JustCare

Author: Alex Lawson

  • 2025: Social Security benefits up 2.5 percent

    2025: Social Security benefits up 2.5 percent

    Big news: The Social Security Administration just announced that the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security benefits will be 2.5%. That means that people receiving Social Security benefits will get slightly larger checks next year.

    If it were up to Republicans, Social Security benefits wouldn’t keep up with rising prices. If it were up to Republicans, seniors would have an even harder time getting by.

    Here are the facts:
    The automatic annual cost-of-living adjustment is one of Social Security’s most essential features. It is intended to ensure that benefits do not erode over time. However, the formula currently used to calculate annual COLAs under-measures the expenses that Social Security beneficiaries face.

    Seniors spend a greater proportion of their income on medical expenses―and the Social Security COLA should reflect that. Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would update the COLA formula (among other improvements to Social Security) to reflect the real cost of living for seniors and people with disabilities.

    When Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris served in the Senate, she co-sponsored one of those bills. So did vice presidential nominee Tim Walz when he served in the House.

    Republicans have a different perspective. The Republican Study Committee (which comprises over 80% of House Republicans) proposes annual budgets that include Social Security cuts.

    The RSC budget explicitly calls the current COLA formula too generous. They think seniors deserve less.

    In fact, page 104 of the Fiscal Year 2025 Republican Study Committee Budget calls the automatic nature of COLAs a “problem” and implies that they should be subjected to annual Congressional approval―turning Social Security benefits into another fiscal deadline that they can take hostage, like the debt ceiling.

    Seniors need to know: Republicans think that today’s Social Security benefits are too high, and are willing to fight to lower them. 

    The bottom line is that Democrats want to make annual COLAs more accurate and generous, while Republicans want to make them stingier. Democrats also support other policies that would lower costs for Social Security beneficiaries, including Harris’s recently released plan to expand Medicare to include home care, hearing, and vision benefits. These are the facts that could determine the election.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Kamala Harris announces plan to expand Medicare to cover long-term care at home

    Kamala Harris announces plan to expand Medicare to cover long-term care at home

    Today, Kamala Harris announced her plan to expand Medicare to cover long-term care at home. This would be life-changing for older adults, people with disabilities, and those who love them.

    This plan is paid for by expanding Medicare’s power to negotiate lower drug prices so that Big Pharma stops ripping us off. Older adults get lower drug prices and a new home health benefit.

    Currently, older adults and people with disabilities who need care that family can’t provide are too often warehoused in dehumanizing nursing homes. Often, these nursing homes are owned by private equity corporations who are exploiting patients for profit. Under the Harris plan, older adults and disabled people would have the freedom to stay in their own homes.

    This is a universal benefit, in the grand tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Frances Perkins. Everyone on Medicare would qualify.

    This is a win for everyone in America — except the billionaires.

    [Editor’s note: For the Harris plan to work effectively for people with Medicare, the benefit would be coupled with an out-of-pocket cap in Traditional Medicare, so that people who did not want a big Medicare Advantage insurance corporation coming between them and their treating physician could get the home care they need when they need it in Traditional Medicare. Alternatively, the benefit would be available only directly through the government. Medicare Advantage insurers would not be deciding whether people qualified for the home care benefit and profiting from denying people home care services.

    Today, only wealthy Americans can afford Traditional Medicare because it lacks an out-of-pocket cap and requires people to buy supplemental coverage to protect themselves against financial risk. Lower income Americans are forced to choose among Medicare Advantage plans without the information they need to avoid the bad actors.  Under the current defective Medicare Advantage payment system, health insurers profit from denying care. Consequently, many insurers are engaged in widespread inappropriate delays and denials of care, according to the HHS Office of the Inspector General and many other health policy experts.

    Medicare does cover a limited amount of home health care today, but it is very hard to get more than a dozen hours of care each week and the benefit is only available to people who are homebound and need daily skilled nursing services or therapy services on an intermittent basis. People in Medicare Advantage plans get less home health care than people in Traditional Medicare]

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Senate Budget Committee holds hearing on Social Security expansion

    Senate Budget Committee holds hearing on Social Security expansion

    [Excerpts from the testimony of Nancy Altman and Alex Lawson before the US Senate Budget Committee, June 9, 2022. respectively President and Executive Director, Social Security Works]

    “Thank you, Chairman Sanders, not only for holding this crucially important hearing on Social Security, but also for your just-introduced Social Security Expansion Act. That legislation, which will increase the economic security of working families, is extremely wise policy.

    The Sanders legislation is consistent with recent Democratic Platforms and with President Biden’s stated position. It shares important provisions with a leading expansion bill in the House of Representatives, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, which has 202 cosponsors. All of these proposals expand benefits with no cuts, while completely covering the costs of the expansions and addressing Social Security’s projected shortfall by requiring the wealthiest to pay more.

    … [I]t is not surprising that none of the proposed legislation has Republican support in Congress. Nor have any current Republican members of Congress proposed any legislation that reveals what they would do to address Social Security’s projected shortfall. Instead, they hide their substantive views behind process. Senator Rick Scott proposes to sunset Social Security in five years without an affirmative vote. His colleague, Senator Mitt Romney, proposes a closed-door commission whose recommendations would be fast tracked and unamendable.

    Democrats Stand with the American People — Who Overwhelmingly Favor Expanding, Not Cutting, Social Security

    It is important to recognize that, though the Democratic proposals have no Republican cosponsors, they are completely bipartisan. Poll after poll has found that an overwhelming majority of Republicans, as well as Democrats and Independents, support Social Security. They believe that Social Security is more important than ever. They strongly oppose any cuts to its modest benefits. They want to see it expanded. They want the wealthiest to pay more but are willing to pay more themselves, if necessary.

    America’s working families support Social Security so strongly because they recognize it provides insurance against risks to which all of us are vulnerable. Rich or poor, any of us can die prematurely, leaving young children. Rich or poor, any of us can suffer a disabling accident or illness. Rich or poor, all of us hope to live to old age. Social Security insures workers’ wages against all of those risks. It does so more efficiently, securely, universally, effectively, and fairly than its private sector counterparts. Social Security’s one shortcoming is that its benefits are inadequately low.

    Whether to Expand or Cut Social Security is a Question of Values, Not Affordability

    Expanding, not cutting, Social Security and restoring it to long-range actuarial balance is a question of values. It is unquestionably affordable. … Social Security’s cost as a percentage of GDP is close to a straight horizontal line for the next three- quarters of a century and beyond.

    According to the most recent Trustees Report, Social Security is calculated to cost just 5.87 percent of GDP in 2100, at the end of the 21st century. That is a lower percentage of GDP than many other industrialized countries spend on their counterpart programs today, as the chart on page three shows.

    Moreover, our nation is projected to be much wealthier at the end of the 21st century, just as we are wealthier now than we were seventy-five years ago, before computers, smartphones, and other technological advances. That means that the less-than 6 percent of GDP will be easier to afford in the future, just as an individual earning $100,000 can more easily afford a 6 percent expenditure (despite it being a larger dollar amount) than an individual earning $10,000. In one case, $94,000 remains; in the other, just $9,400.

    Nor should the increase of just under one percent of GDP between now and the end of the century be difficult to absorb. To put that projected increase in perspective, military spending after the 9/11 terrorist attack increased by over one percent of GDP, as a result of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—and that increase was the result of a surprise attack, with no advance warning. Similarly, spending on public education nationwide increased by 2.8 percentage points of GDP between 1950 and 1975, when the baby boom generation showed up as schoolchildren, without much advance warning….

    Expanding Social Security is a Solution to the Nation’s Retirement Income Crisis, as well as Other Challenges

    In the five decades since Congress last enacted Social Security benefit increases, traditional employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plans have largely disappeared. They were replaced by 401(k)s, which have proven to be inadequate for all but the very wealthiest.

    The nation is now facing a retirement income crisis, where too many workers appropriately fear that they will never be able to retire without drastic reductions in their standards of living. Indeed, numerous polls and surveys over recent years reveal that not having enough money in retirement leads the list of Americans’ top financial concerns. . . .

    The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College reports that one out of two working-age households will be unable to maintain their standards of living in retirement – even if they work until age 65, take out reverse mortgages on their homes, and annuitize all of their other assets. Moreover, the number of working-age households unable to retire and maintain their standards of living increases to over 60 percent when health care costs are taken into account. . . .

    Unfortunately, the retirement income crisis is likely to require adult children to take resources away from their children in order to help support aged parents – unless Congress acts to expand Social Security.

    It is well past time for Congress to vote on expanding Social Security. That is the most effective way to address the nation’s retirement income crisis. At the same time, expanding Social Security by requiring the wealthiest to pay their fair share will begin to address the nation’s perilous, rising income and wealth inequality, which former president Barack Obama called “the defining challenge of our time.” Moreover, expanding Social Security will ease some of the financial burden of today’s working families, squeezed between the older and younger generations.

    Today’s Elected Republicans are Standing in the Way of Protecting and Expanding Social Security

    From the beginning, there has always been a small radical group who opposed Social Security. Those radicals are now in control of the Republican Party. While today’s Republican politicians will not admit it, they support cuts. While they won’t admit it, Donald Trump pointed out the obvious during the Republican primaries, leading up to the 2016 election. He charged, “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security…And it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years.”

    Moreover, the Republican Party’s most recent Party Platform, drafted in 2016, states their desire to cut Social Security, but does so using opaque and coded language. …Republican strategists know that the benefit cuts to which the platform alludes are deeply unpopular with the American people. Despite the Party’s effort to avoid accountability, a careful reading makes it clear where the Republican Party stands.

    The Social Security plank states that Republicans “believe in the power of markets to create wealth.” That is code for privatizing Social Security, a dangerous scheme that was resoundingly rejected by the American people when George W. Bush proposed it in 2005. It also states that “we oppose tax increases” which means that they oppose requiring the wealthiest Americans to contribute their fair share and want to see Social Security drastically cut or even radically changed instead. Since they state their clear opposition to increasing Social Security’s revenue, that leaves only two options to eliminate the projected shortfall: Automatic cuts (if they block action for the next decade) or legislated cuts. Moreover, the stated support of many Republican politicians for privatizing, means-testing, or reducing all benefits to a low subsistence level means they want to not just cut Social Security, but end it as we know it.

    Finally, the Republican Platform states that “current retirees and those close to retirement can be assured of their benefits” which leaves the door open to cutting benefits for younger generations of Americans. This shows how out of step today’s Republican politicians are with the American people on this important subject.

    While suggesting that Social Security is in crisis, the Republican Platform completely ignores the nation’s looming retirement income crisis. Indeed, they would make that crisis worse by cutting Social Security’s modest benefits for younger Americans who will need them the most.

    Social Security does not need to be saved. . . . Rather, Social Security is a solution. If expanded, it would be even more so. . . .

    It is important to understand that, because of the way Social Security is structured, raising Social Security’s retirement age by just one year is mathematically identical to a 6-7 percent across-the-board benefit cut. Moreover, it falls heaviest on those in physically demanding jobs who are unable to continue to work to the statutorily-specified age.

    … [T]he TRUST Act . . .would create an undemocratic, fast-tracked, closed-door process to make changes to Social Security. Our Social Security system is too important to be addressed in this manner. Major changes have always gone through regular order and they always should. The only reason to go behind closed doors is to do what the American people adamantly oppose — cut benefits!

    [I]n February 2022, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) released his so-called “Plan to Rescue America.” This plan states that “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.” It also states: “All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game.”

    Senator Scott’s plan would terminate Social Security and Medicare in 5 years unless Congress voted to reauthorize them. This would give far-right opponents of Social Security and Medicare enormous leverage over the future of the programs. They could refuse to reauthorize them, or only agree to do so if the programs are massively cut and fully privatized.

    Further, Senator Scott’s plan would raise taxes on seniors. Seniors, living on Social Security, with incomes barely above the poverty line, appropriately do not currently pay income tax. That includes eighty percent of Americans over age 75. Under Scott’s plan, they would see their meager benefits in effect cut, because some of those dollars would go for Senator Scott’s tax increase.

    A comparison of the Scott and Sanders plans highlights the difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties with respect to Social Security. The Sanders plan expands Social Security’s modest benefits; the Scott plan indirectly cuts those modest benefits. The Sanders plan increases the security of Social Security by requiring those earning over $250,000 to start paying more of their fair share. The Scott plan undermines the stability of the program by requiring it to be reauthorized every five years.

    It is clear which plan the American people want. That explains why the Republican Party avoids offering substantive solutions. The Democrats are to be applauded for offering concrete proposals and insisting that Social Security be debated in the sunshine. Thank you.

  • Senator Manchin must support lower drug prices in Build Back Better Act

    Senator Manchin must support lower drug prices in Build Back Better Act

    On November 19th, the House passed the Build Back Better Act. Among the bill’s most popular provisions are several steps towards lowering prescription drug prices. Now, the bill goes to the Senate. It is a moral and political necessity for Senate Democrats to pass Build Back Better into law swiftly and without weakening any of the drug pricing provisions.

    Not surprisingly, the PhRMA lobby hates the drug pricing reforms in Build Back Better. Currently, pharmaceutical corporations can charge as much as they’d like for prescription drugs, and they are desperate to keep it that way. Any delay in passing Build Back Better into law gives PhRMA lobbyists more time to weaken it.

    That’s why Senator Joe Manchin’s threats to delay a Build Back Better vote until 2022 are so dangerous. Manchin has already undermined Build Back Better by demanding the removal of one of the bill’s most popular policies — expanding Medicare to cover dental and vision coverage. However, Manchin claims to support drug pricing reform. If he means it, he must support holding a vote on Build Back Better as quickly as possible.

    It isn’t just Democratic voters who support Build Back Better’s drug pricing reforms. They are extremely popular among Republican and Independent voters as well. Not only is lowering drug prices a moral imperative, it’s also a political necessity.

    Build Back Better would give Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices on 30 of the most expensive prescription drugs. This is an important step towards giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices on all drugs. Ninety-three percent of Democratic voters support this policy — as do 81 percent of Independents and 78 percent of Republicans.

    In the last decade, drug prices rose three times faster than the rate of inflation. Build Back Better would effectively prevent this from happening in the future by requiring drug companies to pay a fine when they raise prices faster than inflation. This means that regardless of if you are on Medicare or private insurance or uninsured, no drug price will go up faster than the rate of inflation. This provision is supported by 92 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of Independents, and 78 percent of Republicans.

    Additionally, Build Back Better would add a $2,000/year cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug spending for Medicare beneficiaries. This would transform the lives of seniors across the country, who are currently forced to choose between filling their prescriptions and paying their rent. Eighty-four percent of Democrats support this cap. So do 77 percent of Independents and 74 percent of Republicans.

    No prescription drug shows the depths of Big Pharma’s greed better than insulin. Pharmaceutical corporations are colluding to raise the price of insulin, which has tripled in the last decade. Build Back Better would save and improve the lives of Americans with diabetes by adding a $35/month cap on insulin co-pays, as well as giving the government the power to negotiate a lower price. Ninety-four percent of Democrats support this plan, along with 84 percent of Independents and 82 percent of Republicans.

    Together, Build Back Better’s drug pricing reforms are a strong first step towards addressing the outrageous prices of prescription drugs. A promise to lower drug prices was central to President Biden’s presidential campaign, and to the campaigns of Democrats across the country. By passing Build Back Better into law, Democrats will ensure that they can go back to voters before the 2022 midterms and tell them they’ve kept that promise.

    I take Sen. Manchin at his word that he wants to address the outrageous drug price inflation that we have been living under for decades. But, if he holds up Build Back Better from passing the Senate, even for a day, then he will show himself to be a liar about taking on Pharma.

    This article was originally posted on DataforProgress on November 29, 2021.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Blame Donald Trump for the nursing home Covid-19 crisis

    Blame Donald Trump for the nursing home Covid-19 crisis

    The very first COVID-19 outbreak in the US took place in a Kirkland, Washington nursing home more than four months ago, at the end of February. At least 37 people died. That first outbreak should have been the impetus for the Trump administration to launch a coordinated national response to the COVID-19 pandemic, centered around protecting nursing home residents and workers. Instead, they’ve focused on protecting nursing home corporations from lawsuits.

    When the White House brings up the nursing home crisis at all, it’s to seek to shift the blame to Democratic governors. Trump is desperate to deflect from the truth: Over 54,000 nursing home residents and workers are dead. Those deaths were preventable. Their deaths are Donald Trump’s fault.

    A new report from the Senate Aging Committee lays out the Trump administration failures that led to the nursing home crisis. Trump never had a plan to protect nursing home residents. In fact, the actions his administration did take put seniors and people with disabilities directly in the path of the deadly pandemic.

    For months, as nursing home workers faced a devastating shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests, Trump refused to invoke the Defense Production Act. Nor did he leverage FEMA’s response capabilities to target supplies to nursing homes.

    An opaque and corrupt program, run by the president’s inexperienced, unqualified son-in-law, tasked to deliver critically needed PPE not surprisingly failed miserably to help anybody, except perhaps Trump’s political donors. FEMA continues to deliver broken and unusable equipment to nursing homes even as the unrelenting death toll in nursing homes grows.

    Simply telling nursing homes to test workers and residents more often, as the administration has done, is meaningless. What’s needed is an actual plan to procure additional tests and get them to the facilities that need them. This late in the pandemic, that plan is still missing.

    In March and April, Congress allocated $175 billion in emergency funding for health care providers in the front lines of the pandemic. It was the Trump administration’s responsibility to distribute that funding as quickly and efficiently as possible. But it took two months for the administration to distribute any of the funding to nursing homes—and then only a paltry $19.5 billion.

    Nursing home workers are at the front lines of the crisis. Across the country, nursing homes have seen staffing shortages, forcing them to hire part timers who work in multiple facilities. Employees who remain are often forced to work while experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, further spreading the disease. This is exacerbated by the fact that even before COVID-19, private equity barons had seized on the long term care industry as a sector they could hollow out, carve up and destroy for profit.

    We need to increase staffing levels by providing premium hazard pay. We must guarantee paid sick leave for all nursing home workers. Workers who need to quarantine should be provided with temporary housing so they don’t infect their families. The Trump administration has proposed none of this, because their anti-worker ideology takes precedence over public health.

    The right-wing deflection operation is well underway. The Trump White House and Senator Mitch McConnell understand that the nursing home crisis is political kryptonite. They don’t care about the lives lost; indeed, they never mention them. Instead, they care only about the bad headlines and the plummeting support among seniors for Trump and Republicans.

    Starting with the official propaganda organ of the Trump White House, FOX News, and filtering down through shadowy networks of dark money used to spread unchecked lies on Facebook, their playbook is clear: Deflect responsibility, blame Democratic governors, and lie about the failures of the president and his administration.

    Chief White House strategist and mouthpiece Sean Hannity can be seen in this clip laying out the whole strategy for “dealing with” the nursing home crisis. Hannity heaps praise on Florida Republican Governor DeSantis while blaming, among others, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her state’s nursing home crisis. He goes so far as to say that the media needs to apologize to Gov. DeSantis for criticizing his rush to “reopen” the state.

    Like so much else Trump does, this strategy is based on a lie. Public health experts and local senior advocacy groups agree that Whitmer did a very effective job in a terrible situation, while Gov. DeSantis’s state of Florida is ineffectively confronting an explosion of new cases and dwindling hospital beds.

    To end the nursing home crisis, we need a robust system of testing and tracking. We need a system in place to make sure that every facility has PPE, tests, and adequate staffing. We need measures in place to reduce the overall spread of COVID-19, including a national mandate to wear masks in public places. Most of all, we need an administration that values the lives of people over the profits of corporations.

    Recently, one of Trump’s top economic advisors, Stephen Moore, suggested that we should allow every business (including high risk environments like bars and gyms) to reopen. He insisted this would be safe so long as we “keep older people in quarantine because they’re the ones susceptible from dying.” While Dan Patrick, Trump ally and Lt. Governor of Texas, another state with an exploding epidemic, said that seniors should sacrifice themselves to protect the economy.

    It’s this cavalier attitude towards seniors’ lives that led to the nursing home crisis. Older people should not have to quarantine themselves forever, cut off from their families and friends, because the Trump administration is too incompetent to contain the pandemic. Nor would it even work for them to do so. Over 64 million Americans live in multi-generational households. And even if no nursing home patient ever left, or had visitors, workers still go in and out.

    What Moore and Patrick are saying, and the philosophy behind Trump’s entire response to the pandemic, is that he thinks that seniors’ lives—as well as the lives of people with disabilities, people who are immunocompromised, and others who are at high risk from COVID-19— are disposable.

    Trump’s failure to contain the nursing home crisis is a product of his values. He values nursing home corporations, which don’t want to get sued. He values Wall Street billionaires, who are demanding that every business reopen regardless of public health. He does not value seniors’ lives. He is more than happy to volunteer them to be sacrificed on the altar of Wall Street’s greed.

    This is all Donald Trump’s fault. The blood is on his hands.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Coronavirus: How many more nursing home residents will die before the Senate acts?

    Coronavirus: How many more nursing home residents will die before the Senate acts?

    Not only has the US not been able to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus, it has allowed COVID-19 to kill tens of thousands of vulnerable older adults and people with disabilities living in nursing homes. How many more nursing home residents will die before the Senate acts?

    Here are the numbers: Every hour eighteen nursing home residents die. Every week, more than 3,000 nursing home residents die. In the last five months, more than 50,000 nursing home residents have died. When will this plague end?

    Many of these mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, friends and neighbors would still be alive today were it not for COVID-19. They’d still be alive today were it not for the failure of US leadership in containing the novel coronavirus. They’d still be alive today were it not for their nursing homes’ mishandling of the novel coronavirus.

    Nursing home residents represent more than one in ten COVID-19 cases. Yet, four in ten people who die of COVID-19 are nursing home residents. In some states, nursing home residents represent more than half of COVID-19 deaths. And, these are the reported cases. Lord knows how many of these deaths are going unreported.

    Tens of thousands of nursing home COVID-19 deaths were preventable. Everyone knew that nursing home residents were at especial risk because of their age and compromised health. Still today, with deaths skyrocketing, our federal government is failing to act.

    President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) won’t ensure that nursing homes have the money and resources needed so that their residents and staff are safe and healthy. They are focused on helping wealthy corporations, wealthy hospitals, and wealthy executives, including nursing home executives. The nursing home industry has a powerful lobbying machine that continues to be successful at protecting nursing home profits rather than nursing home people.

    Nursing home owners, including many private equity firms, take government money for nursing home care to benefit their investors, leaving nursing homes without the funding to properly care for their residents or pay their staff. Nursing homes have been given immunity from prosecution on many grounds, notwithstanding preventable deaths among their residents and staff.

    The US House of Representatives has passed the HEROES Act, which would protect nursing home staff and residents. The HEROES Act allocates money for testing and personal protective equipment. It sets aside funds for COVID-19 only nursing homes to isolate and contain the spread of the virus. These measures would help prevent nursing home residents from dying needlessly from COVID-19.

    To be sure, beyond the HEROES Act, more must be done to protect older and disabled Americans, to ensure they have a good quality of life and can live with dignity. They need better quality care in nursing homes, and they need expanded Social Security benefits. For our collective health and our collective conscience, we must insist on that.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Let’s have a prescription drug public option

    Let’s have a prescription drug public option

    also, by Stephanie Taylor, originally published in The American Prospect.

    Kara Eastman, the Democratic nominee in Nebraska’s Second Congressional District, tells a story while campaigning about visiting her mother while she was dying from cancer. Her mother’s medicals bills were stacked so high on the kitchen table, Eastman says, that when she visited, they couldn’t see each other through the piles. Just one of her mother’s pills cost $2,500 a month.

    Eastman decided to run for Congress to offer alternatives to the skyrocketing cost of health care. She campaigns calling for Medicare for All and further solutions to the crisis of unaffordable prescription drugs. Her message is resonating. She beat a well-known opponent in her primary by a few hundred votes.

    Spending on prescription drugs is growing faster than any other sector of our health-care system. Drug companies, meanwhile, are raking in record profits, far higher than those in other industries—and they are spending considerably more of it on buybacks and dividends than on research and development. Most importantly for their bottom line, they are breaking records with their spending to influence Congress to protect their monopolies.

    Drug company revenues soared from $534 billion in 2006 to $775 billion in 2015. That’s billion with a “b.”

    According to a study by researcher Adam Gaffney, Americans spend more on outpatient drugs than the residents of any other industrialized nation—$1,026 per capita annually. The average in advanced industrial nations is $515; in Denmark, it’s just $240. The problem isn’t that Americans use four times the drugs that Danes do; it’s that drug prices are much higher in the United States than anyplace else. In 2014, a daily 50-unit dose of insulin glargine cost $186 a month, after applicable discounts, in the United States—but only $63 in the United Kingdom and $46 in France.

    In fact, U.S. taxpayers are paying twice. First, their taxes fund the research and development of new drugs: Federally funded studies contributed to the science behind every single one of the 210 drugs approved between 2010 and 2016. Taxpayers, for example, funded the development of Crestor, a popular medication to lower cholesterol. Now Crestor is sold by the private pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, which made over $16 billion in profits on Crestor alone during a three-year period.

    It’s clear that simply strengthening regulations on pharmaceutical corporations is not enough. Such corporations will prioritize lining their pockets over saving the lives of everyone who needs their medications, when the laws permit that—as they do in the United States. And when they do invest, they will always invest where there is the greatest potential for profit, not where there is the greater potential benefit to the public health.

    One way to address that dilemma is to create a taxpayer-owned drug company to produce and distribute medications at affordable prices—especially drugs that have been developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Unlike private corporations, this public drug company would focus on developing drugs based on public need rather than perceived profitability. The company could use private contractors to develop and manufacture the drugs, but it would own the patents and therefore ensure that everybody has access to them. Economist Dean Baker has pointed out that this type of model is how the Department of Defense operates to create many weapons of war.

    The United States would not be the first country to create a national drug company. Brazil, Cuba, South Africa, and Sweden all have publicly owned drug companies. While there would be a cost to setting up a public drug company, Baker and others have shown that the savings on drug prices in the United States could fully offset the added costs of a such a company. Depending on the scope of that company, Baker has shown savings of hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

    This is not just good policy. It’s good politics, too.

    The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (co-founded by one of the authors) recently polled a cross-section of Republicans, independents, and Democrats in swing and Republican-leaning congressional districts on support for the idea of creating “a publicly-owned not-for-profit pharmaceutical company to compete against private drug companies, to create more competition in the marketplace and stop big drug companies from jacking up prices for our seniors.”

    In the Third Congressional District in Kansas, currently represented by Republican Kevin Yoder, 61 percent said they support the idea, 23 percent are opposed, and 16 percent are not sure.

    In the First Congressional District in Wisconsin, currently represented by Republican Speaker Paul Ryan, 69 percent support the idea, 20 percent oppose it, and 11 percent are not sure.

    In the Third Congressional District of New Jersey, currently represented by Republican Tom McArthur (who introduced the bill that gutted much of the Affordable Care Act), 66 percent support the idea, 19 percent oppose it, and 14 percent are not sure.

    These are overwhelming bipartisan numbers that reflect the impact that big pharma’s greed is having on Americans across the country. Families everywhere are struggling to absorb the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs—drugs that were often developed with public money in the first place.

    There is no good reason or justification for continuing with business as usual. We’re calling for a public drug company that allows us to keep life-saving technologies developed with our dollars in the public domain—and get them into the hands of everyone who needs them.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Social Security Trustees report confirms Social Security’s strength 

    Social Security Trustees report confirms Social Security’s strength 

    Thanks to Social Security, when it comes to our retirement security, or a disability, or the loss of a loved one, we’re not on our own. We’re all in it together. Last week’s Social Security Trustees report confirms Social Security’s strength.

    The Trustees’ report projects that Social Security will be able to pay 100% of benefits owed through 2034, and 77% of benefits owed after that. Today, the typical retiree receives $1,363 in monthly benefits, and the typical retiree couple receives $2,262. Disabled workers receive $1,171 on average and $1,802 if the disabled worker has a child or children. Wealthier recipients pay taxes on this income, accounting for 3 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund’s reserves.

    If Congress lifted the cap on Social Security contributions so that wealthy Americans contributed the same share of their income to the program as everyone else, Social Security benefits could be larger. And, Social Security would have all the money it needs to pay full benefits for the next several decades.

    This year, Social Security will run a surplus of roughly $58.6 billion. All in, Social Security’s surplus will be $2.9 trillion by the end of the year. Unlike private savings plans, interest on reserves contribute to the Social Security Trust Fund, and, at 9 percent, the contribution is significant. And, Social Security spends less than 1 percent of its budget on administration, making it extremely efficient.

    Poll after poll shows that Democrats, Republicans and independents alike overwhelmingly support Social Security. And, the 2016 Democratic Party Platform included expanding the program.

    “We will fight every effort to cut, privatize, or weaken Social Security, including attempts to raise the retirement age, diminish benefits by cutting cost-of-living adjustments, or reducing earned benefits. Democrats will expand Social Security.”

    Since 2015, the Democratic Party has introduced 20 Social Security expansion bills in the House and Senate. This year, Rep. John Larson of Connecticut introduced the Social Security 2100 Act, and it has 162 cosponsors in the House―the largest number of supporters for any expansion bill ever.

    If you support a safe and secure retirement for all Americans, not just the wealthy few, let Congress know. Please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • U.S. army poised to give Sanofi exclusive license to vaccine patents with no price restrictions

    U.S. army poised to give Sanofi exclusive license to vaccine patents with no price restrictions

    The U.S. Army has developed two patents for a Zika vaccine. Now, the Army is poised to give Sanofi, a large vaccine maker, an exclusive license to these vaccine patents with no price restrictions. If the government grants Sanofi this monopoly pricing power, the cost of the Zika vaccine could threaten the public health, along with state and federal budgets.

    According to Stat News, Sanofi has refused to promise to price the vaccine for Americans affordably or at the same level as what other countries pay. Yet, U.S. taxpayers have already invested tens of millions of dollars for the pre-clinical research, and the U.S. is currently doing the phase I trials. Moreover, the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority already has granted Sanofi $43 million for phase II trials and an option for another $130 million for phase III trials.

    Senator Bernie Sanders, Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards, and others have taken this issue on. They want the Army to grant Sanofi a non-exclusive license to allow for price competition for the Zika vaccine. Alternatively, they propose that the government actively require reasonable pricing of the vaccine.

    The mosquito-borne Zika virus could spread across the U.S. And, millions of Americans may need it to prevent birth defects. With monopoly pricing power, Sanofi could charge so much for the vaccine that the cost eats up a large portion of federal and state budgets, keeps people from getting the vaccine, and threatens the public health.

    The Army’s initial proposal to license the vaccine to Sanofi exclusively was announced in the federal register in December 2016. Many organizations sent in comments objecting. Still, last month, the Army affirmed its plans to grant Sanofi an exclusive license to its patents in a letter to Knowledge Ecology International, one of the advocacy groups that objected to the exclusive licensing for the vaccine.

    Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International argues that under federal law the Army is required to ensure that Sanofi, the exclusive licensee to produce the drug, makes the drug “available to the public on reasonable terms.”

    The open question is why the federal government does not exercise its power to bring the Zika vaccine to market at a fair price, especially when the need for the vaccine is so pressing and the public health threat so great if the drug is unaffordable.

    If you want Congress to rein in drug prices, please sign this petition.

    Here more from Just Care:

  • Senate bill would deliver lower drug prices

    Senate bill would deliver lower drug prices

    It is unacceptable that people in the U.S. are going without needed medicines because they can’t afford them. On March 28, Senator Al Franken, along with Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin and nine other Senators introduced a new bill in Congress aimed at reining in drug prices. The Improving Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs Act would protect Americans from pharmaceutical industry greed through several means:

    1. Medicare negotiation of fair drug prices and setting lower out-of-pocket costs for older adults and people with disabilities.
    2. Legal importation of safe and affordable drugs.
    3. Ending drug company monopoly power that leads to exorbitant prices.
    4. Increasing competition in the generic drug market.
    5. Keeping drug companies from increasing drug prices excessively from one year to the next.
    6. Taking away drug company tax deductions for direct-to-consumer TV and internet ads.
    7. Limiting the amount health insurers can charge people out-of-pocket for prescription drugs.
    8. Requiring greater transparency by drug companies.

    High drug prices put both people’s finances and people’s health at risk. Twenty percent of Americans say they have not been able to fill prescriptions because of the costs. People with disabilities who rely on Social Security are particularly at risk. Out-of-pocket health care costs have been growing far faster than Social Security’s cost of living adjustments for the last 25 years. It’s not surprising that reining in drug prices is a top policy priority for Americans.

    There is no good reason drug prices are as high as they are in the U.S.. We spend nearly $1,000 per person on prescription drugs, substantially more than every other developed country. Generic drugs are also increasingly unaffordable, with many costing more than $100 per prescription.

    Contrary to what people may hear from the drug industry and its allies, high prices do not reflect the cost of innovation. Taxpayer dollars largely subsidize pharmaceutical research and development, with little risk to drug companies. Net profits for drug companies are greater than those of any other industry. Profits in 2015 for the five largest drug companies were more than $50 billion.

    Most Americans have two healthcare priorities, according to recent polling: lowering health care costs and lowering prescription drug prices. The Improving Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs Act would accomplish both. Politicians in DC should listen to the American people.

    To support the bill, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care: