May, 15 2020, 12:00am EDT

Sanders, Gillibrand, Booker, Warren, Markey, Merkley, Harris Introduce Emergency Health Care Guarantee Act
Today, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act to eliminate all out-of pocket health costs for every person in America during the COVID-19 crisis. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) cosponsored the legislation.
WASHINGTON
Today, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act to eliminate all out-of pocket health costs for every person in America during the COVID-19 crisis. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) cosponsored the legislation.
"During this public health crisis, we must make sure that everyone in America is able to receive all of the medical care they need, regardless of their income, immigration status or insurance coverage. No on in this country should be afraid to go to the doctor because of the cost -- especially during a pandemic. The American people deserve an emergency health care response that is simple, straightforward, comprehensive, and cost-effective," said Sanders. "We should empower Medicare to pay all of the medical bills of the uninsured and the under-insured -- including prescription drugs -- for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic. When so many people in this country are struggling economically and terrified at the thought of becoming sick, the federal government has a responsibility to take the burden of health care costs off the backs of the American people. The legislation we are introducing today does just that."
New polling reveals overwhelming enthusiasm for Sanders' proposal. According to Data for Progress, 73 percent of American voters support Medicare covering all out-of-pocket health expenses during this emergency, including 58 percent of Republicans. In comparison, 55 percent backed a separate proposal to cover the cost of insurance premiums through COBRA, a federal program that allows those who have lost their jobs to temporarily retain their former employers' health insurance coverage. When presented with evidence that Sanders' emergency Medicare proposal is significantly less expensive despite covering millions more people, 61 percent preferred Sanders' approach versus 14 percent who backed COBRA subsidies.
Sanders has previously argued that proposals to expand COBRA benefits with taxpayer subsidies would provide insurance corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars in windfall profits, but do nothing to cover those who had already lacked employer-provided insurance, or those who continue to be deterred from seeking medical assistance due to high deductibles, which require roughly $1,800 on average in annual out-of-pocket spending before private insurance coverage kicks in.
Sanders' legislation in contrast, would simply leverage the existing Medicare payment infrastructure to affordably and efficiently pay all costs of treatment for the uninsured, and cover all out-of-pocket costs such as copayments and deductibles for those who already have public or private insurance. The bill also halts medical debt collections, prohibits private insurance companies from increasing cost-sharing, and requires ongoing data collection and weekly reporting on health disparities related to COVID-19. The legislation would be effective until a COVID-19 vaccine is widely available to the public.
"Health care is a right, not a privilege," said Gillibrand. "The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear that every individual needs access to affordable health care, and the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act would cover everyone's out-of-pocket health care expenses during this emergency, regardless of insurance status. I am proud to partner with Senator Sanders and my colleagues to introduce this important legislation because we need to guarantee treatment and care to every individual American in order to safely reopen our economy."
"As the nation continues to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that all families have access to the health care they need, without having to worry about out-of-pocket costs," said Booker. "This legislation will ensure medical debt and health care costs aren't barriers for those seeking care. This is especially important for low-income communities, com"munities of color, and immigrant communities, who face greater health inequities and are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19."
"No American should ever go broke paying for medical care -- especially not during a public health emergency," said Warren. "With families struggling to make ends meet now more than ever, I'm glad to partner with Senator Sanders on a bill to eliminate out-of-pocket costs for necessary health care and halt medical debt collections during this economic crisis."
"Americans shouldn't worry about whether they can afford treatment if they come down with the coronavirus," said Markey. "They shouldn't worry about bankruptcy caused by medical bills or out-of-pocket costs. Congress has taken key steps to support our economy and our health care providers, but we must do more to protect all Americans in this time of crisis."
"No family should go bankrupt because they had the misfortune of getting sick -- especially as our nation continues to grapple with a dangerous pandemic," said Merkley. "In a pandemic, every one of us is better off if someone who's sick can go to the doctor and get care as soon as they need it. The time is now for Congress to eliminate out-of-pocket health costs for essential care and halt the collection of medical debts, to help everyone get the care they need and to help our country get through this pandemic."
"The COVID-19 pandemic has placed Americans under tremendous stress," said Harris. "On top of wondering how they will pay rent and put food on the table, paying for medical treatment if they get sick should not be another worry for families. I am proud to join my colleagues to introduce this legislation to protect patients from cost barriers to the medical care they need to stay healthy."
"Our broken health care system is failing to protect millions of Americans from the coronavirus pandemic. Now more than ever, we need to take bold action to prevent more Americans from getting sick or dying," said Representative Jayapal, who sponsored the legislation in the House. "Everyone in America should have guaranteed access to health care, especially during a national emergency."
"The only way to remove the threat of COVID-19 is to keep everyone healthy and act without delay to contain the spread," said Sara Nelson, International President of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, whose union endorsed the legislation. "When any individual has to weigh paying our bills or paying for medical attention, we are all less safe because public health takes a back seat to personal financial concerns. We need care for everyone, and even those of us with union negotiated health care coverage shouldn't have to worry about copays, deductibles, or prescription costs. Our physical, mental, and financial health depends on full care for all."
"Over 36 million people just lost their jobs, and in many cases their health care coverage as well, in the middle of a pandemic," said Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works. "Even many people who still have insurance have co-pays and deductibles that can drive them into bankruptcy. People in their '50s and early '60s, who are likely to have more severe cases of COVID-19 but aren't yet eligible for Medicare, are in the greatest financial as well as medical danger. This is why we support the Emergency Health Care Guarantee Act to immediately cancel out of pocket costs for health care for everyone in this country during the public health emergency."
"Registered nurses are on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we know from our experiences at the bedside that people who are uninsured or underinsured are foregoing the health care they need because they can't afford it," said Bonnie Castillo, RN, Executive Director of National Nurses United. "We cannot adequately respond to the COVID-19 crisis unless we guarantee health care to every person living in our country. The Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act would do just this, by ensuring that every patient gets the care they need without out of pocket costs during the COVID-19 pandemic. National Nurses United applauds Senator Sanders, Congresswoman Jayapal, and Congresswoman Bass for introducing this critical legislation, and urges every Member of Congress to support this bill."
Sanders' bill enjoys the endorsement of 32 national organizations and unions including the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, National Nurses United, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America; Center for Popular Democracy, Indivisible, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), MoveOn.Org, National Domestic Workers Alliance, People's Action, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Public Citizen, Social Security Works, Sunrise Movement, United We Dream, Working Families Party, Business for Medicare for All, Debs-Jones-Douglass Institute, Democracy for America, Democratic Socialists of America, Economic Opportunity Institute, Economic Policy Institute, Faith Action Network, Healthcare-NOW, Hometown Action, Jane Addams Senior Center, Labor Campaign for Single Payer, Legal Voice, Medicare for All Now, Partners for Dignity & Rights, Presente.org, and Progressive Democrats of America.
Joining Congresswomen Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Bass (D-Calif.) in the House to cosponsor the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act are Representatives DeFazio (D-Ore.), Garcia, J. (D-Ill.), Kennedy (D-Mass.), Khanna (D-Calif.), Meng (D-N.Y.), Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Omar (D-Minn.), Pocan (D-Wis.), Pressley (D-Mass.), Raskin (D-Md.), Bonamici (D-Ore.), Dingell (D-Mich.), Cohen (D-Tenn.), Norton (D-DC), Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Espaillat (D-N.Y.).
To read a summary of the bill, click here.
To read a section-by-section outline of the bill, click here. click here.
To read the text of the bill, click here.
To read a polling memo on the bill, click here.
LATEST NEWS
'Shameless': Critics Hammer Pete Hegseth for Claiming 'We Didn't Start' War on Iran
The defense secretary suggested that "the US went to war because Iran has ballistic missiles and drones it has used as a deterrent or to respond to US/Israeli attacks," said journalist Jeremy Scahill.
Mar 02, 2026
In the Trump administration's first public remarks to reporters on the strikes the US and Israel launched in Iran over the weekend, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth blamed the Middle Eastern country for the attacks that have killed at least 555 people there as well as at least four US soldiers—and suggested Iran posed an imminent threat because of its defensive military capabilities.
Hegseth said the strikes that began early Saturday morning and included deadly attacks on children attending school were "retribution" for Iran's "savage, one-sided war against America" that has played out for "47 long years" as the country has waged proxy attacks on the US.
"We didn't start this war, but under President Trump we're finishing it," said Hegseth.
Despite the fact that hours before President Donald Trump announced the US and Israeli attacks, the Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi reported that diplomatic talks he was mediating were making significant progress toward a peace deal, Hegseth asserted that Iran had a "conventional gun to our head" and suggested the US had no choice but to wage war.
Pentagon officials said in a congressional briefing Sunday that Iran had not been planning to strike any US military targets in the region unless it was attacked first, according to CNN.
The defense secretary also claimed Monday that Iran was "not negotiating" and said it was "stalling" in the talks with the aim of rebuilding missile stockpiles."
"To be clear," said journalist Jeremy Scahill of Drop Site News, "he is claiming the US went to war because Iran has ballistic missiles and drones it has used as a deterrent or to respond to US/Israeli attacks."
Drop Site noted that Hegseth made no mention of "the 1953 US-backed coup in Iran," US support for autocratic rule there from 1953-79, "or that the US and Israel launched the February 28 strikes."
On the UK talk radio show "Leading Britain's Conversation," British journalist Jon Sopel said Hegseth was making "the exact argument that [former President] George W. Bush made in 2003 with the weapons of mass destruction and 'They could be launched in 45 minutes.'"
Promises to end the US government's penchant for embarking on endless regime change wars, added Sopel, were part of "what propelled Donald Trump to the presidency, and yet Donald Trump and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu have launched these strikes against Iran."
‘“America didn’t start this.” Well, yes, you did.’
@jonsopel unpacks the US narrative shift on the war in Iran, a familiar playbook from Iraq in 2003. pic.twitter.com/uGhn5zP4G9
— LBC (@LBC) March 2, 2026
The defense secretary attempted to contrast the operation in Iran—dubbed Operation Epic Fury by the US military—to protracted wars like those the US has waged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The conflict will not be an "endless war," Hegseth said.
He claimed at one point in the briefing that the clear-cut objective of the attacks is to "destroy the missile threats, destroy the navy, no nukes" and scoffed at a reporter's question about Trump's Sunday statement in which he said he expected the conflict to be resolved in "four weeks or less."
"President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or not take. Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could move up, it could move back," said Hegseth.
Hegseth spoke alongside Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, who appeared to temper expectations of a quick resolution to the war started by the US and Israel.
"To be clear... this is not a single overnight operation," Caine said. "The military objectives [US Central Command] and the Joint Force have been tasked with will take some time to achieve, and in some cases will be difficult and gritty work."
Caine added that the military objective is "to protect and defend ourselves, and together with our regional partners, prevent Iran from the ability to project power outside of its borders."
Law professor Jennifer Taub denounced Hegseth's remarks as "utter nonsense" and condemned his claim that the US and Israel are hitting military targets "surgically."
"Shameless," she said. "We or Israel bombed a girl's school on Saturday when school was in session, killing 175."
Along with Hegseth's claim that Iran was to blame for the strikes launched by the US and Israel, his comment that the US will expedite the operation by not getting bogged down in "stupid rules of engagement" alarmed observers.
Hegseth: No stupid rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don't waste time or lives. As the president warned, an effort of this scope will include casualties. War is hell and always… pic.twitter.com/7Zpg2UkcrO
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 2, 2026
"'No stupid rules of engagement' means no Geneva Conventions or other international humanitarian laws, which the US signed and supported for more than a century," said journalist Mark Jacob. "Hegseth and Trump are pro-war crimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Unprovoked War on Iran Triggers 10% Spike in Global Oil Prices
"When global energy security can be upended by a single flashpoint, it shows how unstable and risky our dependence on oil and gas is," said one critic.
Mar 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's unprovoked, unconstitutional, and politically unpopular war against Iran is about to cause pains for Americans at the gas pump.
CNBC reported on Monday that Brent crude oil prices surged by 9.3% to a 52-week high of $79.40 per barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices spike by 9% to $73.10 per barrel.
This spike in oil prices is projected to directly lead to an increase in gas prices in the coming days.
Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan noted in a Monday update on his Substack page that gas prices in the US had already risen by roughly six cents in the last week, and that war with Iran would drive these prices higher.
"Developments surrounding Iran—particularly any threat to regional production or shipping flows—are likely to remain the dominant driver of oil prices," wrote De Haan, "and could keep crude elevated or push it higher if tensions intensify further."
A Sunday research note from Wells Fargo cited by CNBC drew attention to the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, which the Iranian government closed off over the week and which is used to transport roughly 20% of the global supplies of petroleum and liquified natural gas.
According to Wells Fargo, a "prolonged" closure of the strait would result in "an oil shock to $100+ per barrel," which it described as the "worst-case scenario" for global stock markets.
In addition to closing off the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has also been launching attacks on other nations' energy infrastructure.
According to a report from Bloomberg, Saudi Arabia’s largest oil refinery at Ras Tanura had to cease operations on Monday after being struck in a drone attack.
"An attack on major energy infrastructure is a nightmare scenario for global markets," noted Bloomberg, "with maritime traffic through the crucial Strait of Hormuz all but halting."
Olivia Langhoff, managing director at climate justice organization 350.org said that the global economic disruptions being caused by the Iran war shows the folly of continuing to rely on fossil fuels for energy needs.
"When global energy security can be upended by a single flashpoint, it shows how unstable and risky our dependence on oil and gas is," Langhoff said. "Renewable energy provides homegrown power that remains secure and affordable regardless of geopolitical shocks."
Langhoff's comments were echoed by Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International.
"As long as our world runs on oil and gas, our peace, security and our pockets will always be at the mercy of geopolitics," Christensen explained. "Increasing output may temporarily ease price pressures, but it does not address the structural vulnerability at the heart of this recurring crisis: the world’s continued dependence on fossil fuels."
The increase in gas prices comes at a time when US voters have been expressing widespread dissatisfaction with the economy under Trump, as polls show voters have been particularly anxious about the prices of groceries and utilities, among other essentials.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Only 25% of Americans Support Trump Attack on Iran: Poll
"If this goes on... this is going to become a political disaster," said one foreign policy expert.
Mar 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's war in Iran is extraordinarily unpopular, according to a poll conducted shortly after the US and Israel carried out massive strikes on the country Saturday.
The survey, conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, found that just 27% of voters approved of the strikes, which have killed at least 555 Iranians as of Monday morning and resulted in retaliation from Iran that has killed at least four US service members, with more casualties expected according to a spokesperson for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Meanwhile, 43% of respondents disapproved of the military action, while 29% said they were not sure.
A majority of Republicans said they approved of the strikes, with 55% expressing support. Still, 13% disapproved, and a noteworthy 31% said they were unsure.
Approval is dismal with nearly everyone else. Only 19% of independents expressed support compared to 44% who disapproved. And though Democratic leaders in Congress have done little to stand in the way of the strikes, their voters are overwhelmingly against them: 74% said they disapproved, while just 7% approved.
The poll reflects a wider skepticism of US military intervention, with 56% of respondents saying the president was too quick to deploy military force in recent months, including in Venezuela, Syria, and Nigeria.
Compared with previous US military interventions in the Middle East, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which—at least at their outset—enjoyed broad support from the American public following intense government efforts to drum up support, there has been little effort by the Trump administration to define the purpose of war with Iran.
Trump's justification for launching the war has shifted wildly since he began amassing troops in the region. Trump has most recently said the strikes were intended to stop an "imminent threat" from Iran; meanwhile, the Pentagon has told Congress there was no sign Iran was planning an attack unless the US did so first.
The president previously said his push for war was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, an assertion at odds with his claim that his strikes in June "obliterated" the country's nuclear capabilities.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that Trump's shifting explanations reek of "desperation."
"It's very clear that Trump has a tremendous difficulty finding a justification for this war of choice that he's embarked on," he said. "The reality is that if this goes on for another week or two, this is going to become a political disaster."
"So now he's suddenly, desperately, using all kinds of justifications: Liberating the Iranian people, Iran is fighting against civilization," Parsi said. "If he actually had a case, he would have stuck to that point and made it clearly. But he doesn't have one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


