

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 Briggs: (202) 228-6492
In the midst of a pandemic that has claimed nearly one million American lives - more than one third of which have been linked to a lack of health insurance - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and fourteen of his colleagues in the Senate on Thursday introduced the Medicare for All Act of 2022 to guarantee health care in the United States as a fundamental human right to all.
Sanders is joined on the 2022 legislation by all original cosponsors, including Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). The Medicare for All Act of 2022 has also been endorsed by more than 60 major organizations, including National Nurses United, American Medical Student Association, National Union of Health Care Workers, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA), Indivisible, Public Citizen, People's Action, National Immigration Law Center, Center for Popular Democracy, and Working Families Party.
"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," said Sen. Sanders. "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. In America, your health and your longevity should not be dependent on your wealth. Health care is a human right that all Americans, regardless of income, are entitled to and they deserve the best health care that our country can provide."
"Health care should be a right for all, not a luxury for some," said Sen. Blumenthal. "In the United States of America, millions of Americans go to sleep at night worried about a procedure they can't access or a treatment their family can't afford. Our status quo is unacceptable. Regardless of age, income, or zip-code, access to quality, timely medical care should be guaranteed for all who need it. I'm proud to join my colleagues in introducing this landmark legislation."
"Despite being the wealthiest country on the planet and spending more per capita on health care than other comparable nations, America lags behind on critical health measures such as infant and maternal mortality rates," said Sen. Booker. "Compared to other high-income countries, the U.S. has the highest number of hospitalizations from preventable causes and the highest rate of avoidable deaths. Even with the advances in coverage, too many Americans are still afraid to seek the care they need due to the high cost of care in our country. We need to urgently transform this broken system by lowering costs and expanding access to high quality health care to everyone. As such, I am proud to join colleagues in reintroducing legislation that would implement Medicare for all, guaranteeing affordable health care to everyone as a right, not a privilege."
"Health care in America is simply too expensive and insurance companies continue to value their profits over people - it's unacceptable," said Sen. Gillibrand. "I am thrilled to join my colleagues in championing Medicare for All. This is the most effective way to create affordable, public health care for every American. As we've been reminded in recent days, health care has to be a right, not a privilege."
"New Mexicans should never have to choose between putting food on their table and going to doctors' appointments," said Sen. Heinrich. "That's why I am proud to cosponsor the Medicare for All Act, to expand health care coverage and provide access to hospital services, emergency services, prescription drugs, oral health, vision, and audiology services to all Americans."
"Guaranteed access to quality, affordable health care is a right, not a privilege," said Sen. Hirono. "The last few years have shown us how urgent and necessary it is to ensure every person has access to quality, affordable health care--and Medicare-for-All is one way to achieve that. This legislation would benefit millions of people across the country--no one should have to choose between crippling debt or receiving comprehensive health care."
"In the richest country in the world, it's an injustice that millions of people lack basic health care," said Sen. Markey. "Too many Americans live on the cusp of financial collapse if they face unforeseen medical emergencies or devastating diagnoses, or are forced to forego critical treatment altogether. As our nation heals from a public health crisis that has shone a stark light on the disparities that have long existed in our health care system, our answer is clear: Medicare for All. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation to make universal, affordable health coverage a right for every American."
"Health care is a right, not a privilege reserved for the healthy and the wealthy," said Sen. Merkley. "But that right is being poorly served by our current complex, fragmented, expensive, and stressful system. Accessing health care should be simple and seamless. Solely by virtue of living in America, you should know you will get the care you need, when you need it. We've made some tremendous strides in expanding access to health care across our nation, but it's way past time to simplify health care, lower patients' costs, and embrace Medicare for All."
"Health care is a human right and it's past time that we pass Medicare for All to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care, regardless of zip code or tax bracket," said Sen. Padilla. "No American should go bankrupt because of exorbitant medical costs. Congress can and must act to better control health care costs."
"Medicare for All guarantees that every American will be able to get the health care they need when they need it," said Sen. Warren. "No one should ever go broke because of a medical bill or have to ration life-saving medications to make ends meet. Health care is a basic human right, and I will always fight for basic human rights."
Today in the United States, 68,000 Americans die each year because they cannot afford the health care they desperately need, and millions more suffer unnecessarily because of delayed treatment. About 44 percent of the adult population, some 112 million Americans, are struggling to pay for the medical care they need and over 70 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of high deductibles and premiums. In addition, life expectancy in the U.S. is much lower than most other industrialized countries and infant mortality rates are much higher. During the pandemic, the crisis that is the American health care system has only worsened. And yet, the U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care than virtually any other major nation.
Implemented over a four-year period, the Medicare for All Act of 2022 establishes a federally administered national health insurance program that would ensure quality and comprehensive health care to all. This would include dental care, vision coverage, and hearing aids - with no out-of-pocket expenses, insurance premiums, deductibles, or co-payments - and save middle class families thousands of dollars a year.
This legislation would also create a health care system that finally puts people over profits. Today, as millions of American families face bankruptcy and financial ruin because of the outrageously high cost of health care, the CEOs of 178 major health care companies collectively made $3.2 billion in total compensation in 2020 - up 31% from 2019. While nearly one out of four Americans cannot afford the life-saving medicine their doctors prescribe, last year Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie - three giant pharmaceutical companies - increased their profits by over 90 percent to $54 billion. Meanwhile, the CEOs of just 8 prescription drug companies made $350 million in total compensation in 2020.
However, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare for All would save $650 billion each year, improve the economy, and eliminate all out-of-pocket health care costs. Other studies, such as from experts at Yale University, estimate it could save upwards of $450 billion per year. Even a study done by the right-wing Mercatus Center estimated that Medicare for All would save Americans more than $2 trillion over a decade.
Read the summary, here.
Read the fact sheet, here.
Read the bill text, here.
"My votes will never be influenced by AIPAC or any corporate PAC because I don't take money from them," said Abdul El-Sayed.
At Thursday evening's Democratic primary debate on Mackinac Island, Michigan, former public health official and US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed suggested the three contenders play a game: "If you're on the stage and you have never taken a corporate PAC check from Blue Cross Blue Shield, raise your hand."
The progressive Medicare for All advocate put his hand up, while his two opponents—US Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow—looked on.
El-Sayed's challenge on campaign donations from the for-profit healthcare industry followed McMorrow's comment that "people can't afford to wait for a revolution that may never come"—a remark on progressives' push to expand the existing Medicare program to the entire population that, as journalist David Sirota said, appeared recycled nearly verbatim from former US presidential candidate "Hillary Clinton's talking points from a decade ago."
The people of Michigan are sick and tired of politicians who tell us what we can't have and shouldn't fight for...
We can fight for a world where everybody can be guaranteed healthcare. pic.twitter.com/AoqNVoI4zl
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) May 28, 2026
"Well, I'll tell you this, the revolution is definitely not coming if we're not fighting for it," El-Sayed said in response to McMorrow. "Anyway, all of that is to say, I think we really can fight for a world where everybody can be guaranteed healthcare."
"It is important for us to recognize that all of these issues go back to how we finance campaigns," he added.
According to state and federal campaign finance records, Stevens' US House campaign took $2,500 from Blue Cross Blue Shield's political action committee (PAC) last year, while McMorrow took $5,500 from the PAC over the course of six years.
"The only reason we do not have Medicare for All," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has endorsed El-Sayed, "is the corruption of private health insurance money and Democrats who have been unwilling to fight for it."
One observer pointed to a recent poll showing 65% of voters support a Medicare for All system, and emphasized that "the revolution in healthcare is here despite what Mallory McMorrow thinks."
"We just need dedicated fighters like Abdul El-Sayed to make it a reality," they said.
Along with campaign donations from the for-profit healthcare industry, the topic of the powerful but increasingly toxic pro-Israel lobby came up when moderator Nolan Finley asked the candidates how they decide "how much influence" their donors have "over what you do, how you cast your vote."
"Haley Stevens, you take money from [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]," said Finley. "Walk us through what that money means, and what it buys, and maybe what it doesn't buy."
Stevens responded by expressing her gratitude to various people whom she said had donated to her Senate campaign, including "grocery store workers" and "retired teachers," as well as pointing to political leaders who have endorsed her candidacy—but said nothing in reply to Finley's direct question about how she might be influenced by the more than $5.4 million she's received from pro-Israel lobby groups, including AIPAC, over her political career.
During a Michigan Democratic Senate debate, moderator Nolan Finley calls out Haley Stevens for completely dodging a question on how AIPAC's support of her campaign could influence her votes in the Senate.
"You're also just not answering the question." pic.twitter.com/3dGpQJ6F5R
— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) May 29, 2026
El-Sayed confronted Stevens for "just not answering the question" before offering his view on what AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby donations "buys" from lawmakers.
Such contributions ultimately pay for "$3.5 billion sent to a foreign military that can be used here to give classes here, to provide healthcare here, to build schools here," said El-Sayed, referring to the military funding the US provides to Israel each year—including at least $16.3 billion the government has sent to Israel since it began its assault on Gaza in October 2023, helping the Israel Defense Forces to kill more than 75,000 Palestinians as the country blocked humanitarian aid and destroyed over 90% of residential buildings.
Resources for Michigan and other US states, said El-Sayed, is "where our money should be used.”
As The Detroit News reported Thursday, AIPAC has not directly sent donations to Stevens' campaign during the Senate election, but has instead appealed to its direct donors to also send contributions to Stevens.
More than 30% of donors who gave at least $200 to Stevens' campaign also donated to AIPAC since the beginning of 2025, according to The Detroit News' investigation—"well above her current primary opponents and her own benchmarks from prior US House bids."
AIPAC's apparent effort to direct its supporters to also back Stevens is legal under campaign finance law, but Ryan Grim of Drop Site News argued that the group's use of "obvious backdoor vehicles to move money to Haley Stevens only ends up making her look more corrupt."
AIPAC is hosting a fundraising page on its website, "paid for and authorized by Stevens' campaign," according to The Detroit News, while ensuring its name is not attached to the donations that are sent to the candidate through the page. Since Israel began attacking Gaza, approval of both the Israeli government and AIPAC have plummeted, particularly among Democratic voters.
Ahead of the debate, Stevens took umbrage at being asked about AIPAC's efforts to direct contributions to her campaign.
“I’m not breaking [Federal Elections Communications] laws by any stretch of the means," said Stevens. "Look, why would you ask me that question, first of all?”
Haley Stevens when pressed about AIPAC quietly funneling a massive chunk of donations to her camping and tens of millions of outside expenditures:
"Why would you ask me that question?" 💀 pic.twitter.com/LGGBeU9bJK
— umichvoter (@umichvoter) May 28, 2026
At the debate on Thursday, El-Sayed—who has rejected donations from corporate PACs—explained "what would absolutely not shape my perception" should he win the US Senate race.
"It's AIPAC money, which is being spent already in this race to pump up one of my colleagues on this stage," said El-Sayed. "I'm the only candidate today who didn't ask AIPAC for their support. I don't think that our taxpayer dollars which we pay every April ought to be going to bomb children, to fund bombs and tanks for other countries, when we got kids who can't afford basic things in our own."
Should he be elected to the Senate, he said on social media, "my votes will never be influenced by AIPAC or any corporate PAC because I don't take money from them."
"Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician," said the head of one advocacy group.
A federal judge in Virginia on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving to create a so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that would use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to reward supporters, including people convicted of seditious and violent felonies during the January 6 insurrection.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a 2-page order barring any action “pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”
Brinkema—a nominee of former President Bill Clinton—set a June 12 hearing date for arguments on whether she should extend the pause amid numerous legal challenges to what critics have called a "felon-to-felon slush fund," a reference to President Donald Trump's 34 felony convictions and the serious crimes, including violent assaults on police officers with dangerous weapons, committed by January 6 insurrectionists who were later pardoned by the president.
In January, Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Justice Department settled the case earlier this month by agreeing to create the roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
January 6 insurrectionists are expected to be among the fund's beneficiaries. Trump was accused of rewarding political violence by granting clemency to roughly 1,500 Capitol attackers, dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
Brinkema's decision came less than 24 hours after plaintiffs in one of the legal challenges to the fund, who are represented by Democracy Forward, filed a motion for emergency relief. Plaintiffs' attorneys told Brinkema that they’re “already being irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional and unlawful creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund," and that such harm "will be permanent if the administration takes action, including by irreversibly disbursing funds, before this court can act."
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said following Friday's ruling, "Today, a federal court recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the legality of that program can be fully reviewed by the court."
“This is a victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people," Perryman added. "No administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program that Congress never authorized. We look forward to the next stages in this case.”
Case plaintiffs issued a statement following Brinkema's order:
We are pleased that the court granted our request to ensure the administration does not distribute taxpayer funds until our motion has been considered. The court acted quickly to stop this unlawful scheme before money could start flowing out the door. The Trump-Vance administration attempted to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded program that rewards political allies, operates without oversight, and evades the constitutional safeguards that protect our democracy. We are grateful that the court recognized the urgency of the situation and acted to preserve the status quo before further irreparable harm occurred.
Democratic lawmakers welcomed Brinkema's order, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling it "an important win."
"Of all Trump’s corrupt schemes, his insurrectionist slush fund is one of the most depraved," said Schumer, who acknowledged the battle over Trump's fund is far from over. "We’ll keep fighting in the courts and in Congress to make sure this $2 billion giveaway to cop beaters, criminals, and MAGA cronies never sees the light of day."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) posted on social media: "I’ve said from the start that this is an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. This needs to be stopped permanently."
Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement that “today’s ruling is a critical reminder that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."
"Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for his friends and diehard loyalists—including those who tried to overthrow our democracy on January 6—is a blatant abuse of power, and the court rightly blocked it," Harvey added. "Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician."
Cecilia Vega, one of several journalists ousted from the show, said many of her colleagues "have had to fight to maintain editorial independence" under CBS News' new Trump-aligned corporate owners.
A group of veteran “60 Minutes” journalists was fired on Thursday as CBS News’ recently installed right-wing editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, moves to reshape the network in her image. Some of the ousted employees are describing their mass firing as a clear act of political “censorship.”
News had already broken earlier this week that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi was on the way out after more than ten years on the flagship news program, after she'd publicly criticized Weiss' decision to delay her story on the Trump administration's deportation of immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran torture prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), late last year.
But Alfonsi's departure was rumored to be part of a larger shakeup by Weiss, who has been accused of molding the network into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration following the government-approved acquisition of CBS's parent company, Paramount, by billionaire David Ellison, owner of Skydance.
On Thursday, the hammer finally fell. In addition to the formal firing of Alfonsi, The Washington Post reported that Weiss had also fired Tanya Simon, who’d worked on the show for a quarter-century and had recently taken on the role of executive producer. Correspondent Cecilia Vega—who had also covered CECOT for the network before Weiss' arrival—was canned as well, even though her contract was not set to expire until March 2027. So was executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.
In a memo to staff on Thursday, Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski said the firings were the result of them “building a show that thrives in the 21st century.”
“That requires a new approach,” they said, outlining their goals of “expanding ‘60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News, and holding everything we produce to the ambition, fairness, and fearlessness that have defined ‘60 Minutes’ at its best.”
To fill the role of executive producer, Weiss brought in a network outsider, Nick Bilton, a former technology columnist at The New York Times and producer of documentaries for HBO and Netflix. Weiss called him “one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time.”
Though Weiss reportedly viewed Simon as a “bad leader” who “couldn’t control the staff,” according to one source who spoke anonymously with The New York Post, Simon announced her departure with warm words for those who’d continue working on “60 Minutes.”
“While leadership has decided it is time for a new chapter—I want to be unequivocally clear about one thing: It has been an immense privilege to lead this broadcast, and I could not be prouder of what we have built, fought for, and delivered together over the last year," Simon said in a statement published Thursday. "'60 Minutes' has always been more than just a broadcast: It is an institution built on independence, grit, and rigorous search for the truth.“
But Vega gave a more candid explanation for her and her colleagues' firings.
"In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories," she said in a statement Thursday. "Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions."
"Let's call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven," she continued. "It is dangerous for the show and dangerous for democracy."
Vega's criticisms mirror those made earlier this week by Alfonsi, who said her firing was "a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting."
In December, Weiss abruptly pulled Alfonsi's story featuring the testimony of some of the men who were tortured in the CECOT prison shortly before it was set to air, citing a lack of commentary in the segment from Trump administration officials, who had repeatedly ignored the journalists’ requests for an interview. At the time, Alfonsi said Weiss had effectively given the government a “kill switch” on critical reporting. The segment eventually went to air the next month with some editing.
Following her ouster on Thursday, Vega described her own efforts to oppose what she viewed as politically-motivated meddling by network higher-ups.
"I held the line and refused to incorporate suggestions that offend the conscience," she said. "I know from many conversations with colleagues that many producing teams and correspondents working on the show today have had to fight to maintain editorial independence with regularity."
“I am far from the only ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent who has asked herself, ‘What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?'" Vega added.
She said she was proud of her work at '60 Minutes' and cited her reporting on CECOT for the program, which won a DuPont Columbia journalism award, as one of her finest achievements.
Weiss' overhaul of '60 Minutes' comes as Ellison eyes the merger of Paramount with another major media conglomerate, Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
President Donald Trump has said it's “imperative” that any acquisition of Warner Bros. includes CNN and has publicly denounced a rival bid for the company by Netflix.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice appeared ready to approve a $110 billion takeover by Paramount following meetings with Ellison and other company executives.
A group of journalists—including tech reporter Kara Swisher, former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, and NBC News legal analyst Katie Phang—warned at an event hosted earlier this week by a coalition of press freedom groups that, especially in the wake of Alfonsi's firing, the government-approved consolidation of media posed a dangerous threat to the future of journalistic freedom.
“I think what’s happening right now is pretty dangerous,” Acosta said. “To essentially announce the departure of Sharyn Alfonsi from 60 Minutes is a very in-your-face move by some people who don’t care very much about the First Amendment.”
“Folks need to use a little bit of their imagination here to recognize what may be coming down the pike,” he said, warning that the Trump administration was building a “strange oligarchical empire… attempting to do state media.”