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
Nurse practitioner Daniel Lucas-Neel II checks the temperature of a man who asked to be screened at a pop-up Coronavirus testing site run by a free clinic in Charleston, West Virginia on April 13, 2020. The free clinic called West Virginia Health Right has seen an increase in people seeking help because they lost their healthcare coverage when they lost their jobs. (Photo: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
'Threadbare' US System Denounced as Study Shows 12 Million Lost Employer-Tied Healthcare During Pandemic
"Delinking health insurance with jobs should be a top policy priority."
Aug 26, 2020
Medicare for All advocates had new reason to decry the U.S. system that ties the healthcare for many to employment after a new study released Wednesday showed an estimate 12 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored insurance coverage since the Covid-19 pandemic hit earlier this year.
"At a minimum, policymakers concerned about Americans' health security should have the federal government pay for all testing and treatment for COVID-19 related expenses in coming months."
-- Economic Policy Institute
"Because most U.S. workers rely on their employer or a family member's employer for health insurance, the shock of the coronavirus has cost millions of Americans their jobs and their access to healthcare in the midst of a public health catastrophe," Josh Bivens, co-author of the study and director of research at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), said in a statement announcing the findings.
"Tying health insurance to the labor market is always terribly inefficient and problematic, but becomes particularly so during times of great labor market churn," said Bivens.
\u201c#MedicareForAll would mean a coordinated, effective public health response in times of crisis AND guaranteed care for everyone at all times, including:\n\n\ud83d\udc41\ufe0f Vision\n\ud83e\uddb7 Dental\n\ud83d\udc42 Hearing\n\ud83e\udde0 Mental health\n\u2764\ufe0f Long term care\n\ud83c\udf7c Reproductive health\n\ud83d\udc8a Substance abuse treatment\u201d— NationalNursesUnited (@NationalNursesUnited) 1598307241
The think tank pointed to a clear way to prevent job loss from equaling loss of health insurance.
"Delinking health insurance with jobs should be a top policy priority," EPI tweeted in a thread about the study and the authors' takeaways. "The most ambitious and transformational way to sever this link is to make the federal government the payer of first resort for all health care expenses--a 'single payer' plan like #MedicareForAll."
\u201cCOVID and capitalist health care, a two part story.\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1598466297
But despite growing popularity of such a system among the American public, neither the Republican nor Democratic party platforms embrace the idea, despite continued advocacy from more progressive members of Congress and activists.
\u201cWhich one thinks my access to healthcare shouldn't depend on my employment status? \n\n#MedicareForAll\u201d— Briahna Joy Gray (@Briahna Joy Gray) 1598409730
Rep. Ilhan Omar, (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation this month to cover out-of-pocket healthcare expenses of all Americans during the pandemic by authorizing a wealth tax. Entitled the "Make Billionaires Pay Act," the measure would be funded by taxing the wealth gains accrued by billionaires since March as millions of Americans lost their jobs. Both Sanders and Omar have co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the past, and the EPI study's authors urged lawmakers to act quickly.
"The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how incomplete and threadbare the U.S. safety net and social insurance system is," said Ben Zipperer, an economist and study co-author. "In order to help millions of Americans during the pandemic and beyond, policymakers must take swift action to address the inequities and inefficiencies in our health care system."
EPI also noted online Wednesday that a single-payer system would not be a job killer, as its opponents like to assert.
"Medicare for All is a hugely ambitious policy, and there's a lot to debate about it. But the idea it would have a massive job-killing effect is a fake story," Bivens said in an explainer video EPI shared on Twitter Wednesday.
"At a minimum, policymakers concerned about Americans' health security should have the federal government pay for all testing and treatment for Covid-19 related expenses in coming months," Bivens and Zipperer wrote.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
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. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Medicare for All advocates had new reason to decry the U.S. system that ties the healthcare for many to employment after a new study released Wednesday showed an estimate 12 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored insurance coverage since the Covid-19 pandemic hit earlier this year.
"At a minimum, policymakers concerned about Americans' health security should have the federal government pay for all testing and treatment for COVID-19 related expenses in coming months."
-- Economic Policy Institute
"Because most U.S. workers rely on their employer or a family member's employer for health insurance, the shock of the coronavirus has cost millions of Americans their jobs and their access to healthcare in the midst of a public health catastrophe," Josh Bivens, co-author of the study and director of research at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), said in a statement announcing the findings.
"Tying health insurance to the labor market is always terribly inefficient and problematic, but becomes particularly so during times of great labor market churn," said Bivens.
\u201c#MedicareForAll would mean a coordinated, effective public health response in times of crisis AND guaranteed care for everyone at all times, including:\n\n\ud83d\udc41\ufe0f Vision\n\ud83e\uddb7 Dental\n\ud83d\udc42 Hearing\n\ud83e\udde0 Mental health\n\u2764\ufe0f Long term care\n\ud83c\udf7c Reproductive health\n\ud83d\udc8a Substance abuse treatment\u201d— NationalNursesUnited (@NationalNursesUnited) 1598307241
The think tank pointed to a clear way to prevent job loss from equaling loss of health insurance.
"Delinking health insurance with jobs should be a top policy priority," EPI tweeted in a thread about the study and the authors' takeaways. "The most ambitious and transformational way to sever this link is to make the federal government the payer of first resort for all health care expenses--a 'single payer' plan like #MedicareForAll."
\u201cCOVID and capitalist health care, a two part story.\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1598466297
But despite growing popularity of such a system among the American public, neither the Republican nor Democratic party platforms embrace the idea, despite continued advocacy from more progressive members of Congress and activists.
\u201cWhich one thinks my access to healthcare shouldn't depend on my employment status? \n\n#MedicareForAll\u201d— Briahna Joy Gray (@Briahna Joy Gray) 1598409730
Rep. Ilhan Omar, (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation this month to cover out-of-pocket healthcare expenses of all Americans during the pandemic by authorizing a wealth tax. Entitled the "Make Billionaires Pay Act," the measure would be funded by taxing the wealth gains accrued by billionaires since March as millions of Americans lost their jobs. Both Sanders and Omar have co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the past, and the EPI study's authors urged lawmakers to act quickly.
"The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how incomplete and threadbare the U.S. safety net and social insurance system is," said Ben Zipperer, an economist and study co-author. "In order to help millions of Americans during the pandemic and beyond, policymakers must take swift action to address the inequities and inefficiencies in our health care system."
EPI also noted online Wednesday that a single-payer system would not be a job killer, as its opponents like to assert.
"Medicare for All is a hugely ambitious policy, and there's a lot to debate about it. But the idea it would have a massive job-killing effect is a fake story," Bivens said in an explainer video EPI shared on Twitter Wednesday.
"At a minimum, policymakers concerned about Americans' health security should have the federal government pay for all testing and treatment for Covid-19 related expenses in coming months," Bivens and Zipperer wrote.
Medicare for All advocates had new reason to decry the U.S. system that ties the healthcare for many to employment after a new study released Wednesday showed an estimate 12 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored insurance coverage since the Covid-19 pandemic hit earlier this year.
"At a minimum, policymakers concerned about Americans' health security should have the federal government pay for all testing and treatment for COVID-19 related expenses in coming months."
-- Economic Policy Institute
"Because most U.S. workers rely on their employer or a family member's employer for health insurance, the shock of the coronavirus has cost millions of Americans their jobs and their access to healthcare in the midst of a public health catastrophe," Josh Bivens, co-author of the study and director of research at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), said in a statement announcing the findings.
"Tying health insurance to the labor market is always terribly inefficient and problematic, but becomes particularly so during times of great labor market churn," said Bivens.
\u201c#MedicareForAll would mean a coordinated, effective public health response in times of crisis AND guaranteed care for everyone at all times, including:\n\n\ud83d\udc41\ufe0f Vision\n\ud83e\uddb7 Dental\n\ud83d\udc42 Hearing\n\ud83e\udde0 Mental health\n\u2764\ufe0f Long term care\n\ud83c\udf7c Reproductive health\n\ud83d\udc8a Substance abuse treatment\u201d— NationalNursesUnited (@NationalNursesUnited) 1598307241
The think tank pointed to a clear way to prevent job loss from equaling loss of health insurance.
