Featured

Rep. Moore Reveals Cancer Diagnosis and How the ACA Saved Her Life

NNPA NEWSWIRE — In a televised interview, Moore revealed her cancer diagnosis and where she believes she’d be if it weren’t for former President Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation which allows her to afford the treatments and necessary medication to fight the deadly disease.

Published

6 years ago

February 2, 2019

Oakland Post

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore has made a strong and very personal case for lawmakers to keep the Affordable Care Act.

In a televised interview, Moore revealed her cancer diagnosis and where she believes she’d be if it weren’t for former President Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation which allows her to afford the treatments and necessary medication to fight the deadly disease.

“If I had to pay $15,000 a month for this medicine, I’d be here writing my obituary perhaps instead of talking to you,” Moore told MSNBC in an interview this week.

She said her oral medication, Imbruvica, helps to keep her in remission.

Without the insurance coverage, she’d be on the hook for $15,000 per month.

Prior to taking Imbruvica, Moore said she had intravenous therapy twice a month at a whopping $20,000.

“The GOP is always talking about the costs of the ACA: the cost of protecting pre-existing conditions, the cost of essential health benefits, the cost of the individual mandate,” Moore said.

“But what about the value of life? The lives of your kids? Your parents? That’s the core of this debate,” she said, adding that she’s “alive today because of comprehensive insurance that covers most” of the money in medication costs per month she now needs.

First diagnosed last summer with small lymphocytic lymphoma – a non-Hodgkin lymphoma where the cancer originates in the lymphatic system – Moore said the disease is manageable because she caught it early and she takes her medicine every day.

After her MSNBC appearance, Moore spoke before the House Ways and Means Committee in which members held a hearing on protecting those with pre-existing conditions – a major component of the Affordable Care Act which President Donald Trump and most Republicans have fought against.

Moore and other Democrats, who’ve now taken control of the House, have said they want to reverse the GOP’s decision to take away the individual mandate in the health care law.

A decision late last year by a Texas judge who ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, is currently being appealed and Moore said she hopes Congress will act to protect the law.

In their attempt to maintain the law that’s commonly known as Obamacare, Democrats have also pushed a “Medicare-for-all” proposal that NPR noted has gained in popularity.

Several Democratic presidential hopefuls are getting behind the idea, according to NPR which cited California Sen. Kamala Harris who said her aim would be to eliminate all private insurance.

“Who of us has not had that situation, where you’ve got to wait for approval and the doctor says, well, ‘I don’t know if your insurance company is going to cover this,’” Harris said during a CNN Town Hall event. “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on,” she said.

Harris was a co-sponsor of a 2017 bill written by Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-Vermont), that would have created a national, single-payer health system, eliminating the private insurance system.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., both presidential hopefuls, also co-sponsored the Sanders Bill, according to NPR.

Everyone would get a Medicare card and doctors would have to sign annual agreements to participate.

For Moore, that would be ideal, particularly for those who suffer with life-threatening illnesses like cancer.

“The mere suggestion that it could be cancer was anathema to me because nobody ever wants to hear the C-word,” Moore said.

“All of the while that I was going through the diagnosis and the care that I was getting, I thought about the number of people that I knew who die needlessly from cancer because they didn’t get early diagnosis.”

Moore continued:

“It’s our job as legislators to ensure that no American has to choose between seeking treatment & providing for their families.

“I personally know people who marched into the emergency room two weeks before they died because they didn’t have health insurance. I am just a grain of sand on a beach.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

PRESS ROOM: Homeownership in D.C., Maryland Get $7.1 Million Boost from NeighborhoodLIFT Program

Don't Miss

Northam Apologies for Racist College Photo

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

3 days ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

3 days ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

3 days ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”