5
#000000
#FFFFFF
healthcare
Democratic Domination of Midterms Sparks Hope for Medicare for All
"Affordability was top of mind for voters last night, and within that, healthcare is an enormous driver."
Nov 04, 2026
"WHO WANTS MEDICARE FOR ALL?"
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked that question, in all caps, on social media late Tuesday as he won reelection and joined others from his party in trouncing President Donald Trump's Republicans across the country, securing majorities in both chambers of Congress thanks to voters frustrated by an affordability crisis under a GOP trifecta.
Although some races haven't yet been called, and key Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New Yorker likely to become the next speaker, don't support shifting the United States to a universal public healthcare system, the Democratic "tsunami" on Tuesday still revived hope that the results could help the fight for Medicare for All.
Democrats reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives after Trump and congressional Republicans last year used their budget package, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to slash Medicaid spending and allow Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire—which has already led to millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage.
The wave of Democratic wins also came nearly five months after a coalition of over 325 organizations argued that "now is the time to organize" for Medicare for All, given that "we may face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate on healthcare in 2029."
While—as the coalition suggested—passing federal Medicare for All legislation would likely require not only a Democrat-controlled Congress but also replacing Trump with a progressive president in 2028, the midterm results are still being seen by voters and elected officials alike as "a mandate to deliver big change" over the next two years.
"Wins by progressive candidates will jumpstart a national discussion of Medicare for All," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. "Medicare for All isn't going to pass in the next two years. But, newly prominent advocates will have a platform to make sure it's part [of] the discussion, carrying through to the 2028 primaries."
Even without support from party leaders and the White House, Democrats may still push for congressional hearings or even votes on single-payer policies before the 2028 elections.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the House, told Punchbowl News this week that she wants to mark up the bill next year and fight for a vote on the floor: "I want to make sure we have the requisite number of co-sponsors, and I’m hoping that our leadership is part of helping to make that happen."
As Forbes reported:
Several Democrats who won seats in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives made Medicare for All or a public option key parts of their winning campaigns. Such ideas will likely get more airtime now that Democrats control both houses of Congress in a rebuke of Trump administration policies that have slashed healthcare spending.
Exactly what form a "public option" would take [is] unclear, but such a choice being offered to Americans alongside private and existing health insurance coverage would seem more achievable than replacing the existing health insurance system with Medicare for All.
The American Prospect pointed out that Medicare for All supporters who emerged victorious on Tuesday include Rep.-elects Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York's 7th, 10th, and 13th districts, along with "Democratic Georgia state Rep. Dr. Jasmine Clark, who won more than 81% of the vote to represent Georgia's 13th District; Democrat Melat Kiros, who beat nearly 30-year incumbent Republican US Rep. Diana DeGette to represent Colorado's 1st District; and Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George, who will be Washington, DC’s first new mayor in more than a decade."
Among the victors in the US Senate were Democrats Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan and Troy Jackson of Maine, also both vocal backers of Medicare for All. Jayapal highlighted that "Abdul was up against millions of dollars in dark money from Republican donors—and today Michigan voters sent a clear message that their state and their votes are not for sale."
"Abdul ran a strong campaign on Medicare for All, refused corporate [political action committee] money, and stayed focused on working families from day one to Election Day," she added. "I am so proud to have stood with him throughout his campaign and I cannot wait to work with him in Washington to deliver for you."
From leading a border blockade to protect loggers' wages, to the state legislature and President of the Maine Senate, Troy has spent his life fighting for working Mainers. We look forward to organizing with Sen.-elect Jackson to pass Medicare For All and secure a federal right to abortion.
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) November 4, 2026 at 1:01 AM
The leading voice for Medicare for All in the upper chamber, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), worked to elect both El-Sayed and Jackson, as well as several leftist House candidates who won. He wrote on social media Wednesday that "last night saw some of the greatest progressive victories in modern American history. All across the country, in rural and urban areas, Americans said NO to oligarchy, and YES to an agenda that fights for the working class."
Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, is expected to chair the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions when the party takes over in January, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), another Medicare for All backer, will likely lead the Finance Committee, as STAT Washington correspondent John Wilkerson noted Wednesday—predicting that "the wins that Democrats amassed on Tuesday night could breathe life into efforts to create some type of a single-payer system."
Yale University researchers estimated in August that Sanders' related legislative proposal could save over 114,000 lives and $1 trillion annually. In response to those findings, the senator said that "at a time when 15 million Americans are being thrown off the healthcare they have and 20 million Americans have already seen their premiums double, on average, as a result of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' we need Medicare for All now more than ever."
A KFF survey released last month found that 66% of Americans—including 84% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 34% of Republicans—support Medicare for All, the highest level of support since the organization began tracking the proposal.
Sharing KFF data on how the average US family's health insurance premium has soared over the past quarter-century, The Tennessee Holler declared on social media Wednesday: "Medicare for All. Now. We can't afford not to do it. It isn't radical to support it. It's radical to oppose it."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump to End Reproductive Health Protections for Working Women After Midterms
"It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job," said one reproductive health advocate, "which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out."
Nov 03, 2026
In addition to renewing its war on abortion rights, the Trump administration is planning to roll back workplace protections for women dealing with a range of reproductive health conditions after Tuesday's midterm elections.
The New York Times reported on Monday, citing several people familiar with the plans, that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was prepared to rewrite regulations issued under the 2022 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
Signed by then-President Joe Biden, the bipartisan law was meant to fill in gaps in civil rights legislation that left pregnant women and others with reproductive health concerns at risk of being denied basic accommodations like bathroom and water breaks, exemptions from heavy lifting on the job, and time off for prenatal appointments.
The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with limitations due to “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” language that has existed in antidiscrimination law for nearly half a century.
In 2024, the Biden administration enacted a rule interpreting the law to cover a wide range of conditions and procedures related to women’s reproductive health—including fertility treatments, abortion, and menstruation.
President Donald Trump’s EEOC, led by Andrea Lucas, a conservative employment lawyer, is reportedly leading the effort to narrow the scope of the rule.
In her dissent from the final rule, Lucas argued that it “errs in conflating pregnancy and childbirth accommodation with accommodation of the female sex, that is, female biology and reproduction.”
Republicans have objected to the rule’s requirement to accommodate workers seeking abortions. A federal judge in Louisiana struck down the rule’s requirement to accommodate elective abortions last year, though protections for other reproductive health conditions remained in place.
But Lucas’ argument went far beyond abortion. She said the law should exclude infertility and in vitro fertilization (IVF), menstruation and menopause, hormonal conditions, lactation-related conditions, contraception and its side effects, and other reproductive health issues she considered unrelated to pregnancy or immediate postpartum recovery.
According to the Times, Lucas is expected to shorten the list of “related medical conditions” covered by the rule and expand religious exemptions, which could allow employers to refuse accommodations they deem incompatible with their beliefs.
In May, 15 Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), sent a letter urging Lucas to abandon plans to scrap accommodations for workers undergoing IVF. They noted that Trump had dubbed himself “the fertilization president” and pledged to increase access to fertility treatments.
The senators, including Duckworth, who conceived her two daughters through IVF, described it as an intensive process with “serious impacts on women’s lives.” Treatment can involve daily injections, regular blood draws and ultrasounds, and egg retrieval and embryo transfer procedures that cannot easily be rescheduled. Side effects can include nausea, vomiting, and fatigue.
"The current regulation explicitly protects the right of workers undergoing IVF to request reasonable accommodations like short breaks to take medication, a schedule that accommodates daily monitoring appointments and medical procedures, or even access to a chair," the lawmakers said. "Removing them from this rule does not change the fact that these workers are owed these protections, but it does make it more likely that employers will illegally deny women undergoing IVF their rights under PWFA."
The EEOC is reportedly holding off on the changes until after the election. The US Department of Justice is also waiting until then to step up efforts to restrict access to abortion pills, potentially even in states where abortion is legal, according to reporting last month.
On Tuesday, Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said, “It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job, which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out.”
"Today’s elections," she added, "are a crucial opportunity to establish checks on a corrupt administration that continues to leave pregnant workers and working families behind.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Voting Is an Act of Care for What Matters
Our right to have a say in what comes next is on the line. We have an opportunity to demand a future that puts our families and caregivers first.
Nov 03, 2026
This country depends on caregivers, but too often it fails the very people holding our families and communities together. As we head into the midterms, we have the chance to make our voices heard on the policies that affect our lives and families’ futures.
A 2025 AARP and National Alliance for Caregiving survey found that 63 million Americans identify as caregivers—nearly 50% more than the decade prior. That’s millions of people raising children, caring for aging parents, supporting loved ones with disabilities, all while balancing that labor with jobs and bills of their own. Caregiver needs and experiences deserve to be represented in the decisions we make at the ballot box.
Both of us are parents (one of us is a mother to six beautiful children and leads an advocacy organization and the other is a father and maternal health advocate).
Caregivers deserve a voice in the decisions that shape our lives, but exercising that right can be difficult when we’re already stretched thin.
We understand personally and professionally that the burden of caregiving is not shared equally, that mamas are expected to do more with less. There is an absolute need for fathers to do more as engaged parents. Black mamas make up nearly 40% of caregivers in the US. Yet, Black women continue to die from pregnancy-related causes at three times the rate of our white counterparts. When mothers lack support, the whole family feels it.
These inequities are not inevitable. They reflect decisions about whose health, time, and communities our systems prioritize—and whose needs are overlooked. Those priorities are shaped by the people we elect as leaders and the policies they enact.
As we head into the midterm elections, we cannot afford to let confusion, misinformation, or intimidation efforts stop us from making our voices heard. For parents and caregivers, these are not abstract policy fights. They are about whether we have a say in the decisions that determine our access to affordable childcare, quality healthcare, and the support we deserve.
That’s what we mean when we say care is on the ballot this November. Our right to have a say in what comes next is on the line. We have an opportunity to demand a future that puts our families and caregivers first.
Care is about more than what happens in a doctor’s office. It is whether we can afford groceries, find childcare, and take time off for a sick loved one. It is whether moms receive support before, during, and after pregnancy, and whether dads have the resources to be the parents they want to be. And it is whether our children have the tools they need to not only survive, but thrive.
From pregnancy through postpartum, care should be full-spectrum, comprehensive, and supportive. It should protect maternal health, provide direct cash during and after pregnancy, offer support to fathers, and help care for our kids while we work to put food on the table.
Caregivers deserve a voice in the decisions that shape our lives, but exercising that right can be difficult when we’re already stretched thin. We should not have to navigate a maze just to exercise our right to vote while juggling the demands of caring for our families. And we cannot hold elected officials accountable if we are shut out of the process.
Yet, changing voting rules are making it harder to understand when, where, and how to cast a ballot. From new mail-in voting shifts and voter ID requirements to redistricting efforts and the gutting of federal protections under the Voting Rights Act, these changes create additional uncertainty for busy families and caregivers—especially Black voters and other historically marginalized communities who have long faced barriers to the ballot. We cannot allow these barriers to deepen or history to repeat itself.
Every eligible voter deserves to cast a ballot free from intimidation, with confidence that their vote is private, and that their voice will be counted. Our democracy works best when everyone has a free and fair chance to participate.
Moms and dads alike know what it takes to care for what matters. Now is the time to bring the same determination to the ballot box.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Fools Gold: The Mirage of the Public Option
The public option is a fantasy solution for real healthcare problems that only single payer can solve.
Nov 02, 2026
Americans are discouraged about the state of healthcare in the United States. The “Public Option” has again emerged as a possible solution to our healthcare woes.
What Is the “Public Option”?
There are several different proposals labelled as being “the public option” but, at its core, the public option is a health insurance plan that would be placed side-by-side and would also compete with commercial health insurance offerings, for example on the Obamacare exchanges. While the “public” in public option suggests a Medicare-type administration structure, the public option in some formulations would actually be administered by private insurers.
The public option stands in stark contrast to single-payer plans which cover everyone and eliminate private insurance plans entirely. Single-payer plans are often termed Medicare-for-All and, critically, are based on Medicare rather than on Medicare Advantage plans which tend to be run by private insurers.
Healthcare 2026
Americans had already been dissatisfied with the affordability of health insurance and healthcare in recent years, but the passage of H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” has brought additional pain to Americans. This is due, in part, to the failure of H.R. 1 to extend healthcare subsidies that had previously been in place for individuals and families in the Exchanges. The full toll of H.R. 1 is not yet visible, but marketplace enrollment has dropped in 41 states. For example, North Carolina and Ohio saw declines of 22% and 20%, respectively.
Who Is Exploring or Promoting the Public Option?
Washington state and Colorado have both created public option experiments, and these experiments have not been very successful in lowering premiums or enrolling significant numbers of people.
Democratic politicians (including Washington Sen. Patty Murray) have touted the public option. Presidential candidate Joe Biden, an opponent of single payer, floated the public option. There is a center created at Georgetown University in 2022 with the explicit option of assisting policy makers in exploring the public option. A number of conservative groups have urged Republican legislators to support the creation of the public option.
How Can We Judge Plans for Healthcare Reform?
Reforms aimed at reversing the healthcare in the US can be judged by examining the extent to which plans fulfill the following criteria: Does the proposed solution
- Cover everyone;
- Lower costs;
- Reduce healthcare disparities; and
- Enable negotiations for healthcare necessities, such as pharmaceuticals?
Would the public option work?
Based on the four criteria outlined above, the public option fails to provide meaningful reform.
- Covering Everyone: The public option would not automatically cover people who are presently uninsured. More people could be covered if and only if the system would be economically sustainable. There is a real risk that private insurers could divert high-cost patients to the public option thus increasing, over time, the challenge of funding the public option. The vulnerability of the public option to adverse selection could cause the public option to enter a financial death spiral.
- Lowering Costs: The public option leaves the current commercial health insurance system in place, and thus a key driver of costs in our current system would remain completely unaddressed. Health insurance plans have much higher administrative overhead (12-18%) than classic Medicare (2%).
- Reducing Healthcare Disparities: Because the public option would merely add another insurance plan to an already complicated medical landscape and because the public option won’t cover everyone, it is unlikely that access and disparities would be effectively addressed.
- Enabling Negotiations: Pharmaceuticals are presently key drivers of healthcare costs. This is, in part, because prices for drugs are controlled by for-profit companies, beholden to shareholders, who have free rein to set prices. In order to have the necessary leverage to force pharmaceutical companies to negotiate, a plan would have to cover all or most US residents. Polls show that Americans would be enthusiastic about this aspect of single-payer plans, even if it would eliminate most private insurance and raise taxes.
Health insurance companies provide NO actual healthcare services on their own. The widely accepted theory is that these companies control healthcare costs by means of gatekeeping, but these companies actually add to healthcare costs by creating an expensive insurance workforce that Americans pay for with premiums. Private insurance also installs a costly workforce in hospitals and doctors’ offices that is dedicated to dealing with and defending against the challenges created by the health insurance companies. These costs are ultimately borne by patients.
Insurance companies are savvy and constantly alter their coverage rules and processes with an eye to maximizing their bottom lines. These companies also try to attract patients who won’t cost them too much and shed those who are expensive. This latter tendency can be expected to persist under a public option system and could doom the entire project (see above).
Because the public option would graft another insurance plan on to an already complicated and expensive coverage system, the public option will not heal and can worsen our healthcare landscape by delaying definitive solutions and by damping enthusiasm for genuine effective reform.
Is There a Plan That Has the Potential to Satisfy the Four Criteria?
The obvious solution is to remove the health insurance companies from the mix and join the rest of the industrialized Western world in enacting a single-payer system. Returning to the criteria used (above) to measure the public option, a single-payer system would
- Cover everyone;
- Lower costs;
- Reduce healthcare disparities, and
- Foster negotiations for healthcare necessities, such as pharmaceuticals.
In a nutshell, this is because a single-payer system refers to a common coverage system that covers everyone equally and whose administration is modelled on classic Medicare. This universal coverage would allow for real negotiating power.
If the Public Option Isn’t an Effective Reform, Why Do Politicians Promote This Plan?
The public option bobs to the surface again and again as a possible solution and a putative viable alternative to a single-payer program as it allows politicians to express concerns about healthcare in a way that does not threaten campaign contributions from insurance companies and Big Pharma.
In so doing, these various advocates have often portrayed single payer as “too radical” or “too impractical” to merit serious consideration
I can credibly be accused of being favorably disposed to single payer. The Mercatus Institute cannot. When this libertarian, Koch-funded, free-market-oriented organization set out to study the cost of a single-payer health system, their data did not discredit the economics of single payer but instead provided evidence that single-payer policies would lower healthcare costs.
In contrast to the views of politicians, ordinary Americans in increasing numbers are reporting that they are in favor of single-payer plans and are dissatisfied both with the cost of coverage and the barriers to care embodied in current health insurance coverage. Tellingly, when even Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark (an organization staffed by former Republicans) gives single payer consideration and predicts movement in the direction of single payer, one can argue that the current healthcare crisis may be creating an increased appetite for meaningful change.
Fool’s Gold
The public option cannot fix our healthcare woes. Moreover, adopting this “solution” has the potential to cause further damage to our healthcare mess. A public option is highly likely to prove fiscally unworkable. The failure of this shiny object to address the very real pain Americans are experiencing will delay consideration of solutions that can work. And, critically, a failure of the public option has the potential to extinguish a collective will to do the hard work of creating a healthcare system that works for all of us.
Keep Reading
Show Less
I Swore an Oath to Serve and Protect—the President and ICE Betrayed Theirs
The Trump administration's priorities are all wrong: We want our veterans to have healthcare, our local hospitals to stay open, and our first responders to help in emergencies, not more reckless and poorly trained federal agents on our streets.
Oct 31, 2026
Since President Donald Trump took the oath of office for a second time, he got to work helping billionaires get richer, while families across southern Minnesota are stretched thin. They’ve struggled to feed their families, fill their gas tank, and pay for their healthcare. Instead of taking action to lower costs, Trump and federal officials invaded our communities and used our tax dollars to fund mass deportations.
As a United States Army and Military Police Corps veteran, I know what it means to uphold an oath to serve and protect. What I can’t understand is betraying that oath, which is what our president and too many leaders have done. That’s why I was especially angered learning how much we stand to lose because of these federal deportation policies, according to a new cost calculator. Across southern Minnesota. $374 million of our taxes, or $1,520 per taxpayer, could continue funding the mass deportations. Knowing that our tax dollars are fueling this, while we are getting by with less, makes me sick.
I dedicated my career to our country, serving 32 years in the criminal justice system as a deputy sheriff, a jail administrator, consultant trainer, and policy writer for the National Institute of Corrections. As a former administrator, I know the cost of public safety, the value of every taxpayer dollar, and right from wrong.
When the Trump administration chooses to spend $374 million on ICE operations, that decision takes money away from programs that can improve the lives of folks in southern Minnesota.
The actions from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection officers during “Operation Metro Surge” and the subsequent Department of Homeland Security proceedings should sicken every law enforcement and correctional officer who takes pride in upholding the law. Not since the insurrection on January 6, 2021 have I been so angry and disillusioned with our government. Our country watched as public servants who swore an oath condemned the attacks of January 6. But after a corrupt president pressured them, too many of our leaders changed their tune, blurred the lines between right and wrong, and seemingly forgot their oath entirely. Watching “Operation Metro Surge” resurfaced feelings of disappointment, disgust, and betrayal of trust I hadn’t felt since January 6.
Officers depriving anyone of their civil rights, including due process, is wrong.
Officers brandishing firearms without articulable cause is wrong.
Officers detaining people without the ability to communicate with legal counsel within a reasonable amount of time is wrong.
And forcing working Minnesotans to pay for this chaos is wrong.
When the Trump administration chooses to spend $374 million on ICE operations, that decision takes money away from programs that can improve the lives of folks in southern Minnesota. That’s 6,900 veterans who won't get their medical care paid for. That’s 1,260 teachers in our public schools and 2,053 firefighters in our communities.
These numbers, while disturbing, are consistent when it comes to how Donald Trump harms working families. The president’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” slashed the budget for lifesaving programs like Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to provide massive tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations. While CEOs pick out their newest vacation home, more people have to forgo doctor’s visits to cover their electricity bill or car payment.
These priorities are all wrong. We want our veterans to have healthcare, our local hospitals to stay open, and our first responders to help in emergencies, not more reckless and poorly trained federal agents on our streets.
As taxpayers, we have a responsibility to speak up when lawmakers have betrayed our trust. I encourage everyone to speak to their friends and family about how Trump will always be in the business of helping the ultra wealthy while making us pay for it.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trove of Documents Exposes Secret Palantir Role in Medicare's AI Pilot Program
"I know how much these companies prefer to keep behind closed doors," said a former insurance industry executive. "Now we're learning that Palantir has been operating behind those doors, too."
Oct 28, 2026
The software firm Palantir has drawn scrutiny and recent public ire over its role in President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign, the illegal US war in Iran, and Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.
But a trove of documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reveals that the notorious tech company's tentacles have reached into the American healthcare system—including a widely criticized Medicare pilot program that uses AI models to review requests for medical services.
The documents include an application from Zyter, a healthcare technology company that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) chose to participate in the Medicare pilot program, formally known as the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model. Zyter's application mentions that Palantir "provides mission critical software infrastructure for CMS" and other government agencies, as well as "multiple" insurance companies. Zyter uses Palantir's software infrastructure, EFF noted.
Another document states that Palantir provides "AI-driven decision-making solutions" for "federal government entities and major payer customers such as Humana, Cigna, and Blue Shield of California."
The Center for Health and Democracy Education Fund, a nonprofit group founded by former health insurance executive turned whistleblower Wendell Potter, released a report Tuesday analyzing the documents unveiled by EFF, homing in on the "previously undisclosed claims of integration of Palantir Technologies’ products by major health insurers."
"As health insurers utilize AI more frequently, they are partnering with some of the nation’s largest technology corporations. Yet many of these relationships, including the technologies being used and the purposes they serve, remain largely unknown to the public," the report observed. "Given that these partnerships already exist, health insurers should immediately release to the public all vendor agreements involving the use of patient data."
The WISeR pilot debuted this year and has so far been rolled out in New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, and Washington state. News reports and internal documents show that the program was hastily implemented and has resulted in confusion and care delays for seniors. Vendors chosen to participate in the experiment earn a percentage of the estimated value of a denied claim, which critics say creates a perverse incentive to reject insurance claims.
The Center for Health and Democracy Education Fund demanded in its new report that insurance companies "immediately release to the public all vendor agreement involving the use of patient data." Without such information, the group warned, the public will not know key information such as the extent of AI involvement in coverage decisions.
"Patients should not have to wonder whether an undisclosed algorithm influenced their coverage determination, whether their medical information was shared with an outside technology company, or whether an automated system was evaluated for accuracy before affecting their care," the report concluded. "As AI becomes increasingly integrated into health insurance, it should not be allowed to make care-altering decisions, especially when it was designed by a company driven by profit rather than patient health."
Potter, a former Cigna executive who is now a vocal critic of the private insurance industry and supporter of Medicare for All, wrote in a series of social media posts on Tuesday that "I know how much these companies prefer to keep behind closed doors."
"Now we're learning that Palantir has been operating behind those doors, too," Potter wrote. "Is Palantir's technology helping insurers decide what medical care gets approved or denied? And why are we only learning about these relationships now?"
Keep Reading
Show Less
Senators Investigate Insurance Giants for 'Quietly Colluding' With Trump to Kick People Off Healthcare
"Insurance companies chose to participate in a collaborative effort with the Trump administration to inject yet more chaos and damage into the ACA marketplace."
Oct 27, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders and a dozen of his Democratic colleagues are investigating the roles that Cigna, UnitedHealthcare, and other leading private insurance companies are playing in the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to strip health coverage from millions of Americans.
On Monday, the lawmakers sent letters to the chief executives of 10 top insurance companies demanding answers on the firms' cooperation with the Trump administration in its recent removal of around 760,000 Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollees, citing alleged fraud.
"Aligning with Republicans and their so-called ‘war on fraud,’ insurance companies chose to participate in a collaborative effort with the Trump administration to inject yet more chaos and damage into the ACA marketplace,” the senators wrote. “This year, nearly 3 million people have lost coverage while millions more are paying sky-high premiums and higher deductibles for insurance that covers less."
The lawmakers noted that the 760,000 coverage terminations "would not have been possible without the cooperation of insurance companies that have been quietly colluding with the Trump administration" for months. The senators disclosed in their letters that the ten largest insurance companies in the ACA marketplaces "received, and voluntarily complied with, a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data request designed to terminate coverage for hundreds of thousands of enrollees."
The letters characterize the CMS requests as "potentially unlawful" and take insurers to task for readily obeying the administration. The insurance companies that received letters from the senators are Cigna, UnitedHealthcare, AmeriHealth Caritas, Centene, Elevance, Florida Blue, Health Care Service Corporation, Imperial Insurance Companies, Oscar Health, and Molina Healthcare.
"Issuers, including Cigna, took specific steps to assist CMS in their efforts, including sending unsolicited communications to enrollees asking them to verify their Social Security numbers," the senators observed. "Issuers provided CMS with lists of enrollees who did not receive or respond to this unsolicited outreach asking for personally identifiable information. Those enrollees were deemed presumptively fraudulent, so-called 'phantom enrollees' and their coverage was terminated retrospectively, effective August 31, 2026."
The lawmakers added that "enrollees were identified as being subject to coverage termination based on metrics such as whether their projected income made them eligible for tax credits that cover the full premium of their plan, and whether they sought care during the 2026 plan year."
"As you know, there is no credible research or evidence in support of the longstanding Republican conspiracy theory that zero-dollar premium plans and zero-claims enrollment are reliable proxies for fraud," the senators wrote.
Analysts said in response to the administration's September announcement of mass coverage terminations that while fraud certainly exists in the ACA marketplaces, many of the people who lost coverage as part of the purge were likely enrolled legitimately. KFF Health News reported earlier this month that CMS has already "reinstated a small number of people whose coverage should not have been canceled."
"More could follow in the coming weeks if enrollees discover they are uninsured when they go to use their coverage," the outlet noted. "Overall, however, the administration is providing few details about the cancellations, such as how robust the outreach was to those it targeted, how long it takes for people to get reinstated after discovering their coverage was wrongly canceled, and how many such cancellations have been reversed."
The senators demanded answers from the 10 insurance company executives to a series of questions, including when the Trump administration first contacted them about its purported anti-fraud effort in the ACA marketplaces and what steps the firms took to ensure that eligible enrollees were not impacted.
The lawmakers contrasted the companies' voluntary cooperation with the Trump administration with their refusal to act on requests from Democrats last year to increase outreach to ACA enrollees amid relentless Republican attacks on the program.
"Insurance companies almost universally declined to perform any additional direct enrollee outreach, citing the cost and complexity associated with doing so outside the issuer renewal notice process," the senators wrote. "Issuers also expressed concern about being put at a competitive disadvantage should their enrollees choose to shop for more affordable coverage in light of rising premiums."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Former Top GOP Strategist Says It's 'Unimaginable' That US Won't Have Medicare for All Within 20 Years
"This is just a matter of how long are we going to delay this?”
Oct 26, 2026
A prominent former Republican political strategist said Monday that he believes it's just a matter of time before the United States adopts a Medicare for All universal healthcare system, citing the popularity of the program for older Americans across the political spectrum.
"Close your eyes and think about what will America be like in 20 years," Stuart Stevens—a senior strategist for Mitt Romney's failed 2012 presidential campaign—said during an MS NOW panel discussion hosted by Katy Tur. "It is unimaginable we will not have a national health plan."
"We're already the only Western country that doesn't," Stevens noted. "And this is just a matter of how long are we going to delay this?"
" Medicare is wildly popular," he said. "So you can see what the appeal of Medicare for All is."
"Why shouldn't everybody have Medicare?" Stevens asked. "I mean, it's the wealthiest country in the history of the world."
Stevens noted that the prospect of universal healthcare is "getting a tremendous response," even "from people who aren't exactly on the far left."
"So I think this is an issue that's changing," he added.
Responding to Stevens comments, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) told Common Dreams that Medicare for All will ultimately happen in the United States "because it is not just a moral imperative but makes economic sense," as study after study has shown.
"It's what will truly reduce the cost of our system," Khanna said.
A KFF survey released earlier this month found that 66% of Americans favor Medicare for All, the highest level of support since the organization began tracking the proposal. Support included 84% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 34% of Republicans—up from just 21% of Republicans in 2020.
A separate Axios-Ipsos poll, also published this month, found that 43% of Americans supported the proposal, compared with just 24% opposed, while 21% of Republicans backed it.
Multiple studies have shown that Medicare for All would save lives—and money. Most recently, researchers at Yale University estimated that implementing such a system would save over 114,000 lives annually while reducing healthcare expenditures by more than $1 billion per year.
Stevens' comments came as Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—a possible 2028 presidential candidate—said his party needs to pursue Medicare for All if it succeeds in winning control of the Senate next week.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Over a Million Seniors Sent Scrambling as Medicare Advantage Giants Slash Plans Under Trump
Medicare Advantage giants are seeking to boost their profits by cutting benefits and exiting counties across the US—despite receiving a big payment boost from the Trump administration.
Oct 26, 2026
Seniors across the United States are scrambling to find alternative health coverage as Humana, UnitedHealthcare, and other private insurance giants slash Medicare Advantage benefits and cancel some plans entirely—despite receiving a major payment increase from the Trump administration for the coming fiscal year.
Humana and UnitedHealthcare's plan cancellations are expected to impact more than 1 million seniors nationwide, forcing people to find new plans in the current open enrollment period that runs until December 7. Both companies have signaled that they are trying to boost their bottom lines by exiting unprofitable Medicare Advantage markets and cutting benefits such as routine dental coverage, which is not offered by traditional Medicare.
"My biggest challenge for picking a plan next year is the cost of dental plans and vision are going up," one Medicare Advantage enrollee told PBS last week.
The health policy nonprofit KFF noted in an analysis earlier this month Humana and UnitedHealthcare are withdrawing their Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans from more US counties than they are entering in 2027. UnitedHealthcare is exiting 228 counties and entering nine new ones, while Humana is leaving 62 counties and entering four new ones, KFF found.
Blue Cross Blue Shield is also eliminating some of its Medicare Advantage plans, which are funded by the federal government—at a massive cost to US taxpayers—and run by private companies. The Boston Globe reported on Monday that "about 20,000 seniors in Massachusetts will be forced to find new health insurance plans" due to the Blue Cross Blue Shield cuts.
In Minnesota, an analysis by the Star Tribune found that around two-thirds of state residents enrolled in Medicare Advantage—around 340,000 people—will have to find new coverage for the coming year due to private insurers' cuts.
"Fifteen counties are losing their remaining Medicare Advantage options next year. In 12 of those counties, though, insurers will sell a different kind of privatized Medicare coverage called a Cost plan," the Star Tribune reported last week. "Cost plans sell at typically higher monthly premiums than Medicare Advantage plans."
Nationwide, more than half of the Medicare-eligible population is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, which are notorious for overbilling the federal government and denying coverage for necessary care—increasingly using artificial intelligence technology.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimated in a report published earlier this year that the federal government will pay roughly $76 billion more to cover seniors on Medicare Advantage plans than it would have if those same people were on traditional Medicare. Over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Medicare Advantage overpayments could cost the federal government around $1 trillion.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration gave the Medicare Advantage industry a significant boost by hiking federal payments to private insurers by roughly 2.5%—a sizeable increase compared to the 0.9% raise that the administration previously floated. Reuters reported in April that the industry will also receive a "2.5% benefit from a change to risk assessment payments related to health status, for a total increase of about 5%."
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which announced the payment boost, is currently headed by Mehmet Oz, who once proposed a healthcare plan dubbed "Medicare Advantage for All."
The advocacy group Families USA called the 2027 payment increase for Medicare Advantage insurers "a big giveaway" that could have gone toward "bolstering benefits in Medicare for all seniors and people with disabilities."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Van Hollen Says Medicare for All Is What's Needed If Democrats Take Back the Senate
“The reality is people are facing huge increases in premiums and copays… So we need a Medicare-for-All-type solution,” Van Hollen said. “This is the kind of debate we need to have.”
Oct 26, 2026
Another possible Democratic presidential contender says the party needs to pursue “Medicare for All” as a solution to America’s healthcare crisis should the US Senate flip blue in November.
“The reality is people are facing huge increases in premiums and copays. So we need a Medicare-for-All-type solution,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in a Monday report from Politico. “This is the kind of debate we need to have.”
Van Hollen joins a list of potential 2028 hopefuls who have endorsed the idea of a single-payer healthcare system—including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who have championed the policy for years, following the lead of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also declared that he believes in “universal healthcare” and “Medicare for All” but has not yet released a concrete proposal for what his version of the policy would look like.
Van Hollen, who previously backed a public health insurance option to compete with private insurance, supported Sanders' Medicare for All bill in December as premiums were set to skyrocket after Republicans allowed enhanced Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies to expire.
He declared that Congress "must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system," pointing to the massive administrative costs and poor health outcomes under the for-profit status quo.
Medicare for All could also face a more favorable climate in the Senate than it did during the Biden presidency.
If Democrats retake the chamber this November—buoyed by promises to tackle the high costs of everything from healthcare to energy to food—Sanders is expected to once again be appointed chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Sanders led the committee from 2023-25, a time when Medicare for All lacked any chance of passing out of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
While a new Medicare for All bill would likely be routed through the Senate Finance Committee, chairing HELP would give the Vermont socialist the power to frame the debate on healthcare by holding hearings that could address problems with private insurance and launching investigations into industry practices, while making the case for a single-payer system.
In an April 2026 letter, co-signed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sanders called for a series of high-profile Senate hearings grilling insurance CEOs over rising premiums, coverage denials, executive compensation, and industry consolidation.
“The American public deserves to know why the big insurance executives... continue to get richer and richer, while over one-third of people with health insurance have been forced to skip or delay getting the care they need because of the outrageous cost,” Sanders and Wyden wrote. “It is time for our committees to hold the chief executives of the major health insurance companies accountable for their greed and to address the healthcare crisis in America."
A strong showing for Democrats in November's midterms could bring a new crop of Medicare for All supporters to Congress, such as former Detroit public health official Abdul El-Sayed and labor leader Troy Jackson, who are leading their Senate races in Michigan and Maine.
As private insurance premiums spike and millions of Americans lose coverage after the Trump administration imposed the largest federal healthcare spending cut in the nation's history, Medicare for All also has more public support than it has had in years.
A September survey by KFF found that 66% of adults said they’d favor “a national health plan in which everyone gets insurance from a single government plan.” Support came from 84% of Democrats, who’ve long backed it, as well as nearly three-quarters of independents and even just over a third of Republicans.
“If I have anything to say about it… the agenda of the Democratic Party is going to be extremely bold. It is going to take on high costs,” Sanders told Politico. “The super [political action committees] are not going to run the agenda anymore. We’re going to do what the American people want.”
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