"Delinking health insurance with jobs should be a top policy priority," EPI tweeted in a thread about the study and the authors' takeaways. "The most ambitious and transformational way to sever this link is to make the federal government the payer of first resort for all health care expenses--a 'single payer' plan like #MedicareForAll."
\u201cCOVID and capitalist health care, a two part story.\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1598466297
But despite growing popularity of such a system among the American public, neither the Republican nor Democratic party platforms embrace the idea, despite continued advocacy from more progressive members of Congress and activists.
\u201cWhich one thinks my access to healthcare shouldn't depend on my employment status? \n\n#MedicareForAll\u201d— Briahna Joy Gray (@Briahna Joy Gray) 1598409730
Rep. Ilhan Omar, (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation this month to cover out-of-pocket healthcare expenses of all Americans during the pandemic by authorizing a wealth tax. Entitled the "Make Billionaires Pay Act," the measure would be funded by taxing the wealth gains accrued by billionaires since March as millions of Americans lost their jobs. Both Sanders and Omar have co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the past, and the EPI study's authors urged lawmakers to act quickly.
"The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how incomplete and threadbare the U.S. safety net and social insurance system is," said Ben Zipperer, an economist and study co-author. "In order to help millions of Americans during the pandemic and beyond, policymakers must take swift action to address the inequities and inefficiencies in our health care system."
EPI also noted online Wednesday that a single-payer system would not be a job killer, as its opponents like to assert.
"Medicare for All is a hugely ambitious policy, and there's a lot to debate about it. But the idea it would have a massive job-killing effect is a fake story," Bivens said in an explainer video EPI shared on Twitter Wednesday.
"At a minimum, policymakers concerned about Americans' health security should have the federal government pay for all testing and treatment for Covid-19 related expenses in coming months," Bivens and Zipperer wrote.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
'Wrongheaded Cruelty': Observers Bash Rubio Decision to Revoke All Visas Held by South Sudanese
"South Sudan is about to blow up into potentially another country-wide civil war, putting civilians at risk. But yea let's force people to go back now," wrote one professor.
Apr 07, 2025
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday announced that the United States is revoking visas for all South Sudanese passport holders, "effective immediately"—sparking criticism from several observers, including those who pointed out that the country could soon tip into another civil war.
Rubio announced on X that the move, which includes restricting any "further issuance" of visas, comes in response to the South Sudanese government's failure to return "its repatriated citizens in a timely manner."
"This is wrongheaded cruelty," wrote Rebecca Hamilton, a professor at American University Washington College of Law and executive editor at the digital law and policy journal Just Security, on X on Saturday. "The vast majority of South Sudanese in this country (or, frankly inside South Sudan, right now) have no say in what their government does. They are here working, studying, building skills essential for their nascent country."
Mike Brand, an adjunct professor at the University of Connecticut and Georgetown University who focuses on human rights and atrocities prevention, wrote on Saturday: "South Sudan is about to blow up into potentially another country-wide civil war, putting civilians at risk. But yea let's force people to go back now."
South Sudan is the world's youngest country, having only declared independence from Sudan in 2011 following two lengthy civil wars.
The young nation was once again plunged into civil war in 2013 due to violence between warring factions backing President Salva Kiir and his deputy, Riek Machar. A peace deal was brokered in 2018, though the country has still not held a long-delayed presidential election and Kiir remains in power today, according to Time.
Fears of full-on civil war returned when, last month, Machar was arrested and his allies in government were also detained. Machar's opposition political party declared the country's peace deal effectively over, per Time.
Shortly after Rubio's announcement on Saturday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau wrote on X that the government of South Sudan had refused to accept a South Sudanese national who was "certified by their own embassy in Washington" and then repatriated. "Our efforts to engage diplomatically with the South Sudanese government have been rebuffed," Landau wrote.
On Monday, the government of South Sudan released a statement saying that the deportee who was not permitted entry is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not South Sudan. The government also said it has maintained consistent communication and cooperation with the U.S. government regarding "immigration and deportation matters."
In the early 2000s, thousands of "lost boys" stemming from a civil war in Sudan that began in the 1980s and eventually led to South Sudan's independence were resettled in the United States.
John Skiles Skinner, a software engineer based in California, reacted to Rubio's announcement by writing on Bluesky: "I taught a U.S. citizenship class to South Sudanese refugees in Nebraska, 2006-2007. Fleeing civil war, they worked arduous jobs at a meat packing plant. Many had no literacy in any language. But they studied hard for a citizenship exam which many native-born Americans would not be able to pass."
In 2011, the Obama administration granted South Sudan nationals in the United States "temporary protected status" (TPS)—a designation that shields foreign-born people from deportation because they cannot return home safely due to war, natural disasters, or other "extraordinary" circumstances. The Biden administration extended it, but the designation is set to expire early next month.
As of September 2024, the U.S. provides TPS protections to 155 people from South Sudan.
In a Monday post for Just Security, Hamilton of American University and a co-author wrote that "while there has been no public determination by the secretary of homeland security regarding an extension of TPS for South Sudanese, Rubio's announcement presumably means [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] Secretary Kristi Noem is planning to terminate their TPS."
Observers online also highlighted that Duke University star basketball player Khaman Maluach, whose family left South Sudan for Uganda when he was a child, could be impacted by the State Department's ruling.
Trump Backs 'Blatantly Unconstitutional' Proposal to Send US Citizen Inmates to El Salvador Prisons
"You may not deport a U.S. citizen, period," said one legal expert.
Apr 07, 2025
With a deadline looming for the Trump administration to return a Maryland resident to the U.S. after expelling him along with hundreds of other people to an El Salvador detention center under a shadowy deal with the Central American country, U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday stunned observers by expressing a desire to send U.S. citizens into El Salvador's prison system.
In a press briefing aboard Air Force One Sunday evening, Trump was asked by a reporter about an offer made by Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to accept prisoners sent by the U.S. from its federal prison population.
"I love that," Trump said. "If we could take some of our 20-time wise guys that push people into subways and hit people over the back of the head and purposely run people over in cars, if he would take them, I would be honored to give them."
"I don't know what the law says on that," he added. "I have suggested that, why should we stop at people who cross the border illegally?"
Podcaster and former Obama administration staffer Jon Favreau said Trump's remarks could be summed up as: "He wants to send American citizens to a foreign gulag."
Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which permits the U.S. government to detain and deport noncitizens during wartime, to expel 238 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, where they are being held in the country's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). About two dozen people who were originally from El Salvador were also sent to the prison, including Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland man who had legal protected status, was not convicted of a crime, and had previously received a court order barring the U.S. from deporting him to his home country for fear of persecution and torture.
Trump said several times in his comments Sunday that he was unsure of the legality of sending U.S. federal prison inmates to a foreign prison system.
In February, after Bukele first offered to imprison U.S. citizens, Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told NPR that the idea was a "non-starter."
"You may not deport a U.S. citizen, period," Gelernt, deputy director of the group's Immigrants' Rights Project, told the outlet. "The courts have not allowed that, and they would not allow it... It would be blatantly unconstitutional to deport a U.S. citizen."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also touted Bukele's offer at the time, calling it "an extraordinary gesture never before extended by any country."
Trump's remarks on potentially expanding his deal with the Salvadoran president to include U.S. citizens followed U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis's order mandating the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S. with a deadline of 11:59 pm Monday.
Xinis on Sunday rejected the administration's request to lift the order, saying Abrego Garcia's expulsion had been "wholly lawless" and that the "risk of harm shocks the conscience."
On Monday, the administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block Xinis' order, saying her demand that the White House adhere to the Constitution was "district-court diplomacy" and accusing the judge of trying to "seize control over foreign relations."
The administration has attacked the district court in Washington, D.C. in recent days over the order, with homeland security adviser Stephen Miller calling on Congress last week to "step up" and abolish the panel by refusing to fund it.
The White House has called Abrego Garcia's expulsion and imprisonment in El Salvador an "administrative error" and claimed the Maryland father is no longer under U.S. jurisdiction, so the administration cannot order him to be returned.
"We suggest the judge contact President Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador," said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt last week.
Washington Monthly contributor David Atkins said that under the same logic, "there is also nothing that prevents them from shipping American citizens to a gulag in El Salvador and saying, 'Nothing we can do.'"
Hope people understand the trajectory that we’re on: if the executive is arguing that it has no recourse once people here end up in a prison in El Salvador, then that’s the precedent for there being no recourse when this starts happening to United States citizens.
[image or embed]
— Alexander Ross (@alexander-ross.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 7:03 PM
As Trump expressed interest in expelling U.S. citizens to a foreign prison system, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council pointed out that the details of the White House's deal with Bukele have not been publicly disclosed.
"We literally know nothing about it, other than we're paying them $6 million," said Reichlin-Melnick. "No law in the United States authorizes us to pay another country to imprison people. And yet! They're doing it."
Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director for Detention Watch Network, told Newsweek Monday that the deal with Bukele is being used "as a tool of propaganda with the core objective to dehumanize and villainize people while carrying out their cruel mass detention and deportation agenda unchecked."
"Bottom line, Trump and Bukele's partnership deepens collaboration with authoritarian leaders," said Ghandehari, "further jeopardizing democratic values in the U.S. and around the world."
Mahmoud Khalil Rips Columbia University's Complicity in Trump Rampage
"The logic used by the federal government to target myself and my peers is a direct extension of Columbia's repression playbook concerning Palestine."
Apr 07, 2025
In an op-ed dictated to his attorney from a detention facility in Louisiana, Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil late last week condemned the Ivy League institution's complicity in the Trump administration's targeting of Palestinian rights advocates and campus dissent more broadly.
Khalil, who has said he is a political prisoner, argued in the Friday op-ed that Columbia "laid the groundwork for my abduction" last month by U.S. Department of Homeland Security agents. The Trump administration's detention of and effort to deport Khalil—who helped lead student protests against Israel's assault on Gaza—have sparked widespread alarm and backlash, much of it directed at Columbia.
"The logic used by the federal government to target myself and my peers is a direct extension of Columbia's repression playbook concerning Palestine," Khalil wrote, pointing to the recent arrests of other international students who have spoken out in support of Palestinian rights.
Writing in the university's daily student newspaper, Khalil noted that "Columbia has suppressed student dissent under the auspices of combating antisemitism," an approach also taken by the Trump administration, which said the arrest of Khalil was carried out in alignment with the president's "executive orders prohibiting antisemitism."
"This institution's singular concern has always been the vitality of its financial profile, not the safety of Jewish students. This is why Columbia was all too happy to embrace a superficial progressive agenda while still disregarding Palestine, and this is why it will soon turn on you, too," he warned. "If there was any illusion left, it shattered last week when the board of trustees executed a historic maneuver to seize direct control of the presidency. Cutting out their middleman, the board appointed fellow trustee Claire Shipman to a position reserved for academic leadership. Who can still pretend this is an educational institution and not the 'Vichy on the Hudson'?"
"Faced with a movement for divestment they couldn't crush, your trustees opted to set fire to the institution they're entrusted with," Khalil continued. "It is incumbent upon each of you to reclaim the university and join the student movement to carry forward the work of the past year."
Khalil and his legal team are currently fighting the Trump administration's effort to remove him from the country. Earlier this month, a second federal judge rejected the Trump administration's request to transfer Khalil's case to Louisiana, a demand that civil liberties advocates decried as a ploy to "manipulate federal court jurisdiction" in order to receive a favorable ruling.
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union—which is representing Khalil—stressed in an NBC News op-ed last week that Khalil "has never been accused, charged, or convicted of any crime."
"The Trump administration is sending a message to everyone in America: If you dare to disagree with the president, you will be punished," Lieberman wrote, alluding to a fight over federal funding. "Columbia was just the first target. Harvard and Princeton are now in danger of similar treatment. This is a full-scale attack on the system of free inquiry, discussion, and debate that is at the core of higher education, which is so crucial to the strength of our democracy."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.