5
#000000
#FFFFFF
healthcare
If You Want to Tax the Rich, Support California's Proposed Wealth Tax
The state needs money to provide essential services. Why not take it from the people who have money coming out of their ears?
Sep 18, 2026
This fall, California residents will be voting on a measure that would impose a tax of 5% on people with wealth in excess of $1 billion. This is a serious tax on a small group of very wealthy people.
While some focus on the amount of tax that these super-rich people will pay, it’s worth keeping in mind how much they will still have after paying their tax bill. A billionaire with $5 billion in assets will pay $250 million in taxes, but they will still be left with $4,750,000,000. We probably still don’t have to worry about these folks collecting food stamps.
The proponents of the tax calculate that it will raise $100 billion. While it is a one-time tax, it can be paid over five years. This sum will roughly match the cuts in Medicaid funding over this period that the Trump administration has put in place.
It is important to recognize that capitalism is an infinitely malleable system. We have allowed the rich to structure it to give themselves all the money. That is a huge problem.
To me, this sounds like a great plan. The state needs money to provide essential services. Why not take it from the people who have money coming out of their ears?
Okay, but we know the real world is never this simple. The rich love their money and aren’t happy about turning over any portion of it to the state of California, no matter how little it affects their living standards. We have to ask how much money the tax will actually collect after the rich use all the tools available, both legal and illegal, to avoid paying.
The podcast Today Explained had an interesting discussion of this issue last week. It included comments from two economists who have done research on this issue: Joshua Rauh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and Cristobal Young, a sociology professor at Cornell University. Rauh is a conservative, while Young is a liberal. Both have done serious work on taxing the rich.
Not surprisingly, Rauh opposed the wealth tax. He argued that the tax would end up as a net revenue loser. The tax would apply to billionaires who were in the state as of January 1 of this year, which means if they haven’t left the state already, they will still be liable for the tax even if they choose to leave later. But Rauh argues that the combination of lost future income tax revenue from the billionaires who have already left, combined with reduced collections from the billionaires who stay or don’t come to the state, will more than offset whatever revenue the state collects from the tax.
I take seriously the issues Rauh raises. Some billionaires have left the state. They also are very clever in finding ways to avoid taxes. Rauh did a paper a couple of years back that found that the rich managed to escape paying 60% of the anticipated tax revenue from a 3-percentage-point increase in the top tax rate paid by high-income people.
There clearly is some point where higher tax rates can actually result in less revenue, mostly due to increased evasion and avoidance, but there also is some negative incentive effect (definitely the smaller part of the story). Rauh’s work suggested California might not be far from that point. (Its top marginal tax rate is 13%.)
While Rauh’s view of the wealth tax was predictable, I was surprised to hear that Young also opposed it. Young has done considerable work that finds that rich people do not often move to escape higher state tax rates. It might have been expected that Young would think that the state does not have much to fear from billionaires leaving to escape the wealth tax.
However, Young opposed the tax on different grounds. He argued that the one-time infusion of revenue from the tax, collected over five years, would still leave a funding gap five years out, after the revenue stopped coming in.
This is hard for me to understand. Five years in Trump’s America in an eternity. It is reasonable to think that in five years we may again have a more normal government at the national level that is prepared to actually provide people with healthcare. In that case, the shortfall will not be an issue. Alternatively, if Trump and his followers still hold power, we are likely looking at a disaster story for which there is no real way to prepare.
There are a number of billionaires who very publicly left California before the start of the year and may thereby avoid the tax. This will reduce the revenue collected from the tax and will mean a loss of income tax revenue for the state in future years, but that is water under the bridge at this point.
We can all envision better ways to tax the rich in an ideal world. California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the state wealth tax because he says we should have a federal wealth tax. Perhaps we should, but a state wealth tax is what’s on the table, and proponents of taxing the rich would be foolish not to wholeheartedly support it.
If the wealth tax goes down, California is not about to institute Young or anyone else’s ideal tax on the rich. If it goes down, it’s a pretty sure bet that it will be some time before another tax on the super rich in California comes this close to becoming law.
I will add that I have long argued that we need to structure the economy differently so that we don’t give the rich all the money. Having shorter and weaker government-granted patent and copyright monopolies would be a good start. Also, changing bankruptcy laws so that private equity partners can’t walk away from companies they bankrupted with their pockets full. And applying a modest sales tax on financial transactions would downsize the sector and eliminate many of the great fortunes on Wall Street.
This is the topic of my book, Rigged (it’s free). It is important to recognize that capitalism is an infinitely malleable system. We have allowed the rich to structure it to give themselves all the money. That is a huge problem. Taxing some of it back is a great thing to do, but it would be even better not to give them the money in the first place. That’s not a reason to oppose the tax, but it would be good if progressives paid some attention to fundamental issues of how we structure the market.
Keep Reading
Show Less
We Will Reach Our Improved Medicare For All Destination If We All Do Our Part
Everyone who wants Improved Medicare for All to become law should reach out to friends, family, and neighbors and urge them to get involved and we should create Improved Medicare for All clubs nationwide to galvanize this movement.
Sep 18, 2026
Editor’s Note: The following is the fifth and final excerpt from Nancy J. Altman’s new book, The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action (Routledge, 2026), now available for purchase wherever quality books are sold. Read the previous excerpts published by Common Dreams here, here, here, and here. As the United States continues to spend substantially more on health care than other wealthy nations but with poorer health outcomes, Altman’s book analyzes the dysfunction of the current system and sets forth the solution. “Medicare for All won’t happen without a fight,” she argues, “but it is a fight we can win.”
Reaching our destination won’t be easy. Americans have been fighting for universal, government-sponsored national health insurance for over 100 years. Progress was made in 1965 and 1972, when Medicare was enacted and expanded. Since, then, though, not only was Medicare not expanded; frustratingly, its opposition has succeeded in partially privatizing it.
The moment in which the nation finds itself does not appear particularly hopeful even for the country to remain the United States. Not since the Civil War has the nation been so divided.
Past Threats to Democracy
Almost 100 years ago, the Great Depression brought economic collapse and with it, a serious threat to democracy. Like today, there was hostility to those perceived to be elites. The economic turmoil opened the door to widespread radical movements and demagogues.
Like today, “others” were scapegoated, along with the “elites.” Jews were a particular target. One extremely powerful, influential anti-Semite was radio preacher Father Charles E. Coughlin. At the height of his popularity, his Sunday radio show, Golden Hour of the Little Flower, which was broadcast over dozens of radio stations around the country, was heard by nearly one in four Americans and had a larger share of the listening audience than the more recent broadcasters Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Harvey, and Larry King put together. Before the 1936 Presidential election, he asserted. “This is our last election. It is fascism or communism. We are at the crossroads. I take the road to fascism.”
Another leader of the time seeking radical change was Louisiana Governor and then Senator Huey Long, who targeted the extreme income and wealth inequality which exploded during the so-called Roaring Twenties. His Share Our Wealth plan proposed confiscatory income, wealth, and inheritance taxes on the wealthiest and generous federal benefits for working and middle-income families. Just one year after announcing the plan, there were 27,000 Share Our Wealth local clubs, mainly in the South, with over 7.5 million members.
Long planned to run for president as a third-party candidate, even setting out his plans and strategy in his 1935 novel, My First Days in the White House. His plans came to an abrupt end, though, in September, 1935, when he was assassinated by the son-in-law of a political opponent whom Long had targeted and slandered.
Another radical leader of the time was socialist author and journalist, Upton Sinclair, who sought to expose corruption in business and government, while shining a spotlight on the horrendous working conditions at the time. In 1934, he ran for Governor of California on his “End Poverty in California” (EPIC) plan, which, like Long, he set out in a novel, the 1933 I, Governor of California, and How I Ended Poverty: A True Story of the Future. His plan called for the state to seize idle factories, farms, movie studios, and other businesses and convert them to worker-run co-ops, financed with progressive revenue. Two dozen candidates who ran on the EPIC plan won seats in the state legislature, including lawyer and journalist Culbert Colson, who successfully ran for Governor four years later, becoming the first Democrat in 40 years to win the office.
The Perfect Person for the Moment
At base, people were suffering and open to radical solutions to address their misery. Franklin Roosevelt was undoubtedly the right person to meet that moment. He was extremely politically savvy, pragmatic, and smart. His speeches were inspiring and visionary. His famed fireside chats, named to convey a sense of cozy familiarity, established a strong personal connection between the president and the American people. He radiated optimism. Perhaps most importantly, he exuded compassion and empathy.
Though he enjoyed extraordinary wealth and privilege, his paralysis, resulting from contracting polio at age 39, was apparently transformative. His close colleague Frances Perkins, who became the first woman to serve as a Cabinet secretary to a president, described his transformation in her book, The Roosevelt I Knew. She witnessed Roosevelt undergo, she wrote:
“a spiritual transformation during the years of his illness….The man emerged completely warmhearted, with humility of spirit and with a deeper philosophy. Having been in the depths of trouble, he understood the problems of people in trouble.”
The brilliant achievements of the charismatic Roosevelt can continue to be felt today. His Social Security program was carefully crafted to embody basic American values, containing both progressive and conservative elements that continue to appeal to Americans across the ideological divide. Roosevelt’s legacy provides good news in today’s troubling time. As polarized and hostile as Americans are in general, we are overwhelmingly united in our support for Social Security and Medicare, which grows out of Roosevelt’s legacy. A 2025 Bipartisan Policy Center poll, for example, found that 91 percent of Americans believe that Medicare is valuable. That same poll found that 93 percent believe Social Security is valuable. Numerous other polls, taken over many years by groups across the ideological spectrum, have found similar results of unanimity of support.
Despite how divided and combative the American people are generally, these numbers provide a ray of hope. Supporters of Improved Medicare for All must build on this support systematically. The cause and its success may have the byproduct of helping to bring the country back to more normal, less fractured, and hostile times.
Today’s Missing Leader
Notwithstanding Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, none of the Democratic presidential nominees in the last few election cycles nor the mainstream leaders of today’s Democratic Party appear to match Roosevelt’s political insights or capabilities. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) showed that he can garner enthusiastic support, as has New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, but the Democratic leadership has not embraced them or similar charismatic progressive leaders. Consequently, the Democratic Party has not spoken with one single clear voice and capitalized effectively on the broad support for Medicare and Social Security.
Unfortunately, unlike Roosevelt, the current politicians who appear most likely to win the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination do not appear to have the vision or charisma to capitalize on the popularity of Medicare and Social Security. There is no candidate with Franklin Roosevelt’s many gifts who is in a position to fully embrace Improved Medicare for All and ride it to victory, together with an expanded Social Security program. At this moment, the Democratic Party does not seem united in a path forward, certainly not one that would embrace as bold a vision as Improved Medicare for All.
Nevertheless, the political movements of the 1930s provide evidence that those policy goals can be achieved without a political leader. While the Share the Wealth and End Poverty in California grassroots movements had high-profile personalities leading the efforts, another astoundingly successful grassroots movement did not.
A Grassroots Movement to Emulate
While policymakers in Washington were primarily focused on unemployment in the early years of the Great Depression, they apparently did not fully appreciate that hidden in the shadows of the unemployment numbers were impoverished, aged parents reluctantly dependent on their adult children for support. When Social Security became law in 1935, every state but New Mexico had poorhouses (sometimes called almshouses or poor farms). The vast majority of the residents were elderly. Most of the “inmates,” as they were often labeled, entered the poorhouse late in life, having been independent wage earners until they were no longer able to work.
Although official Washington was not focused on the plight of the elderly, ordinary people were. In September 1933, a Long Beach, California doctor, Francis E. Townsend, found himself at age 66 unemployed with no savings. He was gazing out his window when he spotted two elderly women, dressed in rags, rummaging through his garbage, searching for anything edible. It so upset Dr. Townsend that he sent a letter to the Long Beach Press-Telegram, his local newspaper.
His letter, published on September 30, proposed a plan. He proposed that the federal government provide every person aged 60 or older a pension of $200 per month, a princely sum in the 1930s. The only requirement, in addition to being retired and not a criminal, was that the recipient had to spend every penny within 30 days of receipt. He claimed that his plan would not only eradicate old-age poverty; it would so stimulate the economy that it would create jobs and end the Depression.
The idea spread around the country at a rate astonishing to believe in that pre-Internet, pre-social media world. A year after Townsend wrote his letter to the newspaper, Time magazine reported in its October 15, 1934, issue:
By last week the flow of money…was enough to pay the wages of 50 people….There were Townsend Clubs in every State except Delaware…. Between 2,000,000 and 5,000,000 people had put their names to petitions begging their Congressmen to vote the Plan into effect at once.
Even in the short time between the publication of Townsend’s letter and the establishment of Roosevelt’s Committee on Economic Security (CES), his interagency task force to develop the Social Security Act, supporters of the Townsend proposal were exerting considerable pressure on the Administration and Congress. At the height of CES’s work, mail from Townsendites averaged about 1,500 letters a day. In some congressional districts, a candidate’s position on the Townsend plan determined the outcome of the election.
By mid-October 1934, Townsend had acquired two million signatures on petitions urging congressional action on his plan. Just three months later, he was claiming to have 25 million signatures. The number of Townsend clubs had climbed to 25,000 across the country. The plan’s popularity was not hard to fathom. As political columnist, Mark Sullivan with The New York Herald Tribune explained: “The zeal of those promoting the plan is evangelical, almost fanatic.”
A Time magazine piece explained the political climate surrounding the plan:
The good doctor’s Old Age Revolving Pensions scheme, better known as the Townsend Plan, had by last week become one of the biggest political facts in the US. The early California groundswell of sentiment in its favor had grown to a tidal wave, battering at nearly every door in House and Senate Office Buildings.
In the end, the Townsend plan, which policy experts understood to be unworkable—benefits would have cost half the income of the United States, for example—was instrumental in enacting Social Security, because it provided the widespread pressure to address old age insecurity. That is the kind of pressure that today could get Improved Medicare for All enacted, as well.
A New Movement: Improved Medicare for All Clubs All across the Nation
To build such a movement is both easier and harder than it was almost 100 years ago. While American news consumption is much more siloed, social media, email chains, and the internet generally allow people to connect much more easily and effectively. Of course, people are drawn to a variety of important issues, including climate change, gun violence, and immigration. Nevertheless, similar to the 1930s with respect to old age insecurity, Americans appear to be reaching the end of their rope with respect to the nation’s health insurance companies, as was demonstrated by the strong, instantaneous outpouring of frustration with commercial health insurance in response to the murder of the UnitedHealthcare executive.
The movement for Improved Medicare for All already has powerful, effective, knowledgeable and resourceful leaders. They are members of a far-reaching, forceful coalition, the National Coalition for Medicare for All. The coalition meets regularly to strategize and advance the issue. They are doing a spectacular job in championing and pushing forward Improved Medicare for All. To help them succeed in its enactment, the rest of us should provide them with an overwhelming army of passionate, dedicated grassroots supporters.
The goal, as impossible as it might seem, is to build a broad-based, energized, and determined Townsend-like grassroots movement. Everyone who wants Improved Medicare for All to become law should reach out to friends, family, and neighbors and urge them to get involved. In addition to joining already-existing groups, such as MoveOn, Public Citizen, and Indivisible, supporters should create Improved Medicare for All clubs.
Those clubs should play a number of roles. First, the clubs could educate members and others about why Improved Medicare for All is so important. They could discuss at club meetings how health care is a right, not a privilege and how Improved Medicare for All is the only realistic way to get us there. Just as the Townsend clubs hounded their elected representatives, supporters should flood offices with phone calls, keep track of when their Senators and representatives are home from Washington, DD, and attend their town halls if they host them. If they don’t, the clubs can seek meetings with their members and staff. If their members won’t commit to cosponsoring Improved Medicare for All legislation, they should put pressure on them, including picketing their offices.
Other Steps Individuals Can and Should Take
With or without membership in an Improved Medicare for All club, those wanting to help the effort have many other steps they can take. On this and many other issues, there are a multitude of effective civic and social organizations active on political issues, such as Indivisible, MoveOn, Public Citizen, and many more. If you have access to a union, they remain extremely important and effective actors with which to engage. With or without engagement with these organizations, it is perhaps most important to educate family, friends, and neighbors. Writing letters to the editor and posting on social media are helpful actions. If possible, there may be an opportunity to hold an event at a school, perhaps through the PTA, as well as at assisted care facilities, libraries, and other spaces. If you want to organize an event but want experts to be the speakers and/or panelists, that is relatively easy these days, particularly, if the speakers can appear virtually.
Moreover, because healthcare costs affect everyone, the issue of Improved Medicare for All can be tailored to a variety of organizations and groups. School groups may be concerned about the impact of healthcare costs on their budget. Women’s groups may be concerned about reproductive rights. Again, the point is to make the movement for Improved Medicare for All as large a mass movement as possible.
This moment in history may make enactment of Improved Medicare for All appear as far away as it possibly could be. However, the mythological phoenix should be the symbol of the effort. The phoenix, an immortal bird that continually arose from the ashes of its predecessor, symbolizes renewal after a period of hardship.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Oklahoma Women Sue Over Being Denied Abortions Despite Fatal Fetal Diagnoses
"My husband and I were crushed when we learned that we would never get to bring our daughter home. We wanted mercy for our daughter—but Oklahoma's laws denied us that."
Sep 17, 2026
When Sheena Hamlin found out she was pregnant with a daughter she named Ellie, she was "very excited," until her doctors discovered at around 21 weeks that the baby "might survive birth, but that her lungs were so severely underdeveloped that she would suffocate almost as soon as the umbilical cord was cut."
"The alternative would be to terminate the pregnancy," explains a lawsuit filed in state court on Wednesday, but that "was not an option in Oklahoma," where a pair of laws force patients whose "pregnancy will end in miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of an infant shortly after birth" to leave the state if they choose abortion.
Hamlin and her husband, who have a son, "agreed that they did not want their daughter to suffer," so she flew to Illinois for care shortly before Thanksgiving in 2024, and spent nearly $4,000 out of pocket. After the "devastating" experience, the couple "underwent genetic testing and confirmed that Ellie had Meckel-Gruber syndrome."
They "pursued in vitro fertilization (IVF) and genetic counseling to ensure that they would not have another child affected by the condition," and while Hamlin is now expecting a baby, she "has found it anxiety-inducing to be pregnant in Oklahoma again, particularly in the period leading up to the anatomy scan," the suit says.
Hamlin is not alone. Magon Hoffman is also suing over the abortion bans that prevented her from receiving care. Hoffman and her husband were similarly "thrilled" to learn of her pregnancy in 2022, but a series of unfortunate revelations soon followed: a "huge blood clot," placenta previa, unusual growth measurements, and ultimately, anencephaly.
As Hoffman's doctor, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, explained at her 19-week anatomy scan, her fetus had a "tiny bit of brain floating around," but "no skull." In other words, the complaint says, "her pregnancy was not viable. Her baby had no chance of survival. Ms. Hoffman was devastated."
Because Oklahoma only allows abortion care to save a patient's life, the doctor warned that she would have to leave the state to end the pregnancy. He then "tried to convince Ms. Hoffman to carry to term," the filing notes, even though "there was nothing they could do to help the baby survive," and if the child lived "for a few hours or a few days... she would be 'blind and 'dying.'"
Hoffman and her husband, who already had a daughter, drove eight hours and spent $3,000 to get abortion care in New Mexico. Afterward, the suit says, she "struggled with anxiety and depression from the loss of a pregnancy she desperately wanted and the stigma and fear she experienced in being forced to seek care out of state."
"In June 2024, while still using birth control, Ms. Hoffman unexpectedly became pregnant for a third time. She was terrified... At no point during the pregnancy was Ms. Hoffman able to believe she would bring home a healthy baby," the complaint continues. She was relieved to deliver another daughter—and does not want any more children, "so her husband decided to have a vasectomy, though he would have preferred to wait. Ms. Hoffman still fears another unexpected pregnancy."
The group Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice has joined Hoffman and Hamlin as plaintiffs, as have two of the OB-GYNs who treated them, Drs. Sarah Mashburn and Elizabeth Pinard, who were both born and raised in Oklahoma.
"I have dedicated my life to caring for women from all across our state, including those facing fatal fetal conditions. Doctors routinely provide care according to what our patients want for themselves and their families, but Oklahoma's abortion bans have left me feeling helpless," Pinard said in a statement.
"I don't want to tell my patients to leave the state when I can easily give them the care they need right here in my office," she stressed. "This is not how healthcare should work. My patients deserve access to all of their options for care, and the state needs to allow us to do our jobs."
Hamlin said that "my husband and I were crushed when we learned that we would never get to bring our daughter home. We wanted mercy for our daughter—but Oklahoma's laws denied us that."
Hoffman similarly said that "Oklahoma turned the hardest day of my life into weeks of needless suffering on top of our grief," and the state "is failing families like mine. I'm bringing this case so Oklahomans can have the power again to make the best decisions for our families."
The defendants in the case are the state attorney general and health commissioner, Oklahoma County's district attorney, and executive directors of the state's boards for medical licensing and osteopathic examiners, all of whom have yet to comment on the suit.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and the Center for Reproductive Rights, a powerhouse that has fought for abortion rights in several high-profile state and federal cases. The legal group's president, Nancy Northup, said Wednesday that "it's unthinkable the pain these families went through because of Oklahoma's abortion bans."
"Forcing women to give birth knowing they won't be bringing a baby home is pure cruelty," she argued. "Every pregnant person should get to decide what is best for their family based on their own beliefs, values, and medical circumstances. The government should have no place in that. We're suing to hold the state accountable for the pain lawmakers have caused these families, and to make sure no other families suffer in this way."
Oklahoma is among the states where anti-choice policymakers have ramped up their longtime efforts to restrict reproductive freedom in the wake of the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority overturning Roe v. Wade. Another state on that list is Texas, whose abortion ban led to the 2022 reversal.
In Texas on Wednesday, Tierra Walker's family sued various state officials. The San Antonio woman died in December 2024, at the age of 37, after being denied an abortion. Although such denials have killed a growing number of pregnant people in Texas and beyond, this is the first case of its kind, tying a preventable death to a state abortion ban.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Family of Tierra Walker—Who Died After Being Denied Abortion Care—Sues Texas AG Ken Paxton
State officials "have imposed a merciless blanket prohibition on abortion that intimidates doctors into inaction," says the lawsuit. "Too many pregnant Texans have already died preventable deaths."
Sep 16, 2026
"Tierra Walker is dead, and those responsible must be held accountable."
That's the opening line of a lawsuit filed by Walker's family in Bexar County, Texas this week against the state's Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, and various others over the death of the 37-year-old pregnant San Antonio woman.
On December 30, 2024, Walker's son "found her in bed, not breathing," the complaint notes. "It was his 15th birthday."
The teenager, as well as Walker's husband, mother, and aunt, who is responsible for her estate, are all involved in the wrongful death suit—the first of its kind, linking a "preventable death" to an abortion ban, according to The 19th.
In addition to Paxton, who is running for US Senate with support from President Donald Trump, the family is suing Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, Texas Medical Board Executive Director Stephen Brint Carlton, the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and three doctors who treated Walker before she died.
"During the four months of her pregnancy, as she suffered through seizures, blood clots, and one hypertensive crisis after another, Ms. Walker repeatedly asked for an abortion to save her life," explains the filing. "Defendants associated with University Health responded only 'your baby is fine,' disregarding Ms. Walker's deteriorating health and constitutionally protected right to life."
The document argues that "their deliberate indifference, discrimination, and medical mistreatment ultimately caused her horrific and tragic death. Now, Ms. Walker's husband is a widower. Her disabled mother has lost her daughter and caregiver. And her teenaged son has no mother."
"Meanwhile, from the moment Texas' first abortion ban went into effect in 2021, through the overturning of Roe v. Wade, through the present day, defendants Ken Paxton and Stephen Brint Carlton have imposed a merciless blanket prohibition on abortion that intimidates doctors into inaction and breeds extreme fear among Texas' medical establishment," the filing notes. "As a result, too many pregnant Texans have already died preventable deaths. Yet no one has held them accountable."
The suit—filed by the principal attorney at the Marynell Maloney Law Firm and Amplify Legal, the litigation arm of the nonprofit Abortion in America—is designed to do just that.
"Tierra had a treatable medical condition, the problem was that the treatment she needed was an abortion," said attorney Michelle Maloney in a statement. "She died a preventable death. Medical and political negligence killed Tierra Walker."
Defendants in the case have declined to comment or, in some cases, even respond to media outlets, including The Texas Tribune. As the newspaper detailed Wednesday:
Months after Walker died, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 31 aimed at ensuring that pregnant women receive lifesaving care under the state’s near-total abortion ban. It says that a patient doesn’t have to be in "imminent" medical crisis for doctors to intervene and that a doctor can only be charged if the state can prove "no reasonable doctor" would have made the same call. It also requires the Texas Medical Board to create training for doctors, which was finalized in early 2026.
But Molly Duane, one of the lawyers representing the Walker family, said during a news conference on Wednesday that SB 31 would not have prevented Walker's death.
"I would love if the Texas Legislature would actually take their responsibility here seriously and get rid of the laws that are causing so many deaths. I just don't have any confidence that that is something that they can do in this environment, but ultimately, that's a political question," Duane said.
ProPublica first reported that Walker "died after she couldn't get an abortion in Texas" last November. The investigative outlet has exposed similar deaths in the state—those of Nevaeh Crain and Porsha Ngumezi—as well as the first known case of a fatal abortion care denial in the wake of the Roe reversal: Amber Nicole Thurman in Georgia.
"No one else should have to experience what my family has gone through. Tierra was the glue that held our family together, and now she's gone," said Walker's aunt, LaTanya Walker. "Doctors all turned a blind eye as Tierra was dying, and refused to give her the abortion she needed to save her life. She deserves justice."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Progressive Lawmakers Introduce Bill to 'Get Wall Street Out' of Medical Offices Across US
"Doctors should be able to do what's best for their patients, not what's best for some wealthy investor."
Sep 16, 2026
Thanks to legislation passed in Oregon last year, physicians in the state have stopped corporate takeovers of medical practices—and six Democratic members of Congress on Wednesday introduced a bill to replicate the state law nationwide, arguing, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, that "patients want to know that decisions about their health are being made by their doctors, not by Wall Street investors."
The Massachusetts Democrat was joined by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), along with Reps. Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) in introducing the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act.
The bill would ban the corporate practice of medicine by making it illegal for private equity funds, insurance companies, and other for-profit corporations to own or control medical practices—as is increasingly the case in the profit-driven US healthcare system.
Over 80% of doctors in the US are employed by corporate entities including private equity firms—up from 62% just seven years ago, according to the lawmakers.
Corporations have also exploited legal loopholes that allow them to take over medical practices, despite laws in over 30 states banning the corporate practice of medicine.
“Americans want medical decisions to stay between patients and their doctor, not dictated by corporate actors and private equity firms focused on maximizing profits,” said Wyden. “I’m proud of Oregon’s pioneering state law that has been used by doctors to protect their independence, and it’s time to take that model to the federal level. Corporate medicine is making healthcare more expensive for everyone, and safeguards must be put in place to ensure healthcare decisions stay in the hands of physicians.”
The legislation would:
- Close the “friendly physician” loophole that has allowed investor-backed corporations to evade state-level bans on the corporate practice of medicine and control medical practices through management service organizations (MSOs);
- Prohibit an MSO from controlling a medical practice through a “friendly” or “captive” physician, or by taking over business, administrative, and clinical functions such as hiring and firing, work schedules, compensation, disbursement of revenue or setting of revenue targets, billing practices, contracting, and other services;
- Ensure that physicians retain ultimate control of medical practices by requiring that physician owners are meaningfully engaged in providing medical care in the state in which their practice is located; and
- Protect physician independence by prohibiting corporate interference with clinical decisions and banning restrictive contract terms, such as noncompete agreements, nondisclosure agreements, and nondisparagement agreements.
As the lawmakers explained, MSOs contract with medical practices under the guise of handling administrative tasks.
"But these actors often challenge the autonomy of acquired physicians once in control," they said. "For example, corporate entities often assume control over clinical operations, management and staffing decisions, and billing and coding practices—all of which can exert pressure on physicians to change care delivery."
Such entities "often cut corners, leading to patients paying more for significantly worse care," said Ocasio-Cortez. “I’m proud to co-lead the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act to get Wall Street out of Americans’ doctors’ offices."
Warren added that "doctors should be able to do what's best for their patients, not what's best for some wealthy investor."
BREAKING: Today, I'm introducing a bill to BAN corporate takeovers of your doctor's office.
Doctors should be able to care for their patients without greedy private equity investors getting in the way.
Let's get this done. pic.twitter.com/e3gdamIotQ
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 16, 2026
The legislation is supported by several medical associations as well as economic justice advocates.
"A prohibition is only as strong as its enforcement, and this bill backs its corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) prohibition with three enforcement paths: the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general suing on behalf of residents, and physicians themselves through a private right of action with treble damages. That layered enforcement, paired with mandatory divestment, is what gives this bill teeth that earlier CPOM laws have often lacked,” said Dr. Marco Fernandez, president of the Association for Independent Medicine.
Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, said that the "groundbreaking legislation is absolutely needed to give health providers and patients a fighting chance against corporate greed."
"Congress must stop private equity from ripping the copper wires out of American healthcare and put patients first," said Lawson. "Social Security Works is proud to endorse this legislation."
Charles Idelson, the former communications director of National Nurses United, which advocates for Medicare for All, said the bill "would help close some, though not all, of the worst profiteering in healthcare."
"Exploiting sickness to enrich wealthy executives," said Idelson, "is obscene."
Keep Reading
Show Less
McConnell Returns to Congress—After 3 Months of Paid Leave With Taxpayer-Subsidized Healthcare
"They oppose the things for us that they give to themselves," said universal healthcare advocate Melanie D'Arrigo.
Sep 14, 2026
Former US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finally came back to the Capitol on Monday after a three-month absence that fueled calls for the Kentucky Republican's resignation and widespread speculation over whether he was even still alive.
The 84-year-old senator, who plans to retire after this term, has not been seen in public since he was hospitalized following a fall in mid-June. However, he announced Monday evening that he would return to the Senate floor to cast a vote.
"My recovery has been a long and often frustrating process, and the lingering effects of childhood polio haven't made it any easier," said McConnell, who had reporters capture footage of him leaving his home and arriving at the Capitol.
McConnell said he was "still not quite back to 100%" but had assured Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) that, as he continues with physical therapy, he will do his "best to be present for tough votes" when the GOP needs him.
According to NBC News' Frank Thorp V, the senator told reporters at the Capitol: "I must admit, after two years, two decades after dodging your questions, I wasn't sure how many of you would be here today. So I'm glad to see you. Time to get back to work to finish the job for this Congress."
"I'm here to work on the farm bill... and as you know, I have an ongoing interest in NATO and backing up our good friends who are totally in the fight against the Russians," added McConnell.
Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio said that the reporters he spoke with on Monday "were barred from recording video."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal, single-payer healthcare, forcefully called out the Republican senator in response to this statement on social media Monday.
"Mitch McConnell has spent his career opposing paid sick leave and cutting healthcare," she said. "He just took three months of paid leave, with healthcare... subsidized by taxpayers. They oppose the things for us that they give to themselves."
With McConnell due to finish his term at the end of this congressional session, Republican US Rep. Andy Barr and former Democratic Congressman Charles Booker are facing off to replace him in the November midterms—in which Democrats are aiming to win back majorities in both chambers.
Before McConnell announced his return, Booker highlighted his "absolutely embarrassing" absence on social media, writing that "Kentuckians are getting crushed by the rising costs of groceries, healthcare, and gas while McConnell gets a taxpayer-funded paycheck and Kentucky gets an empty seat."
Booker and Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear—a potential 2028 presidential candidate—are among those who have criticized McConnell over his lack of transparency regarding his absence over the past few months.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Avoiding Landmines on Our Path to Medicare For All
Because Improved Medicare for All is such a winning policy, powerful forces opposed to it must rely on fear, division, and lies to prevail. Knowing their lines of attack will help assure our ultimate victory.
Sep 14, 2026
Editor’s Note: The following is the fourth excerpt from Nancy J. Altman’s latest book, The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action (Routledge, 2026), now available for purchase wherever quality books are sold. Read the previous excerpts published by Common Dreams here, here, and here. As the United States continues to spend substantially more on health care than other wealthy nations but with poorer health outcomes, Altman’s book analyzes the dysfunction of the current system and sets forth the solution. “Medicare for All won’t happen without a fight,” she argues, “but it is a fight we can win.”
To move forward toward Improved Medicare for All, the supporters must be strategic, persistent, and patient. In addition, supporters must be ready to neutralize the counterattacks from the opponents who are rich, formidable, and devious.
Because Improved Medicare for All is such a winning policy, those powerful forces must rely on fear, division, and lies to prevail. They succeed not by convincing us with reason but rather by tricking us into working against our own best interests. President Roosevelt exposed this dynamic in 1936, as he fought for our Social Security. “It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them,” he warned us.
As a first step, it is imperative to recognize who the “tyrants” are. They include some of the largest, most profitable, multinational corporations in the world, the ones that profit so enormously from the current healthcare system. The “tyrants” also include billionaires who are determined to amass more and pay as little as possible toward the common good. These wealthiest people in the history of the world have no intention of paying their fair share.
In addition to them are their surrogates, some of whom may be disguised. They include those we elect, who are supposed to work for us, but want to keep open and flowing the pipeline to campaign contributions and other benefits the wealthy “tyrants” provide. Some of the surrogate-politicians are obvious. They seek unabashedly and openly to rip away even the inadequate health insurance Americans currently have. They are the ones working toward the further privatization of Medicare.
Some, though, whether they rationalize to themselves or simply are confused and don’t realize that they are doing the bidding of the “tyrants,” claim that they support national health insurance, but argue that it’s not practical. They not only don’t fight for Improved Medicare for All, they muddy the debate and even may subtly throw up roadblocks to its enactment. Another group of surrogates are some journalists and editors who often work for publications owned by the billionaire “tyrants.”
All of these surrogates are highly influential and may convince your family, friends, neighbors, and even you, that Improved Medicare for All is something to be feared – notwithstanding that virtually every other industrialized country has their own form of Improved Medicare for All, systems that cover their entire populations less expensively and have better health outcomes than the United States.
To understand how the “tyrants” and their surrogates delude their victims – the rest of us – into fighting among ourselves and working against our own best interests, it is essential to keep in mind the Powell memo of the 1970s and the Gingrich memo of the 1990s. Underlying both was the retreat from honest policy discussions and instead a power struggle backed by huge amounts of money. Their views represent a small minority, so their method of prevailing is to divide and instill fear.
Supporters must be hyper-vigilant against the monied interests tricking the American people into succumbing to this “old strategy of tyrants.” Those who want to enact Improved Medicare for All must understand the facts and the ploys.
Perhaps the oldest line of attack is simply to call Improved Medicare for All “socialized medicine.” The phrase “socialized medicine” has become the proverbial four-letter curse word to many Americans. Opponents are quick to label any health proposals they don’t like, “socialized medicine.”
One might think that the phrase, “socialized medicine,” has lost its bite. After all, the Soviet Union and the Cold War officially ended decades ago, on December 25, 1991, when the hammer-and-sickle flag last flew over the Kremlin in Moscow. The phrase appears to be effective because it invokes irrational fears of change and the unknown. It is, in essence, shorthand for something that is foreign, dangerous, and scary.
Because the charge plays on people’s fears, the lie that Improved Medicare for All is socialized medicine can’t be defeated with logical explanations. Rather, it makes sense to address quickly the epithet but then immediately pivot to what people like about Improved Medicare for All.
Another powerful lie is that Improved Medicare for All will hurt the people who are currently on Medicare. This is a deeply cynical stratagem, but, unfortunately, it is effective. Because seniors and people with disabilities, on average, have the greatest health care needs, they are, as a group, particularly susceptible to this kind of fearmongering. It is therefore imperative that advocates of Improved Medicare for All have a honed, well thought-through strategy aimed toward current Medicare beneficiaries and those close to turning age 65.
In fact, those currently on Medicare will be much better off with Improved Medicare for All. Their benefit package will be more comprehensive, their out-of-pocket costs will drop to zero, and the security of the program will increase, since everyone will have a personal stake in seeing it expanded and not cut.
Moreover, it will be simpler. Gone will be all premiums, deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays. Those who today have their Medicare premiums automatically deducted from their Social Security benefits will see those benefits increased. Gone also will be the impossible tasks of deciding what prescription drug plan best covers one’s future needs, whether to go with so-called Medicare Advantage, and if so, which one, and if not, whether to buy a supplemental plan and if so, which one.
It is important to recognize that there is a thread of a concern that vaguely connects the “socialized medicine” charge and the accusation that current beneficiaries will be hurt. Today, Medicare and Social Security are accurately recognized as earned benefits. To qualify for those benefits, a worker has to have worked and contributed for long enough to be insured, in the case of Social Security and Medicare’s Part A hospital insurance. Workers contribute to the cost of those benefits throughout their working lives, underscoring their earned-benefit nature. Supporters of Improved Medicare for All can and must deal with the sense of current beneficiaries that they earned their Medicare, while it will just be “given” to everyone else, when it is expanded.
The reality is that unlike retirement income, which replaces earned wages, everyone needs health care. The nation has some means-tested programs, like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which are designed to alleviate poverty, some earned-benefit programs, like Social Security, which are designed to replace earnings, and some universal benefits, like public parks, freeways, and the police, which are designed to safeguard and improve the lives of all of us.
As much as the American image is one of individualism, virtually all Americans recognize the importance of some communal activities. While Americans differ about whether there should be a military draft, virtually everyone accepts the need for a military paid for collectively. Similarly, public libraries, local fire departments, and public roads and bridges are all seen as public goods appropriately paid for with tax dollars and available to all of us.
With health insurance so tied to employment, it often has to be earned – but it shouldn’t. Having guaranteed high-quality health insurance with no out-ot-pocket costs as a benefit to all Americans is what it means for it to be a right, not a privilege.
It is important to be especially aware of how this subtle attack on national health insurance paid through taxes is perceived not just by Medicare beneficiaries but also by union members. Many unionized workers have been successful in negotiating for excellent health insurance. To obtain the plans, the workers generally had to trade away higher cash compensation. Consequently, it is not surprising that they are reluctant to give them up.
The message to the workers is that, as excellent as their current plans may be, the new coverage will be even better. Union members should be assured, and the Improved Medicare for All legislation should require, that their employers continue to pay what they have been paying in total compensation. Instead of paying that compensation in the form of health care premiums to health insurance corporations, though, the payments will now be in the form of increased current compensation and non-health care benefits.
A related fear tactic to the claim that current Medicare beneficiaries, union members, and others will be worse off is for opponents to tell you that you will lose your current health insurance. The implication is that either it won’t be replaced or the replacement will leave you worse off. It is effective not because people so love their current health insurance, but because the fear of losing even the inadequate coverage you may now have is literally a matter of life and death. It is a classic deployment of people’s aversion to loss. It is another tactic aimed at division.
As a related matter, opponents seek to play on the fear of loss by emphasizing that people will lose choice. Importantly, the choice that people will lose is trivial – to which insurance company their hard-earned money goes.
Most Americans will gain choice in what matters: who their health providers will be. Indeed, Improved Medicare for All will improve people’s ability to get the care they want from the doctors and hospitals they want anywhere in the country and ensure continuity of care.
Another way that opponents have sought to turn people away from Improved Medicare for All is with a sleight of hand. They emphasize that federal expenses will increase resulting in increased taxes or borrowing. Indeed, this same sleight of hand is used to convince too many Americans that today’s Medicare is unaffordable. By focusing on the money going into the government’s coffers and out to providers, opponents seek to convince Americans that Improved Medicare for All will produce “big government,” which is somehow scary and negative.
The truth is that in the modern world, no one is truly opposed to “big” government; it is just that progressives and conservatives have different views of what a big, powerful, modern government should do. Conservatives want a big government military and a big brother government, limiting what women can do with their own bodies, what schools can teach, what museums can display, what kind of gender-affirming care parents, doctors, and children can utilize, how immigrants should be treated, and so on. Progressives want all of us, collectively through government, to ensure every American has economic security in the form of expanded Social Security, health care as a matter of right, a living wage, and more.
If the nation once again has a truly progressive tax system, we can have much greater economic security for everyone. If multimillionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations were simply required to pay their fair share and the revenue raised dedicated to Improved Medicare for All, that would be sufficient to cover the costs. Even if some revenue were to come from working families, though, their out-of-pocket costs would be considerably lower than today. It is just that the payments would go to the federal government, rather than UnitedHealthcare and other private health insurance companies.
At base, the issue isn’t big government versus small government or increased taxes. It is one of values. That is what supporters should emphasize. Not only will Improved Medicare for All cost less, the money will be spent more productively. Instead of wasteful time spent on the phone appealing denials and seeking pre-authorizations, most of the monies will be spent on paying doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
Another fear tactic is to selectively point to other countries and claim that the quality of care will decrease, at least for the very wealthy, and people will have to wait for inordinately long periods of time for basic care. Importantly, both parts of that framing are untrue. They are both well-cultivated myths. As many people know, the United States is worse than its counterparts in terms of health care outcomes and affordability of care. What is generally not known is that it measures around average or worse in terms of timeliness of care.
The truth is that wait times to see a primary care doctor or a specialist vary among countries that have mandatory, universal health care plans, as do wait times for urgent and non-urgent surgery. Some are longer wait times than patients experience in the United States and some are shorter. Indeed, doctors in other countries are much better at providing care after hours and even make house calls!
What is of legitimate concern are the people who will lose their jobs as our health care system becomes more efficient. That is an issue that proponents of Improved Medicare for All must address. Indeed, proponents not only recognize this responsibility; they include, in their Improved Medicare for All proposals, ways to address it.
Every single job loss is generally a destabilizing event for working families. it is essential that the workers who are displaced are properly treated. Systematic, planned, and consistent outreach should be made to those workers.
One way to alleviate the many fears and concerns that Roosevelt’s “tyrants” are sure to exploit is through an incremental approach, so that Americans will see that they are no worse off, and, in fact, are better off, when Medicare is improved and expanded. Ideally, the incremental steps should combine expansion to additional groups with improvements for current beneficiaries. In that way, current beneficiaries will see clearly the advantage to them. As more Americans receive the benefit, along with an active campaign to assure people additional expansions will leave them better off, not worse off, this natural fear of change should dissipate, and support for expansion increase, like a snowball rolling down a snowy hill.
As long as the final destination remains in mind and is continually invoked, steps that are truly along the way help, but supporters must be wary of disguised alternatives and incremental steps that will hurt the effort. Numerous polls reveal that Medicare for All is an extremely popular idea. Unfortunately, those who oppose the idea of Improved Medicare for All or simply don’t completely understand its striking advantages, have put forward proposals that are decidedly not Improved Medicare for All and, indeed, would not lead us to our desired destination.
The far right is not the only source of these similar-sounding alternatives. Some Democrats have advanced these confusing alternatives. They do so, while seeking to persuade supporters that Improved Medicare for All is not practical, not politically realistic. The assertion that Improved Medicare for All is somehow not able to be enacted may be simply a misguided perception, or it may be a product of the work of the monied interests. In either event, it is destructive and must be taken seriously.
At base, advocates must be wary of steps that appear to point in the right direction, but carry significant risks of derailing the effort. Anything short of a universal, mandated Improved Medicare for All has to be clearly understood as simply a stop along the way, not the final destination. That final destination cannot have an opt in or an opt out, nor include a competing commercial alternative. Just as Social Security is and indeed must be mandatory and virtually universal to work so well, Improved Medicare for All must be, also.
An important lesson from history is that even when victory is achieved, particularly if the victory is incremental, the fight continues. It should be celebrated. It should not be seen, though, that the fight is over. The enactments of Social Security and Medicare were hard fought. Once they were well established and popular, the monied interests sought to prevent their expansion and undermine them from within. Indeed, there are many who today seek to undermine public education with vouchers and charter schools, illustrating that these fights never end.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Pro-Israel Group Condemned for Demanding UK Ban on Doctors Without Borders
"Support for Israel requires you to be against everything good in this world, like an organization which sends doctors to conflict areas to save human lives," said one observer.
Sep 13, 2026
Doctors Without Borders on Saturday condemned allegations made by a British pro-Israel lobby group, which called on Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to investigate and potentially proscribe the group, whose medical providers and other humanitarian workers provide lifesaving aid in 70 countries and have worked in Palestine during Israel's assault there.
As The Telegraph reported, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKFLI) wrote to Mahmood as well as the Charity Commission and Fundraising Regulator, calling on the Labour government to investigate Doctors Without Borders, also known by its French name, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).
The group claimed at least two of MSF's workers who were killed by Israeli forces, physiologist Fadi Al Wadiya and driver Nasser Hamdi Abdelatif Al Shalfouh, had connections to terrorist groups in Gaza.
Palestine Islamic Jihad published a poster earlier this year naming Wadiya as a "martyr commander," and UKFLI claimed Al Shalfouh was a sniper for a Hamas battalion.
MSF acknowledged the poster regarding Wadiya in February and said the medical group "had no indication that Fadi Al Wadiya might have been involved in military activity of any kind prior to his killing by the Israeli Forces."
“If the Israeli authorities had any reliable information about Fadi’s involvement in military activity, they never shared it with MSF either prior to his killing or when we reached out immediately after he was killed to ask for clarifications around the circumstances of his death," the group added. “We would never knowingly employ people engaging in military activity. Any employee who engages in military activity would pose a danger to our staff and patients.”
UKFLI sent its report on MSF to Mahmood asking her to ban the group, as the Labour government proscribed the protest group Palestine Action last year, labeling it a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act. The government took that action after members of the group vandalized planes at a military base.
The designation put Palestine Action on the same legal footing as Al Qaeda in the UK and made membership of the group—or even expressions of support for it—punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The demand for the same designation for MSF, said former British Army general Charlie Herbert, was "absolutely grotesque."
MSF doctors and healthcare workers have treated thousands of Palestinians in Gaza since Israel began its onslaught there in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack. At least 15 people working with the organization have been killed by Israeli forces. The group is also currently providing humanitarian and medical aid in Sudan as the civil war there has displaced millions of people and collapsed the healthcare system; in Yemen as the conflict between the Houthis and Saudi-backed government troops has escalated; and in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is facing an Ebola outbreak as well as humanitarian crises exacerbated by years of conflict.
"I work in aid, and when people ask who to support I always say MSF," said researcher and activist Philip Proudfoot. "MSF, wherever I’ve been, are right there on the front, in dangerous conditions, in isolated outposts, providing life-saving support. They’re heroes. UK lawyers for Israel are not fit to wash their scrubs."
US-based researcher Shaiel Ben-Ephraim said the report by UKLFI demonstrates that "support for Israel requires you to be against everything good in this world, like an organization which sends doctors to conflict areas to save human lives."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Advocates Say Benefit Cuts by Medicare Advantage Giants Highlight 'Dysfunction' of For-Profit System
"It is well past time that the United States joins the rest of the industrialized world and treats healthcare as a right, not a privilege, by improving traditional Medicare and expanding it to everyone."
Sep 11, 2026
News that top Medicare Advantage insurers are moving to cut benefits and drop some plans entirely in a bid to boost their profitability came as no surprise to critics of the for-profit US health insurance system, which enriches giant companies and their executives while leaving tens of millions of people in the lurch.
In recent public remarks, executives at Humana and UnitedHealthcare—two of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers in the US—have indicated that the companies plan to exit certain geographic markets and implement other changes deemed necessary to drive "margin expansion," corporate-speak for profits. The changes by the two companies are expected to impact more than a million seniors who receive coverage through the insurers' Medicare Advantage plans, which are privately run but funded by taxpayer dollars.
Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy and a former Cigna executive, told Common Dreams that companies like Humana and UnitedHealthcare "have long made clear they answer to their shareholders, not those they insure."
"These companies are not really in the healthcare business, they are in the business of making money for their shareholders and their executives," said Potter, who now advocates for a Medicare for All system. "They will cut any corner, deny any care, and cut any patient if it helps increase their bottom line."
UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare's parent company, reported $5.5 billion in profit during the second quarter of 2026, up from $3.4 billion the same time last year. Humana reported $694 million in second-quarter profits.
Recent research led by Mark Meiselbach, a healthcare economist at Johns Hopkins University estimates that "approximately one in 10 beneficiaries in HMO or PPO Medicare Advantage plans will be forced to disenroll from their current plan due to their plan exiting the market" this year. That amounts to around 3 million seniors who will be forced to find a different plan or switch to traditional Medicare during the open enrollment period, which begins next month.
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works and author of The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action, told Common Dreams that "misleadingly-named Medicare 'Advantage,' together with all private health insurance, is why our nation’s healthcare system is so dysfunctional."
"It mixes healthcare with the motive to make a profit, resulting in the most expensive system in the industrialized world with the worst health outcomes," said Altman. "The recent announcements by UnitedHealthcare and Humana that they plan to exit markets and cut benefits is just one symptom of the dysfunction."
"It is well past time that the United States joins the rest of the industrialized world and treats healthcare as a right, not a privilege, by improving traditional Medicare and expanding it to everyone," said Altman.
A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis published in July found that federal spending per Medicare Advantage enrollee "is projected to be 7% higher, on average," than spending on traditional Medicare over the next 10 years.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted that the CBO's analysis "suggests the federal government will spend about $1 trillion on MA overpayments over the next decade." Medicare Advantage plans are notorious for making patients appear sicker than they actually are, reaping larger federal payments.
President Donald Trump pledged during remarks earlier this week to the Republican midterm convention that his administration would "end all payments to big health insurance companies."
But Potter noted that Trump's administration is set to shell out over $13 billion in payments to Medicare Advantage plans this year along.
"If Trump were serious about lowering healthcare costs," Potter told Common Dreams, "he'd break up the monopolies and the for-profit healthcare system."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump's $500 Healthcare Rebate Plan Called 'An Absolute Joke' as Premiums Skyrocket
"At a time when people are scraping by to keep up with the high cost of groceries, rent, and healthcare, this $500 gimmick won’t even begin to dig them out of the hole that Trump and Republicans created."
Sep 11, 2026
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration would issue $500 rebate checks to some Americans who were purportedly "overcharged" under the Affordable Care Act, a move that would provide little to no relief to the millions of people impacted by surging health insurance premiums.
The White House said in a fact sheet that around a million Americans in 30 states would receive rebate checks, beginning next month—just weeks before the November midterms. Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, ripped the rebate plan as "an absolute joke," calling $500 "a drop in the bucket compared to what Americans are paying because Trump and Republicans gutted healthcare to bankroll massive tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations."
Woodhouse was referring to a Republican budget measure, signed into law last summer by Trump, that enacted more than $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade.
The GOP also declined last year to extend enhanced ACA subsidies that helped reduce costs for tens of millions of Americans, sending premiums skyrocketing. Some families have seen annual premium increases in the thousands of dollars, leading many to drop marketplace coverage entirely. ACA premiums are set to surge by double digits for a second consecutive year in 2027.
"At a time when people are scraping by to keep up with the high cost of groceries, rent, and healthcare, this $500 gimmick won’t even begin to dig them out of the hole that Trump and Republicans created," said Woodhouse.
The White House said ACA enrollees who "do not receive premium assistance" and who live in states that "use the federal exchange for the operations of their Obamacare markets" would be eligible for a rebate check, meaning the payments would disproportionately benefit enrollees with higher incomes in red states.
"The vast majority of ACA enrollees won't get $500 from the Trump administration, including: those who still get premium subsidies, though what they're paying has gone up a lot with expiration of enhanced tax credits. And, those in mostly blue states that run their own exchanges," noted Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. "There are 19.2 million ACA enrollees. The Trump administration is talking about sending $500 rebate checks to fewer than one million of them."
Policy experts disputed the Trump administration's claim that Americans were "overcharged" due to the Biden administration's "gross mismanagement" of the ACA. As The Associated Press reported:
Cynthia Cox, a vice president and director of the ACA program at the healthcare research nonprofit KFF, said it’s entirely possible that the funds Trump has promised came from fees collected during Trump’s first term. His first administration collected more user fees from insurers than it spent, resulting in an estimated $1 billion in unspent funds, according to KFF analysis.
It is unclear whether the $500 rebate represents what each enrollee may have overpaid, where the money for the rebates would come from, and whether it requires congressional approval for disbursement.
The White House's rebate check pledge came as Trump also vowed to send $5,000 to every American adult if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the November midterms, a promise that was widely derided.
"The 'Trump dividends' scam is just Trump’s latest attempt to distract the country from the Republican affordability crisis," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "Trump promised he would lower prices, and instead he keeps mashing the 'make stuff more expensive button.' The American people will not be fooled."
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy