used, including improving people’s lives."
"One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations."
The updated price tag came amid reports that the Pentagon approved a deployment of around 2,000 elite Army soldiers to the Middle East, heightening concerns that the Trump administration is preparing for a deeply unpopular ground invasion of Iran even as the president publicly declares victory.
Experts believe the true financial cost of the Iran war is likely much higher than what publicly available estimates indicate so far.
The Intercept's Nick Turse reported last week that the Trump administration is "drastically undercounting the price tag of the US war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs."
Citing analysts, lawmakers, and unnamed US officials briefed on Iran operations, Turse reported that "the war is burning through between $1 billion and $2 billion per day—or roughly $11,500 to $23,000 per second."
"The cost, the officials told The Intercept, could rise to a quarter trillion dollars or more over the coming months," Turse added. "Even that is a drop in the bucket compared to the long-term expenses, which could cost the US trillions of dollars in the decades to come. One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations."
"Every day the Pentagon makes a video of cool explosions from Iran for the president of the United States to watch, so he can bounce up and down in his high chair, clap his little hands, and cry 'Yay! Make it go boom again!'"
A Wednesday report from NBC News is raising concerns that President Donald Trump may be getting a rose-colored view of the unprovoked and unconstitutional war he started with Iran.
According to NBC News, US military officials show Trump a daily two-minute video montage of operations conducted in the Iran war, featuring "the biggest, most successful strikes on Iranian targets," with one official telling NBC that the video essentially consists of "stuff blowing up."
Two sources in the administration told NBC that "the video briefing is fueling concerns among some of Trump’s allies that he may not be receiving—or absorbing—the complete picture of the war," and one official told the network that "the information Trump gets about the war tends to emphasize US successes, with comparatively little detail about Iranian actions."
The video montages are also leaving the president confused about why the media is covering negative ramifications of the war, which he believes to be an unqualified success, NBC reported.
Critics of the president were quick to slam him and his administration over the reported war highlights montage.
"Sounds like Trump is getting a Centcom propaganda video briefing of things blowing up every day," commented foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, "but not being briefed when things go wrong."
Anthony Zurcher, North America correspondent for BBC, wrote that it appears Trump is "getting an overly rosy picture from his generals of how an unpopular war is going."
MS NOW columnist Paul Waldman contended that the president's behavior as depicted in the NBC report was positively childlike.
"Every day the Pentagon makes a video of cool explosions from Iran for the president of the United States to watch," wrote Waldman, "so he can bounce up and down in his high chair, clap his little hands, and cry 'Yay! Make it go boom again!'"
National security attorney Bradley Moss summarized the NBC report with a single five-word sentence: "The emperor has no brains."
Even Trump's mail-in ballot was not enough to keep Democrat Emily Gregory from winning the seat over Republican Jon Maples in a district swing of more than 13 points.
A Democrat in Florida running to win a state house seat in the Palm Beach district that includes US President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was declared the winner in a special election on Tuesday night, defeating the Trump-endorsed Republican in yet another powerful rebuke to the running of the country by the president and his party.
Emily Gregory flipped Florida's House District 87, defeating Republican Jon Maples, who Trump loudly endorsed and cast his vote for personally via mail-in ballot—something he wants to bar other voters nationwide from being able to do. Trump said on Monday that Maples, a financial planner who previously held office at the municipal level, was the choice of "so many of my Palm Beach County friends.”
But with almost all votes counted late Tuesday night, the Associated Press reported Gregory led by 2.4 percentage points, or 797 votes. In 2024, the district went to Republicans by 11 points.
"Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
Political strategist Sawyer Hackett named the obvious implication by saying, at least through November of 2026, "Trump will be represented by a Democrat in the Florida legislature."
“I think it demonstrates where the Florida voter is,” Gregory, who runs a fitness center for postpartum mothers, told Politico in an interview following her victory. “They want someone who is focused on solutions and the issues and not focused on the noise.”
“If Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what’s possible this November,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, in response to the victory. Williams noted that Gregory's win was the 29th seat that Democrats have flipped from GOP control since Trump returned to office last year.
“Gas prices are spiking, grocery costs are up, and families can’t get by," she said. "It’s clear voters at the polls are fed up with Republicans. A Trump +11 district in his own backyard shouldn’t be in play for Democrats, but tonight proves Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”