May, 12 2022, 12:49pm EDT

Chairman Sanders Opening Statement at Hearing on Medicare for All
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Thursday delivered an opening statement at the committee's hearing titled "Medicare for All: Protecting Health, Saving Lives, Saving Money."
The hearing is livestreamed on the Budget Committee's website and Sanders' social media pages.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:
Let me thank the committee members and panelists and everyone else who is here for attending the very first U.S. Senate hearing on Medicare for All.
WASHINGTON
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Thursday delivered an opening statement at the committee's hearing titled "Medicare for All: Protecting Health, Saving Lives, Saving Money."
The hearing is livestreamed on the Budget Committee's website and Sanders' social media pages.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:
Let me thank the committee members and panelists and everyone else who is here for attending the very first U.S. Senate hearing on Medicare for All.
Let me also thank the dozens of organizations throughout America who support Medicare for All and the tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other health professionals who support this legislation.
Let me thank the 15 Senate co-sponsors that we have on this legislation and the 122 Members of the House who support similar legislation. And mostly, let me thank the American people who by the millions understand, as I do, that our current healthcare system is dysfunctional, extraordinarily wasteful and expensive, and cruel.
The American people understand, as I do, that health care is a human right, not a privilege and that we must end the international embarrassment of the United States being the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all of its citizens.
It is not acceptable to me, nor to the American people, that over 70 million people today are either uninsured or underinsured. As we speak, there are millions of people who would like to go to a doctor but cannot afford to do so. This is an outrage. This is un-American. In the wealthiest country on earth, your health and your longevity should not be dependent on the amount of money that you have.
Healthcare is a human right that all Americans, regardless of income, are entitled to and all Americans deserve the best healthcare that our country can provide.
As Chairman of the Budget Committee, it is not acceptable to me that we end up spending over twice as much as virtually any other major country on health care, while our life expectancy and other healthcare outcomes lag behind most other countries.
Unbelievably, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), we are now spending $12,530 per capita on healthcare. This is an outrageous and unsustainable sum of money.
In comparison, the United Kingdom spends just $5,268 per capita on healthcare while Canada spends $5,370, France spends $5,564 and Germany spends $6,731 while providing universal care to everyone. The question that we should be asking is how does it happen that we spend so much money for healthcare, but get so little in return?
Frankly, I am tired of talking to doctors who tell me about the patients who died because they were uninsured or underinsured, and walked into the doctor's office when it was too late. And we are talking about over 60,000 Americans who die every year because they are uninsured or under-insured. This is America. This is truly beyond comprehension.
I am tired of seeing working class families and small businesses pay far more for healthcare than they can afford which forces more than 500,000 Americans to declare bankruptcy each year because of medically related expenses. Families should not be driven into financial ruin because someone became seriously ill. How insane is that?
I am tired of hearing from Americans who lost loved ones because they could not afford the unbelievably high cost of prescription drugs, or hearing from constituents who are forced to cut their pills in half due to the cost. Today, almost 1 out of 4 patients cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe.
You want to hear about crazy? Crazy is that people get sick. They go to the doctor. They get diagnosed and medicine is prescribed. But they can't afford to buy the medicine. So they end up in an emergency room or a hospital at great expense to the system. That is crazy.
I am tired of talking with people who are struggling with mental illness but cannot afford the mental health counseling they desperately need. Last year, a record-breaking 100,000 people died of drug overdoses and I will tell you that in my office and I suspect in all of your offices we get desperate calls from family members looking for affordable mental health counseling and, far too often, that help is not there.
It's not there because in this system, geared toward the profits of the insurance companies rather than to the needs of the American people we don't have enough psychologists and counselors. We don't have enough doctors. We don't have enough nurses. We don't have enough dentists. We don't have enough medical providers in general. We do have enough people to bill us. We just don't have enough people to provide healthcare to us.
I am tired of talking to people who have teeth that are rotting in their mouths, but cannot afford the high cost of dental care.
And on and on it goes.
And let's be clear about something. The current debate over Medicare for All really has nothing to do with healthcare. Frankly, it is hard to defend this dysfunctional system.
This debate has everything to do with the unquenchable greed of the healthcare industry and their desire to maintain a system which fails the average American, but which makes the industry huge profits every single year.
While ordinary Americans struggled to pay for healthcare during the pandemic, the six largest health insurance companies in America last year made over $60 billion in profits, led by the UnitedHealth Group, which made $24 billion in 2021.
The CEOs of 178 major health care companies collectively made $3.2 billion in total compensation in 2020 - up 31% from 2019 - all in the midst of the pandemic.
According to Axios, in 2020, the CEO of Cigna, David Cordani, took home $79 million; the CEO of Centene, Michael Neidorff, made $59 million; and the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, Dave Wichmann, received $42 million in total compensation.
