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
Chicago City Council Calls On Congress to Pass Medicare for All
"Chicagoans and all Americans suffer from a healthcare system that is insanely complicated, medically unsound, and ruinously expensive for individuals, businesses, and the nation as a whole."
Mar 18, 2026
As Americans contend with skyrocketing health insurance premiums and a Republican congressional majority unwilling to extend even meager subsidies, the City Council in the third-largest US city—Chicago, Illinois—on Wednesday unanimously approved a resolution pressuring Congress to pass Medicare for All legislation.
Chicago's resolution from Alderwoman Ruth Cruz, a Democrat representing Ward 30, "enthusiastically" endorses the Medicare for All Act introduced last year by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), and calls on federal legislators "to work toward its swift enactment."
The resolution notes that if passed, the congressional bill would cover "all necessary primary, preventative, and medical care; including hospital, surgical, and outpatient services, prescription drugs, mental health, and substance abuse treatment; emergency services; reproductive care; dental, hearing and vision care; and long-term care" for all Americans throughout lifetimes without without co-payments, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs.
Speaking at Wednesday's five-hour meeting, Cruz declared that "healthcare is a human right."
"Chicagoans and all Americans suffer from a healthcare system that is insanely complicated, medically unsound, and ruinously expensive for individuals, businesses, and the nation as a whole," Cruz said in a statement. "Medicare for All would put actual medical care back at the center of our healthcare system, leading to better outcomes and lower costs for millions of Americans."
"Every other developed nation on Earth—and some developing nations as well!—has figured out how to provide universal health coverage to their people," she continued. "It is long past time for Congress to do the rational, responsible thing and adopt Medicare for All in the United States."
Chicago has now joined dozens of US cities and counties that have, in recent years, formally supported replacing the nation's for-profit healthcare system with a public single-payer one. The Board of Commissioners for Illinois' Cook County—which includes Chicago—approved a similar resolution in 2019.
US Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), a cosponsor of the federal bill and "proud" supporter of the Chicago resolution, argued Wednesday that "Medicare for All is the right step toward addressing high costs and inequalities in the current system, which particularly affect underserved populations and minorities."
García, who plans to retire after this term, represents Illinois' 4th Congressional District, which spans parts of Cook and DuPage counties. He said that "my district in Chicago has a 14% uninsurance rate, and many cannot afford healthcare even though they work full time."
President Donald Trump's "cruel spending bill passed in 2025 will leave 10 million more people nationwide without health insurance by 2034, because of changes his bill made to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid," he highlighted, referring to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. "Passing the Medicare for All Act is more urgent than ever."
"At a time when people are struggling to pay for medications, groceries, and gasoline because of President Trump's policies, Medicare for All will guarantee that all Chicago and other US residents will be fully covered for healthcare anywhere in the United States, regardless of employment status, marital status, citizenship status, income, age, or geography," García concluded. "We owe it to America. We owe it to the hardworking people in our communities."
Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that fights for a single-payer system at the federal level, pointed out on social media Wednesday that "this makes Chicago the biggest city in the country to endorse Medicare for All."
Breaking news: Chicago’s City Council has voted unanimously to pass a resolution in support of Medicare for All 🎉This makes Chicago the biggest city in the country to endorse Medicare for All, and sends a message to federal legislators that their constituents expect them to support single payer.
[image or embed]
— Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) (@pnhp.bsky.social) March 18, 2026 at 9:01 PM
The Chicago-based group's national coordinator, Dr. Claudia Fegan, retired as chief medical officer of Cook County Health in December 2024. While publicly advocating for the resolution earlier this month, she said that "I am reminded of a woman I admitted to the hospital one night a few years ago. Both of her breasts were rock hard. They were infiltrated with cancer with palpable lymph nodes in her axilla. She worked as a hairdresser, owned her own shop, but had no health insurance."
"She was sitting at home waiting to die," Fegan explained. "She believed she had no other choice. She knew she could not afford her care. Her daughter made her come in. Remarkably, we were able to get a dramatic response with treatment. No one should ever have to sit at home waiting to die in this country, when we have treatments that can be lifesaving."
Eagan Kemp, healthcare policy advocate at another national group, Public Citizen, said Wednesday that "the fragmentation of our healthcare system creates instability and inequity for Chicago residents every day."
"Right now, the situation is dire," Kemp acknowledged, "with the recent actions by the Trump administration and its MAGA allies in Congress to further unravel an already tenuous system that leaves tens of millions of Americans without coverage and even more without adequate coverage."
"But the federal government already has the capacity and funding to efficiently address this through a universal insurance program," the advocate emphasized. "Thankfully, we also have an excellent plan for how to accomplish that in the Medicare for All Act of 2025. This resolution ushers the solution into the spotlight as a key demand for Americans to voice to our government."
After the Chicago resolution's approval, Susan Hurley, executive director of the Illinois Single Payer Coalition, which organized communities to advance the measure, stressed that "our collective misery, suffering, and impoverishment is allowed to happen so that health insurance CEOs and others in our bloated, corrupt system can make hundreds of millions of dollars."
"The companies hoard billions in profits," Hurley said. "It is monstrous madness to allow this to continue for no other reason than satisfying greed beyond all comprehension at the expense of human lives."
The city's Wednesday move came on the heels of Illinois' primary elections, in which state residents chose Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, a supporter of Medicare for All, in a nationally watched race to run for retiring US Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) seat in November, when Democrats aim to reclaim both chambers of Congress.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Obamacare Won’t Work: Time for Medicare for All
Our healthcare ‘system’—with or without the Affordable Care Act—is unsustainable: we have reached the end of the line.
Mar 14, 2026
Those without employer sponsored insurance (or Federal insurance like Medicare or the VA) in Red states, who signed up for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), are now learning what they voted for: higher premiums for health insurance, maybe unaffordable. Meanwhile, premiums continue to rise relentlessly for employers and employees.
Our healthcare "system" is unsustainable: we have reached the end of the line.
Americans pay more for healthcare (about18 percent of GDP) than any other developed country, with mediocre outcomes. Yet the other countries, with better outcomes, have universal coverage.
It is time for change. Extend traditional Medicare to all Americans (gradually, over the course of several years). Medicare is familiar; it works. Private for profit-health insurance, less than a century old, makes no sense today.
Sick and injured patients have turned to medicine—to healers—since time immemorial. Health insurance is new: Blue Cross started as a community non profit organization in 1929, to cover surgery in hospitals.
Private for profit-health insurance, less than a century old, makes no sense today.
Yes, we are a capitalist country, and markets are efficient at producing many things, like commodities: groceries, shoes, cars, even some insurance, when it is straightforward and highly regulated, like auto insurance. But for-profit health insurance does not work.
The idea of insurance is to spread risk over a maximum number of subscribers, each of whom is at the same low risk of unpredictable casualty, like fire. This was essentially the situation of Americans a century ago—illness and injury were acute and unpredictable, patients either recovered or died. Everyone was at similar risk, only surgery was expensive.
Today is different: illness is not only predictable, it can be chronic, even life long. Moreover, today’s scientific care is expensive. The social determinants of health—income security, education, adequate food and shelter, social support (your zip code, not your genetic code)—plus public health, keep healthy people healthy.
Medical care is for the sick.
For-profit health insurers maximize premiums, minimize cost (provider fees), keep the difference, and most important, avoid the sick. Insurers exclude those with “pre-existing” conditions whenever allowed (not under the ACA), deny "authorization" where they can. They tailor "plans" with carefully engineered restrictions you don’t discover until you file a claim. They are not even providing insurance: the payments from the Federal government are risk adjusted, so the insurers are paid more for riskier patients (and they are now illegally upcoding). The providers are not. Making this happen entails huge administrative expense, which adds no value for patients or providers, only massive returns to investors. United Health Group is the third largest company in the Fortune 500.
Healthy people don’t know what plan is "right for them"; they hate the annual "choice." They only know what they can afford. (Sick people know what they need.) They do want to choose their doctor.
Traditional Medicare eliminates these problems for its beneficiaries: by law, everything medically necessary is covered. The Federal government determines fees for doctors and hospitals based on cost, as it did historically when markets didn’t work. Beneficiaries pay premiums based on income.
Fee-for-service works when we pay the right fees for the right services. Today, based on 1950’s medicine, Medicare pays too little for office visits, so-called ‘cognitive’ services (versus procedures) both primary and specialized, so there are too few providers, especially as Medicare rolls expand with retiring
Boomers. No office doctor can make a living from Medicare anymore. That is, however, easy to fix: pay providers more to care for the sickest people, who need the services only highly skilled, experienced physicians can provide. Pay surgeons less.
Best of all, Medicare is simple—ask your grandmother.
But where will the money come from?
Start by eliminating Medicare Advantage (MA) and Part D, while updating Medicare to cover prescription drugs, along with vision, hearing aids, etc. MA was supposed to save taxpayers money by providing care more efficiently. Instead, Medicare pays MA companies 20 percent more than traditional Medicare for comparable patients.
Then, require all employers (including those who currently don’t provide insurance) to pay premiums to Medicare based on payroll. Require employees to pay Medicare premiums based on wages. Just like Social Security (of which Medicare is technically a provision). The Federal government continues to pay a share.
Everyone pays, everyone gets the care they need and nobody is left out. People can choose any qualified provider. Providers remain private, and are paid enough to attract and sustain the clinicians we want and need.
We have tried every kind of private for profit health insurance there is: employer sponsored, government subsidized, market based, capitation, value-based, catastrophic, health savings accounts—it no longer works for employers, taxpayers, or the sick. This year premiums will go up, coverage will go down.
Americans’ health will suffer.
Americans need care, not coverage. We clinicians have dedicated our lives to providing it. Medicare has served millions of us well for 60 years. We cannot allow opportunistic capitalists to stand in the way for the rest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
One-Third of Americans Skipped Meals or Cut Back on Spending to Afford Healthcare in 2025
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” said a researcher at Gallup, which found even insured Americans in higher income brackets have avoided daily expenses to pay medical bills.
Mar 12, 2026
As the Trump administration spends an estimated $1 billion per day in taxpayer money bombing targets across Iran that have reportedly included an elementary school and healthcare facilities, Gallup released a survey Thursday that found one-third of Americans reported making financial trade-offs in order to pay for medical expenses last year.
The West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America polled nearly 20,000 US adults between June and August 2025 and found that roughly one-third of them—equivalent to about 82 million people in the richest country in the world—were forced cut back on at least one expense in order to afford healthcare.
Eleven percent of respondents—equivalent to 28 million Americans—skipped a meal or intentionally drove less in order to pay a medical bill. Fifteen percent, the equivalent of nearly 40 million people, said they prolonged a current prescription or borrowed money, and 9% cut back on utilities.
Those numbers were strikingly similar among people who have health insurance, with 14% of insured people prolonging prescriptions to avoid paying for a new one and 9% skipping meals. Among insured Americans, 29% made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare.
The crisis is also not exclusively affecting low-income people. A quarter of people in households earning $90,000 to $120,000 per year skipped meals or other expenses to pay medical bills, and 11% of people in households earning $240,000 or more did the same.
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” Ellyn Maese, a senior researcher at Gallup and research director for the West Health-Gallup Center, told The New York Times.
Sixty-two percent of people without healthcare coverage were forced to make trade-offs, and 55% of people with household incomes lower than $24,000 per year as well as 47% of people earning $24,000 to $48,000 avoided expenses.
Gallup also released the results of a separate poll taken between October and December 2025, which showed how Americans are delaying major life decisions as well as altering their daily lives to afford healthcare under the for-profit insurance system.
As the Trump administration's policies slashed healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare premiums for tens of millions of people—and as the White House demanded that families have more children—6% of respondents said they had postponed having or adopting a child due to healthcare costs, equivalent to about 16 million Americans.
Nearly 30% said healthcare costs led them to avoid taking a vacation, 18% said they delayed finding a different job, 15% said they postponed pursuing education or job training, and 14% said they postponed buying a home.
The polls are “telling a consistent story here,” Maese said.
The survey results were released weeks after the Trump administration proposed new regulations for healthcare plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace that would charge deductibles as high as $15,000 for individuals and $31,000 for families to offset lower monthly premiums—underscoring how the healthcare law passed 16 years ago has left American households vulnerable to rising costs under the for-profit health insurance system.
A survey taken last November by Data for Progress found that 65% of voters support expanding the Medicare system to everyone in the US, a proposal that would save an estimated $650 billion annually.
But as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the House—noted on Wednesday, Republicans and establishment Democrats continue to claim the proposal is unaffordable.
"When we ask for Medicare for All it’s 'too expensive,' and we 'don’t have the money,'" said Jayapal. "When the president drags us into his own personal war, no expense is spared. Our priorities are backwards."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular