SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden gestures as he delivers remarks about healthcare on June 25, 2020 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden left some progressives perplexed Thursday when he spoke at length about healthcare during a campaign stop in Lancaster, Pennsylvania--making a number of points that would suggest he supports Medicare for All, a proposal he denounced as "unrealistic" throughout the Democratic primary.
Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein noted that Biden mentioned the unemployment crisis that's grown out of the coronavirus pandemic in his speech, suggesting that the loss of employer-based health coverage has made a powerful case for the federal government to guarantee healthcare to all Americans.
\u201cJoe Biden notes in speech today that many people are losing their health insurance during the pandemic because it is tied to their employment\u201d— Jeff Stein (@Jeff Stein) 1593111757
"Families are reeling right now," the former vice president said, "losing their employers' plans in droves as their employers go out of business, or have to suspend business--they need lifelines now."
Thomas Kennedy, Florida state coordinator for the immigrant rights group United We Dream, suggested expanding the popular Medicare program to cover all Americans would be an effective lifeline for the 43 million people who could lose their employer-based health insurance during the pandemic, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
\u201cThere is this thing called Medicare For All that would fix this. Biden should support it.\u201d— Thomas Kennedy (@Thomas Kennedy) 1593114122
However, Biden tied the crisis to his push for a public healthcare plan which would exist alongside the for-profit health insurance industry--not Medicare for All.
"We need a public option now more than ever, especially when 20 million people are unemployed," Biden said. "The public option will allow every American, regardless of their employment status, the choice to get a Medicare-like plan."
Biden is reportedly revamping some of the specifics of his healthcare plan in the coming weeks after forming a joint task force with former advisors to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who continues to advocate for Medicare for All following his presidential run.
In his speech, Biden said Americans would have to pay no more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs; under the Affordable Care Act, the current limit is 9.86%, and was lower in previous years. Deductibles and out-of-pocket costs on top of premiums would still exist under Biden's plan, and as written, roughly 10 million Americans would remain uninsured.
During the primary, Biden derided Sanders' Medicare for All proposal--which a Yale University study in February showed would save over $450 billion in healthcare costs annually--as "unrealistic." In an interview with MSNBC in March, days before the coronavirus pandemic was declared a national public health emergency and millions were left jobless overnight, Biden suggested that even if Medicare for All legislation were to pass in both chambers of Congress during his potential presidency, he would not necessarily sign it into law, citing concerns over cost.
Objections to Medicare for All over its potential costs have been particularly irksome to proponents of the single-payer solution, with study after study showing overall expenditures would be less while providing comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country.
On social media during his appearance in Pennsylvania--where a 2018 Morning Consult/Politico poll found a majority of voters supported Medicare for All--Biden suggested that Sanders was correct to demand that the federal government ensure every American have healthcare coverage, referring to healthcare as a "right for all."
\u201cHealth care is a right for all \u2014 not a privilege for the few.\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
Medicare for All advocates implored Biden to commit to fighting to expand healthcare to all Americans--rather than just borrowing rhetoric from politicians who have pledged to do just that.
\u201c@JoeBiden And the natural idea that follows from that is....?\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
\u201c@JoeBiden Look man, I was just told to pay $3400 for a procedure I need, on a watered-down exchange plan, with 2 diff kinds of deductibles totaling almost $9k, costing $400 a month in premiums. I paid $600 for the same procedure in 2016. Cut the malarkey and give us damn Medicare for All\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
"So what are you going to do about that?" asked Lauren Ashcraft, a democratic socialist who ran for Congress in New York's 12th district this year.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden left some progressives perplexed Thursday when he spoke at length about healthcare during a campaign stop in Lancaster, Pennsylvania--making a number of points that would suggest he supports Medicare for All, a proposal he denounced as "unrealistic" throughout the Democratic primary.
Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein noted that Biden mentioned the unemployment crisis that's grown out of the coronavirus pandemic in his speech, suggesting that the loss of employer-based health coverage has made a powerful case for the federal government to guarantee healthcare to all Americans.
\u201cJoe Biden notes in speech today that many people are losing their health insurance during the pandemic because it is tied to their employment\u201d— Jeff Stein (@Jeff Stein) 1593111757
"Families are reeling right now," the former vice president said, "losing their employers' plans in droves as their employers go out of business, or have to suspend business--they need lifelines now."
Thomas Kennedy, Florida state coordinator for the immigrant rights group United We Dream, suggested expanding the popular Medicare program to cover all Americans would be an effective lifeline for the 43 million people who could lose their employer-based health insurance during the pandemic, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
\u201cThere is this thing called Medicare For All that would fix this. Biden should support it.\u201d— Thomas Kennedy (@Thomas Kennedy) 1593114122
However, Biden tied the crisis to his push for a public healthcare plan which would exist alongside the for-profit health insurance industry--not Medicare for All.
"We need a public option now more than ever, especially when 20 million people are unemployed," Biden said. "The public option will allow every American, regardless of their employment status, the choice to get a Medicare-like plan."
Biden is reportedly revamping some of the specifics of his healthcare plan in the coming weeks after forming a joint task force with former advisors to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who continues to advocate for Medicare for All following his presidential run.
In his speech, Biden said Americans would have to pay no more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs; under the Affordable Care Act, the current limit is 9.86%, and was lower in previous years. Deductibles and out-of-pocket costs on top of premiums would still exist under Biden's plan, and as written, roughly 10 million Americans would remain uninsured.
During the primary, Biden derided Sanders' Medicare for All proposal--which a Yale University study in February showed would save over $450 billion in healthcare costs annually--as "unrealistic." In an interview with MSNBC in March, days before the coronavirus pandemic was declared a national public health emergency and millions were left jobless overnight, Biden suggested that even if Medicare for All legislation were to pass in both chambers of Congress during his potential presidency, he would not necessarily sign it into law, citing concerns over cost.
Objections to Medicare for All over its potential costs have been particularly irksome to proponents of the single-payer solution, with study after study showing overall expenditures would be less while providing comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country.
On social media during his appearance in Pennsylvania--where a 2018 Morning Consult/Politico poll found a majority of voters supported Medicare for All--Biden suggested that Sanders was correct to demand that the federal government ensure every American have healthcare coverage, referring to healthcare as a "right for all."
\u201cHealth care is a right for all \u2014 not a privilege for the few.\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
Medicare for All advocates implored Biden to commit to fighting to expand healthcare to all Americans--rather than just borrowing rhetoric from politicians who have pledged to do just that.
\u201c@JoeBiden And the natural idea that follows from that is....?\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
\u201c@JoeBiden Look man, I was just told to pay $3400 for a procedure I need, on a watered-down exchange plan, with 2 diff kinds of deductibles totaling almost $9k, costing $400 a month in premiums. I paid $600 for the same procedure in 2016. Cut the malarkey and give us damn Medicare for All\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
"So what are you going to do about that?" asked Lauren Ashcraft, a democratic socialist who ran for Congress in New York's 12th district this year.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden left some progressives perplexed Thursday when he spoke at length about healthcare during a campaign stop in Lancaster, Pennsylvania--making a number of points that would suggest he supports Medicare for All, a proposal he denounced as "unrealistic" throughout the Democratic primary.
Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein noted that Biden mentioned the unemployment crisis that's grown out of the coronavirus pandemic in his speech, suggesting that the loss of employer-based health coverage has made a powerful case for the federal government to guarantee healthcare to all Americans.
\u201cJoe Biden notes in speech today that many people are losing their health insurance during the pandemic because it is tied to their employment\u201d— Jeff Stein (@Jeff Stein) 1593111757
"Families are reeling right now," the former vice president said, "losing their employers' plans in droves as their employers go out of business, or have to suspend business--they need lifelines now."
Thomas Kennedy, Florida state coordinator for the immigrant rights group United We Dream, suggested expanding the popular Medicare program to cover all Americans would be an effective lifeline for the 43 million people who could lose their employer-based health insurance during the pandemic, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
\u201cThere is this thing called Medicare For All that would fix this. Biden should support it.\u201d— Thomas Kennedy (@Thomas Kennedy) 1593114122
However, Biden tied the crisis to his push for a public healthcare plan which would exist alongside the for-profit health insurance industry--not Medicare for All.
"We need a public option now more than ever, especially when 20 million people are unemployed," Biden said. "The public option will allow every American, regardless of their employment status, the choice to get a Medicare-like plan."
Biden is reportedly revamping some of the specifics of his healthcare plan in the coming weeks after forming a joint task force with former advisors to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who continues to advocate for Medicare for All following his presidential run.
In his speech, Biden said Americans would have to pay no more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs; under the Affordable Care Act, the current limit is 9.86%, and was lower in previous years. Deductibles and out-of-pocket costs on top of premiums would still exist under Biden's plan, and as written, roughly 10 million Americans would remain uninsured.
During the primary, Biden derided Sanders' Medicare for All proposal--which a Yale University study in February showed would save over $450 billion in healthcare costs annually--as "unrealistic." In an interview with MSNBC in March, days before the coronavirus pandemic was declared a national public health emergency and millions were left jobless overnight, Biden suggested that even if Medicare for All legislation were to pass in both chambers of Congress during his potential presidency, he would not necessarily sign it into law, citing concerns over cost.
Objections to Medicare for All over its potential costs have been particularly irksome to proponents of the single-payer solution, with study after study showing overall expenditures would be less while providing comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country.
On social media during his appearance in Pennsylvania--where a 2018 Morning Consult/Politico poll found a majority of voters supported Medicare for All--Biden suggested that Sanders was correct to demand that the federal government ensure every American have healthcare coverage, referring to healthcare as a "right for all."
\u201cHealth care is a right for all \u2014 not a privilege for the few.\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
Medicare for All advocates implored Biden to commit to fighting to expand healthcare to all Americans--rather than just borrowing rhetoric from politicians who have pledged to do just that.
\u201c@JoeBiden And the natural idea that follows from that is....?\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
\u201c@JoeBiden Look man, I was just told to pay $3400 for a procedure I need, on a watered-down exchange plan, with 2 diff kinds of deductibles totaling almost $9k, costing $400 a month in premiums. I paid $600 for the same procedure in 2016. Cut the malarkey and give us damn Medicare for All\u201d— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1593098100
"So what are you going to do about that?" asked Lauren Ashcraft, a democratic socialist who ran for Congress in New York's 12th district this year.
"The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight," said one state Democrat.
Allison Riggs, a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, vowed to continue a legal battle over her narrow November victory after a state appeals panel on Friday took a major step toward invalidating more than 60,000 votes.
Riggs' GOP challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost by 734 votes—but rather than conceding, he has sought to have select ballots thrown out. In Friday's 2-1 decision, Republican Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson gave the targeted citizens 15 days to provide documentation to election workers confirming their eligibility to vote. If they don't do so, their votes could be discarded.
"We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people," Riggs said in a statement.
"North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat, and I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law—so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people," she added.
Since Riggs has recused herself from the case, only six of the North Carolina Supreme Court's justices will hear her appeal, "raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock," The News & Observer reported Friday.
As the Raleigh newspaper detailed:
If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday's decision from the Court of Appeals could stand.
Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats' hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.
Although the court fight is far from over, Griffin spokesperson Paul Shumaker and North Carolina GOP Chair Jason Simmons cheered Friday's decision, from which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissented.
Hampson's dissent begins by pointing out that Griffin "has yet to identify a single voter—among the tens of thousands petitioner challenges in this appeal—who was, in fact, ineligible to vote in the 2024 general election under the statutes, rules, and regulations in place in November 2024 governing that election."
"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution," Hampson argued.
Democratic leaders in North Carolina and beyond also blasted the majority's decision. State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said that "Judge Tyson and Gore put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters" when they "legitimized Jefferson Griffin's unconstitutional challenge" to tens of thousands of legally cast votes.
Reminder: From my legal and partisan sources, this ultimately gets decided based on how fed courts address military and overseas voters who didn't provide photo ID (and were expressly advised before election that they didn't need to). Why it matters: andersonalerts.substack.com/p/nc-supreme...
[image or embed]
— Bryan Anderson (@bryanranderson.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM
North Carolina House of Representatives Minority Leader Robert Reives (D-54) declared: "We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight. Justice Allison Riggs won her election—full stop. Our democracy continues to be tested, but we cannot allow it to break."
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that "this partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people."
"North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice," Martin stressed. "They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."
Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights organization Common Cause North Carolina, was similarly engaged, saying: "Today's ruling is a disgrace. This poorly conceived decision is an extreme overreach and sides with a sore loser candidate over the citizens of our state. If allowed to stand, the ruling would inject chaos into North Carolina's elections in ways that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide."
Phillips continued:
Let's be clear: these North Carolina voters did absolutely nothing wrong. They followed the rules and cast ballots that should count. To say otherwise now is an affront to the rule of law and our Constitution.
If Griffin gets his way, never again will the people of North Carolina be able to have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Instead, Griffin's reckless lawsuit will open the door to an endless stream of other sore loser candidates who will attempt to throw out enough votes until they can cheat their way into office.
This fight is not over. We are confident that the courts will ultimately see Griffin's ploy for what it is: an unconstitutional attack on our freedom to vote.
"The people of North Carolina will continue to protest against Griffin's outrageous attack on our rights," he added, "as we continue our work to protect our family members, friends, and neighbors who are targeted by Griffin's disgraceful scheme."
"How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are," said one lawyer.
A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the return of a Maryland resident who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month, according to The Associated Press.
Prior to issuing the ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis called the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia "an illegal act."
The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, gave the Trump administration end of the day of the day on Monday to bring him back to the United States.
Supporters outside the courtroom cheered as the judge handed down her order, according to The Washington Post.
Responding to the ruling on social media, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "This is a big win. Now Trump must comply with the judge's order."
Immigration lawyer Ava Benach wrote: "The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are."
The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are.
[image or embed]
— avabenach.bsky.social (@avabenach.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Abrego Garcia was among hundreds of people the administration expelled in mid-March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador after targeting them for alleged gang ties.
In a court papers filed earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting field office director admitted that the removal of Abrego Garcia on March 15 "was an error."
Abrego Garcia was deported despite the fact that in 2019, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to his native El Salvador because he would likely face gang persecution there.
"Corporations get let off the hook, Musk gets insider information, and the American people get hosed."
The latest U.S. agency in the crosshairs of billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is reportedly the Federal Trade Commission, an already-understaffed department tasked with preventing monopolistic practices and shielding consumers from corporate abuses.
Axios reported Friday that at least two DOGE staffers "now have offices at" the FTC. According to The Verge, two DOGE members "were spotted" at the agency's building this week and "are now listed in the FTC's internal directory."
The Verge noted that the FTC is "a fairly lean agency with fewer than 1,200 employees," a number that the Trump administration has already cut into with the firing of some of the department's consumer protection and antitrust staff.
At least two of Musk's companies, Tesla and X, have faced scrutiny in recent years from the FTC, which is now under the leadership of Trump appointee Andrew Ferguson, who previously pledged to roll back former chair Lina Khan's anti-monopoly legacy.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, which referred to the operatives as Musk's "minions," said Friday that "DOGE is yet again raiding a federal watchdog tasked with protecting working Americans from Wall Street and Big Tech."
"The FTC has worked to stop monopolistic mergers that would have led to higher grocery prices and is now gearing up to go to court against Meta's social media monopoly," said Peterson-Cassin. "It's no surprise that at this moment, while the economy is in freefall and fraud is on the rise, DOGE is choosing to raid the federal watchdog that protects everyday Americans and threatens corporate monopolies and grifters."
News of DOGE staffers' infiltration of the FTC came as Trump's sweeping new tariffs continued to cause global economic turmoil and heightened concerns that companies in the U.S. will use the tariffs as a new excuse to jack up prices and pad their bottom lines.
Ferguson pledged in a social media post Thursday that under his leadership, the FTC "will be watching closely" to ensure companies don't view Trump's tariffs "as a green light for price fixing or any other unlawful behavior."
But Trump has hobbled the agency—and prompted yet another legal fight—by firing its two Democratic commissioners, a move that sparked fury and has already impacted the FTC's ability to pursue cases against large corporations.
Peterson-Cassin said Friday that "the only winners" of DOGE's targeting of the FTC "are Trump's billionaire besties like [Meta CEO] Mark Zuckerberg and especially Musk, who now stands to gain access to confidential financial information about every company ever investigated by the FTC, including the auto manufacturers, aerospace firms, internet providers, tech companies, and banks that directly compete with his own companies."
"Corporations get let off the hook, Musk gets insider information, and the American people get hosed," Peterson-Cassin added.