To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
"If these cuts take effect without replacement funding, it won't just mean longer lines—it means people won't be able to get care when they need it," said one healthcare worker.
A coalition of frontline healthcare workers, unions, and economists launched an effort Thursday to build support for a proposed ballot measure in California that would impose a one-time tax on the state's billionaires to avert a looming crisis spurred by national Republicans' unprecedented Medicaid cuts.
The proposed ballot initiative, titled "The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act," would levy a single 5% tax on the wealth of California's roughly 200 billionaires to offset healthcare funding shortfalls caused by the roughly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts that US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans approved over the summer.
Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), one of the largest healthcare worker unions in the country, is spearheading the organizing push to get the proposal on the California ballot in November 2026. The union expects support for the measure to grow quickly in the coming weeks, and organizers said they hope the effort can serve as a "playbook" for other states working to mitigate the increasingly devastating impacts of the GOP assault on Medicaid.
Dave Regan, the president of SEIU-UHW, said during a press call Thursday that "it is a 100% certainty that we have the ability to put this on the ballot in 2026, and we intend to do so."
"We know what's going to happen if we don't do this," Regan added, alluding to the hospital closures, healthcare job cuts, and other havoc the Trump-GOP Medicaid cuts are already causing across the nation.
Supporters of the new initiative warn that if Medicaid funding cuts aren't offset with new revenue, California could lose around 145,000 healthcare jobs and see hospital closures across the state, a disaster for vulnerable families.
"We are already short-staffed, and every week more patients walk through our doors with fewer places to go," said Mayra Castanada, an ultrasound technologist in Lynwood, California. "If these cuts take effect without replacement funding, it won't just mean longer lines—it means people won't be able to get care when they need it."
"The tax is small relative to the massive gains billionaires have made, yet large enough to preserve programs that are crucial for California's economy and its continued success."
Experts estimate that the one-time tax would raise $100 billion—a fraction of the staggering $2 trillion in combined wealth controlled by the 200 wealthiest Californians. Billionaires impacted by the tax would include Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang, two of the richest men in the world.
Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a leading expert on wealth inequality, voiced support for the initiative, saying that "the wealth of California billionaires has exploded in recent years while health and education in California are getting defunded by the Trump administration."
"The tax is small relative to the massive gains billionaires have made, yet large enough to preserve programs that are crucial for California's economy and its continued success," said Saez.
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich also backed the initiative, saying the GOP Medicaid cuts have sparked a "manufactured crisis."
"These federal cuts didn't happen by accident—they were designed to shield billionaires from contributing while pushing the consequences onto patients and workers," said Reich. "A time-limited emergency tax on the ultra-wealthy is a practical way to keep the healthcare system functioning."
"Every second we spend talking about a tattoo I got in the Marine Corps is a second we don't talk about Medicare for All," said Platner ahead of a town hall. "It's a second we don't talk about raising taxes on the wealthy."
As Politico and other news outlets reported over the past week on old posts written by progressive US Senate candidate Graham Platner and a tattoo he got while in the military, pollsters with the University of New Hampshire were speaking to Mainers about their views on the state's Democratic primary, in which Platner is now facing Gov. Janet Mills along with several other candidates.
Despite the media onslaught, UNH's Pine Tree State Poll revealed on Thursday that voters in Maine heavily favor Platner, who has spent the past two months since his campaign launch speaking to overflow crowds about his platform—one that is focused on making life more affordable for Maine families, shifting the Democratic Party away from corporate interests and toward the needs of working people, and ensuring corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share to provide for the needs of all Mainers.
The poll, taken between October 16-21, found Platner with 58% of the vote. Twenty-four percent of respondents said they support Mills, who announced her campaign on October 14 after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged her to run, while other candidates each had less than 2% of the vote.
Politico reported on Platner's old Reddit posts on October 16, generating national attention in the following days, and on Monday the oyster farmer and former Marine spoke on the popular podcast Pod Save America about his tattoo that was visible in a video—one that critics said resembled a Nazi symbol, but which, he noted, didn't prevent from from being approved to reenlist in the US military after he got it. Platner this week covered the tattoo and denounced Nazism.
"In other words, they were in the field as all the [opposition] hit," Democratic consultant Rebecca Katz said in response to the polling. "Mainers have Graham Platner's back because they know he has theirs."
Progressive observers said the polling showed that recent efforts to damage Platner's working class-focused campaign—which, one attendee at the candidate's town hall on Wednesday night noted, coincided with Mills' entrance into the race—have been no match for voters' palpable anger over a political system that has left millions struggling to afford healthcare, groceries, and other essentials while the wealthiest Americans are handed tax breaks.
The survey, said journalist David Sirota, provides "today's evidence that people are really pissed at the status quo, and also despise the national Democratic leadership and the media that so often run interference for them."
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News added that, judging from the temperature-check in Maine, the "Democratic Party leadership could not be more disconnected from the party base if they had lived on the moon the past decade."
Tommy Vietor of Pod Save America said that the poll served as a "good reminder that the DC pundit class has no fucking clue what actual Maine voters think or how they will vote."
The poll results were released the morning after Platner spoke to a crowd of about 600 people at a town hall in Ogunquit, Maine, following a video he posted on Instagram addressing the controversy surrounding his tattoo.
"This has come up because the establishment is trying to throw everything it can at me," said Platner, who also showed a new tattoo he got to cover up the old image. "It is terrified of what we are trying to build here. Every second we spend talking about a tattoo I got in the Marine Corps is a second we don't talk about Medicare for All. It's a second we don't talk about raising taxes on the wealthy. It's a second we’re not talking about the material struggles of Mainers as they try to scrape through a system that at its core is trying to rob them."
"And that's why tonight, I'm just going back right out on the road," he said. "Going around the state of Maine, making myself accessible to Mainers in their communities, so I can listen to them, I can hear about what it is they need to change in our political system, and that is what I'm going to continue dedicating my time to."
At the town hall in Ogunquit, Platner emphasized his political and personal evolution as he turned the attention back to his platform—one focused on passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and ban "billionaires buying elections," rebuilding the US healthcare system by extending Medicare to all, breaking up corporate monopolies and ensuring corporations pay a fair tax rate, and defending the rights of immigrants and other marginalized groups.
"I'm not going to minimize what has come out," he said. "I used to hold different opinions... I also grew. I met new people. I learned of other people's experiences. I realized... that the more open I could be to listen to other people's stories, the more open I was willing to be—to extend compassion and empathy to others."
If they thought that any of this would stop us or deter us: they clearly don't understand our movement, and they don't understand Marines. pic.twitter.com/fXukXG2nVT
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) October 23, 2025
"The establishment is spooked," he reiterated. "And if they thought that this was going to scare me off, if they thought that ripping my life to pieces and trying to destroy it was going to make me think that I shouldn't undertake this project, they clearly have not spent a lot of time around Marines."
How we construct society significantly determines the ways different groups live—and die. Unfortunately, despite some rhetoric to the contrary, Trump's health secretary seems content to let corporations continue to sicken us.
The Senate Finance Committee hearing with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was explosive. The Secretary of Health and Human Services was accused of “reckless disregard for science and the truth,” and senators from both parties were openly hostile as they questioned him extensively on his vaccine policies, as well as the firing of scientific advisory board members and agency heads and their replacement with ideologically driven anti-vaccine supporters. During that more than three-hour session, he was called a charlatan and a liar, and he returned the insults.
The distrust of his honesty and integrity was palpable. The public health community already mistrusted his views on vaccines and the role of science. There was, however, some modest hope that he would at least follow through on his views on the environmental causes of chronic disease and the food industry’s disastrous impact on obesity and diabetes, as well as other diseases. Sadly, that’s been anything but the case and there’s quite a history behind that reality.
In focusing on the environmental causes of disease, Kennedy was building on a public health tradition that saw disease, suffering, and death as, at least in part, a function of the worlds we’ve constructed for ourselves and others over time. Historically, some instances of unnecessary suffering are glaringly obvious. Take, for instance, the exploitation and often premature death of Africans enslaved and transported to the New World under conditions so inhumane that approximately 10% to 20% of them perished during what came to be known as the Middle Passage. And don’t forget the suffering and early deaths of so many who survived and were consigned by whites to forced labor in the American South, where the average life expectancy of a newborn slave child was less than 22 years, or about half that of a white infant of the same era.
Or, to take another example, in her famous 1906-1907 study Work-Accidents and the Law, Crystal Eastman, the feminist cofounder of the American Civil Liberties Union and a social reformer, wrote of 526 men who were killed in accidents in the steel mills of Pittsburgh and another 509 who suffered serious injuries in—yes!—a single year, arguing that many of those accidents would have been preventable had work conditions been different. As she grimly reported:
Seven men lost a leg, sixteen men were hopelessly crippled in one or both legs, one lost a foot, two lost half a foot, five lost an arm, three lost a hand, ten lost two or more fingers, two were left with crippled left arms, three with crippled right arms, and two with two useless arms. Eleven lost an eye, and three others had the sight of both eyes damaged. Two men have crippled backs, two received internal injuries, one is partially paralyzed, one feebleminded, and two are stricken with the weakness of old age while still in their prime.
Some aspects of the inevitable—fatal disease or other devastating genetic and biological conditions—are clearly affected by how societies care for their members. Historically, race, social class, geographic location, gender, age, and immigrant status have all been shown to have a tremendous impact on access to medical care and the quality of that care. The social and economic arrangements Americans created have shaped patterns of disease prevalence, distribution, and recovery over the course of our history.
Most obviously, a system dependent on slavery produced untold suffering and death among those most exploited; a commercial economy involving trade between various regions of the country and the world often lent a significant hand to the transmission of diseases from mosquitoes, rats, and other sources of infection. The development of cities with large immigrant populations gave landlords the opportunity to profit from renting airless tenements without adequate sewerage or pure water, producing epidemics of tuberculosis and cholera, among other diseases of poverty. Similarly, the disfiguring accidents and diseases caused by toxic chemicals were often a reflection of the rampant expansion of a laissez-faire industrial system that put profits above human life. And the Trump administration’s decision to promote the use of coal and ignore the impact of a fossil-fuel-based economy on the climate and on health is perhaps the most glaring example today of the urge to maintain a world that is (all too literally) killing us.
Smallpox in the 18th century, along with typhoid, typhus, yellow fever, and cholera epidemics, and a plague of childhood diseases in the 19th century, were all exacerbated by the squalid conditions in which people lived. The industrial revolution created conditions for the development of epidemics of silicosis, lead poisoning, and asbestosis. In more recent decades, agricultural workers in the vineyards of California and elsewhere were regularly showered with pesticides while harvesting the food that agricultural companies packaged and sold to the nation. In that process, millions of people have suffered diseases and deaths that could have been avoided.
Recently, our collective environmental practices have contributed disproportionately to global warming and so to extreme droughts, ever more severe hurricanes, and rising sea levels that threaten to flood entire nations, and we’re sure you won’t be surprised to learn that such events can, in turn, result in compromised resistance to disease. Endocrine disruptors like bisphenyl A, PCBs, and dioxins manufactured in the 20th century turned out to cause a variety of cancers, birth defects, and other developmental disorders. Meanwhile, hundreds of chemicals manufactured in recent decades have undoubtedly led to increased deaths, diseases, and neurological damage globally. And, of course, count on one thing: Issues like these won’t be seriously addressed by Robert Kennedy Jr., despite his occasional claims that he will.
The Covid-19 pandemic provided us with an example of how unequal the effects of disease regularly are. Over the course of the pandemic’s first few years, Covid-19 killed more than 1 out of every 300 Americans. However, the burden of those deaths was distributed anything but evenly through the population. Those in a weakened state and without access to decent healthcare were the most likely to become ill and die. Although “the greatest number of deaths [were] among non-Hispanic white people… the rate of Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths [was] higher among people of color.”
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, compared to whites, “American Indians and Alaskan Natives were 3.1 times more likely to be hospitalized, Black or African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalized and 1.7 times more likely to die, and Hispanic or Latino persons are 1.5 times more likely to get Covid-19 and 2.3 times more likely to be hospitalized” In stark graphs, the Poor People’s Campaign documented that “people living in poorer counties died at nearly two times the rate of people who lived in richer counties.” During the early phase of the epidemic, from December 2021 through February 2022, counties with the lowest median income “had a death rate nearly three times higher… compared to those with the highest median incomes,” a difference that can’t simply be explained by disparities in vaccination rates.
And where will our latest secretary of Health and Human Services be if something like that happens on his watch? While he may call on companies to voluntarily remove food colorings, we should expect that, in a crisis, he’ll ultimately tell Americans to change their behavior and not eat cereals with food colorings.
Who you are, where you live, what you do, and what you earn have always been the key factors determining your lifespan and your health, rather than the technological changes in medical treatment that have become available.
But don’t even count on that since such products are deemed necessary to maintain the profits of a food manufacturing and distribution system largely controlled by a few giant agricultural businesses. Real reform of such a system would undoubtedly benefit the health of Americans. However, in the absence of a strong social movement, the entrenched interests that have promoted such industrial food production will undoubtedly prove to be virtually immune to serious restructuring or change. Indeed, as nutritionist and public health advocate Marion Nestle has written, there is now little resistance to the continuing unchecked growth of the agricultural sector and few challenges to the rights of Campbell’s, McDonald’s, Monsanto, Perdue, Smithfield Foods, and others to conduct their businesses in ways that may indeed threaten the health of tens of millions of Americans.
Of course, there is also real truth to the story of progress toward better health. The average life span of a white boy born in 1900 in a large American city was only 46.3 years, and of a Black boy, only 33 years. By the second decade of the 21st century, however, the average life expectancy for Americans was close to 78 years, although the gap between Black and white remains. Similarly, this country has reduced the number of deaths that used to plague both children and women giving birth, while largely controlling cholera and other water-borne diseases through the introduction of relatively safe water supply and sewerage systems. The last 150 years, writes demographer Richard Easterlin, have seen the “average life span” more than double globally from 20 to 40 years at the turn of the last century to between 60 and 80 years today. And yet Secretary of Health Kennedy seems to be ready to jettison perhaps the single most important technology responsible for rising life spans: vaccines! Rather than mandating that children receive vaccines before entering school, Kennedy said the decisions should be left to the state and to parents. Despite efforts to backtrack on his long anti-vax history, in interviews on CNN and elsewhere, he has insisted that “there are no vaccines that are safe and effective.”
While national and international mortality statistics tell an important story, they often hide wide variations in the health and well-being of those who make up such figures. A closer look at the life spans of industrial workers, women, Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, and whites reveals vast differences in disease experience. The persistence of disparities in health and longevity among them may, in truth, be the most enduring health reality of American society. Although new discoveries in medical science, impressive technological interventions, and modest policy initiatives have improved American health, narrowing the gaps described above, those disparities have persisted for more than four centuries.
Who you are, where you live, what you do, and what you earn have always been the key factors determining your lifespan and your health, rather than the technological changes in medical treatment that have become available. The narrative of ever more improvement that’s been the bread and butter of so much of public health’s self-congratulatory history needs to be modified to acknowledge the millions of years lost through the (too) early deaths of Blacks, Native Americans, and poor and working-class whites since the colonial era.
In the 19th century, the incidence of classic infectious and communicable diseases, including cholera, smallpox, tuberculosis, and typhoid, was at least in part the product of specific decisions, including the way landlords profited by jamming people into tenements and leaving them with outdoor plumbing and a polluted water supply. In short, suffering wasn’t just the inevitable byproduct of urbanization and industrialization, but of a dominant ideology that reinforced a laissez-faire economic system with profit (for the few) as its main goal.
Why, you might wonder, did so few question the logic of crowding so many together when there was nearly unlimited space in which to live in a still sparsely populated nation? Who determined that some people’s health could be sacrificed for the wealth of others, even though there were often no objective reasons why conditions could not have been better?
In effect, leaders then made social and political decisions about who should live and who should die, as they will again in the Trump era. Unfortunately, it’s all too rare to think of diseases not as an inevitable byproduct of a particular exposure or an inevitable outgrowth of modernization or industrialization, but as the byproduct of decisions made by individuals, groups, and societies. In different eras, different conditions have been created that diseased, maimed, or killed people all too unequally.
Isn’t it time, in the era of Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr., when, for instance, the administration’s devastation of the US Agency for International Development might, according to the medical journal The Lancet, lead to 14 million more deaths globally, to broaden the definition of what causes disease and death in the United States (and elsewhere)? Isn’t it time not just to focus on viruses and events in nature, but on the structure of an American society in which the rich are growing ever richer and income inequality is on the rise, a world in which corporations, government, and institutions make decisions that profoundly affect people’s health? Consciously or not, the decisions the dominant groups in a society make determine who lives and who dies, who flourishes and who prospers.
Some disease-related tragedies are unavoidable, but all too many are not. There was no need for children to die in such large numbers from infections in the crowded slums of the 19th century, nor for workers to suffer so extensively from chronic diseases and disabilities in the factories of the early 20th century. Nor is it necessary in the modern era to pollute the environment with synthetic plastics that lead to epidemics of cancer, heart disease, or stroke. Worse yet, it’s anything but necessary, as Donald Trump is determined to do, to continue to pollute the global environment through the endless overuse of fossil fuels, ensuring that this world will someday become so warm that it may no longer support human life across significant swaths of the globe. How we construct society, in other words, significantly determines the ways different groups live—and die.
An understanding of how Americans have built their past should give us the power to shape the future. Companies do not have to continue to introduce synthetic hormones, pesticides, or other materials into the milk American children drink, the wheat in the cereals millions of Americans eat, or the meat that is a staple of our diet. Even simple regulatory changes could have a positive impact on how we, our children, and our grandchildren will live and die. Many positive changes, though never achieved without a struggle, aren’t particularly revolutionary or even massively disruptive of existing social relationships. Europeans, for example, have decided to require chemical companies simply to test their products for safety before being introduced into the stream of commerce.
We as a people should not have to watch helplessly as the Earth’s ecosystem is devastated through habitat destruction, resource depletion, and global warming. We should be able to learn from the horrible global accidents of the recent past. Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan are perhaps the most well-known “dead zones” our species has produced through inattention to the risks we humans create—in those cases, of course, with nuclear power. But we can learn from other, less well-known communities where human decisions have resulted in untold health consequences. Take, for instance, the way polychlorinated biphenyls polluted the community around the factory in Anniston, Alabama, where they were first produced in the 1930s, or how the town of Times Beach, Missouri, had to be literally abandoned because of the way that now-banned Polychlorinated Biphenyls, or PCBs, were spread on its roads. A host of polluted landfills across this country and around the world are now Superfund sites in need of massive investment to detoxify.
Simply put, the message we can learn from the past is that we need not continue to build worlds that kill us but can, collectively, make more life-affirming decisions. In the age of Donald Trump, who is now seeking to end women’s use of Tylenol, and Robert Kennedy Jr, we have entered a world of medical quackery. As Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) exclaimed, “Sir, you’re a charlatan. That’s what you are.”