Medical students advocate for Medicare for All

This article was published in the Berkeley Blog. You can read the original article here.

“We have pledged to ‘do no harm’ in our pursuit of medicine; however, our current for-profit insurance system in the United States routinely harms patients.”

uc-berkeley_snahpAt the UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program (JMP), our instructors implore us to examine the social and structural determinants of health. Many of us at the JMP have recently gathered to support the Medicare for All National Week of Action, as we believe that one of the greatest strides our country could make towards health justice and equity would be to guarantee every person in the United States access to high-quality healthcare via a single-payer funding system.

We have pledged to ‘do no harm’ in our pursuit of medicine; however, our current for-profit insurance system in the United States routinely harms patients. It consistently produces far poorer health outcomes than any other industrialized country. Physicians and other providers often deny patients life-saving care because they lack the proper insurance, causing tens of thousands of preventable deaths every year.

Indeed, the United States routinely ranks last among developed nations in terms of health equity – quantified as the percentage of patients who did not get recommended tests, treatments, or follow up care due to cost. Alarmingly, life expectancy increases linearly by income level in the United States and can be mapped to geographic areas. Many Americans skip treatment every day due to unaffordable out-of-pocket costs. An estimated one million individuals experience medical bankruptcy every year.

Even after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, over 25 million Americans remain uninsured. Furthermore, nearly a third of Americans are considered ‘under-insured’; around 80% of medical bankruptcies occur in patients who were already covered. This current system is clearly inadequate – when people resort to crowdfunding their medical bills, something needs to change.

These health and economic injustices exacerbate the inequalities already experienced along racial, ethnic, and immigration status. A single-payer system would not solve these health disparities or eliminate the structural racism embedded in our health system. However, it would ensure that healthcare is considered a universal necessity and not a commodity reserved for the few who can afford it.

A single-payer system promotes equity by replacing all out-of-pocket expenses (premiums, payroll deductions, deductibles, co-pays) with a progressive tax on corporations and the highest income bracket. The waste associated with private insurers has been estimated at $400 billion per year; single-payer would increase efficiency by cutting 80% of administrative costs and diverting these currently squandered resources toward patient care. Having a single payer forces hugely profitable pharmaceutical companies to negotiate and cut prices. These savings and the additional taxes would more than provide for universal coverage. In fact, study after study show that a single-payer system would save the U.S. money, on the order of trillions of dollars over the next decade.

Still, all these economic arguments mean little until we recognize healthcare as a human right. Equity and efficiency in the American health-care system have fallen to unacceptable levels. We do not want to practice medicine in a system that fails to meet the health needs of our population, especially its most vulnerable. This dire situation requires a bold solution: implementing a single-payer system is an essential step towards providing our patients the care they deserve.

Liberty and health care for all: The 2019 SNaHP Summit in NYC


Save the date! The 8th annual SNaHP Summit will take place on Saturday, March 2, 2019, from 9:00am to 7:00pm at the Roy and Diana Vagelos Education Center (VEC) at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) in New York City.

The SNaHP Summit is a one-day gathering of medical and health professional students from institutions all over the country who support single-payer national health insurance. Our theme for the 2019 Summit is “Liberty and Health Care for All.”

By attending, you can expect to learn what a national health program would look like in the U.S. and develop vital advocacy skills geared toward health professional students. Participants will also contribute directly to the national strategy of SNaHP through networking and breakout sessions.

Click here to register for the Summit.

Additional questions? Email

ATSU group makes case for single payer system

This article was originally published in the Kirksville Daily Express. You can read the article here.

By Jessica Karins

“We are all just a layoff away from being among the ranks of the uninsured.”

– Wendell Potter

PNHP demoIn 2007, Wendell Potter was one of about 20 health care executives sitting in a conference room waiting anxiously for a report from a representative they had sent to Cannes Film Festival. A documentary was screening at Cannes which the executives knew might be an all-out attack on their public image.

The documentary was Michael Moore’s “Sicko,” and it would change the way Potter saw his work for the health insurance industry.

“Our worst fears were realized,” Potter said.

Potter came to Truman State University’s campus for an event sponsored by Truman’s economics department and the A.T. Still University organization Students for a National Health Program. SNHP is a student branch of the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program, a group of doctors who argue for ending America’s private insurance system and shifting to a single payer, or “Medicare for All” system.

Potter worked for years in corporate communications for health care companies, ultimately heading the department for insurance giant Cigna.

“I was a staunch believer and supporter of the free market,” Potter said.

Potter said his job was to convince the public that private insurance was the most beneficial system for health care. In the early 2000s, he said, that job largely consisted of moving consumers to high-deductible plans which the industry called “consumer-driven care,” meaning people would pay more up front for their health care costs before insurance coverage began.

Potter said his process of changing his mind about the health care industry began when he saw that Michael Moore documentary and realized the film’s portrayal of health care executives as greedy and heartless was not inaccurate to his experiences.

“He took a great deal of pains to make sure that he was portraying the system really very accurately,” Potter said.

As Potter pondered what to do next, a high-profile case hit the media. A 17-year-old girl, Nataline Sarkisyan, had been denied by his company a liver transplant her doctors said was medically necessary. Her parents were interviewed on CNN and staged a protest outside Cigna’s headquarters.

Potter said he convinced the company’s executives to reverse their decision.

“The problem was that days had passed. That liver was no longer available,” Potter said. “Five days before Christmas, Nataline died.”

Potter quit his job in 2008 and is now a writer who travels the country advocating for a single payer health care system. He said the Affordable Care Act has helped the problem slightly, but it is not enough.

“We are all just a layoff away from being among the ranks of the uninsured,” Potter said.

Like Potter, PNHP supports a proposal they call “expanded and improved Medicare for All.” They support a bill first introduced in Congress in 2003, House Resolution 676, which would create a national system of full health insurance including dental, vision and mental health coverage.

The cost of creating such a system in the United States is debated by economists, but PNHP believes it would save money.

“Single payer national health reform would save nearly $500 billion annually on paperwork and administration, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to eliminate deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays for everyone,” according to the organization’s website.

Dr. James Adams, the faculty sponsor of SNHP at ATSU, said medical students are concerned about the future of health care under America’s current system.

“Once they graduate, it’s their system, and they know the current system is in crisis,” Dr. Adams said.

According to data from Gallup Polling, about 44 million Americans are uninsured and an additional 38 million are under-insured, meaning their insurance cannot cover their actual medical costs.

Most other Western countries have a single payer health care system. A national poll by Kaiser Health in 2008 found that 59 percent of physicians supported a single health care system, and Dr. Adams said that number has likely risen since then. Recent Gallup polling shows that 70 percent of Americans overall now support it, including a majority of Republicans.

Dr. Adams said physicians spend a large amount of time, money and emotional energy negotiating with health care companies that do not want to cover their patients’ costs.

“The insurance companies throw down all these barriers to patients,” Dr. Adams said. “Passing a Medicare for All system would buy our patients freedom from all that.”

Dr. Adams said SNHP tries to focus on the positives of a potential single payer system, rather than the negatives of the current insurance system. He said it would mean the end of paying for costs like pharmaceutical drugs, ambulance rides and nursing home care.

“No more premiums, no more copays, no more coinsurance, no more deductibles,” Dr. Adams said. “People would be out in the street demanding it if they really knew.”

ACTION ALERT: Support immigrant justice by saying NO to the public charge!

Medicine for Migration squareMedicine for Migration Twitter

Immigrants are under attack.

On September 22, 2018, U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a proposed rule that could threaten the health and well-being of millions of children and families.
The proposed regulation seeks to expand the scope of programs that can trigger a public charge determination.  Public charge determinations are provided to immigration officers and can be used as a reason to deny a person’s green-card application. Under the proposed regulation, green-card applications can be denied to immigrants, even parents of US-born children, who receive social services like Medicaid; Medicare Part D, which helps the elderly afford prescription medicines; food assistance programs like SNAP and WIC; and Section 8 housing vouchers.
By expanding public charge determination, millions of children and families are at risk of being deprived of vital nutrition, health, and housing services out of fear that using such programs puts obtaining legal residency in jeopardy. 

But we can fight back. This regulation will been open for public comment until December 10, 2018 and a wave of comments and public demonstrations of support from the medical community will be impactful in preventing passage of the proposed change.

Show your support by:

  • Submitting a public comment here.
    • Only unique comments are counted, so add to the template provided by the Protecting Immigrant Families campaign on their website or check out these instructions for writing a comment.
    • Comments on their website will automatically upload to the federal register.
  • Ask your federal legislators to defend immigrant rights and stand against this regulation by signing on to this letter.
  • Tell your friends, family, and everyone you know to submit a comment. This is how we stop this.
  • Tell everyone on social media. Join our Facebook event. Add a Facebook filter, change your cover photos, and share the public comment page. Instructions are in our social media folder here.
    • Use the national coordinated hashtag #MedicineforMigration in your social media posts.
  • Join schools across the nation and commit your program to spreading the word about this cruel proposal and submitting comments about this cruel regulation during the National Advocacy Week, December 3-10.

SNaHP is proud to support the Medicine for Migration: National Week of Advocacy because immigrant rights are human rights!

A group of students at Weill Cornell and Columbia explain why their CEO is wrong to oppose ‘Medicare for All’

This article was originally published in Business Insider. You can read the article here.

Future of care must include single-payer system

This article was originally published by The International Falls Journal. You can read the original article here.

“As we head into an election cycle and as our healthcare costs become increasingly unaffordable, ask your representatives if they support a single-payer system that will cover you and everyone that you love.”

hands-699486_1920The stories are often shared in passing. As if they’re facts of life that one cannot change. The church secretary that makes $40,000 and spends $25,000 of it on health insurance premiums. The bartender who made too much in tips last month, lost his MNSure coverage, and now hasn’t taken his diabetes, hypertension, or psychiatric meds in weeks. The farm family where one family member must work off the farm to get insurance.

I am only a second-year medical student, but stories of people losing or not being able to afford essential medical care are already a commonplace part of my clinical experience.

In 2015, one third of all Americans put off necessary treatment because of costs. That means that almost everyone reading this knows someone, or they themselves, didn’t get the care they needed because of how much it cost. This summer I spent a rural rotation in International Falls. I was impressed with the quality of care and resilience that this community has shown in its commitment to providing healthcare to the community. I also heard at all levels – from administrators to patients, frustration with the healthcare system, costs, and accessibility of care.

Frustrations with healthcare are not unique to International Falls with an estimated 700,000 Americans going bankrupt every year because of medical debt. Healthcare spending now eats up almost one third of an average family’s income in America. If we were getting the best care in the world, that might be worth it, but the United States ranks 30th in the world for life expectancy, right behind Costa Rica and ahead of Cuba and we rank 26th in infant mortality. Rural communities are especially hard hit with shrinking insurance markets and difficulties retaining providers.

Every American deserves quality care that is affordable and accessible. With a single-payer system that is publicly funded and privately operated, we can get that. A single-payer healthcare system is funded by taxes on employers and individuals based on income. There are no co-pays, premiums, or deductibles. Once you pay into the system, all medically necessary care is free – from primary care, to surgery, dental, and vision care. You can see your hometown doctor that knows you best without having to worry if they are “in network” because every provider is included within the single payer system.

Physicians don’t have to fight insurance companies because single-payer insurance isn’t for-profit and lets patients and their physicians decide what care is medically necessary. And with a publicly accountable system, rural hospitals can incentivize providers to practice in communities like International Falls by increasing the budgets of rural hospitals and clinics to provide more competitive wages.

Non-partisan studies have shown that single-payer insurance would save 95 percent of American families money. Single-payer insurance is good for individuals, it is good for businesses, and it is good for rural communities that are the foundation of our country.

So as we head into an election cycle and as our healthcare costs become increasingly unaffordable, ask your representatives if they support a single-payer system that will cover you and everyone that you love.

Beret Fitzgerald is a medical student at the University of Minnesota who completed a summer internship with Physicians for a National Health Program Minnesota.


ACTION ALERT: Support the National Prison Strike

National Prison Strike StampStarting August 21, 2018, incarcerated peoples in 17+ states will be striking to demand an end to the death penalty, unfair wages, unsafe conditions, and racist policing and sentencing practices. They are also demanding equitable access to therapeutic rehabilitation programs and the right to vote.

Throughout the history of prison strikes, lack of quality medical care is a constant theme. The Attica Prison Rebellion, which this strike commemorates, was in part a response to the poor health conditions and medical experimentation on incarcerated people. At Attica, there were compassionate physicians who demanded access to prisoners to assess their injuries following the violent retaliation by correctional officers. As caregivers and public health advocates, SNaHP seeks to honor this legacy of medical solidarity by supporting those striking almost fifty years later in the 2018 National Prison Strike.

SNaHP is encouraging caregivers and public health advocates to personally support the 2018 National Prison Strike by signing the Letter of Solidarity sponsored by White Coats 4 Black Lives.

Here are a few other ways you can support to the strike:

  1. Educate ourselves and others about the strike demands.
  2. Officially endorse the strike by emailing a statement of endorsement to and (Sample statement here).
  3. Share the Letter of Solidarity with classmates, colleagues, and social media:
  4. Amplify incarcerated voices via social media using the #August21 and #prisonstrike hashtags.
  5. Organize a phone tree in preparation for phone zaps and similar requests once the strike is underway.

Statement in Solidarity with the National Prison Strike

SNAHP IconAugust 15, 2018


Jailhouse Lawyers Speak

Millions for Prisoners Human Rights

Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee of the IWW (IWOC)

& all incarcerated peoples


On behalf of Students for a National Health Program, please accept this letter of solidarity with all incarcerated peoples participating in the 2018 National Prison Strike and the supporting organizations of Jailhouse Lawyers Speak, Millions for Prisoners Human Rights, IWOC, and more. Throughout the history of prison strikes, lack of quality medical care is a constant theme. The Attica Prison Rebellion, which this strike commemorates, was in part a response to the poor health conditions and medical experimentation on incarcerated people. At Attica, there were compassionate physicians who demanded access to prisoners to assess their injuries following the violent retaliation by correctional officers. As caregivers and public health advocates, we want to honor this legacy of medical solidarity by supporting those striking almost fifty years later in the 2018 National Prison Strike.

Students for a National Health Program advocates for equitable access to medical care, and we stand in support of those who are striking for their right to health. America’s criminal punishment system is dependent on the inadequate accessibility of mental healthcare, rehabilitation, and treatment for substance use disorders. These lifesaving measures are even harder to access for people already in prison. Incarcerated people are often denied medical services, including appropriate reproductive care for pregnant persons, and treatment of infectious disease. We believe all people have a right to safe living and working conditions, rehabilitation programs, and access to mental, medical, and reproductive healthcare. In order to create a healthier and more equitable justice system, we proudly endorse the National Prison Strike and pledge our support.

In solidarity,

Students for a National Health Program, National Board

Robertha Barnes, Augie Lindmark, Jonathan Michels, Sydney Russell Leed, Tony Spadaro, and Michael Zingman

Can a New Generation of Med Students Help Push Medicare for All?

This article was originally published by Pacific Standard. You can read the original article here.

by Natalie Shure

“Young doctors stand to be a key bloc influencing the direction of American health-care reform.”

pnhp_1Upon finding out what residency programs they’d been matched with this spring, some 310 fourth-year medical students have taken the #MatchDayPledge, a social media campaign that invites the next crop of first-year residents to snap selfies alongside a signed commitment to fight for “improved Medicare for All.” The initiative was sponsored by Students for a National Health Program, or SNaHP—a single-payer advocacy organization with 1,400 members and chapters in over 60 medical schools—whose annual conference in New Orleans this March culminated in a demonstration on the steps of city hall, where they demanded an equitable health-care system financed by a single, public insurance pool.

Such actions may not command outsized attention relative to the overall Medicare-for-All campaign, which grew considerably after Bernie Sanders‘ 2016 primary run and counts among its supporters groups like National Nurses United, the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Socialists of America, and several national Democratic figures, including Congressman Keith Ellison and Senator Elizabeth Warren. But the heightened participation of medical students within the movement signals an apparent shift in the way that some future physicians interpret their public duties as they step into their new roles. As the Affordable Care Act teeters after a stormy few years of legal onslaught, volatile exchange markets, skyrocketing premiums, shrinking coverage options, and just-missed repeal efforts, young doctors stand to be a key bloc influencing the direction of American health-care reform, which voters cite as a top concern for 2018 mid-terms.

In recent years, left-of-center political activism among medical students has grabbed headlines across the country, including die-ins staged by the racial health justice group White Coats for Black Lives, and student-led ACA sign-up drives and gun-control demonstrations. If SNaHP’s recent growth (the group’s numbers are up 50 percent since 2016) is any indication, today’s students are poised to find themselves on the front lines of a protracted political battle over the future of a profit-driven health-care system that many of them intend to dismantle and fix from within.

It hasn’t always been this way: Medical school curricula can be notoriously divorced from the broader social and political context that shapes the lives of students’ future patients. Instructors often maintain an expressly apolitical posture toward political issues, and practicing physicians are encouraged to do the same; as Dr. Thomas S. Huddle put it in the journal Academic Medicine in 2011, “Advocacy on behalf of societal goals, even those goals as unexceptionable as the betterment of human health, is inevitably political. … Official efforts on behalf of advocacy will undermine university aspirations to objectivity and neutrality.” As I reported this story, a few dozen current and former medical students told me they’d received only minimal exposure in classrooms to material about health-care financing in general, let alone about single-payer specifically.

Augie Lindmark, a third-year at the University of Minnesota and a SNaHP board member, tells me that, as for most students, his introduction to these ideas was extracurricular. It wasn’t until attending a talk by Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, the co-founder of PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program, of which SNaHP is the student arm), that he came to appreciate fully the dire state of health-care financing in the United States.

“To this day, I remember this one chart,” Lindmark recalls of a lecture slide. “The growth of [health-care system] administration, 3000 percent; growth of doctors, 100 percent.” For Lindmark, Woolhandler’s critique of administrative costs painted a picture of a health-care system that was at best incoherent and wasteful, and at worst unbearably cruel, preventing millions of patients from finding necessary care while funneling billions toward a byzantine administrative regime that denies claims based on technicalities, processes documentation for eligibility, and decodes complicated billing systems that differ from patient to patient. The political content, Landmark says, “was a complete 180 from the curriculum I’d gotten in school.”

Illness, Lindmark came to realize, results from the dynamics of capitalism as much as from germs or lifestyle. He was maddened by the lack of political content in his coursework, and at SNaHP, he found like-minded students convinced that they are witnessing real momentum toward the biggest health-care policy shift in American history. “These are people who are very excited, very disenchanted with the system as it is, and want to work under something else,” Lindmark says. “I think students are at the front lines of leading that push.”

This confrontational posture places these left-leaning students at odds with many of their historical predecessors, who have often prioritized professional and financial interests over reforming health-care financing. During the administration of President Harry Truman, the American Medical Association famously beat back a once-popular proposal for national health insurance by launching what was then the biggest lobbying campaign in American history. The AMA smeared the public plan as “socialized medicine,” and the organization’s successful campaign against Truman helped entrench the private, employer-based system that we’re still stuck with today. Just over a decade later, the AMA allied with industry representatives to try to defeat Medicare and Medicaid—only to pivot, enthusiastically, once it became clear just how conciliatory legislators intended to be in carving out lucrative roles for the private sector. While the AMA (and physicians more broadly) have been more supportive of reforms in the decades since, their endorsements have largely come with caveats to protect their autonomy and, above all, their salaries. This year, SNaHP led an effort within the AMA’s student wing to encourage the group to endorse Medicare for All.

It isn’t terribly hard to figure out why many U.S. physicians would resist transformative health financing reform, even if Medicare did end up being more of a cash cow than their propaganda in the 1960s had warned. For many decades, doctors were among the parties who derived the greatest advantages from commodified health care. The structural shortcomings of a piecemeal, for-profit system leave insurers unable to negotiate prices effectively, resulting in staggering medical cost inflation that has tended to benefit physicians. By covering all Americans in one unified insurance pool, single-payer systems—like those envisioned in bills sponsored by Sanders and Ellison—would leverage federal bargaining power to drive down reimbursements paid to providers. In peer countries that employ similar health-care cost controls, doctors earn some 40 percent less than their American counterparts—and, as Elizabeth Rosenthal notes in her book An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back, while most Americans have struggled to make do amid lackluster job prospects since 2009, doctors’ pay has risen steadily. And, given that the average U.S. medical student graduates with $170,000 in debt, there are strong incentives to protect the status quo even before becoming a part of it.

But there is evidence that this self-interest among doctors is changing too. Polls show that 56 percent of American doctors now support a single-payer health system, up from 42 percent in 2008. That shift may partly reflect the recent erosion of the traditional advantages that doctors long held within the system. Rampant industry consolidation has left more than 50 percent of doctors working for larger corporate entities, rather than owning their own practice, and physicians can expect to spend over twice the amount of time on the complicated administrative work our system demands than they’re able to spend with patients. And, of course, doctors see firsthand the harm that inadequate insurance coverage has done to their patients: Tens of thousands of Americans die each year because they don’t have insurance, even after the reforms of Obamacare.

“I’m banging my head against the wall every day just trying to get my patients the care they need in this broken system,” explains Dr. Richard Bruno, a family physician who co-founded SNaHP as a med student in 2011. The failures of that system can have grave effects on doctors themselves, among whom suicide rates are on the rise. Their anguish, many argue, is ascribable to the very system harming so many of their patients: “Doctors are just trying to survive day to day … they’re victims of the system too,” Bruno says.

Bruno is heartened by SNaHP’s growth: “I’ve never seen a more active group in all the orgs I work with…. While they’re learning how to stop disease, they’re spreading their passion for health justice; it’s beautiful, really,” he says. Students do have a historic track record in helping to advance progressive movements: They can have the advantage of being able to shape institutions as they move through them, establishing new political norms from the get-go that stretch the boundaries of currently acceptable discourse within the profession. And given the AMA’s politically decisive role in knocking down a single-payer plan during Truman’s presidency, and the group’s critical roles in the health-care system overall, doctor buy-in will be essential to achieve Medicare for All. While the organization endorsed the ACA in 2009, it still maintains an official stance against single-payer—a decades-long position that Lindmark says SNaHP is pushing them to reject this summer.

Now that the message is taking hold among more and more students, Bruno says the next step is gaining electoral power. He’s running for the Maryland State House on a Medicare-for-All platform, and making his case directly to the people who he hopes will be his future constituents. “We’re knocking on doors every day,” he says. “They tell me their stories about scraping together $400 a month just to pay premiums before they get any care at all. They see the need for something better.”

Solidarity with Medical Students Who Demand Single Payer Now!

fist_logoWe, the undersigned, stand together with medical students as they pressure organized medicine to support a single, comprehensive health care system for everyone in America.

At the American Medical Association’s annual conference in June, medical students demanded the organization end its decades-long opposition to a single-payer national health program, a system that would be publicly financed but privately delivered and is better known as “Medicare for All.” This week, members of the Student Osteopathic Medical Association will submit a resolution asking the American Osteopathic Association to support Medicare for All.

Currently, the majority of Americans and practicing physicians support single-payer health care. In their resolutions, medical students from both organizations acknowledge what the rest of the country already knows: Market-driven healthcare is leading Americans to early graves and medical bankruptcy.

Our health system produces some of the worst health outcomes in the industrialized world—the U.S. has the highest rate of infant mortality and the highest number of avoidable deaths—and devours an ever-increasing share of our economy with health spending accounting for a whopping 17.9 percent of the GDP. Those fortunate enough to have insurance face prohibitively expensive copays, premiums, and deductibles that limit access to care, and medical expenses remain a leading cause of bankruptcy.

Instead, Medicare for All would give health care providers more autonomy because their clinical judgement—not the financial bottom line of insurance companies—will guide patient care. Patients would have free choice of any doctor, allowing providers to compete based on quality of care. Physicians would spend less time on administrative responsibilities like paperwork and billing, and more time seeing patients, which boosts both their work satisfaction and income.

We proudly stand alongside America’s future physicians in their efforts to steer the AMA and the AOA towards a universal, single-payer health system that provides quality, equitable care for all patients.


Students for a National Health Program (SNaHP)
Student Osteopathic Medical Association (SOMA)
Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA)
Pre-Health Dreamers
American Medical Student Association (AMSA)
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM)
California Health Professional Student Alliance (CaHPSA)
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP)
California Physicians Alliance (CaPA)
White Coat Brigade
Radical Public Health
Progressive Doctors
National Health Care for the Homeless Council
Labor for Single Payer
Healthcare NOW!
Clinicians for Progressive Care
All Unions Committee for Single Payer Health Care–HR 676
National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI)