Health

Opinion: The Medicare for All Debate is Long Overdue

Published

7 years ago

November 7, 2019

By Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr

Affordable health care for all is now at the center of the presidential debate. Two of the top three contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination — Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — support Medicare for All. The third, Joe Biden, and those hoping to take his place as the leading centrist in the race (Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar) have attacked the plan to contrast their candidacies from Sanders and Warren.

Donald Trump, who wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act itself, and has already added some 10 million people to the ranks of the uninsured, scorns it as “socialism,” just as earlier Republicans libeled Social Security and Medicare itself when they were under consideration.

In 1984 and 1988, I made a single-payer Medicare for All plan central to my presidential campaign. As a policy, it has always made the most sense. The question has always been whether the politicians had the nerve to weather the fierce attack that insurance and pharmaceutical drug companies will unleash against the proposal and any candidate who supports it, and whether voters would be scared off by the attacks.

Sanders brought Medicare for All back into the national political debate in his remarkable run for the Democratic nomination in 2016 against Hillary Clinton. The National Nurses Association and others have helped build a movement out of that momentum. Sanders has “written the bill,” and in the House, Rep. Pramila Jayapal has introduced a detailed complement to the Sanders bill. Elizabeth Warren, who signed onto the Sanders bill, now has produced a clear plan on what Medicare for All would cover, and how it would be paid for.

The basic principles and values are clear and widely popular. Health care should be a right, not a privilege. No one should go without the care they need because they cannot afford it. No one should go bankrupt simply because they get sick.

Yet our current health care system offends each of those principles. We spend almost two times per capita on health care as other advanced nations. If you have a lot of money or a strong union, you can get excellent health care. For the rest, care is rationed by money. Twenty-four million go without insurance, up 10 million under Trump. Another 65 million are underinsured, one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Health care costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy.

Medicare for All is popular at first look. Then the insurance and drug companies and the opponents unleash their arguments: government will mess it up, it will raise your taxes, it will take away your current insurance. Presented with that information, people’s doubts grow.

So most of the opponents fly under a false flag: they lay on the arguments against Medicare for All, but claim they support health care as a human right and support some version of a public option, giving people the illusion of choice. The reality is that those plans will still leave millions without coverage and many millions more underinsured.

Warren came under particular attack in the debates and the media for not detailing how she would pay for her plan (Sanders has been clear on his plan). Now Warren has answered her critics. Her plan covers the cost of Medicare for All by raising taxes on the very wealthy — largely a 3 percent surcharge on the wealth of billionaires — and by requiring big companies to pay almost what they now pay for providing health care to their workers.

Her plan would save some $7 trillion of the $59 trillion it costs to provide health care to all over a decade, according to the Urban Institute, by reducing overhead, eliminating insurance company profits, reducing monopoly and negotiating bulk discounts for drugs like every other advanced nation does. She would eliminate co-pays and premiums, returning $11 trillion to the pockets of working people, what she hails as the largest middle-class tax cut in history.

Once voters learn that under Medicare for All they can always keep their doctor, they won’t be faced with co-pays or premiums, and they will be guaranteed comprehensive health care, support begins to build back up.

Now Sanders and Warren have doubled down on their argument. Warren now puts it to Biden and the other critics: “Every candidate who opposes my long-term goal of Medicare for All should put forward their own plan to cover everyone, without costing the country anything more in health care spending, and while putting $11 trillion back in the pockets of the American people,” she writes. “If they are unwilling to do that, they should concede that they think it’s more important to protect the eye-popping profits of private insurers and drug companies and the immense fortunes of the top 1 percent and giant corporations.”

It’s over three decades since I sounded the call for Medicare for All. Since then, health care costs have soared faster than wages, more companies have found ways to avoid covering more workers and more people have died or gone bankrupt because they couldn’t pay for the care they needed.

Now with Sanders and Warren, the debate is joined again. The naysayers say that Medicare for All isn’t popular, that voters love their insurance companies. Sanders and Warren say voters love their doctors but are getting savaged by the drug and insurance companies. In the coming primaries, voters will have the opportunity to sort out what makes sense and what does not, and to show what is popular and what is not. This is a debate that is long overdue.

By Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Posts by By Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Related Topics:Amy Klobuchar Bernie Sanders By Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Elizabeth Warren medicare for all Pete Buttigieg Sr

Up Next

Elizabeth Warren Endorsed by Kaplan and Pressley

Don't Miss

During Building Boom, Chair of Housing Advisory Commission Urges Equal Opportunity for Contractors

By Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Click to comment

Black History

Five Hospitals Said No! Who Will Help Annette Henry Recover?

Annette Henry, a 67-year-old Oakland woman, is struggling to access essential medical care after a devastating stroke left her with a rare neuropathic pain syndrome. Despite medical documentation confirming her need for inpatient rehabilitation, five different Bay Area hospitals have denied her admission, often citing her inability to meet rigid therapy thresholds. Her family’s efforts to seek intervention from state and federal lawmakers have yielded no results, leaving Henry at home without a clear path to recovery. To see how these systemic failures are impacting her health, read more.

Published

2 weeks ago

November 3, 2026

Post News Group

By Tanya Dennis

A tangle of red tape and contradictions between health providers and Medicare rules have impeded an Oakland woman’s ability to recover from a stroke she had last year.

Her family – who are her caretakers – have reached out to various professionals and state and federal lawmakers for help to no avail.

At 67, Annette Henry needs inpatient stroke rehabilitation after a devastating stroke in May 2025. Since then, multiple Bay Area hospitals have denied it. She was accepted into a rehabilitation facility in June 2025 but discharged prematurely in July, in essentially the same condition.

Three hospitals where she was a patient pushed skilled nursing over inpatient rehabilitation. Two more declined referrals.

Now at home, Henry is caught in a system that measures her need for treatment against the limitations treatment should address.

Medical professionals have documented her need for a higher level of care.

In August 2025, a Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) overturned Henry’s discharge from an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF).

The QIO’s independent physician reviewer found she had not received the “intensive therapy program outlined on admission,” according to the Aug. 30, 2025, determination letter. Yet the decision did not secure her readmission or guarantee continued rehabilitation.

Henry has central post-stroke pain, a rare neuropathic pain syndrome that can make movement and touch intensely painful. Her pain specialist recommended inpatient rehabilitation alongside pain management.

Nevertheless, facilities have cited her inability to tolerate three hours of daily therapy as a reason to deny inpatient rehabilitation.

That practice raises questions about Medicare coverage policy. In Hooper v. Sullivan, No. H-80-99 (D. Conn. 1989), the court recorded the parties’ agreement that denials based on numerical utilization screens, diagnostic screens, treatment norms, the “three-hour rule,” or other “rules of thumb” were not appropriate.

CMS subsequently cited Hooper in its Aug. 7, 2009, final rule (74 Fed. Reg. 39762, 39794). The policy is also addressed in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 1, Section 110, and CMS’s June 1 Review Choice Demonstration for IRF Services: Operational Guide.

These authorities underscore the need for individualized assessments rather than rigid numerical thresholds.

The central contradiction is stark: the pain and disability that make rehabilitation necessary have been cited as reasons to deny it. UCSF Stanyan’s April 7 discharge summary for Henry states that acute rehabilitation unit (ARU) placement was declined for “inability to tolerate three hours of therapy daily.” Without appropriate treatment, Henry risks further decline.

Her records document complications associated with prolonged immobility.

Orthopedics documented flexion contractures of the small and ring fingers on March 19.

Chest imaging on April 1 showed bibasilar dependent atelectasis, a condition involving reduced inflation of the lower portions of both lungs. These concerns can be examined through her medical records and photographs.

“What does a ‘not reasonable’ discharge look like?” her family asks. For them, it looks like an appeal decision recognizing a problem without ensuring a remedy: repeated referrals, denials and a patient still without the rehabilitation her treating professionals have recommended.

The family has sought help from the California Department of Public Health and the federal Office for Civil Rights to no avail. They contacted U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon in June 2025, while Henry was in rehabilitation; Senator Alex Padilla in May 2026; and Senator Adam Schiff in September 2026.

DeCuir says the family received no meaningful assistance and was redirected to the QIO or advised working with a social worker after Henry had already been discharged.

The consequences extend beyond rehabilitation. The family reports that Henry has struggled to attend in-person specialist or any appointments and needs in-person evaluation and treatment for complications, recommended evaluations, health screenings and preventive care.

Her mobility limitations have become barriers to broader medical care. Every office tells her their office is not set up to accommodate her. This has happened with specialty care, out-patient services, screenings and physical therapy.

Henry is a Black woman on Medicare, and her family believes her experience raises concerns about unequal access to intensive rehabilitation. Research has documented disparities in discharge to inpatient rehabilitation rather than skilled nursing, underscoring the importance of individualized review.

CMS, state regulators and healthcare providers should examine Henry’s records, assess her needs on their clinical merits and explain how the applicable coverage standards were applied, and whether they are being enforced.

Rehabilitation is not a reward for patients who can already tolerate treatment. It is care intended to help people recover function. Henry’s case asks whether a system designed to support recovery can leave a patient without a path to it.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Business

SEIU Local 1000 and State of California Will Continue to Negotiate New Labor Contract

Thousands of California state employees represented by SEIU Local 1000 recently staged a one-day walkout to protest stalled contract negotiations with Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration. The union, which represents approximately 100,000 public workers, is demanding a 20% wage increase over three years and an end to mandatory four-day in-person work requirements. While the initial strike has concluded, union leadership warns that further demonstrations are likely if the state continues to reject their demands for better pay and telework flexibility. Negotiations are expected to continue as both sides seek a resolution. Read more.

Published

2 weeks ago

November 3, 2026

Post News Group

California state workers staged a one-day strike Oct. 21 to protest alleged unfair labor practices and stalled contract negotiations over wages, remote work requirements and health care costs. The workers' previous contract expired June 30. CBM photo by Antonio Ray Harvey.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

After the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1000 labor contract expired June 30 and talks with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration stalled, the union stepped up its efforts to secure a new agreement, saying its demands had gone unheeded.

On Oct. 21, thousands of state employees represented by SEIU Local 1000 staged a one-day walkout to protest alleged unfair labor practices during negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration.

Although the strike has ended, SEIU Local 1000 President Anica Walls said further demonstrations or an expanded strike are highly likely if contract negotiations remain stalled. The union represents approximately 100,000 public employees statewide.

“We are out here because our jobs matter,” Wells said. “If they continue to refuse to bargain with us in good faith, we are prepared to escalate.”

Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles) expressed support for SEIU Local 1000’s labor action in an Instagram post, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment for workers.

“I stand in complete solidarity with SEIU Local 1000,” Smallwood-Cuevas stated. “More than 100,000 state workers they represent are on strike today fighting for good-faith bargaining, fair treatment, and a contract that reflects the value of the essential public services they provide every day—all things that should be a given for the workers our state relies on the most.”

Smallwood-Cuevas, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) added, “When California’s workers hold the line, the whole nation pays attention.”

According to union representatives, SEIU Local 1000 is seeking a contract that addresses rising living costs and provides greater workplace flexibility. The union is demanding a 20% wage increase over three years and an end to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s requirement that state employees work in person four days a week.

The union is also seeking increased state contributions toward employee health care benefits to reduce workers’ out-of-pocket costs.

On Sept. 18, Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 1729, authored by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San Jose), which sought to expand telework opportunities for state employees.

The bill would have required state agencies to offer telework options or provide written justifications for requiring employees to work in person. Supporters argued that telework could save taxpayers approximately $225 million annually by reducing office space and parking costs while lowering vehicle emissions and improving employee retention.

Newsom said the legislation would limit state departments’ flexibility to manage their workforces and evaluate telework exemptions individually. He has also emphasized the benefits of in-person collaboration.

“I want people to come back to work, reengage, rediscover, collaborate, coordinate, develop relationships, friendships, and fall in love,” Newsom said in July. “You get three-day weekends. Four years ago, that would’ve been a triumph. Now it’s a burden.”

Union organizers described the Oct. 21 walkout as a one-day unfair labor practice strike, rather than an indefinite work stoppage. The action was intended to demonstrate solidarity and increase pressure on the state during negotiations.

SEIU Local 1000 has been without a contract since its previous three-year agreement expired June 30. Negotiations are expected to resume.

Responding to the statewide walkout, the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) said it “remains focused on achieving a fair and responsible agreement with SEIU Local 1000 and continues to be available at the bargaining table.”

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Black History

Oakland Strong: Building Champions and Healthier Generations

Entrepreneur Mike Jenkins is revitalizing youth wellness in Oakland through Oakland Strong, a world-class strength-training facility in Jack London Square. After providing a decade of free training in Fruitvale, the program moved and rebranded while continuing to produce national and international weightlifting champions. Jenkins aims to counter community health challenges by teaching Olympic-style lifting and nutrition to children ages 8 to 18. As the program seeks new ways to sustain its free services, local partnerships are forming to support these elite young athletes. Read more.

Published

2 weeks ago

November 3, 2026

Post News Group

By Tanya Dennis

Mike Jenkins is a serial entrepreneur with a vision to make a lasting impact in Oakland.

Raised in a military family in the Pinole area, Jenkins played basketball at Merritt College before continuing his athletic career at Sacramento State.

His lifelong interest in health and wellness led him to consider a troubling reality: as members of the Black community age, health challenges often increase. Jenkins believes investing in health is an investment in wealth, and he has made it his mission to give Oakland’s youth a stronger foundation for life.

Years ago, Jenkins invested in young people by building Speed Power Strength, a world-class strength-training facility in the Fruitvale neighborhood. For 10 years, the facility served hundreds of children, providing training entirely free of charge. Displaced by gentrification, the program eventually found a new home in Jack London Square.

That move inspired a new name: Oakland Strong, reflecting both the program’s mission and its pride in the city it represents.

“When we found the new home, I needed to put a spotlight on what we were doing– producing the strongest kids in Oakland – so I named our new location Oakland Strong,” Jenkins explained. “We are known nationally and internationally, so when we compete, our city’s name is on our chest.”

Through Olympic weightlifting, governed nationally by USA Weightlifting, the program has developed an extraordinary record. Its athletes have earned 10 national championships, a team national championship, and international titles. Today, two Oakland Strong athletes are Olympic hopefuls.

This past summer, Oakland had three athletes at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs at the same time. One was Olympic figure skating champion Alysa Liu. The other two were Oakland Strong’s Robert Whitlock and Rucker Johnson, there for a weightlifting camp for Olympic hopefuls.

Whitlock, an Oakland Technical High School student, began training at age 10. Now a three-time consecutive national champion, two-time Pan American champion, and Team USA representative, Whitlock also holds an American record while maintaining straight A’s in school.

“If Oakland can’t support these kinds of kids, then what are we doing?” Jenkins asks.

Oakland Strong continues offering free training in Jack London Square to young people ages 8-18. The program welcomes girls as well as boys, with approximately 12 kids currently participating with room for 20.

With limited city support for free youth programs, Jenkins must find other ways to sustain the work.

When Carlyle Chicken Wings opened nearby, he approached the owner with an idea connecting nutrition and community investment. Because Oakland Strong teaches healthy eating alongside athletic training, they developed the Oakland Strong Bowl, a protein-focused meal. Carlyle will contribute $2 from each bowl sold to support the program.

For Jenkins, the mission extends far beyond medals and records. He wants to create generational health by teaching young people habits they can carry into adulthood and share with their families.

The strongest legacy, he believes, is not simply producing champions, but building healthier generations who understand their worth, their potential, and the importance of investing in themselves.