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

Commentary

Doctors Seeing More Cases of Preventable Childhood Illnesses

OAKLAND POST — Physicians have said vaccine skepticism has expanded beyond childhood immunizations. Doctors also reported growing resistance to other preventive treatments.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 17, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Stacy M. Brown

Doctors across the United States say they are treating children for illnesses that routine vaccinations once made increasingly uncommon, raising concerns that years of declining immunization rates are beginning to reverse decades of public health progress.

Pediatricians have described seeing more cases of whooping cough, rotavirus infections, bacterial pneumonia and other potentially life-threatening illnesses that vaccines have long helped suppress. Some physicians reported treating conditions they had rarely encountered during their careers, while others said that growing vaccine hesitancy is changing how emergency rooms and hospitals care for children.

The reports come as measles outbreaks continue to spread across multiple states and vaccination coverage remains below federal public health targets.

Johns Hopkins University’s International Vaccine Access Center reported 2,077 confirmed measles cases nationwide as of May 29. Researchers warned that outbreaks reported across the country have raised concerns about continued transmission, additional hospitalizations and deaths, and the possible loss of the nation’s measles elimination status.

Public health experts have long viewed measles as a warning sign because of its ability to spread rapidly through communities with lower vaccination coverage. The New York Times reported that physicians increasingly fear the resurgence of measles may be followed by the return of other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Doctors say that is already happening.

Dr. Meghan Hofto, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said she has already treated roughly as many children with rotavirus this year as she saw during the previous decade. Rotavirus once caused tens of thousands of hospitalizations annually before vaccines sharply reduced its spread. None of the children she treated this year had been vaccinated.

Hofto also described caring for infants with pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough.

“It’s hard to know when they’re safe to go home,” Hofto told The Times.

The rise in whooping cough cases has been particularly striking. More than 28,000 cases were reported nationwide last year, compared with approximately 7,000 in 2023, according to figures cited by The Times. Many of the affected infants were too young to receive vaccinations themselves and relied on broader community protection to reduce their exposure.

Other doctors described similarly troubling cases.

Dr. Jessica Kirk, a pediatric hospitalist in Alabama, recently treated an unvaccinated toddler hospitalized with pneumonia caused by simultaneous infections of Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Vaccines exist to protect against both illnesses. The child required oxygen and antibiotics to recover.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins have been tracking vaccination trends nationwide and found continuing signs of vulnerability.

At the same time, vaccine policy has become increasingly contentious in state legislatures.

Johns Hopkins researchers reported that lawmakers across the country continue to introduce bills affecting childhood vaccination requirements, vaccine access and non-medical exemptions. Researchers also noted that state policies governing exemptions remain a significant factor in vaccination coverage and disease transmission risks.

Physicians have said vaccine skepticism has expanded beyond childhood immunizations. Doctors also reported growing resistance to other preventive treatments.

For doctors confronting the return of illnesses that vaccines once pushed to the margins of American medicine, the challenge is becoming increasingly personal.

“It just feels like you’re a tiny little boat with a giant tidal wave coming at you,” Dr. Erin Charles, a regional pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told reporters. “And you might convince one family here and there.”

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Community

Asm. Isaac Bryan’s Environmental Reparations Bill Passes on Assembly Floor

“All this bill does is allocate resources from that repair fund and direct cash assistance to families that have had negative health impacts as a result of living next to that oil field,” said Bryan during remarks on the Assembly floor.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 17, 2026

bpusa-syndication

Asm. Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights). File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

On May 26, the California State Assembly passed legislation to provide direct financial assistance to families harmed by pollution from a major urban oil field in South Los Angeles.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1661, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights), cleared the Assembly floor with a 44-10 vote after lawmakers concluded debate on the measure.

The bill would direct money from a community repair fund toward families who suffered negative health effects from living near what Bryan described as the state’s largest toxic urban oil field. The repair fund was created under legislation approved two years ago that shut down the oil field and required polluters to contribute financially to community recovery efforts.

Bryan called the proposal “the largest environmental reparations opportunity for South LA” and told lawmakers the bill had not received opposition during the legislative process.

The legislation is part of California’s broader push to address environmental justice concerns in communities historically exposed to industrial pollution. South Los Angeles residents and environmental advocates have long raised concerns about health risks associated with oil drilling operations near homes, schools and parks.

Supporters say the measure represents a new approach to environmental accountability by ensuring that communities affected by pollution directly benefit from funds collected from responsible companies.

After debate concluded, Assembly leadership opened the roll call vote, and the measure passed with majority support from lawmakers.

AB 1661 now moves to the Senate for further review.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Activism

Rep. Kamlager-Dove Introduces Bill to Protect Women in Custody After Reports Detailing Miscarriages and Neglect

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

Published

2 months ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

iStock

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA-37) on May 7, reintroduced updated legislation aimed at strengthening protections and healthcare standards for pregnant and postpartum women held in federal custody, including in immigration detention facilities.

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

The legislation builds on a bipartisan version previously passed by the House during the 117th Congress. The updated bill includes new standards for healthcare access, mental health and substance use treatment, high-risk pregnancy care, family unity protections and increased federal oversight.

“Proper pregnancy care is a human right, regardless of your immigration or incarceration status,” Kamlager-Dove said in a statement. “It’s unacceptable that there are virtually no legal safeguards for pregnant women in federal custody.”

The bill would also limit the use of restraints and restrictive housing for pregnant women, improve data collection on maternal health in custody and require additional staff training and enforcement measures.

Supporters of the measure said the legislation is intended to address long-standing concerns about maternal healthcare and safety in detention settings, particularly for Black women and low-income women who are disproportionately impacted by incarceration and health disparities.

“Pregnant women in custody should never be subjected to dangerous and inhumane treatment that threatens their health, dignity, or the well-being of their babies,” said Patrice Willoughby, chief of policy and legislative affairs for the NAACP and a longtime public policy and government affairs strategist, in a statement.

A 2021 report estimated there are about 58,000 admissions of pregnant women into U.S. jails and prisons each year. Kamlager’s statement also cited a recent investigation by NBC News and Bloomberg Law that identified allegations of severe mistreatment or medical neglect involving at least 54 pregnant women or families in county jails between 2017 and 2024.

Federal policy under the Department of Homeland Security restricts the detention of pregnant, postpartum and nursing immigrants except in extreme cases. However, the agency reported that ICE deported 363 pregnant, postpartum or nursing women between January 2025 and February 2026, including 16 recorded miscarriages during that period.

The bill is cosponsored by several House Democrats and backed by organizations including the NAACP and the Vera Institute of Justice.