Health

Opinion: The Medicare for All Debate is Long Overdue

Published

6 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

Activism

Oak Temple Hill Hosts Interfaith Leaders from Across the Bay Area

Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Published

1 day ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

Troy McCombs (from the state of Washington), Elder Mark Mortensen (from Irvine, CA), Michael Pappas, Rev. Ken Chambers, Dr. Ejaz Naqvi, Elder Sigfried Nauman (from the state of Washington), and Richard Kopf. Courtesy photo.

Special to the Post

Interfaith leaders from the Bay Area participated in a panel discussion at the annual meeting of communication leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held on Temple Hill in Oakland on May 31. Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Chambers, said he is thankful for the leadership and support of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints’ global ministry, which recently worked with the interfaith congregations of ICAC to help Yasjmine Oeveraas a homeless Norwegian mother and her family find shelter and access to government services.

Oeveraas told the story of how she was assisted by ICAC to the Oakland Post. “I’m a Norwegian citizen who escaped an abusive marriage with nowhere to go. We’ve been homeless in Florida since January 2024. Recently, we came to California for my son’s passport, but my plan to drive for Uber fell through, leaving us homeless again. Through 2-1-1, I was connected to Rev. Ken Chambers, pastor of the West Side Missionary Baptist Church and president of the Interfaith Council of Alameda County, and his car park program, which changed our lives. We spent about a week-and-a-half living in our car before being blessed with a trailer. After four years of uncertainty and 18 months of homelessness, this program has given us stability and hope again.

“Now, both my son and I have the opportunity to continue our education. I’m pursuing cyber analytics, something I couldn’t do while living in the car. My son can also complete his education, which is a huge relief. This program has given us the space to focus and regain our dignity. I am working harder than ever to reach my goals and give back to others in need.”

Richard Kopf, communication director for The Church of Jesus Christ in the Bay Area stated: “As followers of Jesus Christ, we embrace interfaith cooperation and are united in our efforts to show God’s love for all of his children.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

“Unnecessary Danger”: Gov. Newsom Blasts Rollback of Emergency Abortion Care Protections

Effective May 29, CMS rescinded guidance that had reinforced the obligation of hospitals to provide abortion services under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) when necessary to stabilize a patient’s condition. Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

Published

2 days ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

iStock.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom is criticizing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for rolling back federal protections for emergency abortion care, calling the move an “unnecessary danger” to the lives of pregnant patients in crisis.

Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

“Today’s decision will endanger lives and lead to emergency room deaths, full stop,” Newsom said in a statement. “Doctors must be empowered to save the lives of their patients, not hem and haw over political red lines when the clock is ticking. In California, we will always protect the right of physicians to do what’s best for their patients and for women to make the reproductive decisions that are best for their families.”

The CMS guidance originally followed the 2022 Dobbs decision, asserting that federal law could preempt state abortion bans in emergency care settings. However, legal challenges from anti-abortion states created uncertainty, and the Trump administration’s dismissal of a key lawsuit against Idaho in March removed federal enforcement in those states.

While the rollback does not change California law, Newsom said it could discourage hospitals and physicians in other states from providing emergency care. States like Idaho, Mississippi, and Oklahoma do not allow abortion as a stabilizing treatment unless a patient’s life is already at risk.

California has taken several steps to expand reproductive protections, including the launch of Abortion.CA.Gov and leadership in the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, a coalition of 23 governors supporting access to abortion care.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Published

4 weeks ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.