In terms of the pharmaceutical industry, last year Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AbbVie - three giant pharmaceutical companies - increased their profits by over 90 percent to $54 billion and the CEOs of just 8 prescription drug companies made $350 million in total compensation in 2020.
Let us make no mistake about it. The struggle that we are now undertaking, to guarantee health care to all Americans as a right and to substantially lower the cost of prescription drugs, is opposed by some of the most powerful forces in America - entities that have unlimited amounts of money. We're talking about the insurance companies, the drug companies, private hospitals, medical equipment suppliers, Wall Street and other powerful entities.
In order to defeat the Medicare for All movement, these special interests have spent millions on 30 second television ads, full page magazine ads, and corporate-sponsored "studies" to frighten the American people about Medicare for All - which is exactly what happened before the passage of Medicare in the 1960s which was often attacked as moving our country towards "socialism." Meanwhile, today, Medicare is the most popular healthcare program in the country.
Let me give you a few examples of the kind of money and power we are talking about.
Since 1998, the private health care sector has spent more than $10.6 billion on lobbying and over the last 30 years it has spent more than $1.7 billion on campaign contributions to get Congress to do its bidding.
The pharmaceutical industry alone has hired over 1,500 lobbyists - including the former leadership of both political parties to make sure we don't lower the cost of prescription drugs.
That's how business is done in Washington. Well, I have a radical idea. Why don't we pay attention to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the big money interests who control the healthcare industry?
Instead of a system that guarantees huge profits to the insurance companies and the drug companies, why don't we have a system which guarantees healthcare to every man, woman and child in America in a cost effective way?
And that is exactly what Medicare for All does.
This legislation would provide comprehensive health care coverage to all without out-of-pocket expenses and, unlike the current system, it would provide full freedom of choice regarding health care providers.
No more insurance premiums, deductibles or co-payments.
And comprehensive means the coverage of dental care, vision, hearing aids, prescription drugs and home and community based care.
The transition to the Medicare for All program would take place over four years. In the first year, benefits to older people would be expanded to include dental care, vision coverage and hearing aids, and the eligibility age for Medicare would be lowered to 55. All children under the age of 18 would also be covered.
In the second year, the eligibility age would be lowered to 45 and in the third year to 35.
By the fourth year, every man, woman and child in the country would be covered by Medicare for All.
Further, unlike the current dysfunctional system, Medicare for All allows people the freedom to choose any doctor, clinic, and hospital without worrying about whether their provider is in-network or not. People will be able to make the health care choices that are best for themselves and their families without some insurance bureaucrat telling them which providers they can or cannot see.
Would a Medicare-for-all health care system be expensive? Yes. But, while providing comprehensive health care for all, it would be significantly LESS expensive than our current dysfunctional system because it would eliminate an enormous amount of the bureaucracy, profiteering, administrative costs and misplaced priorities inherent in our current for-profit system.
Under Medicare for All there would no longer be armies of people billing us, telling us what is covered and what is not covered and hounding us to pay our hospital bills. This not only saves substantial sums of money but will make life a lot easier for the American people who would never again have to fight their way through the nightmare of insurance company bureaucracy.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare for All would save Americans $650 billion a year.
Now, trust me. I know the 30-second ads coming from the insurance and drug companies will tell you that if Medicare for All becomes law, your taxes will go up. And they are correct. But what they won't tell you is that under Medicare for All, you will no longer be paying premiums, deductibles and co-payments to private health insurance companies.
And what they certainly won't tell you is that Medicare for All will save the average family thousands of dollars a year. In fact, a study by RAND found that moving to a Medicare-for-all system would save a family with an income of less than $185,000 about $3,000 a year, on average.
Guaranteeing health care as a right is important to the American people not just from a moral and financial perspective; it also happens to be what the majority of the American people want. In 2020, 69 percent of the American people supported providing Medicare to every American.
Now is the time for Congress to stand with the American people and take on the powerful special interests that dominate health care in the United States. Now is the time to improve and extend Medicare to everyone.
LATEST NEWS
'Unconscionable': Trump Ready to Garnish Wages for Indebted Student Loan Borrowers
"They're just cruel and want to take as much as possible from the folks who have very little," said one student borrower advocacy group.
May 05, 2025
With the Trump administration restarting collection efforts on defaulted student loans after a five-year reprieve on Monday, Mike Pierce of the Student Borrower Protection Center said the move "will further fan the flames of economic chaos for working families across this country"—particularly as the White House threatens to garnish the wages of people who struggle to make higher monthly payments.
The SBPC joined nearly 200 other organizations in sending a letter to the acting undersecretary of education, James Bergeron, condemning the administration's efforts to gut income-driven repayment options and eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which has delivered student debt relief to 1 million public service workers since it was implemented in 2007.
"The administration should move to enact policies that better protect student borrowers, rather than pursue misguided policies that will drive up costs and weaken protections," wrote the groups.
More than 42 million Americans have student debt, with more than $1.6 trillion owed in total. More than 5 million borrowers are currently in default, and that number could grow to about 10 million as the Trump administration ends programs that have been aimed at helping people pay off their loans in manageable amounts each month.
Collections are beginning months after Republican-led lawsuits succeeded in blocking former President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, and days after the GOP members of the House Education and Workforce Committee advanced more than $350 billion in proposed funding cuts for education programs—cuts that government watchdog Accountable.US said are "paving the way for tax cuts for themselves, billionaire donors, and corporations."
The Republicans approved:
- Slashing federal student aid by capping unsubsidized and Parent PLUS loans and eliminating subsidized loans for undergraduates and Grad PLUS loans entirely, which would disproportionately impact low-income families, especially those with students at HBCUs;
- Repealing a set of Biden-era protections—including rules establishing forgiveness for students of schools that closed or failed to lead to gainful employment—that have canceled at least $17.2 billion in federal student loans for nearly 1 million borrowers misled by predatory institutions;
- Repealing the Biden administration's SAVE plan and replacing it with just two fixed or income-based repayment plans, a change that could raise costs for millions of borrowers, including those making modest incomes; and
- Changing Pell Grant eligibility by altering the definition of full-time college attendance to 30 credit hours per year and requiring at least half-time attendance to qualify for any grant at all.
"To pay for tax cuts for the richest in this country, congressional Republicans are willing to gut the programs tens of millions of Americans rely on," said Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US. "Their education markup makes it abundantly clear that they're not just going to gut Medicaid, they're proposing hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts to programs that provide more opportunities for everyday Americans to access higher education. These cuts are a betrayal of congressional Republicans' promise to make government work for Americans and to lower their costs; in fact, it will do quite the opposite."
The Debt Collective, a union of student loan borrowers, pointed out that the Trump administration isn't required by law to begin collecting student debt on Monday.
"They're just cruel and want to take as much as possible from the folks who have very little," said the group.
Aside from garnishing borrowers' wages, the administration could further devastate millions of people as credit scores could tank when the Education Department begins collection activity.
The Federal Reserve projected in March that people with delinquencies could see their credit scores plummet by as many as 171 points, leading to higher costs for borrowers who later take out mortgages, car loans, and sign up for credit cards.
U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called President Donald Trump's threat to garnish wages in order to collect student debt "unconscionable."
The president and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, said Pressley, "should NOT be seizing people's hard-earned wages, tax refunds, and Social Security checks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
20 AGs Sue Trump Admin Over Dismantling of Health Agencies
"This administration is not streamlining the federal government; they are sabotaging it and all of us," said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
May 05, 2025
A coalition of 20 attorneys general on Monday sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and other Trump administration officials in federal court over cuts to the agency, arguing that "dismantling" and "paralyzing" it through terminations and reorganizations is an "unlawful effort" to undercut Congress.
The lawsuit focuses on a March 27 directive that unveiled sweeping changes to HHS, and the plaintiffs are requesting that the court declare the directive unlawful, arguing that it is unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
"This administration is not streamlining the federal government; they are sabotaging it and all of us," said New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the attorneys general leading the lawsuit, in a statement on Monday. "When you fire the scientists who research infectious diseases, silence the doctors who care for pregnant patients, and shut down the programs that help firefighters and miners breathe or children thrive, you are not making America healthy—you are putting countless lives at risk."
The lawsuit argues that prior to March 27 the administration had sought to "systematically deprive" HHS of necessary resources, but the March directive was an escalation of this effort, announcing the agency's intention to terminate thousands HHS employees, restructure 28 divisions down to 15, and reduce regional offices from 10 to 5.
"Secretary Kennedy refused to undertake this restructuring legally or carefully," according to the suit, which also highlights that the steep reductions in staff were not slated to yield significant savings.
"The March 27 directive came after scores of probationary employees were laid off and many employees took a buyout offer. None of these layoffs were necessary to accommodate a funding shortfall—Congress's appropriations have remained steady, or in many cases, grown in recent years. All told, 20,000 full-time employees—almost 25% of HHS headcount—would be terminated in a few months to save, by defendants' own estimate, less than 1% of HHS expenditures," according to the suit.
The attorneys general argue that cuts to HHS and its subagencies have prevented them from carrying out their "statutorily required functions." The lawsuit ticks through changes to various agencies within HHS and explains how the March 27 directive has made them unable to do their work.
At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, some 2,400 employees were dismissed on April 1, according to the complaint.
Per the suit, all workers that handled Freedom of Information Act requests have been fired, as have members of the communication team. The cuts have reduced the Division of Global HIV & Tuberculosis's staff by roughly a quarter and also meant that infectious disease laboratories have either been shuttered or reduced their capacity.
"The closure and cuts to infectious diseases laboratories within CDC are perhaps the most egregious example of how the March 27 directive is destroying CDC's ability to meet its statutory mandates to investigate, detect, and identify diseases," according to the suit.
"Since day one, this president and his administration have attempted to illegally decimate agencies across the federal government upon which the American people rely," said Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha, who is also co-leading the suit, in a statement on Monday. "In a world where the next pandemic could be right around the corner, and cases of measles are on the rise, taking an axe to the agency responsible for the health and safety of Americans is wildly irresponsible."
In addition to attorneys general from Rhode Island and New York, the plaintiffs includes state attorneys general from Washington; Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; Washington, D.C.; Hawaii; Illinois; Maine; Maryland; Michigan; Minnesota; New Jersey; New Mexico; Oregon; Vermont; and Wisconsin.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Chief 'Alarmed' by Israel's Gaza Conquest Plan—But Minister Says No Concerns From Trump
"I don't feel that there is pressure on us from Trump and his administration," said Ze'ev Eklin. "They understand exactly what is happening here."
May 05, 2025
The office of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday condemned Israeli Cabinet ministers' vote to capture the entire Gaza Strip amid Israel's ongoing genocidal assault, while a prominent Knesset lawmaker claimed that U.S. President Donald Trump would not object to his far-right government's plans to indefinitely occupy the Palestinian enclave.
Fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Security Cabinet unanimously approved Operation Gideon's Chariots, an expansion of the 577-day onslaught that has left more than 185,000 Gazans dead, wounded, or missing and millions more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. The Israel Defense Forces said Saturday that it was calling up tens of thousands of reservists ahead of the planned offensive.
An unnamed Israeli official toldThe Times of Israel that the plan involves the "conquering of Gaza," indefinitely occupying the Palestinian territory, and forcibly expelling its inhabitants to the southern part of the strip in order to defeat Hamas and secure the release of all remaining hostages kidnapped on October 7, 2023.
The official said the plan won't be implemented until after Trump's scheduled visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates later this month.
"We are occupying Gaza to stay—no more going in and out."
Discussing the plan, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that "we are occupying Gaza to stay—no more going in and out."
"This is a war for victory, and it's time we stop fearing the word occupation," he added. "We will settle the battle with Hamas—we will not surrender; they will."
The conquest, ethnic cleansing, and recolonization of Gaza is a top objective of many far-right Israelis. Last July, the International Court of Justice—which is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel—found that the country's 58-year occupation of Palestine is an illegal form of apartheid that must end as soon as possible.
Guterres' office warned Monday that the planned Israeli offensive would have catastrophic consequences for Gaza's embattled population.
"I can tell you that the secretary-general is alarmed by these reports of Israeli plans to expand ground operations and prolong its military presence in Gaza," Guterres spokesperson Farhan Haq said at a press briefing, adding that the operation "will inevitably lead to countless more civilians killed and the further destruction of Gaza."
"What's imperative now is an end to the violence, not more civilian deaths and destruction," Haq stressed. "Gaza is, and must remain, an integral part of a future Palestinian state."
European Union spokesperson Anouar El Anouni also expressed deep concern over Operation Gideon's Chariots, which he said "will result in further casualties and suffering for the Palestinian population."
"We urge Israel to exercise the utmost restraint," El Anouni added.
Asked about the Israeli plan, Trump declined to comment on its military aspects and said the U.S.—which provides Israel with diplomatic support and billions of dollars in armed aid—would help deliver food to Palestinians, who humanitarian groups say are facing imminent famine amid Israel's tightened blockade of Gaza. The Washington Postreported Monday that "American contractors" would be hired to distribute aid in the strip.
"We're going to help the people of Gaza get some food," Trump told reporters on Monday. "People are starving, and we're going to help them get some food."
Israeli Cabinet Minister Ze'ev Elkin claimed Monday that Trump—who in February proposed a U.S. takeover of Gaza—would not object to Operation Gideon's Chariots.
"I don't feel that there is pressure on us from Trump and his administration—they understand exactly what is happening here," Elkin said.
Some critics of Israel's planned conquest of Gaza accused Netanyahu of impeding the hostages' release by unilaterally breaking a January cease-fire agreement with Hamas.
"The Israeli hostages would now have been free, along with hundreds of innocent Palestinians languishing in Israeli prisons, had indicted war criminal Netanyahu not chosen to violate the cease-fire deal he had signed," former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakissaid on social media Monday. "Lest we forget..."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular