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 for all
Mexico Healthcare Transition Provides Model for US
Pretty much every other country in the world has settled on one model for everybody, because it’s cheaper and less convoluted. We could solve a lot of problems in America by following this example.
Apr 19, 2026
In 2026, the US health care system is more costly, more unequal and more unstable than at any point in its history.
Last month, a survey released by the West Health-Gallup Center found that an estimated 28 million Americans (roughly 11%) had skipped meals to afford health care expenses in the last year. “Ambulance deserts” – where emergency services take over 25 minutes to arrive – are rapidly forming across the country, affecting millions of people. With the announcement last year of cuts to Medicaid and the federal government’s failure to extend ACA subsidies, the future looks especially bleak.
At the same time, we’ve seen huge increases in profits for insurance companies and hospitals. Greed and short-sighted pursuit of profits have brought American health care to the breaking point. This is a man-made natural disaster.
The US system is an outlier on the world stage in a number of important ways. For one, we’re the only developed country that doesn’t provide universal health care. Every one of our peer nations has some form of basic coverage for all citizens – the U.K., Canada, France, Japan, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia… We’re the only ones that decided to leave a significant percentage of the population (generally around 8%) without any coverage whatsoever.
American health care is also, by far, the most expensive in the world. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), we have roughly twice the per-capita health care costs of other wealthy nations, yet some of the worst outcomes. We consistently under-perform in areas like life expectancy, infant mortality and deaths from treatable diseases.
According to a study conducted in 2020 by Yale epidemiologists for the medical journal The Lancet, a universal health care system in the US would prevent around 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year. These are people who die from preventable diseases, simply because they don’t have access to health insurance. If they lived in any other country in the developed world, they’d survive.
Mexico, another country where coverage has historically been less-than-total, announced last week that they will be implementing a universal health service designed to guarantee access to health care for the entire population. As Mexico moves forward with its initiative, it may provide a model for how the US can repair our dysfunctional, fragmented system. Mexico’s decree unifies three fragmented public systems (IMSS, ISSSTE, IMSS-Bienestar, taking a patchwork model and consolidating it into one program to prevent unnecessary duplication of costs. Hopefully, we can learn from both their successes and their mistakes.
America also has a patchwork model, combining elements of several different approaches to health care. For working people under 65, we have employer-provided private insurance. For veterans and military personnel, we have the V.A. (Veteran Affairs). For the over-65 population and people with certain disabilities, we have Medicare. For people below the poverty line, we have Medicaid. And for those without any health insurance at all, we have out-of-pocket payments. Pretty much every other country in the world has settled on one model for everybody, because it’s cheaper and less convoluted. A unified system is the best tool for cost control. We could solve a lot of problems in America by following this example.
A majority of Americans favor a universal health care system. This would increase equality of access, bring down costs and help to resolve one of the greatest inequities in American life, something which separates us from the rest of the developed world and which has increasingly become unsustainable in recent years. If the status quo is maintained, health care costs will continue to rise, patients will continue to avoid care because they can’t afford it and for-profit companies will continue to find ways to pass the costs on to patients, even if it bankrupts or kills them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Poll Shows Michigan Senate Primary in Dead Heat as Voters Sour on Pro-Israel Lobby
Abdul El-Sayed has been attacked by a centrist think tank for campaigning with anti-Israel commentator Hasan Piker. He faces Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, who both have ties to the pro-Israel lobby.
Apr 15, 2026
Weeks into a controversy egged on by the centrist think tank Third Way regarding Democratic US Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed's decision to campaign with an outspoken anti-Israel commentator, a new poll out Wednesday revealed that despite the best efforts of the explicitly anti-left group and El-Sayed's opponents, the three candidates are in a dead heat with four months to go until Michigan's primary.
The Data for Progress poll, conducted on behalf of Zeteo News and Drop Site News, found that US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) was in the lead with 23%, but state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8) and El-Sayed were not far behind, with 22% each. A third of voters were undecided, potentially leaving many open to learning more about the three candidates ahead of the August 4 primary.
With Israel and Palestine already a central theme in the primary due the uproar over El-Sayed's decision to campaign with Twitch streamer and commentator Hasan Piker, voters were asked about their views on Piker as well as Stevens' and McMorrow's ties to the pro-Israel lobby, and signaled that the latter two candidates may have more to explain than El-Sayed.
"Michigan primary voters appear significantly more concerned about the influence of [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], America’s top pro-Israel lobby," wrote Andrew Perez at Zeteo. "Sixty-four percent said they are less likely to support a Senate candidate who receives donations from AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, while 10% said they are more likely."
Stevens received $340,000 in direct campaign contributions from AIPAC's political action committee last year before she launched her Senate campaign, and she taped a promotional video for the powerful group last month.
McMorrow has positioned herself as a middle ground between Stevens and El-Sayed, a vehement supporter of Palestinian rights, and has spoken out against Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza. The war, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians, has been called a genocide by leading human rights groups and Holocaust scholars, but McMorrow has not used that word to describe the attacks and has complained that those who urge politicians to do so are subjecting them to a "purity test."
McMorrow reportedly drafted a position paper for AIPAC and attended an invite-only event hosted by the group last year, featuring a columnist who publicly questioned whether Israel was imposing a starvation policy in Gaza.
Michigan primary voters' views on AIPAC mirror those of the larger electorate, according to one poll from last October by Upswing Strategies, which found that nearly half of voters in competitive districts said they "could never support" a candidate funded by AIPAC or the pro-Israel lobby.
The Data for Progress poll also found that 62% of voters agreed with the statement, "If a candidate is not willing to stand up to AIPAC, I am less likely to trust them to stand up for Michiganders on other issues."
The poll was taken between April 2-8, with 515 people surveyed around the time that El-Sayed was appearing with Piker at rallies at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.
Stevens and McMorrow both took aim at El-Sayed for associating with Piker, who once said the US "deserved" the September 11 attacks—a remark he later apologized for—and has said the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack was a "direct consequence" of US and Israeli actions. Stevens condemned El-Sayed for "choosing to campaign with someone who has a history of antisemitic rhetoric," while McMorrow compared Piker to far-right, white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes. Piker and El-Sayed have spoken out against antisemitism and emphasized the difference between opposition to the Israeli government and bias against Jewish people.
Despite the focus on Piker in recent weeks, the poll found that the vast majority of Michigan primary voters didn't know enough about him to have an opinion about his involvement in El-Sayed's rallies. Thirteen percent of respondents had a favorable view of him while 7% viewed him negatively.
Data for Progress gave respondents some context about Piker, highlighting his past remarks and noting he's been accused of antisemitism as well as mentioning El-Sayed's view that "criticism of Israel should not be confused with antisemitism." With the background information, 40% of respondents said they approved of El-Sayed campaigning with Piker, 30% said they disapproved, and 30% said they weren't sure.
Previous polls have found larger gaps between the three candidates; a poll by Upswing Research found in early March that 27% of voters backed Stevens, 25% supported McMorrow, and 23% supported El-Sayed.
While Third Way has cast the primary election as a referendum on a popular livestreamer in recent weeks, Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell said the poll offered clarity on the other issues that matter to Michigan voters, including expanding Medicare to the entire US population and abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement—both proposals El-Sayed strongly supports.
The Data for Progress poll was released as progressive organization Our Revolution announced its endorsement of El-Sayed.
"He is running on a bold vision beyond universal healthcare, from taking on corporate greed to ending big money in politics to advancing a more just and humane future for all," said Our Revolution. "This is a people-powered campaign—and a chance to build a government that truly works for working families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Pushes Privatization, Mexico's Sheinbaum Embraces Healthcare as a Human Right
Healthcare is neither a commodity nor the exclusive privilege of the wealthy—it is a human right. Far from “outrageous,” guaranteeing healthcare to all is about ensuring that everyone can live a rich and fulfilling life.
Apr 15, 2026
On April 6, the Trump administration announced it will increase payments to privately-run Medicare Advantage, or MA, plans by 2.48% in 2027—this will result in more than $13 billion in additional payments to companies like UnitedHealth, CVS Health, and Humana. Unsurprisingly, following this announcement, shares of those companies rose by more than 9%.
MA plans have been a significant source of growth and profit for insurance companies. As the Medicare Rights Center reports, this profitability is driven by enormous overpayments, including from fraudulent billing practices such as “upcoding.” This involves submitting billing codes that make patients appear sicker than they really are to secure higher government payments than are warranted. Despite this, the Trump administration is currently considering a policy that would automatically enroll seniors into MA plans as the “default enrollment option”—a proposal outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s extremist Project 2025.
The Center for American Progress estimates that making MA the default option would generate nearly $2 trillion in overpayments over 10 years, while significantly jeopardizing traditional Medicare’s financial stability. It would give for-profit corporations more control to restrict patient choices and deny doctor-recommended care.
Instead of more privatization that puts profits over people, we should embrace Medicare For All (M4A). Yet, President Donald Trump contends that paying for our current safety nets is already too much for the wealthiest nation on Earth. He remarks: “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, 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.”
Sheinbaum’s embrace of universal healthcare—as well as her support of Cuba—shows us what is possible when the well-being of people is championed unconditionally.
For Trump, spending billions in an illegal war takes precedence over providing healthcare for Americans. His 2027 budget calls for a 10% reduction in all nondefense spending, including reducing funding to the Department of Health and Human Services by $15.8 billion. This, at the same time, that a measles outbreak sweeps the nation, uninsured rates continue to climb, and the prevalence of children with chronic conditions grows to unprecedented levels.
While Trump prioritizes death and destruction, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum offers a different vision. On April 7, she issued a presidential decree establishing the Universal Health Service (Servicio Universal de Salud), which will allow patients from across Mexico to seek free care at any public health institution. Universal access will be rolled out in phases starting with emergency care and continuity of care in early 2027. Radiotherapy, laboratory tests, imaging studies, and other specialized services will be added later that year. Finally, in 2028, universal prescription fulfillment and hospitalization will be consolidated. For Sheinbaum, “The goal is that when we leave the government [in 2030], any Mexican man or woman can go to any health institution for treatment for any ailment and be received.”
The transition to universal healthcare began on April 13 when Mexicans aged 85 and older were eligible to register for their new Universal Health Credential. As Deputy Health Minister Eduardo Clark notes, these new credentials are “the guarantee of the right to healthcare” for Mexican citizens and eligible foreign residents.
This is the fundamental difference. In Mexico, healthcare is recognized as a human right enshrined in their Constitution. In 2023, then-Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alicia Bárcena said before the United Nations General Assembly, “In Mexico, we believe that coverage must be universal, public and free, starting with the most marginalized areas and prioritizing, as always, the poorest.” She continued: “It is unacceptable to profit from illness. In Mexico, we know that public health is not for sale. It is a public and universal good, and we defend it."
By contrast, for Trump, healthcare is a privilege meant solely for those who deserve it. During his first presidential campaign, he remarked: “Where I come from, you have to prove your worth. You have some guy with no college degree working a minimum wage job; no ambition, no goals, nothing to show for it. Yet for some reason, the current [Obama] administration believes he—and millions of people like him, should have access to health insurance. It’s outrageous.” While Mexico starts with “the poorest,” Trump finds it “outrageous” to provide healthcare to minimum wage workers.
Trump’s position is immoral and vile. Healthcare is neither a commodity nor the exclusive privilege of the wealthy—it is a human right. Far from “outrageous,” guaranteeing healthcare to all is about ensuring that everyone can live a rich and fulfilling life.
For most (if not everyone), lacking healthcare will prevent them from living the kind of life they desire. Those suffering from untreated illness may struggle to spend time with their loved ones, pursue the opportunities they desire, and exercise their political rights. Since, at some point, everyone will eventually get sick, healthcare is a universal good that benefits each of us. Moreover, as the Covid-19 pandemic made clear, our individual health is not solely a personal issue. My health impacts the lives of others around me just as their health impacts mine. Healthcare is thus a collective and communal good.
Still, one might object that even if healthcare is not a commodity, the market is still the best mechanism to allocate scarce resources; Trump’s push toward privatization will be better than Sheinbaum’s universal care.
Such blind faith in the market is misguided. Despite spending far more than other countries with universal coverage, more than a quarter of Americans report skipping consultations, tests, treatments and follow-ups because of costs. Roughly 21% report skipping medication for the same reason. Studies consistently find that universal care provides more access, better quality, and lower costs than privatized healthcare.
Ironically, Trump once understood this. In his 2000 The America We Deserve, he writes, “We must have universal healthcare. Just imagine the improved quality of life for our society as a whole if the issue of access to healthcare were dealt with imaginatively. With more than 40 million Americans living day to day in the fear that an illness or injury will wipe out their savings or drag them into bankruptcy, how can we truly engage in the ‘pursuit of happiness’ as our Founders intended?”
Trump was right. What we need is not more privatization that exploits the sick and dying, but rather a politic that works to radically defend life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What is needed is the imagination to rethink how we use (and misuse) our country’s wealth and resources. Sheinbaum’s embrace of universal healthcare—as well as her support of Cuba—shows us what is possible when the well-being of people is championed unconditionally.
A better future is possible—already, in the US, support for M4A continues to grow, and several 2026 midterm candidates have made it an explicit part of their platforms. Together, by embracing life and rejecting capitalism, we can make America great.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular