SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
medicare
To Boost Profits, Medicare Advantage Giants Move to Kick Over a Million Seniors Off Their Plans
Humana said it is exiting plans covering roughly 600,000 seniors to "drive the intended margin expansion."
Sep 10, 2026
Two of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers in the US, UnitedHealthcare and Humana, have signaled in recent days that they plan to exit certain "underperforming" markets and curb benefits in an effort to boost their bottom lines, a strategy that's expected to kick more than a million seniors from their coverage.
On Thursday, Axios cited an analyst note published earlier this week indicating that UnitedHealthcare "has dropped around 13% of plans offered across 18 states." Healthcare Dive reported that the company "expects to end 2026 with up to 1.1 million fewer MA members than it had last year."
"UnitedHealthcare—the largest MA insurer in the US—offered plans in one fewer state and 109 fewer counties this year, cut allowances for certain over-the-counter health and wellness items, and prioritized plan designs with more limited provider networks," Healthcare Dive noted. "The company also shifted commissions to brokers to incentivize enrollment in more profitable plans."
As for Humana, the company's chief financial officer said during an earnings call in late July that its exit from certain markets and dropping of specific plans would "impact approximately 600,000 members" as the firm implements "the changes necessary to drive the intended margin expansion."
Seniors who lose their MA plans in response to the insurance giants' moves will have to either find a new plan during open enrollment, which begins next month, or switch to traditional Medicare. MA plans currently cover more than half of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries.
Mark Meiselbach, a healthcare economist at Johns Hopkins University, has estimated that nearly 3 million people enrolled in MA will be forced to switch coverage this year due to insurers canceling their plans—which Meiselbach describes as "forced disenrollments."
“For most enrollees, they will likely be able to still find a comparable MA plan,” Meiselbach told Investopedia last week. “However, no two plans are exactly the same. They may still have access to their same primary care provider, but have to undergo new prior authorization for a medication or lose a supplemental benefit they relied on.”
The companies laid out their profit-boosting strategies months after the Trump administration provided a substantial payment increase to Medicare Advantage plans, which are run by private companies and funded by taxpayer dollars. MA companies are notorious for denying necessary care and overbilling the federal government through practices such as upcoding, whereby patients are made to appear sicker than they are to reap a larger federal payment.
"President Trump, Dr. Oz, and leaders in Congress have talked a big game for two years about reining in waste, fraud, and abuse, but instead they increased insurer payment by multiple times more than what the administration originally proposed," Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in response to the April payment hike.
During his remarks to the GOP midterm convention on Wednesday, President Donald Trump vowed to "stop all government payments to big insurance companies"—an apparently inadvertent call for the elimination of privately run Medicare Advantage plans, which received over $534 billion from the federal government last year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Finds Up to 10 Million People Have Lost Healthcare Coverage During Trump's Second Term
"Over half the provisions of the Big Ugly Bill have already gone into effect, and the negative results are already devastating."
Sep 03, 2026
Independent healthcare analyst Charles Gaba on Thursday published a detailed report estimating that up to 10 million people living in the US have lost their healthcare coverage since the start of President Donald Trump's second term.
In his analysis, Gaba brought together the most recent enrollment data for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Breaking things down by program, Gaba estimated there are 5.9 million fewer people enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, as well as at least 4.5 million fewer people enrolled in the ACA, since Trump returned to power in January 2025.
These losses in coverage are somewhat mitigated by Medicare, whose enrollment has increased by around 1.6 million people during Trump's second term.
Losing access to these programs doesn't mean that the people were on them have gotten well paying jobs and are receiving insurance from their employer, Gaba wrote. Given that the unemployment rate has risen during Trump's second term, Gaba suggested it is highly unlikely that there are now more people who get employer-sponsored coverage now than in January 2025.
Depending on a number of variables, Gaba concluded, somewhere between 8.8 million to 10.3 million fewer people now have healthcare coverage.
Adjusting for population growth, Gaba added, "you get a grand total of between 10.27 million and 11.75 million more Americans not enrolled in a public healthcare coverage program as of May 2026 than in were as of January 2025."
The healthcare analyst noted that "this isn't quite the same thing as counting how many lost coverage, but not having healthcare sucks regardless of how you slice it."
He also pointed out that the lost in healthcare coverage all came before the Medicaid work requirements from the GOP's 2025 budget law are put into effect.
"Over half the provisions of the Big Ugly Bill have already gone into effect," wrote Gaba, "and the negative results are already devastating."
Gaba's analysis was published just days after the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families released a report estimating that nearly 2.5 million children in the US have lost access to Medicaid or CHIP during Trump's second term.
Trump and congressional Republicans have taken a number of actions that have made healthcare less affordable.
First, they cut spending on Medicaid by an estimated $900 billion over a 10-year period when they enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025. The Congressional Budget Office projects these cuts will leave more than 10 million fewer people enrolled in the program by 2034.
GOP lawmakers last year also refused to extend enhanced subsidies for insurance plans purchased through the ACA, even as insurers raised premiums on those plans by an average of 26% this year, according to an analysis published by KFF.
According to Wednesday reporting by Politico, hospitals are sounding the alarm about new regulations being proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that they say would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue.
"If the rules are finalized and they lose hundreds of billions on top of Congress’ funding cuts," Politico reported, "hospitals say they’ll be forced to reduce services, lay off workers, consolidate operations or shutter entirely."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Claims on Drug Prices Range From 'Fake' to 'Exaggerated' to 'Probably Won't Happen': Analysis
"Trump’s claim to have lowered drug prices amounts to distortion and stealing credit from past administrations whose policies actually made a difference," said one expert.
Aug 21, 2026
A new analysis published Thursday argues that President Donald Trump's claims about prescription drug price reductions under his administration fall into one of three categories: "fake," "exaggerated," or "probably won't happen."
The analysis, released by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, came after Trump recently—and buffoonishly—tried to take credit for what was described as the largest year-over-year price drop in more than 60 years, even as experts said a Biden-era policy allowing Medicare to directly negotiate the prices of some drugs was likely the most significant driver of those cost reductions. Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that drug prices fell 3.1% last month compared to the previous year, apparently the biggest decline since 1963.
But Public Citizen emphasized that the Trump administration "did not publish the methods they used for their analyses so that their work can be independently verified."
"For example, because the [Consumer Price Index for Prescription Drugs] is indexed to 1982, the administration would have had to recalculate the index in earlier years to make proper comparisons dating back to the 1960s, and we don’t have information on how this was accomplished," the group's analysis notes. "We also don’t know where they started the time cut offs for presidential administrations in their graph comparing Trump’s supposed achievements to other presidents. Team Trump has a history of misleading Americans using CPI-Rx data by for example picking arbitrary baselines that make their achievements look better. Their lofty claims were disproven in the past."
Public Citizen also took issue with the Trump White House's assertion that the president's "most favored nation" (MFN) deals with pharmaceutical companies are responsible for falling drug prices. The group observed that the only element of Trump's MFN agenda that has been fully launched is TrumpRx, which has not exactly delivered blockbuster savings.
"That’s in part because most Americans have health insurance and will do better purchasing drugs through their insurance plans," Public Citizen said. "TrumpRx may also cause consumers to overpay on brand drugs, as many of the medicines on the site have cheaper generic competitors available at lower price points."
The more likely cause of falling drug prices overall, according to Public Citizen, were "the genericization of expensive branded drugs," the Biden-era Medicare price negotiation program that Trump and congressional Republicans have worked to sabotage, and regulatory changes that took effect in 2024, prior to the start of Trump's second White House term.
“Trump has three kinds of drug pricing policy: fake, exaggerated, and not-real-yet, probably-won’t-happen,” Peter Maybarduk, access to medicines director for Public Citizen, said in a statement. “Prescription drug corporations are raising the prices of new medicines every year, and the CPI doesn’t even count that cost. It’s more likely that patent cliffs and Medicare price negotiation, which took effect this year and saved billions, drove changes in the CPI."
"Trump’s claim to have lowered drug prices amounts to distortion and stealing credit from past administrations whose policies actually made a difference," Maybarduk added.
Last weekend, Trump showcased to reporters a printout of a Washington Post story headlined, "Prescription drug prices record sharpest drop in more than 60 years."
"I told you that was going to happen," the president said.
Trump didn't mention that the Post's story highlights experts' view that "a Biden-era policy that requires Medicare to negotiate prices for some popular prescription drugs is more likely to be driving down costs."
Richard Frank, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor emeritus of health economics at Harvard University, told the newspaper that "if I was a betting guy on what mattered most, it would be probably stuff around the Inflation Reduction Act," Democratic legislation that included the Medicare drug price negotiation changes.
Trump’s policies, Frank added, "wouldn’t be where I’d place my money."
The president's attempt to take credit for falling drug prices came as his administration actively worked to undermine the price negotiation program that's helping drive costs down.
A Public Citizen investigation published earlier this month revealed that "a quiet change in policy interpretation" that the Trump administration wants to make permanent allowed AbbVie’s pancreatic enzyme medication Creon to escape Medicare price negotiations for at least another seven years.
“The Trump administration wants to make permanent a costly Medicare mistake, which creates windfalls for AbbVie and other drug corporations by excluding some expensive biologic drugs from negotiations for years,” said Maybarduk. “Medicare price negotiation already is far too generous to drugmakers, which gouge Americans for many years before negotiated prices kick in.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Push GOP to Divulge Secret Plan to 'Attack Earned Benefits Like Social Security'
"A plan you will not show the voters before they vote is not reassurance. It is a warning and revealing of Republican priorities.”
Aug 05, 2026
In early June, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said the GOP has a "plan" to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—but would not release the details until "next year," after the 2026 midterms.
But a group of Senate Democrats argued in a letter to Republican leaders on Wednesday that "Americans deserve to have full transparency into Republican plans to attack earned benefits like Social Security." The Democrats—led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Chuck Schumer of New York—wrote that "it is time for Republicans to put their money where their mouth is" and "release the plan referenced by Speaker Johnson."
The letter was released as the Senate Finance Committee convened a hearing titled "Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency," where Wyden and other Democrats blasted proposals to raise the retirement age and cut Social Security benefits through unaccountable commissions.
"Every time Republicans get their hands on these sorts of ideas for Social Security, life gets worse for older people that count on it to get by," said Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. "All we need to do is require billionaires, who have seen their wealth skyrocket to over $9 trillion this year while working people struggle with their grocery bills, to pay their fair share."
According to Social Security's Board of Trustees, the New Deal program's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be unable to pay out full benefits by the end of 2032. Members of the Senate Democratic caucus, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), have introduced legislation that would extend Social Security's ability to pay full benefits for the next 75 years—but neither bill has garnered Republican support.
"We've got a plan. We're not ashamed of our plan," Whitehouse said during Wednesday's hearing. "You actually make people who are making huge amounts of income pay the same Social Security taxes as everybody else, all the way up the rest of their income."
"It's just a question of political will," the senator continued, "and of some people not wanting to own what they want to do to Social Security."
In a radio interview earlier this year, Johnson (R-La) declared that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must be "adjusted and fixed," but did not offer any specific details or policy prescriptions.
"We have a plan to do that," Johnson said, "next year."
House Republicans have previously floated changes such as raising the full Social Security retirement age, which would cut benefits across the board.
In their Wednesday letter to Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senate Democrats wrote that "it is critical that the American people understand where Republicans truly stand regarding our preeminent economic security program."
"For decades, Republicans have attacked and undercut Social Security, aiming to cut benefits or privatize the program," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "A plan you will not show the voters before they vote is not reassurance. It is a warning and revealing of Republican priorities.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Celebrate Medicare and Medicaid—and Protect Them From Trump!
Trump and his allies in Congress have not so much dismantled these programs yet as chipped away at them; if this movement continues unabated, we may be left with the crumbling foundations of programs that were built to last.
Jul 30, 2026
There is reason to celebrate Medicare and Medicaid turning 61 years old. Both highly successful programs were signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 30, 1965 as a cornerstone of his Great Society agenda. But this year, our celebration is tempered by grave concern over the future of both programs under the Trump regime.
Let’s compare the words of the two presidents:
LBJ:
No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime. No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents.
It’s not possible for us to take care of… Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.
The comparison speaks volumes. One is a leader who understood that the federal government has a crucial role in the protecting the health and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens—including the poor, disabled, and the elderly. The other is a president who claims to support Medicare and then says that the federal government can’t afford it because of his illegal war in Iran. So much for supporting Medicare.
But this goes deeper than Trump’s rhetoric. The Medicare program, like Social Security, is at a pivotal point in its history. The Part A hospital) trust fund must be fortified so that it doesn’t run dry in the 2030s. (There are reasonable solutions that Congress could enact without hurting seniors.) So far, though, we have heard no constructive ideas from Trump.
More urgently, though, the Trump administration is actively undermining the "traditional Medicare" program that LBJ signed into law. The administration has begun a pilot program to use AI bots to determine whether traditional Medicare patients will be covered for procedures their doctors have ordered. This appears to be an attempt to cut costs by erecting obstacles to medically necessary care—with decisions made by bots instead of human beings.
It could be the first step in a scheme to corrupt traditional Medicare and make it more like the privatized Medicare Advantage program run by for-profit insurers, which is a glorified HMO (with frequent denials of care, limited provider networks, and surprise out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries). Unfortunately, thanks to deceptive but pervasive advertising, Medicare Advantage has now captured more than 51% of the market, leaving traditional Medicare with a shrinking share of enrollees.
The problem is that Medicare Advantage (MA) puts profits over patients. Participating insurance companies have been overbilling the federal government by billions of dollars a year. Ironically, this privatized program was supposed to save taxpayers money. Instead, Medicare Advantage plans cost the government an average of 14% more per patient than traditional Medicare. That translates into an additional $76 billion in federal spending this year alone.
The bottom line: Medicare Advantage puts taxpayers’ money into the hands of large insurance companies while failing to deliver superior or more cost-effective care. It is fair to say that this is not what LBJ had in mind when he created the public Medicare program. (Medicare Advantage arrived—in nascent form—in 1997, after considerable pressure from the insurance industry.)
When we talk about the financial shortfall facing the Medicare program, we must look at Medicare Advantage as an aggravating factor. Reining-in MA would go a long way toward restoring the overall program to fiscal health—along with other commonsense reforms. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has been inconsistent on this issue, initially floating strict curbs on MA overpayments but ultimately rewarding insurance companies with higher payouts.
Traditional Medicare is far from perfect. It should have caps on patients’ out-of-pocket medical costs. It should cover vision, dental, and hearing care. (President Joe Biden attempted to expand coverage in the ill-fated Build Back Better Act.) These are improvements that we have long urged Congress and the White House to enact.
Medicare also faces compound financial challenges—including the overall rise in healthcare costs and soaring prescription drug prices. The Biden administration and Democrats in Congress took a major step in the right direction with the Inflation Reduction Act, which empowered Medicare to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma. This process is expected to save the government more than $230 billion by 2031.
For the most part, the Trump administration has adhered to the law and continued negotiating with drugmakers—but it also expanded the list of cancer drugs that won’t be eligible for negotiations. The president has largely relied on smoke and mirrors to make it appear that the administration is "tough on Big Pharma," using gimmicks like TrumpRx. Meanwhile, in a move that will make medications less affordable for seniors, the Trump administration has just announced it is ending Biden-era subsidies in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
Of course, it’s also Medicaid’s 61st anniversary. The damage that Trump and the Republicans have done to Medicare’s sister program would take up another entire article. Suffice it to say that more than 3 million Americans have already lost health coverage since Trump and the GOP enacted their Big, Ugly Bill, which slashed nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid. (This also hurts older people dually enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid.) It was correctly labeled the biggest cut in healthcare in US history—to pay for tax cuts largely benefiting the wealthy.
The political right has always been wary of the New Deal and Great Society legacy programs that lifted people out of poverty and provided older and lower-income Americans with basic retirement and health security. Some on the right have outright committed themselves to dismantling these programs, despite their distinguished histories. Trump and his allies in Congress have not so much dismantled these programs yet as chipped away at them under the guise of fighting "fraud and abuse." If this movement continues unabated, we may be left with the crumbling foundations of programs that were built to last, for the good of the American people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How to Celebrate Medicare's 61st Birthday? Expand It to Everyone
Medicare has become living proof that public, universal health insurance is superior to private insurance in every way.
Jul 30, 2026
Sixty one years ago, July 30, 1965, Congress enacted Medicare to provide health insurance for people ages 65 and older and the disabled regardless of income or medical history. At the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri, former President Harry S. Truman and his wife, former First Lady Bess Truman, became the first recipients of the new Medicare health insurance program. President Lyndon Johnson and the US Congress enacted Medicare under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
Medicare was a momentous act because it provided new health insurance for people ages 65 and older and the disabled regardless of income or medical history. In the years since, Medicare has become living proof that public, universal health insurance is superior to private insurance in every way. Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance and is administered at a cost of 3-4%, as opposed to private, for-profit health insurance, which has administrative costs above 15%.
Following the successful 1965 grassroots campaign to enact Medicare, many also believed that the dream of a full national, single-payer health insurance system that included all age groups, “Medicare for All,” was right around the corner. Unfortunately decades later, Medicare still has not been expanded. Most of the changes have been contractions with higher out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries and repeated attempts at privatization by Big Pharma, Big health insurance industry companies-oligarchs-profiteers, and their champions in the White House and Congress.
Big insurance and Big Pharma continue opposing legislation for the new, improved Medicare for All because these resistant, self-serving industries have the most to lose if their huge profits are redirected to direct patient care for all. Individual and corporate predators regard democracy, government, and community as obstacles to their greed and avarice, always placing profits over individual patients, families, and public health. It’s no wonder so many beholden members of Congress want to protect the interests of Big Insurance and Big Pharma, industries that spent $371 million on lobbying in 2017 alone.
The Big Health Insurance-Big Pharma-Congressional Profiteering Complex
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, framed by former Trump administration staffers and secretly endorsed by President Donald Trump himself, proposes changes in Medicare benefits that could destroy Medicare as we know it. Instead, we must fight back and expand Medicare. Although health insurance affordability for the majority of US citizens still remains elusive, President Trump’s health insurance plan still wants to shift many more dollars into private, Wall Street insurance industry hands. The takeover of public health insurance, as with Medicare Advantage plans and others, by private Wall Street entities continues apace as Republicans and Trump propose to increase taxes and give it to the private profit insurance industry—the basic source of our profound administrative waste, along with the costly administrative burdens they place on the delivery system that requires large profits. Profiteering continues unabated as private insurance sells us services we don’t need or want, such as deductibles and other cost sharing and maintenance of narrow networks, requiring prior authorization with increased administrative costs, excessive ongoing paperwork, and documentation requirements, all while avoiding paying for surprise bills and other denied benefits.
No greater disconnect exists between the public good and private interests than in the voracious US system of for-profit Big Insurance and Big Pharma.
Dealing with Covid-19 could have been more lifesaving if Medicare for All had been in place. A New York Times editorial, "Health Care for Some is a Recipe for Disaster," stresses the importance of covering everyone. Even before Covid-19 was known to humans, Northeastern University professor of public health, Wendy Parmet, presciently warned that the push to exclude immigrants from access to healthcare services would be both dangerous and quixotic. “None of us can be self-sufficient in the face of a widespread epidemic,” she wrote in 2018. “That is just as true for noncitizen immigrants as everyone.” In any pandemic, self-sufficiency can be self-deluding; everyone’s health, citizens, immigrants, etc. alike is only as good as our most vulnerable neighbor’s.
Truly a recipe for disaster, vested interests reject the science of public health epidemiology by asserting that only a slow, incremental approach to health insurance reform is possible or acceptable. So, what are we willing to settle for, should we just settle for what we can get? Lower the expectations, turn down the public heat, and keep waiting?. Gradualism, baby steps, extending health insurance coverage to some, but not all, is the mantra of the day; "Medicare for Some," but not "Medicare for All," is fawned over by politicians, profiteers, and advocacy groups alike while reducing communities resources to deal with dangerous epidemics and other health problems.
Virtually all the risky gradual reforms being touted would reinforce a dysfunctional health insurance system with as many standards of insurance as there are dollars to purchase them. It would further lock us into an obsolete private insurance-based model that holds everyone's health hostage to profiteering HMOs and unaccountable big insurance companies for years to come. For these proponents of political expediency, the question remains: Who will be left behind while we wait? Every year many unnecessary deaths are linked to lack of health insurance coverage. Pandemics can quickly increase these numbers.
Big Insurance and Big Pharma dominate our government, and public health takes a back seat to the need for private profit. Many government leaders from both political parties share the same "profits over public health" ideology, even though the Covid-19 pandemic clearly showed how our economic system failed to serve our citizens by allowing these groups to privatize, sabotage, fragment, and cripple our health, public health, and other social services. Many of the changes in traditional Medicare have been contractions with higher out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries and repeated attempts at privatization by Big Pharma, and Big Health insurance. No greater disconnect exists between the public good and private interests than in the voracious US system of for-profit Big Insurance and Big Pharma and their inherent tendency to invent new needs, disregard all boundaries, and turn everything into an object for sale and big profit.
Medicare for All 2026 Meets Eight High Standards
Medicare for All Act (M4A)-2026 is best solution because it meets eight basic standards:
- Health insurance coverage should be stable and permanent throughout life. M4A-2026 would be a single program—permanent throughout life.
- Employer-sponsored insurance can create problems such as job lock, which many conservatives and progressives believe should be terminated. M4A-2026 would end employer-sponsored insurance, and, for most, M4A-2026 would be better.
- Medicaid carries the stigma of being a welfare program which results in legislative underfunding and neglect. M4A-2026 would fully terminate the Medicaid program and move everyone into a universal, comprehensive, and equitable program.
- We need a program that is affordable for each individual and for society as a whole. M4A-2026 would achieve all goals of financing reform without significantly increasing spending.
- Patients should have free choice of their professionals and healthcare institutions. M4A-2026 allows choices within the entire healthcare system.
- The privatization of public programs such as Medicare through Medicare Advantage and Medicaid through private managed care programs have proven to provide poor value for the taxpayer (obscured by cherry-picking and lemon dropping) and should be eliminated. M4A-2026 would eliminate them.
- Fragmentation results in dysfunctional financing of healthcare; M4A-2026 would bring an end to it.
- M4A-2026 is specifically designed to greatly reduce fragmentation and its associated costs; health insurance industry profiteering is ended.
Summary
To continue our 61 years of progress, it’s time to upgrade Medicare by establishing a 21st century improved “Medicare for All” health insurance system that covers all age groups, cradle to grave. Newborns will leave the hospital with their new Medicare card, and drop it off years later at life’s end. Two comprehensive M4A bills now filed in Congress, H.R. 3069 and S.1506, propose to insure or cover all medically necessary services. Patients have their choice of physicians, mental health professionals, other healthcare professionals, hospitals, and clinics.
M4A insured health services include:- Primary care
- Medically approved diet and nutrition services
- Inpatient care
- Outpatient care
- Emergency care
- Prescription drugs
- Long-term care and palliative care
- Mental health services
- Dentistry
- Eye care
- Substance abuse treatment
Because our government, instead of private profit health insurance companies, serves us as the health insurance financing authority, co-pays and deductibles paid at health professionals' offices are ended because payment for health insurance is fully prepaid directly into Medicare, much like Social Security, and covered at first dollar amounts. This means the obsolete 80%-20% payment split between private health insurance companies and Medicare is eliminated, with Medicare for All covering 100%.
The major reason private health insurers are more expensive than government health programs in the US is due to profiteering and administrative costs. Those extra taxpayer funds going to private insurers include costs such as advertising and marketing of their plans, costs of contracting for restrictive provider networks, administering prior authorization requirements, complex systems of processing claims including denial of benefits, simple administrative costs of operating large corporate entities, and distributing generous profits to their executives and passive high profiteering by Wall Street investors.
The Medicare for All Act-2026, now filed in Congress, would much better fill our healthcare financing needs without wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on superfluous administrative costs and end immense profiteering by private insurers and Big Pharma. The USA is a country where health insurance for medical and mental healthcare is a function of socioeconomic status. Everyone knows that this inhumane system should have been corrected long ago.
Please tell your legislators that it’s time to end inadequate and dangerous health insurance programs. Insist on real health insurance reform essential for individuals and families. American history is filled with examples of fundamental, democratic change brought about by successful mass action and public pressure against the counseling of the go-slow, vested-interest crowd. No more waiting! Ask your legislators to fully support Medicare For All 2026 now: H.R. 3069 and S. 1506
Keep ReadingShow Less
Republicans Want to Dismantle Medicare; Democrats Must Fight for Medicare for All
While America’s current healthcare system is painfully vulnerable to Republican attacks, there is an opportunity to create a better future where all Americans can rely on guaranteed healthcare.
Jul 30, 2026
Sixty-one years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, while former President and long-time national health insurance champion Harry Truman watched. What Johnson and Truman understood was that the fight for guaranteed healthcare for everyone has been a generations-long struggle. The creation of Medicare and Medicaid was a key victory in that struggle. Importantly, though, Medicare and Medicaid are—to paraphrase what President Franklin Roosevelt said about the signing of Social Security into law—“a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.”
After President Truman was unable to achieve his goal of guaranteed healthcare for all Americans, healthcare advocates decided to move incrementally. They began by pushing to cover seniors. Older Americans have the highest medical costs, the hardest time affording private health insurance, and need care the most often. The signing of Medicare achieved this important milestone, alongside the creation of Medicaid to cover healthcare for low-income Americans.
In 1972, Medicare was expanded to cover people with disabilities. But that is where progress stopped. It is well past time that we expand Medicare to cover children and everyone in between. We must also improve Medicare to cover such vital services as hearing, vision, dental and, perhaps most importantly, long-term care. And we must, in this age of abhorrent income and wealth inequality, require the wealthiest to contribute more while eliminating all premiums, co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles.
Currently, we are at a crossroads. While America’s current healthcare system is painfully vulnerable to Republican attacks, there is an opportunity to create a better future where all Americans can rely on guaranteed healthcare.
With Republicans doing everything they can to disrupt and dismantle the current healthcare system, it is the perfect time to fight for a more durable and universal alternative.
Shamefully, Republicans are chipping away at both Medicare and Medicaid. The attacks take many forms. They include the effort to confuse Americans with the inferior, propagandistically named “Medicare Advantage;” the Trump administration giving AI the power to overrule doctors and block care for Medicare patients; the $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill (beautiful for billionaires, ugly for everyone else) passed by Republicans; and new Republican rules for Medicaid that would force cancer patients to get back to work and would cause millions of Americans to lose their healthcare coverage. Though Republican politicians would deny it, their hostility to Medicare and Medicaid is overwhelming.
Meanwhile, Democrats are working to expand and improve Medicare and Medicaid. They have taken concrete steps to lower prescription drug prices. The Inflation Reduction Act, which gives Medicare the power to negotiate for lower prices, was signed into law by a Democratic president, Joe Biden. Democrats are fighting to provide those same savings to those with commercial insurance and lower prices in other ways as well. Importantly, a growing number of Democrats are supporting and fighting for improved and expanded Medicare for All.
It may seem daunting and overwhelming to think about achieving improved and expanded Medicare for All in the current political environment, but it is within sight. Indeed, I have written a book-length road map to achieving improved and expanded Medicare for All, which will be released this September. It is called The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action (Routledge Press, forthcoming, 2026).
What would improved and expanded Medicare for All mean? It would mean this: no premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles. It would mean comprehensive healthcare coverage for everyone in America, automatically. It would mean going to the doctor of your choice, without worrying whether your provider is in your insurer’s network. The vision of improved Medicare for All would include all services being covered automatically, including dental, vision, and hearing coverage. Medicare should also be expanded to cover long-term care, both at home and in nursing homes.
This November’s election will determine the future of Medicare and Medicaid. Will Republicans make Medicare and Medicaid work even worse for Americans? Will even more hospitals and nursing homes close? Or will Democrats be able to fight back and not only defend Medicare and Medicaid from Republican attacks, but enact a bold vision of improved and expanded Medicare for All?
With Republicans doing everything they can to disrupt and dismantle the current healthcare system, it is the perfect time to fight for a more durable and universal alternative: improved and expanded Medicare for All. Instead of a precarious and shaky patchwork system where a disruption to your healthcare is one job loss or plan change away, it is time to fight for a world where healthcare is truly a right, not a privilege.
Keep ReadingShow Less
For 61 Years, We Protected Medicare—Now, Trumpublicans Are Trying to Destroy It
We can fight back to defend and secure our health access, but it will take all of us.
Jul 30, 2026
On the eve of Medicare/Medicaid’s 61st birthday, the Trumpublican administration took its next swipe at those millions of American seniors who rely on their Medicare benefits to survive. The announcement of cuts to the Biden administration’s Medicare drug subsidies was made on Tuesday, July 27th, 2026, allegedly because the insurance companies don’t need the subsidies anymore. But guess what? The health insurance companies that market, sell, and profit from the Medicare-Part D drug plans won’t be the ones paying the difference. Patients, their families, and all those cool GoFundMes will pay the higher Part D premiums, any at the pharmacy counter differences, or they will ration doses or go without. You doubt that? I sure don’t.
Just a few days ago, I chatted with some younger folks I know who are employed and getting their health benefits from their employers. Both are with major employers; both have major health insurance carriers. And both have health issues that need to be checked out and treated appropriately before those issues become worse and even more costly. Why don’t these working professionals with insurance go to the doctor—or even have a primary care doctor? They fear the out-of-pocket costs. Deductibles. Co-pays. Co-insurance. Then to the lab, the radiologist, and maybe the pharmacy. All the same costs might be in play again for more cash out-of-pocket. Why pay premiums at all? Why stay at a job they cannot stand for years on end to keep the benefits they rarely if ever use?
The answer to my questions is the basis for the incredible profit margins enjoyed—dearly and completely enjoyed—by the private health insurance industry. Selling a product everyone buys through work or earns through decades of loyal service yet never uses is really a sweet business arrangement. Medicare may seem like a completely different kind of coverage because it has been and could be again—but as the Trumpublicans work to make Medicare even more privatized via Medicare Advantage plans, supplemental plans, and outright cuts to coverage like these drug subsidies, Medicare beneficiaries will make the same ill-advised and often risky decisions as those clinging to their employer-based coverage before they reach the Medicare age of eligibility (or two years after they are determined disabled at younger ages). It was never the insurance companies that needed subsidies or expansion of benefits. It was always all of us who needed less private insurance and more coverage—all of us.
The Trumpublicans already had help from their congressional minions in cutting Medicaid access for millions of families—children, babies, mothers, dads. Medicaid work requirements cost more to follow through admin efforts than the coverage did, but Trumpublican minions want those lazy, poor people milking the system on Medicaid to be punished. This was never about program integrity or catching the minimal fraud with Medicaid or Medicare that is done (fraud is mostly done by providers, not patients or beneficiaries). The cuts to Medicaid came with the “Big, beautiful bill,” H.R.1, last year, and the Medicare cuts are rolling along in the background. When open enrollment is looming large in late fall and early winter, the Trumpublicans must announce changes with enough time for the insurance companies to adjust or raise premiums, of course. How do the rest of us adjust? The patients and families? Take another job to pay? Keep working until we are 80 or more?
The only reason not to move confidently to full health coverage for us all is that the profits are so dear with the status quo. We are better than this.
Social Security Works, Progressive Democrats of America, Healthcare-NOW!, and many other groups have great ways to get involved for all of us too. Do it today before the fight grows even more dire—we can secure our health access, but it will take all of us.
So, get over to your elected officials offices on July 30, 2026. Celebrate with nurses, doctors, friends, and neighbors. In Colorado, we’re going to tell Republican Rep. Gabe Evans to reverse the damage and protect his constituents or we plan to “Give Gabe the Boot” in November. Add yourself to the growing chorus of Americans calling for a celebration of Medicare and Medicaid programs and expansions of that gorgeous insurance pool to include all of us. Because if all of us cover all of us then all of us spend less and our employers do too. Another amazing chance to secure healthcare justice rests with electing Sam Forstag in Montana’s 1st Congressional District.
The only reason not to move confidently to full health coverage for us all is that the profits are so dear with the status quo. We are better than this. We proved it 61 years ago, and we will prove ourselves ready to advance when we stop allowing so much greed to control Trumpublicans in DC and demand our own self-preservation to be honored.
Keep ReadingShow 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 ReadingShow Less
'Their Goal Is to Destroy Medicare': GOP Senators Block Bid to Stop AI Care Denials
“Yesterday, we were reminded who the Republicans are: a group of millionaires working for billionaires who will rip healthcare away from those who need it most," said one campaigner.
Jul 17, 2026
In what critics called a troubling sign of where US healthcare policy is headed, Senate Republicans on Thursday torpedoed an effort by their Democratic colleagues to block a Trump administration pilot program under which private companies will use artificial intelligence to review—and possibly deny—healthcare to patients seeking certain Medicare services.
Senators voted 50-46 along party lines against a Congressional Review Act resolution introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and supported by 20 Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The resolution was aimed at overturning the Trump administration's final rule establishing the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) so-called Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model.
"Yesterday, I voted to block [President Donald] Trump’s plan to let AI decide whether Medicare will approve or deny your medical care. Every Senate Republican supported Trump’s scheme," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media. "Doctors should be deciding what care seniors need—not a computer program."
The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor union federation, said on X: "No senior should have to wait weeks to see a doctor because a flawed AI system won’t authorize it. The Trump [administration's] WISeR program is delaying treatment for Medicare patients and putting tech companies’ interests first. Congress must end it."
Alex Jacquez, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at the Groundwork Collaborative, highlighted the "horrendous" WISeR rollout, which, according to KFF, "has created confusion, errors, long wait times, and stress" and has left many patients "ensnared in the same red tape as those with private insurance."
CMS claims WISeR “helps protect American taxpayers by leveraging enhanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, along with human clinical review, to ensure timely and appropriate Medicare payment for select items and services.”
However, critics warn that AI will make it easier and faster to deny or delay care and have raised concerns that AI would likely be used as a cost-cutting tool to fulfill financial incentives.
“Yesterday, we were reminded who the Republicans are: a group of millionaires working for billionaires who will rip healthcare away from those who need it most," Alex Lawson, executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams on Friday.
"The White House leaned on the Republican senators and they folded like the cheap suits they are," he continued. "Cowards to a person."
Singling out Sen. Josh Hawley, Lawson said the Missouri Republican "pretends he would oppose Medicare delays and denials by algorithm or AI, but when the vote is called dutifully dances to the tune his master calls."
"Their goal is to destroy Medicare, to destroy guaranteed healthcare, to ensure that every facet of the 'healthcare system' serves only one purpose, profit," Lawson said of Republican lawmakers.
Private Medicare Advantage healthcare profiteers have been using AI to deny care for years. Consumers are aware of—and outraged by—the practice.
“I don’t know any senior, Republican or Democrat, who asked President Trump to let AI decide if their doctor-recommended treatment was necessary," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said on Thursday.
Keep ReadingShow 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