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
Trump Weighs Ultimate Gift to For-Profit Insurance Industry: Medicare Privatization
"They want to remove the guarantee of Medicare," one advocate said of the Trump administration's floated plan to automatically enroll seniors in Medicare Advantage.
Apr 10, 2026
The Trump administration is considering enacting a policy that would automatically funnel seniors into for-profit Medicare Advantage plans—which critics say would set Medicare on the path to full-scale privatization.
Chris Klomp, the Trump administration's director of Medicare and deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), told STAT last month that enrolling seniors in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans by default "is something that we're thinking through." MA plans are funded by the federal government and run by private insurance companies such as UnitedHealthcare and Humana, both of which have been accused of improperly denying necessary care to patients and overcharging taxpayers.
The default enrollment scheme was floated in the far-right Project 2025 agenda that President Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to disavow. Currently, older Americans who have received Social Security benefits for at least four months before they turn 65 are automatically enrolled in traditional Medicare, and they can choose to enroll in an MA plan as an alternative.
"Another bad idea straight from Project 2025," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said in response to Klomp's comments on the proposed default enrollment change. "Medicare Advantage is private, for-profit insurance that overcharges American taxpayers by billions every year and regularly denies seniors the care they need."
"Making Medicare Advantage the default option hurts patients and taxpayers," Pocan added, "but it will make insurance execs a lot of money."
"With Mehmet Oz running the agency, they can move incredibly quickly to make that happen, and they are."
Klomp said no plans have been finalized, but defenders of traditional Medicare warned that CMS—headed by Mehmet Oz, who during his 2022 US Senate run backed a plan entitled "Medicare Advantage for All"—could try to swiftly ram the change through without public input.
"With Mehmet Oz running the agency, they can move incredibly quickly to make that happen, and they are," Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams on Friday. "They will not explain it to the people, because the people hate the idea. Instead, they say 'change the default option' and other policy jargon to try and hide the fact of what they are doing, privatizing Medicare."
"They want to remove the guarantee of Medicare," warned Lawson, "and replace it with the same private insurance giants that make billions denying healthcare, especially to those who need it the most."
Experts say making Medicare Advantage plans the default enrollment option for seniors would likely decrease traditional Medicare enrollment dramatically.
Given massive overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans—potentially $1.2 trillion over the next decade, according to one independent estimate—a large increase in MA enrollment would be sure to drive up costs and monthly premiums across the board. A report released last month by the congressional Joint Economic Committee estimated that MA overpayments led to premium hikes of $212 per Medicare Part B enrollee last year.
"Since 2016, MA overpayments have added an estimated $82 billion to Part B premiums," the congressional report found. "[Traditional Medicare] beneficiaries, who are not enrolled in MA, bore roughly $6 billion of that burden."
Under one scheme floated last year by Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), eligible Medicare recipients would be automatically enrolled in the "MA plan with the lowest premium available," unless they actively decide to opt out. Once enrolled in an MA plan, individuals would be unable to switch plans for three years.
Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who now champions Medicare for All, warned Friday that under Schweikert's plan, "seniors would be locked in a plan that the government chose for them, that has a limited network of doctors and hospitals, that makes them pay the entire bill for services they might receive outside of that network, and that denies coverage for medically necessary care far more than traditional Medicare—for three years."
In addition to weighing the default enrollment change, the Trump administration has recently delivered smaller-scale but significant victories to MA insurers, including by boosting federal payment rates—bowing to a massive industry lobbying blitz—and easing rules around the marketing of MA plans.
David Lipschutz, co-director of law and policy at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, said Thursday that the latter move represents "a rollback of consumer protections, which gives in to pressures from the insurance industry and those who sell their products."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nearly Every House Republican Votes for Amendment That Would Slash Medicare, Social Security
"The so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Mar 19, 2026
Nearly every member of the House Republican caucus voted Wednesday in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that experts say would result in massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, nutrition assistance, and other key federal programs.
The proposed amendment, led by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), would effectively prohibit the federal government from deficit spending, with an exception for declared wars. The final House vote on the amendment was 211-207, well short of the two-thirds support required for passage of a constitutional amendment.
Every Republican who took part in Wednesday's vote backed the proposed amendment. Just one Democrat—Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas—joined the GOP in voting yes.
The vote came as congressional Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, continued to reject efforts to halt a war that is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion a day—a price tag that some in the GOP have openly embraced.
The vote also came less than a year after congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump approved a sprawling reconciliation package that delivered another round of tax cuts primarily to the richest Americans and large corporations, while enacting unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
Nonpartisan analysts have estimated that the GOP budget law would add more than $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
“American families don’t need a lecture on fiscal responsibility from the same politicians who just added $4 trillion to the debt with their so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’—one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in American history,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “When it comes to cutting taxes for billionaires, they have never had a problem blowing up the deficit. This amendment is nothing more than a show to cover up their hypocrisy on the debt.”
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said following Wednesday's vote that "the so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits."
"It would force drastic cuts to Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, veterans’ benefits, and other programs American families depend on," said Larson. "My Republican colleagues can say this amendment is about fiscal responsibility all they want, but the reality is that the budget they passed last year ballooned our deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and give ICE a slush fund larger than most nations' militaries."
"Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Ahead of the amendment vote, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) warned that the amendment's passage and ratification by US states would "immediately devastate programs that are appropriated annually, such as housing assistance, education, and scientific and medical research."
"And eventually it would require cutting programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and food assistance," the think tank added. "Claims that these programs would ultimately be protected ring hollow, given their share of the budget. If policymakers decide to shield those programs from cuts, the amendment would require lawmakers to devastate the rest of the federal budget—including Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, education, scientific and medical research, farm aid, national parks, transportation, airport security, mine safety—since revenue increases would be so hard to achieve."
Under the proposed amendment, two-thirds support in each chamber of Congress would be required to approve any new tax or increase in the tax rate, hamstringing lawmakers' ability to raise revenue.
"Ultimately, meeting longstanding and broadly popular commitments to seniors’ retirement and healthcare, and managing the future risks associated with higher debt, will require substantially more revenue," said CBPP's Brendan Duke. "This constitutional amendment moves in the opposite direction. Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Medicare Advantage Is Not Medicare': Democrats Proposal Would Unmask For-Profit Fraudsters
"We don't allow banks to call themselves the U.S. Treasury Investment Fund," said Rep. Mark Pocan. "We don't allow anyone to call themselves USPS Plus. So why allow insurance companies to call private insurance Medicare Advantage?"
Mar 05, 2026
A group of Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday reintroduced legislation aimed at reining in for-profit insurance companies who use the Medicare name to market their plans.
The "Save Medicare Act," being reintroduced by US Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), bars private insurers from using the word "Medicare" in marketing their plans, imposing "significant fines" for any insurer that doesn't comply.
At issue, the lawmakers said, is that insurers are flooding the airwaves with ads for Medicare Advantage plans during open enrollment periods. The ads are deceiving Americans into thinking their plans are just variations of Medicare services offered by the federal government, they said.
"Let’s be clear: Medicare Advantage is not Medicare," said Schakowsky. "These private insurance plans use Medicare’s trusted name while too often denying medically necessary care, restricting providers, and overcharging taxpayers by billions. That is unacceptable. We have seen insurers exploit the system to boost profits at the expense of seniors."
Khanna noted that Medicare Advantage is "a private insurance program that too often boosts profits by limiting coverage," even as it "misleads seniors into thinking it's traditional Medicare."
"That's wrong," Khanna emphasized. "This legislation will stop private insurers from cashing in on the Medicare name. We should be working to protect and expand real Medicare instead."
Pocan declared that "only Medicare is Medicare," adding that Medicare Advantage plans "often leave patients without the benefits they need while overcharging the federal government for corporate profit."
"This bill makes clear what is—and what is not—Medicare," added Pocan, "and ensures this essential program will continue to serve seniors and other Americans for generations to come."
Pocan also posted a video on social media where he talked about his elderly mother being unable to see the physician that came to her assisted living home because she relied on Medicare Advantage and the doctor in question was out of network.
"She would have had to go all the way across town to get that care," Pocan explained. "The problem is, she wasn't very mobile and she never got the medical care."
We don't allow banks to call themselves the U.S. Treasury Investment Fund. We don't allow anyone to call themselves USPS Plus.
So why allow insurance companies to call private insurance Medicare Advantage?
I’m reintroducing the Save Medicare Act with @RepRoKhanna and… pic.twitter.com/c6dAXpEJqY
— Rep. Mark Pocan (@RepMarkPocan) March 4, 2026
"We don't allow banks to call themselves the U.S. Treasury Investment Fund," said Pocan. "We don't allow anyone to call themselves USPS Plus. So why allow insurance companies to call private insurance Medicare Advantage?"
Many progressive critics have for years pointed to Medicare Advantage as a legitimate example of wasteful spending by the federal government.
A report released in January by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent congressional agency that advises lawmakers on Medicare, estimated that overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans could total $76 billion in 2026.
One major factor in the overpayments is that patients using Medicare Advantage plans tend to be healthier than patients on traditional Medicare, with the result being that private insurers charge the government more than is necessary to meet these patients' needs.
On Wednesday, Schakowsky said that the "crucial legislation" she joined Khanna and Pocan in introducing "will end deceptive marketing and ensure beneficiaries understand the difference between traditional Medicare and private insurance plans."
"Seniors deserve transparency, accountability, and the full benefits they have earned," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular