

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.

Michael Lighty, 510-772-8384,
Don Nielsen, 559-647-7732 or
Charles Idelson, 510-273-2246
SB 562, the Healthy California Act, would cut current spending on healthcare in California by 18 percent - and produce substantial savings for households in healthcare costs as a share of their income, and California businesses, which would also see reduced payroll costs for health care expenditures, according to new research findings released today.
Most importantly, the bill would guarantee full health coverage for all Californians, without the devastating deductibles and co-pays that prompt many to ration needed care. The study notes that 36 percent of all insured Californians, 12 million people, remain underinsured - paying for premiums but often unable to access care due to high out of pocket costs - and another 7.5 percent, 2.7 million Californians, remain fully uninsured, even with improvements under the Affordable Care Act.
Significantly the proposed plan would sharply reduce what middle-income California families now spend out of pocket for health care costs as a share of their income by up to 9 percent.
In sum- the savings amount to a 9 percent raise for California workers.
California businesses who currently provide health benefits for employees would also see a decline in their payroll costs by up to 22 percent for small businesses and up to 13 percent for medium size businesses - with the added benefit of a healthier, more productive population.
That's the findings of an "Economic Analysis of the Healthy California Single-Payer Health Care Proposal (SB 562)," a research study by a team of economists at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, led by Dr. Robert Pollin, a premiere U.S. economist and author of a number of books on economic policy. Dr. James Heintz, Dr. Peter Arno, and Dr. Jeannette Wicks-Lim, all of PERI, also authored the study. The California Nurses Association/National Nurses United sponsored the study.
Under the Healthy California Act, California's total spending on health care, with savings of 18 percent produced by reductions in administrative costs, the use of state bulk purchasing power, and improved patient care delivery, would drop to $331 billion. But that figure includes $225 billion of current taxpayer funded spending on Medicare, Medicaid, tax subsidies paid to insurers for health expenses of families and households.
With the savings produced by a single payer financing system, and the transfer of the 71 percent of taxpayer funded spending currently by Medicare, Medicaid and taxpayer subsidies to insurers for partial payment private insurance costs for families and households, an additional $106 billion will be needed - replacing the huge burden of what Californians now pay to insurers and other health care corporations in premiums, deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket health care costs, and the social impact that imposes for people who skip needed care due to debilitating cost.
The study proposes achieving that added revenue through two modest taxes, a 2.3 percent on gross business revenue receipts - exempting the first $2 million in receipts to eliminate the cost for small businesses - and a new 2.3 percent sales tax that would exempt all spending on housing, utilities, services, and food at home, to mitigate the impact for low and moderate income Californians. The lowest income Californians would receive a tax credit, fully offsetting their tax share.
"What this new study proves is that we can finally achieve the dream of guaranteeing health care for all Californians, without the punishment of crippling out of pocket costs, at far less than what was predicted by those who make enormous profits off the pain and suffering of everyday Californians," said RoseAnn DeMoro, CNA/NNU executive director.
"We know from the experiences of other countries across the world that we can reduce overall spending, and produce a more effective, humane health care system. Now it is up to us as a society to decide what are our priorities, what we consider should be the responsibility to ensure that health care is a right, a public good, and the moral choice to make as a people," DeMoro said.
SB 562 is eligible for a vote by the California Senate this week. It would establish an improved Medicare for all type system in California. State Senators Ricardo Lara and Toni G. Atkins introduced the bill, joined by Senators Benjamin Allen, Cathleen Galgiani, Mike McGuire, Nancy Skinner, and Scott Wiener as co-authors. CNA is the primary sponsor of the bill, joined by the Healthy California Campaign https://www.healthycaliforniaact.org/
Assembly Members Rob Bonta, David Chiu, Laura Friedman, Ash Kalra, Kevin McCarty, Adrin Nazarian, Mark Stone, and Tony Thurmond are also co-authors of the bill.
The threat of repeal of the ACA by Congress and the Trump Administration would further exacerbate the health crisis for many, making SB 562 even more timely.
Key features of SB 562 include:
* Every Californian eligible to enroll, regardless of age, income, employment or other status.
* No out of pocket costs, such as high deductibles and co-pays, for covered health services
* Comprehensive coverage, including hospital and outpatient medical care, primary and preventive care, vision, dental, hearing, women's reproductive health services, mental health, lab tests, rehab and other basic medical needs
* Lower prescription drug costs
* Long term care services provided under Medi-Cal continue, and will be expanded with an emphasis on community and in-home care
* No narrow insurance networks, one medical card, real patient choice of provider
* No insurance claims denials based on corporate profit goals
National Nurses United, with close to 185,000 members in every state, is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in US history.
(240) 235-2000"JD Vance has a lot of nerve showing up in Texas to shake down wealthy donors... while Texans are paying through the nose at the pump and can’t get through the airport his party broke,” said one Democratic state lawmaker.
Vice President JD Vance's scheduled attendance at three $100,000-per-couple fundraisers has raised eyebrows and ire as Americans struggle to make ends meet due to the Trump administration economic policies and experts warn that the US-Israeli war on Iran could cause tens of millions of people in the Global South to suffer acute hunger.
Vance—who is widely expected to run for president in 2028—is in Texas this week for Republican National Committee fundraisers in Austin on Monday and Dallas on Tuesday. The vice president is also scheduled to attend another similar fundraising event in Nashville, Tennessee on March 30.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Joe Lonsdale, the billionaire founder of the controversial data analytics company Palantir, is hosting the Austin event. Billionaire investor and real estate developer Ray Washburne will co-host the Dallas fundraiser along with Chris Buskirk, founder of the venture capital firm where Donald Trump Jr. works. Buskirk openly advocates for an American "aristocracy" that "takes care of the country and governs it well so that everyone prospers.”
Also set to co-host the Dallas event is David Hininger, the former CEO of CoreCivic, a leading private prison firm in an industry that has gloated about the "unprecedented" profit potential of Trump's mass arrest and deportation campaign against undocumented immigrants.
Donors were reportedly asked to pay $250,000 to host one of the fundraisers.
"While Vance dines with billionaire donors, Americans are struggling to get by in the Trump-Vance economy as prices on everything from gas to groceries soar and working families dip into their savings to make ends meet," the Democratic National Committee said in a statement Monday.
"Trump and Vance’s war with Iran has already claimed the lives of 13 US service members and injured over 230, while driving up global oil prices and gas prices for Americans back home," the DNC added, without mentioning the thousands of Iranians killed or wounded by the illegal war of choice. "According to [the American Automobile Association], the average price for a gallon of gas is $3.96 nationwide, up from $2.94 just one month ago."
Trump campaigned on promises of no new wars and lower consumer prices, including gas, on "day one." Since returning to office, he has ordered the bombing of seven countries. Gas prices are up around 30% since Trump returned to the White House in January 2020.
“Prices on everything from gas to groceries to rent are soaring because of the Trump-Vance agenda, and what is JD Vance up to? He’s rubbing elbows with billionaires and special interests while working families struggle to make ends meet," DNC Chair Ken Martin said Monday. "Everyday Americans are stretching every dollar just to get by, and Vance is worried about lining his own pockets.”
Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Christina Morales (D-145) told the Houston Chronicle Monday that "JD Vance has a lot of nerve showing up in Texas to shake down wealthy donors for a quarter of a million dollars a head while Texans are paying through the nose at the pump and can’t get through the airport his party broke."
The war on Iran and its cascading global economic impacts could also fuel a sharp rise in acute hunger around the world, the United Nations World Food Program warned last week. WFP said the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is driving higher energy and fertilizer prices, which in turn can result in more expensive food.
“If this conflict continues, it will send shockwaves across the globe, and families who already cannot afford their next meal will be hit the hardest," Carl Skau, WFP’s deputy executive director and chief operating officer, said. “Without an adequately funded humanitarian response, it could spell catastrophe for millions already on the edge.”
"Fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said the speaker of the Iranian Parliament.
As the Iranian government denied President Donald Trump's claim on Monday that "productive" talks are taking place between the US and the Middle Eastern country, which the White House has joined Israel in attacking for close to a month, a top Iranian lawmaker accused the president of attempting to manipulate global markets with his claim.
"No negotiations have been held with the US, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, in a post on X.
Ghalibaf's theory appeared to be supported by developments in the financial markets shortly after Trump's seemingly significant announcement Monday morning.
As the market analysis and commentary website The Kobeissi Letter reported, by 7:10 am Eastern—six minutes after Trump appeared to allude to diplomatic strides toward ending his unprovoked war—the S&P 500 surged by more than 240 points, adding more than $2 trillion in market capitalization.
Iran's Foreign Ministry denied Trump's claim 27 minutes later, and by 8:00 AM Eastern the S&P 500 had fallen by 120 points, erasing nearly $1 trillion in market value.
"That's a $3 TRILLION swing market cap in 56 minutes, just in the S&P 500," said The Kobeissi Letter. "What is happening here?"
Ahead of Ghalibaf's remarks, The New Republic also posited that Trump's "news" of productive discussions was "just a ploy at market manipulation."
The quick denial of talks from the Foreign Ministry raised "serious doubts as to whether the president is telling the truth or just saying whatever he can to stop gas prices from rising more and more as Iran locks down the Strait of Hormuz."
Since the US and Israel began its assault on Iran on February 28, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows, and sent gas prices soaring to nearly $4 per gallon, up from $2.91 before the war.
The war, which has killed more than 3,200 Iranians and exploded into a larger conflict, with more than 1,000 people killed in Lebanon and at least 60 killed in Iraq, has appeared politically toxic for Trump, who campaigned on "no new wars" and making life more affordable for Americans.
Nearly 80% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 said last week that they hope for a quick end to the war.
Some observers noted that even the president's five-day deadline for negotiations to conclude—after which he suggested the US could launch strikes against Iran's energy infrastructure—appeared to revolve around the week's closing of energy markets on Friday.
"Every week, when markets open, Trump makes these kinds of statements to drive down oil prices," said Iranian academic Seyed Mohammad Marandi. "Even his five-day deadline aligns with the closure of the energy market. But in reality, there are no negotiations underway, nor does Trump have the capability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's firm threat has once again forced Trump to back down."
On Saturday, Trump had threatened to "obliterate" Iran's power plants if it didn't reopen the Strait of Hormuz by Monday. Iran responded with a threat to target energy infrastructure across the region, including in Israel.
A senior Iranian official told Drop Site News that "no new developments have occurred” diplomatically between the US and Iran.
Iran's conditions for ending the war, the official said, include a simultaneous ceasefire in Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq. The government is also demanding an end to US sanctions on Iran's procurement of defensive weapons and equipment.
“The fact that he publicly responds to [Iran’s position] by posting a tweet," the official said, "is solely intended to manage the financial markets—nothing more."
"The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close," said one critic.
Critics slammed the Trump administration on Monday after it announced a deal to pay almost $1 billion to a French energy company to cancel its plans to construct wind farms across the eastern US.
As reported by The New York Times, French firm TotalEnergies has agreed to forfeit its leases in federal waters off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, and will instead invest the money it received from the Trump administration into oil and gas projects in the US, "including a facility in Texas that would export liquefied natural gas to global markets."
TotalEnergies paid nearly $928 million for the rights to access federal waters during former President Joe Biden's administration.
The Times described the agreement as "an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels, a main driver of climate change, while throttling offshore wind power."
Patrick Pouyanné, the chief executive of TotalEnergies, said that the firm decided to abandon its US wind farm plans due to "practical" considerations, while emphasizing that the firm wasn't giving up on wind power all together.
"When the Trump administration came to power and began setting US energy policy, we said that we’ll have to reconsider, clearly, these offshore wind project developments," explained Pouyanné, adding that "we continue to invest in onshore solar, onshore wind, batteries."
Many critics expressed disbelief that the Trump administration would go to such extraordinary lengths to kill a clean energy project, especially after the president sent oil and gasoline prices soaring earlier this month when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
"Let’s call this what it is: a taxpayer-funded bribe to kill homegrown clean energy and hand the money straight to oil and gas executives," wrote climate advocacy organization Evergreen Action in a social media post. "Trump is once again making Americans pay more for energy so his Big Oil donors can rake in even more profits."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, expressed a similar sentiment.
"$1 billion of our tax dollars to kill a clean energy program that creates jobs, just so Trump's Big Oil donors can make more profit," D'Arrigo wrote. "The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at press watchdog Media Matters for America, argued that the agreement was a corrupt bargain aimed at hurting the president's political foes, including the Democratic leaders of New York and North Carolina.
"Climate/renewables arguments aside, this is the president's administration paying a foreign company to invest in states where Republicans are in charge rather than ones where Democrats are in charge," Gertz wrote, "using tax dollars to punish people who didn't vote for his party."
US Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) said that the deal to kill the planned wind farms was yet another example of the Trump administration making life in the US less affordable.
"This administration just spent $1 BILLION of your money to make sure wind farms don't get built," Blunt Rochester wrote. "You''ll have them to thank for higher electric bills each month."