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
universal healthcare
DC Shooting Was Not an Afghan or Immigrant Import—It Was All-American Violence
American violence in its many forms destabilized the alleged killer Rahmanullah Lakanwal.
Dec 07, 2025
I’ve heard very few people say it, but Spencer Ackerman recently said it best: “The most sobering fact about Wednesday’s slayings is that the alleged killer, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was all too compatible with Western Civilization.” And we have the data to back his claims.
The early findings from investigations into the potential motives of Lakanwal, who allegedly shot two National Guardsmen last month, do not gel well with the MAGA narrative that immigrants are in some way inherently dangerous criminals. Instead, what is coming to light is an all too believable American context: US imperialism-induced trauma, lack of resources, and infrastructure to assist those in need (oh I don’t know, something like Universal Healthcare?), and most likely an all too easily accessed gun, created violent conditions. These are all quite sadly the makings of a very American event. Regardless, the Trump administration is unsurprisingly using this tragedy to justify and expedite an anti-immigrant agenda they already had in motion. Everything they have to say on the matter is pure fiction. It might be tiresome, but we need to continue providing the actual evidence contrary to MAGA’s lies.
I spent the better part of 2025 engaged in a research project with the Afghan community in the state of Vermont. I conducted a large survey, a series of interviews, and a national data analysis aimed at assessing the socioeconomic well-being of Afghans in the state, four years after the US ended its 20-year occupation in Afghanistan, which led to the subsequent fall of Kabul and the largest airlift in US history. Over 200,000 Afghans most closely allied with US operations have since been resettled in communities around the US, including Vermont.
Over the course of 2025, I spent a lot of time working side by side with Afghans, in Afghan homes, in conversations around coffee tables, and at community gathering spaces, getting to know Afghan Vermonters. One can of course never generalize about the "nature" of an entire population; however, in my experience, Afghans were overwhelmingly kind, welcoming, generous, and at the risk of repeating a common trope associated with liberal-American ideology, incredibly hardworking. It feels ridiculous to even have to type these words, but at no point did I feel in danger, like I was amid "criminals," or any other ludicrous claims the Trump administration and their ilk try to place on entire groups of people, just because they have arrived from other countries. The hundreds of Afghans I engaged with always met me with a smile, offered me phenomenal tea and snacks, and were generous with their time, candidly sharing their experiences in the US.
Western civilization created the conditions in which Lakanwal suffered severe mental health issues, and once he was brought to the US, created the conditions in which Lakanwal had likely limited healthcare supports, reportedly dire economic struggles, and it is safe to assume all too easy access to a gun.
Certain uninformed parties might say, “They played you like a fool, those absolute criminals!” So, anecdotal evidence aside, and the fact that I lived to tell the tale of my experiences with these supposed criminals, we also have the data. And the data is vast.
As countless data-rich research projects, reports, policy analyses, and peer-reviewed journal article after peer-reviewed journal article show, immigrants in the US, across the board, unequivocally, are far less likely to commit a crime in the US than US-born persons. For an extensive but non-exhaustive list that just scratches the surface, see this resource I put together during the 2024 election cycle. What this data overwhelmingly show, if we can generalize anything about an entire subset of people like “immigrants” or “Afghans,” is that immigrants in America are overwhelmingly peaceful and law-abiding.
For the sake of countering one more MAGA lie that says immigrants and the services they receive are already too costly to the US taxpayer, let me point to the other endless data sets that show (time and time again) that immigrants from all backgrounds, from undocumented, to refugee, to O-1 visa holder alike, provide far more economic benefits to the US than they receive in governmental aid. Immigrants of all backgrounds, examined from many angles and subsets, pay far more into the US tax system than they receive in governmental expenditures and likewise contribute billions of dollars in spending and labor power into the US economy. Need we keep reminding ourselves that this country, after all, was built by immigrants? Correcting the past tense, this country will forever rely on immigrants in ways mainstream politicians seem to never admit.
The data I analyzed in the above-mentioned research is one more set proving this. Through a nationwide analysis of American Community Surveys, we showed that the recently resettled Afghan population in the United States (2021 and on) is already contributing far more in taxes than the costs associated with their resettlement and other support services (including SNAP, housing vouchers, Medicaid, and so on), a ratio that steadily improves each year of US residence per average Afghan household. What’s more is that Afghan spending power in the US (money left to spend after taxes) reached about $2 billion by 2023 (latest available data).
And the findings of our national data make sense given the results of the community survey we also conducted of a large portion of Afghan Vermonters. We found that Afghans in Vermont are highly employed: 73.6% of adult Afghans are currently employed, compared with the total Vermont employment rate of 65.3%. Because of systemic issues that must be addressed in Vermont and across the country, those employed Afghans tend to be paid far less than US-born workers. But even given this systemic wage discrimination, taxes paid through Afghan incomes provide a net gain to the US tax system, and their remaining earnings provide priceless benefits to their local, state, and national economies. I firmly believe that all humans, regardless of any economic benefit they may provide, deserve equal treatment, rights, and dignity, including freedom of movement to improve their lives, wherever that may be. However, for those who need the economics of it all, the truth is clear and undeniable.
In our report, I discuss the undeniable benefit Afghans have provided for Vermont and the country, explore the ways in which Afghans and New Americans still struggle in our communities, e.g. inherently lower wages than US-born people, and I provide a suggested list of policy solutions to improve Afghan and New American livelihoods here, which includes expanding free industry-specific ESL programs; streamlined credential evaluation and licensing for foreign-trained professionals; expanded access to higher education for English Language Learners; investment in affordable and flexible childcare; improved public transportation; and policy solutions at the national level that promote more streamlined pathways to Lawful Permanent Resident status for Afghans in coordination with family reunification efforts, which includes increased funding for legal aid services, to name a few.
Of course, rather than supporting immigrant communities that are so deeply important to the country, President Donald Trump is taking the opportunity to further attack them for political gain. He is twisting the contexts and conditions of last month’s violence to push his far-right agenda, cutting off services that immigrants depend on, and imposing more draconian immigration bans that smack of the purest white nationalism.
Despite these challenges, refugees and immigrants of all statuses continue to contribute significantly to US society and the economy. As the endless research continues to show, refugees and immigrants of all backgrounds are not dangerous for the country and in fact in many ways keep it running.
So, if new Americans are not the problem as the Trump administration would have us believe, then what is? We come back to Ackerman: American Imperial aggression and a violent socioeconomic landscape is the problem. American violence in its many forms destabilized Lakanwal.
The US government is now treating all Afghans like criminals, when those same individuals in one way or another, for 20 years, aided the US in Afghanistan.
What’s become clear in the early days since this tragedy is that Lakanwal struggled with mental health issues that are unsurprising given what he has gone through. If Ackerman’s math is correct, Lakanwal was recruited into one of the CIA’s now infamous Zero Unit “death squads” at the age of 15. A good portion of Lakanwal’s formative years were spent as a child soldier employed by one of the deadliest armed forces in the world, the United States, in which he likely experienced and committed violence few of us could imagine, all at the command and employ of the US government.
“When he saw blood, bodies, and the wounded, he could not tolerate it, and it put a lot of pressure on his mind,” a friend of Lakanwal told the New York Times.
As Ackerman and others are astute to point out, the long-lasting legacy of imperialism has been known to come home in the form of violence.
And whatever affordable mental health support systems Lakanwal may have had in the US, which could have perhaps mitigated the effects of his trauma, were likely minimal.
Here we find American violence in the form of neoliberal policy. Once Lakanwal was resettled in the US, he was thrust into a harsh socioeconomic climate, where many manage to get by as the above data show, but when those with physical or mental illness falter, there are few services available to support them, particularly as the Trump administration has attempted to slash as much as possible, e.g. SNAP and healthcare subsidies. These forms of violence affect everyone including immigrants and are increasingly American.
American violence rears its head again in its abandonment of those in need.
American violence also rears itself in its refusal to regulate gun control in any meaningful way. The US accounts for 76% of public mass shooting incidents around the world, the vast majority conducted by US citizens. Public shootings are an American problem, not an immigrant or Afghan problem.
Western civilization created the conditions in which Lakanwal suffered severe mental health issues, and once he was brought to the US, created the conditions in which Lakanwal had likely limited healthcare supports, reportedly dire economic struggles, and it is safe to assume all too easy access to a gun.
I firmly believe that all persons should be treated with dignity, equality, and afforded the same rights as anyone else, no matter where they come from. There is, however, a deep and undeniable irony in all this that brings to light the true inhumanity of US immigration and domestic policy. That irony rests on the fact that the US government is now treating all Afghans like criminals, when those same individuals in one way or another, for 20 years, aided the US in Afghanistan (no matter how we feel about the occupation) and are still at great risk if they are sent back. They risk death in the context of a violence made possible by the outcomes of imperial violence turned abandonment. They should have been evacuated. They should be allowed to come to the US. They should be given the resources they need to thrive here. Instead, the Trump administration is using them as a scapegoat to churn forth with its nativist, fascist immigration agenda, while it cuts resources for all "old" and "new" Americans alike. The double-edged sword of the Trump administration’s violent opportunism knows no bounds.
If Western civilization is one that commits acts of violence around the world. If Western civilization is one that places profit and corporate lobbyists over the needs of its population. If Western civilization, in the American context, continues to refuse to regulate access to guns in any meaningful way. Then November 26's shooting was an American problem, not an immigrant problem.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Does Anyone Even Remember Trump Once Favored Medicare for All?
Who's going to pay for covering everybody, including the currently uninsured? "The government's going to pay for it," Trump said in a 2015 interview.
Nov 25, 2025
When asked what they like most about Trump, fervent supporters often say, “He says what he thinks.” Well, not always. Donald Trump has long supported government-run universal healthcare—well before he had to deal with a crazed Congressional GOP in his first term. The controlling Republicans repealed Obamacare dozens of times in the House of Representatives (repeal was blocked in the Senate)—without offering any alternative.
President Trump also denounced Obamacare in vitriolic expletives, but he offers no alternatives.
However, let’s look back at a time when Trump, before his first term, was not tongue-tied about Medicare for All.
In a little-noticed Washington Post article (May 5, 2017), headlined “Trump’s forbidden love: Single-payer health care,” Aaron Blake reports that “in his heart of hearts, [Trump] wants single-payer health care. Indeed, it seems to be his forbidden fruit.”
Blake goes back to 2000 when “he [Trump] advocated for it as both a potential Reform Party presidential candidate and in his book, “The America We Deserve,” to wit:
“We must have universal health care. Just imagine the improved quality of life for our society as a whole,” he wrote, adding: “The Canadian-style, single-payer system in which all payments for medical care are made to a single agency (as opposed to the large number of HMOs and insurance companies with their diverse rules, claim forms, and deductibles)…helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans…Just before the 2016 campaign, Trump appeared on David Letterman’s show and held up Scotland’s socialist system as the ideal.”
Then, in April 2017, a law professor argued in the New York Post that Trump should just go for it. Universal Healthcare would be great for the Republican Party, as it would challenge the Democrats’ claim that it is the compassionate party. Moreover, Trump’s supporters would actually like better, less costly healthcare.
“A friend of mine was in Scotland recently. He got very, very sick. They took him by ambulance and he was there for four days. He was really in trouble, and they released him and he said, ‘Where do I pay?’ And they said, ‘There’s no charge,’” Trump said. “Not only that, he said it was like great doctors, great care. I mean, we could have a great system in this country.”
Then, early in the 2016 campaign, he again praised the single-payer systems in Scotland and Canada—while also arguing that the United States needed to have a private system.
Asked on “Morning Joe” whether he supported single-payer, he said: “No, but it’s certainly something that in certain countries works. It actually works incredibly well in Scotland. Some people think it really works in Canada. But not here, I don’t think it would work as well here.”
He said two days later at a GOP debate: “As far as single-payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here.”
Later on, Trump would repeatedly push for universal health care without specifically subscribing to the words “single-payer.”
“Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say,” Trump said in a September 2015 “60 Minutes” interview. “I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”
He added when asked who is going to pay for it: “The government’s gonna pay for it.”
[…]
Law professor F.H. Buckley argued in the New York Post last month that, in the face of defeat for the Republican health-care bill, Trump should just go for it. He argued that it would be a great thing for the Republican Party because it would eliminate Democrats’ claim to being the party of compassion and that Trump’s supporters would actually like it.
“Leave behind all the people who hated you, who curse when you succeed,” Buckley wrote. “Reach out to the people who voted for you. Challenge the Democrats by offering them what they’ve always said they wanted.”
Fast forward, and Buckley’s words are even more timely. In a few weeks, the Republicans have promised a vote on extending the Obamacare subsidies to 22 million Americans. The Grand Old Plutocrats are in a bind. If they reject these subsidies, they give the Democrats a huge and decisive winning campaign issue for the 2026 elections. If they accede and keep the prices from skyrocketing, they hand a victory to the Democrats in defiance of their past rejections of universal healthcare and look weak.
My sister Claire Nader suggests that this is a great opportunity for Trump’s sense of grandiosity. Knowing the Congressional Republicans’ bind and disarray, he can announce his single-payer universal health care—everybody in, nobody out—and cite how much more efficient such a system is in Scotland, Canada, Australia, and other countries.
Then Trump could tout the political advantages—sweeping aside all the media coverage coming about the loss of Medicaid coverage by tens of millions of Americans, including Trump voters. Gone would be the huge inflationary price increases, continued inscrutable bills, with their overcharges and fraud. Getting healthcare would be far less aggravating than today. Imagine no more giant health insurance companies with their denials of benefits, rip-offs, suffocating fine print, and prior authorization requirements that enrage physicians. All people would need to show is their Medicare card.
Trump could pluck H.R. 676 out of its obscurity (about 140 House Democrats signed on in 2019). He would get support for this bill from all the Democrats plus a hefty slice of GOP lawmakers, especially those running for re-election in 2026.
Trump is running out of distractions, and running out of the gas that kept his opponents in shock and awe. His polls are dropping. A recession is on the horizon. Inflation is here. His campaign promises are papier-mache. Government health insurance for all, with private (and some public, as with the VA) delivery of health care, comes close to the Canadian healthcare system that has worked for some 50 years, with better health outcomes.
As Claire wryly reminded me, Trump could become the Tommy Douglas of the United States. Douglas started Canadian Medicare in Saskatchewan in 1962 and is a hero in Canada.
Any Democrats holding back support for “Medicare for All” for fear of making Trump look good should think of the tens of millions of Americans who would feel good in so many ways, shorn of the anxiety, dread, and fear produced by our current broken, gouging healthcare system.
Trump’s past, present, and future will still give the Dems plenty of fodder for their loathing of the president’s policies and actions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Universal Healthcare Will Save Lives... and Could Save the Democratic Party
As the only wealthy country without universal health coverage, sticking to our current system is truly not “politically feasible.” Democratic leaders need to understand and embrace Americans' desire for change.
Oct 22, 2025
The ongoing government shutdown, a standoff over health insurance premiums, is a missed opportunity to truly reform healthcare and revive the Democratic Party.
Democrats have been hyper focused on restoring Medicaid cuts and preserving Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to blunt the harmful healthcare impact of the Republican budget. But this narrow strategy not only fails to address the core issues of the current system but ignores what most Americans want most: a system free from profit-driven conflicts of interest, prior authorizations, co-pays, deductibles, or the threat of bankruptcy.
As a practicing gynecologic oncologist, I witness the human toll of this political timidity every day. I’ve seen patients on chemotherapy skip nausea medications because of co-pays, delay a surveillance PET scan because of the deductible, or substitute ineffective online elixirs for proven treatments because they cost less. As president of Physicians for a National Health Program, I have heard from thousands of physicians who are struggling to uphold their professional commitment to high-quality care because health insurance companies routinely deny coverage for medically recommended treatments.
What I hear in my clinic is also reflected in the polls and crosses party lines: Americans want trustworthy, high-quality healthcare without conflicts of interest, co-pays, deductibles, or financial risk. A May 2025 Pew poll confirms this, with 68% of Americans, including 90% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans, believing the government should provide health insurance for all. A November 2024 Gallup poll shows 62% of Americans, including 90% of Democrats, 65% of Independents, and 32% of Republicans, think the federal government should guarantee health coverage for everyone. And a 2024 Marist Poll found 86% of Gen Z and 76% of Millennials also share the opinion that health insurance is the government's responsibility.
Championing universal healthcare gives Democrats a chance to move away from the status quo and win back frustrated voters, especially the youth.
Today, more people, regardless of insurance status, are being forced to make difficult healthcare choices based on their finances. I have patients who regularly ignore pain and nausea because they are behind on medical bills and cannot afford to seek care. Consider that in America, 66% of bankruptcies are linked to medical issues, and 80% of those who went bankrupt had health insurance when they incurred the debt. In 2023, the average household medical debt was $10,570, and in 2024, about 20% of adults aged 18-49 borrowed money to pay for healthcare costs. A 2025 KFF poll found that 70% of adults worry about medical or dental bills leading to debt.
Americans from all parties agree that our political and economic systems need change, and most believe Republicans, not Democrats, can deliver it. According to an April 2025 Navigator poll, 74% of Americans (including 71% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 77% of Republicans) think our system “needs major changes,” with 12% feeling “the system needs to be torn down completely.” The same poll shows that 51% of Americans see Democrats as “focused on preserving the way government works,” including 54% of Democrats, 43% of Independents, and 54% of Republicans. Meanwhile, 65% of those surveyed believe Republicans are focused on changing the government, including 65% of Democrats, 57% of Independents, and 68% of Republicans.
Republicans are giving us change, but it’s not what Americans were hoping for. Their comprehensive efforts to reduce healthcare access, dismantle public health systems, and cut funding for essential medical research will have deadly consequences. Specifically, the mortality impacts of the Republican budget reconciliation bill—which includes deep cuts to Medicaid, the elimination of ACA subsidies, rollbacks to Medicare drug access, and weakening of nursing home safety standards—are estimated to cause 51,000 preventable deaths each year. This tragic number adds to the approximately 45,000 preventable deaths already linked to lack of insurance. While we can estimate the increased death toll among the millions losing healthcare coverage, the long-term effects of defunding the public health system and losing future lifesaving research are impossible to measure.
Meanwhile, Democrats are defending the status quo instead of fighting for the comprehensive health care reform that Americans need. Despite the unpopularity of much of what the Trump administration has done, support for the Democratic Party from its core members remains slim, with historically low voter registration and approval numbers. Championing universal healthcare gives Democrats a chance to move away from the status quo and win back frustrated voters, especially the youth.
The main arguments against universal healthcare are that it is unaffordable and politically unfeasible. However, the cost issue is challenged by basic economic analysis: We could afford to cover everyone if we weren’t actively wasting 25-30% of our healthcare spending on bureaucracy, overhead, and excessive profits for the health insurance industry. There is no evidence that these corporations improve healthcare or make any meaningful contribution. To the contrary, privatized Medicare (Medicare Advantage) wastes resources, costs more, and results in worse outcomes. In fact, when states deprivatize Medicaid, they save money and improve outcomes. For example, Connecticut shifted from privatized to public Medicaid in 2011, leading to a 4.7% increase in early cancer detection, an 8% increase in cancer survival, and savings of over $4 billion over 13 years.
The US spends more per person than other developed nations but has worse health outcomes, including lower life expectancy and higher maternal and infant deaths. As the only wealthy country without universal health coverage, sticking to our current system is truly not “politically feasible.” Democratic leaders need to understand and embrace Americans' desire for change. They must fight for guaranteed universal healthcare—a system free from profit-driven conflicts, co-pays, deductibles, prior authorizations, and bankruptcy risks. Universal healthcare will save lives and may resuscitate the Democratic Party.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular