5
#000000
#FFFFFF
healthcare
Planned Parenthood Sues Trump Admin Over Title X Funding for 'Vital Care'
The organization has "provided affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare, including birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and wellness exams to millions of people through Title X."
Jul 29, 2026
Planned Parenthood Federation of America on Wednesday sued over the Trump administration's attempt to abuse a federal program "for an overtly political and ideological agenda that is at odds with Title X's statutory purpose of funding comprehensive family planning care for those who cannot afford it."
"Title X of the Public Health Service Act is the only domestic federal program devoted solely to family planning for uninsured, underinsured, and low-income people," notes the complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, DC by lawyers at PPFA, Democracy Forward, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
After the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Population Affairs in April announced changes to how it chooses Title X grantees for the 2027-32 cycle, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania sued last month, backed by the ACLU.
The office then updated the policy earlier this month. However, as Wednesday's complaint explains, the updated version still says that "in evaluating and awarding Title X grants," the office "will consider the extent to which applicants 'advance' and 'align with' a series of political priorities."
PPFA's attorneys argued that the administration's approach is unlawful and puts the group's members "at a competitive disadvantage," which could ultimately impact people seeking care, from contraception to testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman—whose organization has repeatedly sued over Trump policies—said in a statement that "people should be able to receive the healthcare that is right for them, their lives, and their values, and that requires support for providing critically needed family planning services for people who cannot afford it."
Accusing the administration of "once again putting politics over people," she said that "the unlawful, ideologically driven changes to Title X threaten devastating consequences for lower income Americans nationwide who rely on the program for essential healthcare, including birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing."
"Title X was created so a person's income would never determine whether they could access the medically appropriate family planning care that is right for them," Perryman emphasized. "We will aggressively pursue legal action on behalf of our clients until the administration stops undermining that promise and follows the law."
Highlighting the potential impact of the administration's policy for people throughout the United States, PPFA pointed out that from October 2024 through September 2025, its health centers provided over 1.3 million Title X visits across 33 states.
"Planned Parenthood health centers have provided affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare, including birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and wellness exams to millions of people through Title X," said PPFA president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson. "We are suing the Trump administration because, yet again, it is trying to make it harder for people to get the vital care they need at Planned Parenthood."
The new lawsuit comes after Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health clinics regained access to Medicaid funding earlier this month, following the expiration of a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed last July.
The passage of that provision was a victory for forced pregnancy advocates, who have long targeted Planned Parenthood for providing abortion care. An analysis from the organization found that the "defunding" effort led to the closure of nearly 30 health centers, all of which were located in "contraceptive deserts" and two-thirds of which were in areas defined as rural, medically underserved, or experiencing health professional shortages.
The group also called the Medicaid provision a "backdoor abortion ban," noting that 64% of Planned Parenthood health center closures were in states where such care is legal, and the shuttered facilities had previously served over 10,000 abortion patients annually.
"By deliberately targeting Planned Parenthood, President Trump and his allies in Congress worsened a public health crisis, making it harder for people to get the essential and lifesaving care they needed at their trusted provider," McGill Johnson said in early July.
"Still, anti-abortion lawmakers are trying to make 'defund' permanent because Planned Parenthood health centers provide abortion care where it's legal," she stressed. "They are willing to sacrifice the lives and health of people across the country if it gets them closer to their goal of banning abortion everywhere and shutting down Planned Parenthood."
"We're in a fight for survival—not just for Planned Parenthood health centers, but for everyone to get high-quality, affordable healthcare from their trusted provider," she added. "And know this: Planned Parenthood will never stop fighting to ensure everyone can get the care they need."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Countless Seniors Will Soon Pay More': Trump Ends Subsidy for Medicare Prescription Drug Plans
"Donald Trump and Republicans are making healthcare more expensive for seniors at every turn."
Jul 29, 2026
The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would end a subsidy program that helped lower premiums for seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, a move that's expected to increase monthly costs for millions of Americans amid a broader affordability crisis.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), headed by Mehmet Oz, announced "the conclusion of the Part D Premium Stabilization Demonstration" for the coming year, just months before the start of Medicare open enrollment. Oz characterized the subsidy program as a "bailout" for insurance companies and said that "premiums will go up by less than $10 for most Medicare recipients."
But The Wall Street Journal, which reported the administration's move ahead of the public announcement, noted that nearly half of Medicare Part D plan enrollees would likely see increases "largely in the $11 to $20 range a month." The subsidy program, established in the wake of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, cut the average Part D premium by more than 25% this year.
Leslie Dach, chair of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement that President Donald Trump and his Republican allies "continue to force seniors to pay more while handing tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations."
"Trump and Republicans are making healthcare more expensive for seniors at every turn," said Dach. "In the middle of a GOP-induced affordability crisis, they are eliminating a key program that helps seniors afford their medications, meaning countless seniors will soon pay more just to get the lifesaving prescriptions they need. For older Americans living on fixed incomes, even an extra ten or twenty dollars a month can mean choosing between filling their prescription, paying the electric bill, or buying groceries. Seniors deserve lower prescription drug costs and affordable healthcare."
Around 25 million Americans are enrolled in standalone prescription drug plans through Medicare Part D, which is offered by private, Medicare-approved companies. Another 31 million Americans are enrolled in Medicare Part D via privatized Medicare Advantage plans.
Juliette Cubanski, vice president and director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the nonprofit research group KFF, wrote that standalone Medicare Part D prescription drug plans "may soon seem even less affordable" following the Trump administration's change, "leading to further enrollment growth in Medicare Advantage." (Prior to becoming head of CMS, Oz was a prominent booster of Medicare Advantage.)
Each year, millions of people across the US are forced to forgo or ration prescription medications due to high costs.
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director at the Democratic National Committee, said the Trump administration's decision to terminate the Medicare Part D subsidy program shows that the president and his party "are doing everything they can to make healthcare unaffordable for Americans, especially for seniors."
"Trump and Republicans’ massive healthcare cuts have pushed working families to the brink as they grapple with skyrocketing insurance premiums, even bigger medical bills, and rising prescription drug costs," said Witmer. "Americans are taking on record amounts of medical debt just to make ends meet—all while Trump and his family get even richer and his wealthy donors rake in tax cuts."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Is the US Ready for Radical Change?
Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou believes that radical change is difficult but still possible in today's United States, even though he realizes there is a strong anti-democratic tradition standing in the way.
Jul 28, 2026
The US is the richest country in the world, yet an international outlier on many measures. Among industrialized nations, the US spends a lower percentage of its GDP on public social expenditure, has no universal healthcare system, union density is at an all-time low, and the average American's standard of living is in decline, as "nearly half of US households can't make ends meet." Of course, delusional President Donald Trump continues to say that the US is the "hottest country in the world." Is the US, however, ready for radical change? After all, isn't there evidence that Americans are losing faith in capitalism and that socialism is gaining ground among voters?
Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou shares provocative thoughts on these issues in an interview with the French-Greek writer and journalist Alexandra Boutri. Polychroniou believes that radical change is difficult but still possible in today's United States, even though he realizes there is a strong anti-democratic tradition standing in the way and regards the Democratic Party itself as the graveyard of radical change undertakings.
Alexandra Boutri: Recent polls indicate that capitalism is in trouble in the US, as there is a growing loss of faith in the system, apparently even among Republicans, while socialism is gaining mainstream appeal. So, I want to start this interview by inquiring about your own impression regarding political and ideological trends in the United States. Indeed, is the country on the verge of radical change?
C. J. Polychroniou: I am now old enough to take any talk of radical political change with a grain of salt. That being said, there is no doubt that the US version of capitalism has been an utter failure for the majority of Americans. In contrast to European or Asian versions of capitalism, capitalism in the US has always been structured around what we might call the Sopranos version of doing business, which is the Trump administration’s way of actually running the whole country today. But Trump aside, what kind of civilized society denies its citizens access to universal healthcare, tuition-free higher education, guaranteed long-term parental leave, 4-6 weeks of guaranteed paid vacation, and robust unemployment benefits? The US does!
Only the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party stands in the way of Trump’s inevitable fall and disgrace.
The younger generations in the US seem to have awakened to the realization that the US economic system is brutal and thus detrimental to their well-being, even if they may not have an alternative socioeconomic system in mind that they would like to see instituted. They have indeed taken notice of the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world without a universal healthcare system and that the standard of living has declined to the level of developing countries. Truth be told, even if North America remains the wealthiest on average, the quality of life in many European countries, which are, of course, still fully capitalistic, is superior to the US. There are stronger social safety nets and greater work-life balance in capitalist Europe than there are in the capitalist United States of America.
Which countries are best on women’s well-being? According to the latest Women, Peace and Security Index, European countries occupy all nine of the top positions while the US ranks 31st, below countries like Serbia and Malta. So, we do need to take into account different versions of capitalism. In that context, it is safe to say that many Americans have finally awakened to the realization that the US version of capitalism sucks! Anything more than that, however, is open to speculation. Socialism is gaining ground, but the challenges of building a unified socialist movement on a national scale and having a socialist political party that can contest power at the federal level are enormous in the United States of America.
Alexandra Boutri: Is the rise of socialism in the US the reason why Trump is reviving the boogeyman of communism?
C. J. Polychroniou: Absolutely. However much of a shallow man Trump happens to be, he is nonetheless a mastermind politician who has the pulse of today’s Republican voters. He is the greatest bullshitter of the modern age, but that’s only because of his audience. He knows how to stir fear. He also knows that he can normalize cruelty because his fanatical and racist fanbase simply loves it. Have his policies worsened economic conditions in the country to the point that even some of his own followers are beginning to doubt him? He only has to raise the volume on culture wars and then becomes again, in the eyes of his own supporters, the nation’s savior. Of course, such tactics have an expiration date even for the most popular authoritarian leaders. Look, for example, at what happened to Viktor Orbán in Hungary. After 16 years in power, even his own core supporters grew tired of his cronyism and corruption. I believe we will see something similar happen to Donald Trump and to the Republican Party, perhaps as soon as this coming November, in spite of how deeply the anti-democratic tradition has entrenched itself in all branches of government. In the end, only the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party stands in the way of Trump’s inevitable fall and disgrace.
Alexandra Boutri: Are you also saying that the Democrats have been responsible for Trump’s rise to power?
C J. Polychroniou: Of course, and it was the Democrats, with their ability to destroy trust in government by siding themselves utterly and shamelessly with major corporate and financial interests, that rolled out the red carpet for Trump’s arrival on the nation’s political scene. The country had been moving further and further to the right since the early 1980s. In fact, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as moderates had been declining since the Clinton years. Democrats still talk about Bill Clinton’s achievements, such as turning deficits into surpluses and making the economy more globalized, but his policies ushered in a new era of inequality while he transformed the welfare state by ending social policy. Essentially, the welfare state was dismantled under the Clinton presidency and was largely replaced in turn by volunteerism.
Neoliberalism (embraced by both parties in the US) and cultural relativism (a late obsession of liberals and segments of the left) have been at the core of the political turn to the far right in the US. The main point, though, is that the Democrats failed to advance a meaningful alternative whenever they found themselves in power. The Obama administration also had the chance to make a meaningful impact on the future of the country but opted, instead, to align itself with the status quo on all major issues, both on the domestic and foreign front. The Biden administration did make some progress on economic policy, mainly thanks to pressures from the progressive wing of the party, but failed miserably on foreign policy. As to why Kamala Harris lost to Trump, that's an issue that will forever be debated.
Alexandra Boutri: In a recent campaign speech in Michigan, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that the Trump administration is “hellbent on tearing down in four years what it took this country 250 years to build.” What did she mean by that, and how likely is it that she will be the Democratic 2028 nominee?
C. J. Polychroniou: Naturally, the country has made progress over the past 250 years. Don’t you think it would have been unnatural if it hadn’t done so? But how do we measure progress? Wars existed in the past, and it appears that war will never end. By the same token, we have taken major steps toward protecting individuals against discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, but economic inequality is greater today than it has ever been in the modern era, while women, people of color, and minorities continue to face economic disadvantages. In any case, it is beyond dispute that Trump is destroying whatever social and economic progress has been made so far. He is a wrecking ball, an unhinged sociopath, but one who is still being treated as America's savior by something like close to 40% of voters. That’s simply mind-boggling, but it says something noteworthy about the persistence of a particular component of American political culture—one that rests on possessive individualism, anti-intellectualism, and the paranoid style. Richard Hofstadter addressed some of those aspects of American political life long before the rise of Trumpism. But we need to add racism, as it also remains a profound component of American political culture.
If popular struggles succeeded in introducing a universal healthcare system in the US, well, that would definitely constitute radical change in terms of how the nation has decided to deal with the well-being of its citizens.
I don’t know if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will decide to run for president in 2028. I hope she does. Recent polls indicate that she is more popular with Democratic voters than the likes of Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, and Kamala Harris, none of whom offers hope for a brighter future, although any one of them would be an improvement over Trump. What I do know, though, is that if AOC does decide to run for president in 2028, not only will she have at least half of the country react with extreme fear and paranoia attacks, but she will encounter massive opposition from the Democratic establishment itself. In 2016, the Democratic National Committee derided the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) campaign. I expect something similar will happen to AOC. The current leadership of the Democratic Party is the graveyard of radical change in the US.
Alexandra Boutri: What would constitute radical change in today’s United States?
C. J. Polychroniou: That’s a very important question, and I’m glad you raised it. Political, economic, and even sociocultural settings must be taken into account whenever we speak of demands for radical change. Take something like universal healthcare. Almost every country in Europe has universal coverage, and it can also be found in many countries around the world. But in the US there has always been staunch opposition to universal healthcare policies by powerful private entities like the health and insurance industries. If popular struggles succeeded in introducing a universal healthcare system in the US, well, that would definitely constitute radical change in terms of how the nation has decided to deal with the well-being of its citizens. No question about it. Radical change should not imply the transformation of a country’s entire system of government. That would constitute a revolution. Even then, we would need to distinguish between a political revolution and a social revolution. For instance, the American Revolution was a political, not social revolution. It did not alter the fabric of society; it did not change wealth distribution and left the class system intact. On the other hand, the French Revolution that began in 1789 and the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia were truly social revolutions in that they transformed property relations and changed radically the class systems in both countries.
Alexandra Boutri: Today’s left focuses too much on cultural issues without really challenging capitalism. Indeed, in the recent past, issues like multiculturalism and even certain variants of feminism have functioned like ideologies of capitalism. In addition, some segments of the left have a knack for spreading ideas that are either not well thought out or simply impractical. For instance, and I believe this also captures your own sentiments, I find talk about “degrowth” and “wealth tax” schemes that fail to address the dynamics of unfettered capital accumulation while making in addition ludicrous claims that their implementation would solve the climate crisis as rather wishy-washy responses to capitalist crises and thus by no means game-changing strategies. My question then is this: What sort of new ideas would qualify, in your view, as game changers for the contemporary capitalist environment in the United States?
C. J. Polychroniou: I have already mentioned universal healthcare. In any case, it would be rather easy for anyone, I think, to simply suggest ideas to improve the state of the US economy and to create a better society but that would be meaningless if the ideas themselves weren't accompanied by concrete steps and specific policy proposals on how to erect alternative socioeconomic arrangements. But we need expertise for that to happen. That being said, a new project has been launched by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst called Game Changers: Economic Policies for a Working America. It’s a project that was conceived of and is being directed by Gerald Epstein, a world-leading progressive economist who also happens to be PERI’s co-director. The issues addressed range from health and the environment to trade and finance. The policy briefs produced by different economists contain the sort of policy proposals that are desperately needed for rewriting the rules of the US economy in a manner that caters first and foremost to the needs and interests of American workers. I recommend everyone interested in progressive ideas on how to create a fairer, greener, and sustainable US economy to study some of the policy briefs that have been posted on PERI's website.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Lessons from Past Activist Leaders for Today’s Fights for Health and Social Justice
As the Trump administration’s crusade against democracy and our nation’s public health and healthcare systems continue, we can learn from the lives of Denise Oliver-Velez and Walt Odets.
Jul 24, 2026
Two recent deaths highlighted the importance of earlier activist leaders to struggles for health and social justice. Denise Oliver-Velez, who died on July 15, was a founder of the Young Lords Party in New York, a group that mobilized Puerto Rican and other communities to fight for their health and dignity. She also helped set the stage for alignments between movements for the rights of people of color and those focused on the rights of women.
Walt Odets, a psychologist, died on July 5th in Berkeley where he had provided therapy for gay men for decades. His activism had focused on how best to prevent AIDS and ending the stigma that this country imposes on LGBTQI people.
Their stories remind us of the important role activists play in combating injustice and reversing cruel and harmful policies. As the Trump administration’s crusade against democracy and our nation’s public health and healthcare systems continue, we can learn from these two lives lessons for today’s activists who can bring the values and passions of Oliver-Velez and Odets into the present period.
Through the campaigns she helped to organize, Oliver-Velez brought to life an alternative vision of a healthcare system that put serving people first. In 1970, the Young Lords occupied Lincoln Hospital, an underfunded, understaffed public hospital with decaying facilities and low quality of care, known in the community as the Butcher Shop. The Young Lords sent members into the hospital lobby to collect complaints from patients, which they then presented to hospital administrators. When conditions did not improve, the group occupied the hospital, winning an agreement to hire more Puerto Rican doctors committed to serving their community and to support the Lords to set up new community health and substance use programs. At a time when the city was closing public hospitals to save money, Lincoln was rebuilt and a new modern hospital was opened, in part due to persistent pressure from the Young Lords and their healthcare worker allies.
Between them, these two very different activist leaders demonstrated some of the qualities today’s activists most need to fight current threats to health and social justice.
Oliver-Velez was attracted to the Lords because they were “a puente,” a “bridge between groups, the cultural/nationalists, the Marxists, the whites, the Black and the Asians.” She also wanted to overcome the machismo that divided so many radical groups. She wrote that she and other women in the Lords “made it very clear that we were not going to be just secretaries, that we were warriors too.” Oliver, Iris Morales, and other women leaders in the Young Lords organized a Women’s Caucus which moved the Young Lords Party to adopt feminist principles as central to their political agenda.
These women led campaigns on reproductive justice; against sterilization abuse; for safe, legal abortion; and raised awareness about the institutional oppression of women. Much of their work focused on health—breakfast programs for school children, a campaign to force the city to combat lead poisoning more aggressively, and the fights to improve Lincoln Hospital. Decades before “health for all” became an international rallying call, the Young Lords showed how ordinary people can force government to translate this aspiration into action.
Odets’ practice and tactics were different. He criticized the gay movement’s approach to AIDS prevention, arguing that its guidance on safe sex was ambiguous and failed to prevent infection. He insisted movements had to tell the truth about evidence. He also championed the needs of HIV-negative men, arguing that a movement seeking health for the gay community as a whole at had to consider the needs of these men, even if their lives were not in as imminent peril as those who were HIV+.
“For gay lives,” Odets wrote “the granting of legal rights and authentic acceptance are two different issues in a society steeped in phobic aversion to real diversity.” Odets distinguished between the legal fight for societal recognition, i.e., gay marriage, and the psychological fight for self-acceptance and the rejection of social stigma. He hoped to engage the gay community in addressing both the political and emotional requirement for building solidarity and to prepare gay men to both fight for their rights and insist on their self-worth. Rather than separating these two domains, he strove to integrate them.
Between them, these two very different activist leaders demonstrated some of the qualities today’s activists most need to fight current threats to health and social justice. Both found ways to connect their personal experience to their political beliefs, a prerequisite for authenticity in organizing others.
Oliver-Velez showed the power of bringing people together across the racial-ethnic and gender divides that characterize our society and enable those in power to divide us. Odets emphasized the importance of paying attention to both the political and the psychological dimensions of activism. Activists who appeal to the mind and the heart are more likely to build the long-term support needed to change policies and systems.
Both were willing to acknowledge differences among activists, then look for ways to bridge these divides . Neither Oliver-Velez nor Odets feared conflict, but they did not demonize fellow travelers who disagreed with them, leaving the door open to build bridges.
I have been studying, teaching, writing about, and participating in health activism for more than 50 years. Never have the threats to human and planetary health seemed starker. Never has the responsibility of government to protect health been under such concerted attack. Fortunately, thousands of young and old activists are organizing to combat today’s threats, showing the possibility of an alternative to the dark and cruel view of well-being coming from leaders in Washington. By applying the lessons learned from Oliver-Velez and Odets to today’s battles, we pay tribute to them by strengthening the fights for a healthier, more just world.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'They're Trying to Scare People': AOC Dismisses Latest GOP Warnings of 'Communism'
"We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do Republicans really think this stuff is going to happen?"
Jul 23, 2026
Republican fearmongering that communism is on its way to the United States is a perennial feature of US political discourse—despite the fact that their warnings proved wrong in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt passed Social Security and other New Deal programs and recently when Mayor Zohran Mamdani neglected to usher in a communist era in New York City, even as he moved forward with plans for universal childcare and a network of city-run grocery stores.
On Thursday, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mocked the GOP's latest claims that Democratic politicians who support Medicare for All and other broadly popular universal proposals are putting the US on what House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) recently called a "dark road of death to communism."
"We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do Republicans really think this stuff is going to happen?" Ocasio-Cortez told a reporter on Capitol Hill after they'd asked whether the recent victories of democratic socialists and other progressives could end up "as full-blown communism."
Reporter: Isn’t there concern that this slippery slope to socialism inevitably ends up as full-blown communism?
AOC: I mean, no. I think that’s very silly. We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do they really think communism is going to happen? No. They’re trying to scare people… pic.twitter.com/RiFhqpwd6T
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 23, 2026
With 78% of Democratic voters supporting an expansion of the Medicare program to everyone in the US—which would end healthcare's treatment as a for-profit endeavor in the US and put the medical system on equal footing with those in other wealthy countries—a number of Democratic House candidates who support the proposal have won primary races in recent months, including Melat Kiros in Colorado, Claire Valdez in New York, and Adam Hamawy in New Jersey. In Michigan, US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Medicare for All advocate, has polled ahead of his centrist opponent Rep. Haley Stevens in numerous recent surveys.
As Republicans aim to maintain control of the Senate and House in the midterm elections—having ripped nutrition assistance and Medicaid away from millions of Americans, driven up healthcare costs for people who have insurance through the Affordable Care Act, supported the invasion of Iran as it has sent gas prices soaring, backed billions of dollars in Pentagon spending and military aid for Israel as Americans struggle to afford essentials, and supported a president who says he doesn't "think about Americans’ financial situation"—they've attempted to revive old claims that the new crop of progressive Democrats "are a danger to you and your family," as Johnson said this week.
The House speaker called the progressive primary winners "crazy little mini-Mamdanis who are popping up all around the country," while House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) warned that "the radical left feels they need to hide what their policies are... Let’s call it what it is: It’s communism.”
Ocasio-Cortez, who is said to be a potential 2028 presidential or Senate candidate, called the warnings "very silly" and suggested they came from lawmakers who are dead-set against healthcare being treated as a right in the US instead of a profit-making business.
"They’re trying to scare people because they don’t want us talking about the fact that we all have a right to healthcare," said the congresswoman. "So they want to call everything they don’t like communist because if people actually wake up to the fact that their elected officials are screwing them over when they get here, then they’re going to realize they deserve better and that healthcare as a right isn’t crazy, it isn't pie-in-the-sky."
"They want to call this stuff communist because they don’t want us to realize that the rest of the developed world has guaranteed healthcare," she added. "So they want to call it communist because they don’t want you to know that Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada—everybody else—has it better than us, and we spend the most money for the worst care in the modern, developed world."
In another interview Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez expanded on her condemnation of Republicans' healthcare policies.
"This administration is killing Americans," she said. "They are killing people by taking away their healthcare. They are killing women by having them bleed out in parking lots. They are killing seniors by imposing cuts to Medicaid and to Medicare recipients... The fact of the matter is they are for UnitedHealth. They are for Big Pharma. They are for these corporations, and they are cutting your healthcare."
Keep Reading
Show Less
With New Rules, Trump Accused of 'Coordinated Dismantling of the Medicaid Program'
One advocate warned that new Medicaid rules issued by the Trump administration would have "disastrous impacts on individuals and healthcare systems."
Jul 23, 2026
The Trump administration earlier this week unveiled a new rule that advocates said would make it harder for states to fund their Medicaid programs, compounding damage caused by expanded work requirements and other changes enacted under the 2025 Republican budget law.
The law bars states from creating new provider taxes—levies on hospitals and other healthcare providers—and limits existing ones. The new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rule, which is open for public comment until September, would codify the GOP law's changes.
Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said Wednesday that the CMS rule "goes beyond the harsh restrictions already imposed by Congress to further narrow the options that states have to fund Medicaid services and providers."
"Along with Congress’ other restrictions on taxing healthcare providers—restrictions that gut Medicaid funding in all states—CMS estimates this new proposed rule will cut $198.7 billion in state Medicaid funding over 10 years," Wright noted. "This rule comes at a time when states are already under significant budgetary pressure to foot the bill for the cost of implementing complex and unnecessary work reporting requirements; in tandem with a proposed rule that slashes Medicaid provider payments and further eliminates state flexibility."
“Taken together," Wright warned, "these three rules serve as a coordinated dismantling of the Medicaid program, including its eligibility systems, payment structures and financing mechanisms, with disastrous impacts on individuals and healthcare systems."
The Republican budget measure, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, includes roughly $900 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade. Millions of Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since the GOP law took effect.
Earlier this week, the entire House Democratic caucus implored CMS to "reconsider" its recently published Medicaid work requirement rule, warning it "will create an undue burden for beneficiaries with serious healthcare needs and put people at risk of losing coverage, while also creating significant implementation challenges for states."
"This rule will require beneficiaries to frequently prove and verify their exemptions in order to maintain coverage, which will cause confusion, create bureaucratic burdens for patients seeking care, and, as a result, will lock patients out of lifesaving treatments," the lawmakers wrote. "Forcing vulnerable patients to exhaustively document their symptoms simply to maintain access to basic
healthcare is both imprudent and inconsistent with federal law."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Our Healthcare System Is Failing; Medicare for All Is the Solution
When everybody has guaranteed access to high-quality care without financial barriers, physicians can focus solely on their patients’ needs and patients can trust that our recommendations are based on science.
Jul 23, 2026
The following remarks were delivered as testimony to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Medicare for All Shadow Hearing on July 22, 2026.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak about our urgent need for Medicare for All. My name is Dr. Diljeet Singh, and as a practicing gynecologic oncologist, I do not exaggerate when I say our healthcare system is in dire straits. Every day in my clinic, I see patients struggling with the cost of healthcare: a woman on chemotherapy who cannot afford her anti-nausea prescription, or a patient forced to choose between an MRI copay and groceries for her family. If you walked through my clinic, you would know that this is no time to be tinkering with unproven reforms or complex regulations. It is long past time for Medicare for All.
I care for a part-time elementary school teacher whose health plan did not cover routine preventive care. Instead of getting regular Pap smears over the years, she arrived in my office with advanced cervical cancer. She underwent radical surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation that fundamentally changed her body and her life—and she still has no guarantee of a cure.
Or consider another patient of mine who works two part-time jobs, with no health insurance. She ignored severe abdominal pain until it doubled her over. In the emergency room, she was told she had a potentially cancerous mass. She came to me for care, and thankfully, it turned out to be a non-cancerous ovarian cyst, cured by surgery. Yet, even in this best-case medical scenario, she still owes thousands of dollars. A treatable, curable medical problem absorbed her children’s college savings and her retirement money.
When the drive for profit outweighs patient health, professionals and patients alike are betrayed.
I am speaking to you today as president of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an organization of more than 25,000 health professionals nationwide. We are working to achieve universal single-payer healthcare—free from corporate middlemen, copays, deductibles, prior authorization, and the risk of medical debt. Similar countries around the world provide care to all while spending only half of what we spend—yet we die younger, face higher maternal mortality, and lose more newborns. We already spend enough money, but at least 35 cents of every healthcare dollar is wasted on insurance administration and corporate profit instead of patient care.
The root cause of this failure is the corporate takeover of healthcare, where financial interests take precedence over the sacred oath we swore as physicians—to prioritize our patients’ health and make evidence-based, patient-centered decisions free from third-party interference.
At PNHP, we conducted a two-year research project speaking with doctors about working in a profit-driven system where financial goals dictate clinical care. We found that doctors, like nurses, suffer from profound “moral injury”—the acute psychological harm caused by systemic barriers that prevent us from providing compassionate, evidence-based care. When the drive for profit outweighs patient health, professionals and patients alike are betrayed, driving clinicians out of medicine in increasing numbers.
Reversing this crisis requires recentering healthcare on patients and aligning with its true mission. The most commonsense solution is single-payer Medicare for All. When everybody has guaranteed access to high-quality care without financial barriers, physicians can focus solely on their patients’ needs and patients can trust that our recommendations are based on science and their healthcare needs—not corporate bottom lines.
Doctors, nurses, and patients understand that we need Medicare for All. Now we need Congress to understand the same thing—and to act with all of the urgency that this moment requires.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Patient Advocates Warn Trump Tariffs on Generic Drugs Could Drive Up Costs for Millions
"Tariffs of this magnitude could have enormous consequences—raising costs, worsening shortages, and putting access to lifesaving medicines at risk."
Jul 22, 2026
While President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he is working to lower the cost of prescription drugs, advocates for patients on Wednesday expressed alarm over the Republican's plan to impose significant tariffs on imported generic medication.
"Effective August 1st, 2026, all Generic Drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a TARIFF of ZERO PERCENT for a two year period of time, after which the TARIFF will be raised to 100% for a one year period of time, and 200% thereafter," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform late Tuesday.
"This is done in order to RESHORE Generic Pharmaceutical Production into America, with a penalty to those Companies that decide not to build Plant and Equipment within the stated period of time given to them," he continued. "The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States."
A White House official told Politico that the administration intends to use Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose the threatened tariffs. Although the president has not yet issued an order for his new announcement regarding generics, it's already causing concern.
"If imposed, the duty risks upending a global supply chain that keeps generic medicines affordable for Americans," the Los Angeles Times reported. "These off-patent drugs run the gamut from everyday painkillers and antibiotics to cholesterol and cancer drugs, and they're mostly produced at factories in India, Europe, and China."
Merith Basey, CEO of the advocacy organization Patients for Affordable Drugs, argued that "if the administration intends to lower prescription drug prices, it should not pursue policies that threaten to raise them. Imposing massive tariffs on generic medicines risks making lower-cost generic drugs millions of Americans rely on more expensive and harder to access."
"Generic drugs account for approximately 90% of prescriptions filled in the United States and are one of the few areas where Americans pay relatively low prices compared with other countries," she noted. "Tariffs of this magnitude could have enormous consequences—raising costs, worsening shortages, and putting access to lifesaving medicines at risk."
Basey stressed that "at a time when Americans are already struggling to afford healthcare, groceries, housing, and other basic needs, the last thing they need is another additional expense. Seniors, people with chronic conditions, and patients who rely on multiple prescriptions could be particularly hard hit."
"We urge the administration to focus its efforts on brand-name drug companies who abuse their monopoly power to block competition—not jeopardize the lower-cost medicines Americans depend on," she concluded.
The watchdog Public Citizen was also critical, warning that imposing tariffs on generics risks supply chain shocks, shortages, and treatment rationing; prioritizes supply restrictions over flexible supply from multiple sources; and undermines US manufacturing and workers, given the unlikelihood that drugmakers would invest billions to relocate to the United States.
"This reckless and impetuous move will drive up price, force rationing of key medicines, and needlessly create scarcity problems," said Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen's Access to Medicines director, in a statement.
"The sole respite from Trump's reckless pharma tariff plans has been that they so far do not apply to generics, which are vulnerable to supply disruptions that risk people’s access to medicine," he added. "Now, Trump has erased even that modest protection, and set a destructive course that could cause, rather than prevent, scarcity and rationing."
The president's potential levies on generics would follow a similar—and similarly criticized—policy targeting brand-name drugs, which Trump announced in April, on the one-year anniversary of his so-called Liberation Day and after an investigation by the US Department of Commerce.
The April tariffs were aimed at pressuring pharmaceutical companies to negotiate onshoring plans as part of most favored nation (MFN) pricing agreements. However, as Basey pointed out at the time, "the current MFN deals remain opaque and voluntary, and have not delivered meaningful savings for the vast majority of American patients."
A couple of weeks later, the administration announced its 17th MFN agreement, with Regeneron. The other companies that have struck deals are AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
Trump claimed Tuesday that "the Policy on Patented, Branded, or Innovative Drugs, which has been so successful, will remain as is. Pharmaceutical Facilities are being built, at a level never seen before, all over the United States of America."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Official Reports 'Unprecedented' Rise in Gaza Miscarriages Amid Israeli Genocide
One US author called the staggering surge a "reproductive genocide that Western feminists can't be allowed to ignore."
Jul 21, 2026
A senior medical official in the Gaza Strip sounded the alarm on Tuesday over a dramatic rise in miscarriages in the Palestinian exclave, with nearly 4,000 cases reported during the first half of 2026 amid Israel's ongoing genocide.
Gaza Medical Relief Director Bassam Zaqout said that 3,958 miscarriages were recorded in Gaza during the first half of this year—an increase the doctor called "unprecedented," and a serious risk to the health of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Zaqout cited the soaring miscarriage rate to factors in Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza, including the destruction of the strip's infrastructure, unsanitary living conditions in camps for forcibly displaced Palestinians—where numerous babies have died of hypothermia—lack of hot water and hygiene supplies, and relentless terror caused by Israel Defense Forces bombing.
The Gaza Health Ministry documented 921 miscarriages and 2,004 live births in April. This staggering ratio—460 miscarriages for every 1,000 live births—is more than double that in neighboring nations Israel and Egypt.
Live births have also dropped dramatically in Gaza this year, from 5,210 in January, to 3,433 in February, 3,233 in March, 2,004 in April, and just 1,701 in May 2026, according to the ministry.
Last month, the Gaza Center for Human Rights said that the alarming rise in miscarriages is due to the systematic destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system, repeated attacks on hospitals, and widespread deprivation of food, medicine, and essential medical services amid 33 months of what United Nations experts and others have described as a genocide.
The Gaza Center for Human Rights said the following factors are the most significant drivers of the miscarriage crisis:
- The widespread destruction of hospitals, primary healthcare centers, maternity wards, and fertility clinics;
- Repeated attacks on medical personnel, including the killing, detention, and targeting of healthcare workers;
- Mass malnutrition caused by Israel's siege;
- The collapse of maternal and child healthcare services; and
- Restrictions on the entry of essential medicines and medical supplies needed by pregnant women and newborns.
The center also noted that Article II of the Genocide Convention—the legal basis for the South Africa-led genocide case against Israel currently before the International Court of Justice—includes “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” in its definition of the crime.
United Nations officials and other experts have accused Israel of “systematically” using reproductive, sexual, and other forms of gender-based violence against Palestinians in Gaza and committing “genocidal acts” by deliberately destroying reproductive and healthcare facilities in the strip.
There has also been a documented surge in birth defects among Gaza newborns. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, congenital anomalies doubled in 2025 compared with 2022.
Successive medical warnings of a long-term health catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, with a notable increase in fetal deformities and miscarriages resulting from the harsh conditions of war. pic.twitter.com/T2rN6XQec6
— Eye on Palestine (@EyeonPalestine) June 25, 2026
Experts attribute the increase to many of the same factors driving miscarriages, pointing to contaminated water and widespread malnutrition, including the former famine that killed at least hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza, many of them children and infants.
Zaqout warned that Gaza’s health crisis is worsening as severe shortages of medicines, equipment, diagnostic tools, and laboratory supplies persist amid the strip's heavily damaged healthcare infrastructure and ongoing siege. He also noted the epidemics of diseases such as chickenpox, waterborne illnesses, and respiratory infections.
Numerous Palestinian women have lost their pregnancies due to direct acute trauma inflicted by Israeli bombs and bullets, which have often also killed would-be mothers. Israeli invaders have also ordered the evacuation of Gaza's hospitals, forcing staff to leave prematurely born babies to die and decompose in incubators.
A United Nations commission of inquiry reported last month that approximately 30% of the more than 73,000 Palestinians killed during Israel's 33-month war on Gaza were children—many of whom were deliberately targeted. Israeli forces have killed more than 21,500 Gazan children, including 1,022 babies, since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack, according to the Gaza Government Media Office.
The United Nations Children's Fund has called Gaza "the most dangerous place in the world to be a child."
Keep Reading
Show Less
True Universal Healthcare Means Medicare For All, Not a 'Public Option'
As politicians debate “universal healthcare,” we need those two words to be much more than a campaign slogan or an empty promise. Healthcare must be a true human right, easily exercised by every single person in America.
Jul 21, 2026
As a Maryland pediatrician, I serve patients and communities who struggle at the broken edges of the American healthcare “system.” My patients are from families working three or four jobs with no benefits, just barely getting by. With more grace than I could ever summon, these families diligently follow the protocols to determine their children’s “eligibility” for healthcare. The American healthcare system scrutinizes a family’s pay stubs, bank statements, and employment status—a process called means testing—to determine if they are eligible for Medicaid or a pittance of help to purchase a private insurance plan. It is not enough to be a human being. Our healthcare system must determine where you are on the spectrum of worthy to unworthy before you can get any medical care.
My pediatric patients whose parents get health insurance through their employment are not doing much better. An inhaler that helps an asthmatic breathe easier is covered by the insurance corporation one year, but not the next. Similarly, a specialist who has masterfully managed a patient’s seizures for several years is suddenly “out of network.” Never mind that the patient’s parents are paying premiums from every single paycheck to that multibillion-dollar insurance corporation. Playing by the corporate greed machine’s rules does not protect patients from arbitrary decisions that are supposedly good for business.
Over the course of my 20 years working in healthcare, I have seen more and more patients with supposedly good insurance avoid necessary medical care because the out-of-pocket costs keep increasing. In the richest country in the world, families are stuck between the false choices of paying for rent, groceries, utilities, or healthcare. Choosing healthcare can cost anywhere from feeding your family to putting a roof over their head.
All of us are trapped in this infuriating maze of puzzles and peril. Looking at this cruel mess of a system, we have politicians saying a “public option” is enough to fix things. There are think tanks describing a system of “universal healthcare” where the expensive (and yet, worthless) plans from private insurance corporations, the 50 shades of Medicaid, and a public option somehow achieve a magical harmony. To make things even more complicated, it is unclear what exactly a public option could look like. It could mean patients have the option of buying into Medicare or Medicaid. Or it could mean a separate public insurance plan at the federal level, possibly available to everyone or possibly just the ones deemed needy enough.
Medicare For All is true universal healthcare, where patients and families have peace of mind whenever and wherever they need medical help.
We need to be clear about what “universal healthcare” ought to mean. Everybody getting expensive-but-worthless plans from insurance corporations is universal financial stress, not universal healthcare. Similarly, adding any kind of “public option” fragment to a ridiculously fragmented system is universal confusion, not universal healthcare.
Insurance corporations have a long track record of deploying lobbyists and misinformation to undermine provisions of the Affordable Care Act. It is foolish to think these greed machines will become good-faith partners in our healthcare, competing fair and square with any kind of public option. Corporate lobbyists will see to it that any public option uses complicated means testing to determine which members of the public are worthy or unworthy of the care. These corporations will also manipulate their own plans to shut out patients who need healthcare the most, leaving them to a public option struggling to pay doctors and hospitals. Insurance greed machines do not want competition, and will undermine a public option any way they can.
Rather than tinker with a corporate-driven healthcare system determined to put profits before patients, let’s build universal healthcare through Medicare For All. Because healthcare is a human right, Medicare For All guarantees every single person living in America is eligible. We can save billions of dollars when we stop scrutinizing who is worthy or unworthy. Medicare For All provides the kind of coverage that stays with people from cradle to grave. It is mobile coverage, staying with patients from state to state, or job to job. Hospitals and clinics will remain open and properly staffed because Medicare For All puts patients first, not profits. Because all 342 million of us are covered, Medicare For All will have powerful leverage to negotiate with Big Pharma about the cost of prescriptions. Medicare For All is true universal healthcare, where patients and families have peace of mind whenever and wherever they need medical help.
We have tolerated an intolerable healthcare system for far too long. In the coming years, as politicians debate “universal healthcare,” we need those two words to be much more than a campaign slogan or an empty promise. Healthcare must be a true human right, easily exercised by every single person in America. We can and we will make that right a reality with Medicare For All.
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