°C
20
Min
Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
Editorials from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian and others
Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
July 10 - The Washington Post says policy is what's driving the rising ACA premiums
If it wasn't obvious before that the famous bill passed to make health care more affordable has done anything but, it should be now: Individual plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges are projected to spike by about 14 percent in 2027, according to recent insurer filings.
The ACA imposed a wide array of mandates on health insurance. Those mandates are expensive. To make up for the increase in costs, the ACA distributes subsidies so consumers don't feel the impact of the increase.
Many of these subsidies are "advance" subsidies that go directly from the federal government to insurers based on the customer's income. That means insurers can raise premiums without customers having to pay more.
As of 2025, 93 percent of enrollees in the exchanges received subsidies, up from 86 percent in 2021. If nearly everyone on the exchanges needs subsidies, that's a clear sign that the product being sold is not affordable.
Even with the expiration of the expanded subsidies that were adopted during the covid pandemic, nearly all enrollees will still receive subsidies. Enrollees with incomes over four times the poverty level, who were previously not eligible for subsidies, only accounted for 7 percent of enrollees in 2024.
The ACA encourages insurers to raise costs. Take the medical loss ratio, which requires insurers to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium revenue on medical care. In theory, that limits spending on administration costs.
In practice, though, the policy means insurers make more money by spending more on medical care, regardless of whether it improves health outcomes or serves customers well. The higher spending translates to higher premiums. And because the vast majority of customers aren't actually paying higher premiums as long as their incomes stay the same, the insurers just rake in the subsidies.
Analysis from the Paragon Health Institute finds that the average premium on ACA exchanges increased by $5,898 between 2014 and 2026, and federal taxpayers covered 90 percent of the increase. If the only way the ACA makes insurance affordable is by transferring an ever-increasing amount of money each year directly from the government to insurers, that's an enormous failure in what was supposed to be a market-based system.
But that's what has happened, and it's happened on a larger scale than projected. In 2021, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that premium subsidies would cost $55 billion in 2027. The most recent projection is that they will actually cost $93 billion.
If the goal of the ACA was to funnel federal dollars to insurers while degrading whatever price signals were left in the health insurance market, it couldn't have been designed much better.
___
July 13 - The New York Times says the world must open its eyes to the horrors in Sudan
Five months after the United Nations reported acts of genocide in Sudan, another human rights catastrophe may be imminent.
The Rapid Support Forces, a rebel group that controls parts of the country and has a history of committing atrocities, has gathered outside El Obeid, a strategically important city, and nearly encircled it. About 600,000 people are facing severe shortages of food, water and medicine, and the R.S.F. has already killed some civilians through drone attacks. "The signs from El Obeid are clear and unmistakable: Another human rights catastrophe is unfolding in Sudan," the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Volker Türk, said. There are many reasons that Sudan's war is often overlooked, despite being bloodier than conflicts that receive far more attention. Sudan does not fit into larger global political debates in the ways that the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East do. Africa too often is ignored by those on other continents, a reflection of both racial and economic double standards. Sudan has been so long ravaged by war that efforts to bring peace can seem pointless.
None of these explanations are acceptable, and they feed the terrible costs of the continuing conflict. The war in Sudan is one of the world's most lethal, with a death toll estimated by independent monitors to be between 150,000 and 400,000. Millions of Sudanese have been driven from their homes, some of them flooding into neighboring countries. Beyond the innocent death and suffering in Sudan itself, the longer the fighting drags on, the greater the chance that regional instability will spread. The world needs to make a bigger effort to halt the killing and mass displacement in Sudan, and the threat to El Obeid should inspire urgent action. The United States is uniquely positioned to push regional powers to intervene to halt the current threat and to bring an end to the war. American influence over Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, nations that have aided the warring sides, can restart peace talks and initiate a cease-fire. The Trump administration should urgently recommit to peace in Sudan and protect the many innocent civilians who face the threat of sexual assault, torture and death.
Bringing peace to Sudan will not be easy. Since it won independence in 1956 from Britain and Egypt, Sudan has endured decades of instability, including coups, long civil wars and the Darfur genocide of the early 2000s. The key divide is ethnic rather than religious. More than 90 percent of Sudan's residents are Muslim, but they are split between an Arab majority and several non-Arab Black ethnic groups. In the Darfur genocide, Arab militias backed by Sudan's government killed hundreds of thousands of Black civilians.
The current conflict began after Omar al-Bashir, a dictator who ruled the country for three decades, cut subsidies for fuel and wheat in 2018, and protests erupted. The following year, the military and the private militias that have long dominated parts of Sudan united to topple the government. But their alliance proved temporary, and the military and militias soon began fighting one another, leading to the civil war. In addition to fighting for territory, the two sides are trying to control natural resources, including gold, oil and agricultural products. Both have committed atrocities.
On one side is the Sudanese Armed Forces, led by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, whom many countries recognize as the head of state. It has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the nearly century-old radical Islamist group, and has received aid from Iran and Egypt. The United Nations has accused the armed forces of committing war crimes, including torture, sexual violence and the use of chemical weapons.
On the other side are the Rapid Support Forces, a predominantly Arab group led by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan. The United Nations says that his forces have committed acts of genocide in recent years, massacring members of non-Arab ethnic groups in western Sudan since 2023. General Hamdan also led groups that committed the atrocities in Darfur two decades ago. The Rapid Support Forces describe themselves as anti-Islamist and, according to U.S. officials, have received aid from the United Arab Emirates.
The result is a war of exceptional brutality that remains too often ignored. If even the low end of the estimated death toll in Sudan is correct - 150,000 people - it is twice the official toll in Gaza and comparable to the toll among Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Millions of Sudanese have also been driven from their homes, some of them flooding into neighboring countries.
What might the world do to stop the bloodshed?
The most important role is among the Middle Eastern countries that have been backing one of the two sides. Saudi Arabia, which is officially neutral, has helped the Sudanese Armed Forces. The United Arab Emirates provides weapons and other aid to the Rapid Support Forces. Rather than fueling the fighting, both countries should use their influence to stop it.
The United States also has a crucial role to play. The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has tried to end the war without success. In September, the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates proposed a road map to peace, starting with a three-month truce followed by negotiations on a transitional civilian government.
The Sudanese Armed Forces rejected the plan. The Rapid Support Forces pretended to welcome it, but soon began a merciless assault on el-Fasher, a regional capital in western Sudan, that included the killing of 6,000 civilians in three days after the city fell, the U.N. found. U.N. officials said that the attack bore "the defining characteristics of genocide."
With the near-encirclement of El Obeid, the world must urgently take action. The Trump administration should re-engage, as should European leaders who say they want to play a bigger role in global affairs in response to President Trump's sporadic isolationism. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates should stop their shortsighted jockeying for influence in Sudan and prioritize ending the massacres.
The 2020s have set a grim benchmark. Global deaths in armed conflicts have reached their highest level since the 1994 Rwandan genocide, ending a long period of relative peace. The continuing tragedy in Sudan has been among the largest contributors to the new era of bloodshed. The rest of the world should act to prevent the rising danger to civilians and to end the war in Sudan once and for all.
ONLINE: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/13/opinion/sudan-genocide-atrocities-international.html
___
July 10 - The Boston Globe asks if the federal government is trying to kick sick people off Medicaid
Is the federal government trying to kick sick people off Medicaid? It certainly seems like it.
Congress made the policy choice to impose work requirements on Medicaid - which in itself is likely to result in people losing coverage largely for administrative reasons like failing to file paperwork on time. Now, a rule released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in June governing how to implement those work requirements is imposing even more administrative burdens, threatening to kick even those who are physically unable to work off their plans.
As Stacey Nee, a spokesperson for MassHealth, the Medicaid program in Massachusetts, wrote in a statement to the editorial board, "These new requirements are intentionally designed to be so burdensome to meet that people lose their care." The statement says the new requirements are "putting people with serious medical conditions, working families, and vulnerable residents at risk of losing the coverage they depend on - not because they're ineligible, but because of unnecessary red tape."
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell is co-leading a group of 26 states suing to block the CMS rule. Regardless of how the judge rules, the federal government should withdraw the rule and craft a new one that gives states the ability to implement the work requirements in a way that doesn't overly burden sick and disabled enrollees.
Congress's One Big Beautiful Bill Act requires any able-bodied person on Medicaid to work, volunteer, or attend school - the logic being, as CMS writes, "Employment has been shown to be an important factor leading to long-term beneficiary health and well-being." In imposing the requirement, Congress ignored data from Arkansas 's Medicaid work requirements suggesting that these requirements don't increase the number of people on Medicaid who are working, but serve mainly to boot people off Medicaid because they don't submit reports.
But even supporters of work requirements acknowledge that some people should be exempt. Congress, in the law, exempted people who are " medically frail "; blind; disabled with a substance use disorder, mental disorder, or physical, developmental, or intellectual disability that impairs activities of daily living; or have a "a serious or complex medical condition."
The problem is the CMS rule seeks to add another condition: Someone who is medically frail or has a serious or complex medical condition has to show that the condition "significantly impairs" their ability to work.
That means states can't grant exemptions because someone has been diagnosed with cancer or Alzheimer's disease - a determination that could potentially be made automatically through insurance claims data. Instead, a person needs to prove to the state that the illness impairs their ability to work - and it's unclear how that determination can be made. In 2027, the state can accept "self-attestation" that someone is unable to work when they have no other reliable information, but the federal government limits patients' ability to use " self-attestation"beyond 2027, suggesting outside documentation would be required. But as the states' lawsuit points out, most community health providers don't have the expertise, or time, to do job readiness evaluations.
Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured for health policy organization KFF, told the editorial board that the rule "places an administrative burden on providers." It's not clear how a physician should evaluate, for example, if a person has a condition that occasionally flares up and prevents them from working, or if a construction worker has a disability that prevents them from doing construction but wouldn't preclude an office job.
The lawsuit argues that the rule runs counter to what Congress intended - to exempt people who are medically frail or have serious illnesses - and to what CMS initially told states by putting people with serious illnesses at risk of losing insurance coverage.
Massachusetts has estimated that 300,000 people will lose health insurance coverage through MassHealth or the Health Connector due to various provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. A MassHealth spokesperson said the state is still calculating any additional impacts of the CMS rule.
To their credit, Massachusetts health officials have been developing systems to match MassHealth enrollment data with other data sources like tax records to determine if someone is employed, in school, pregnant, or has a child under 13 so the state can automatically determine if a person is exempt from or is already complying with the work requirements, saving them the hassle of filling out paperwork.
The Legislature also appropriated $10 million for the state to work with consumer advocacy group Health Care for All to inform MassHealth members about the new requirements. Hannah Frigand, senior director of HelpLine and Public Programs for Health Care for All, said the group will provide funding to community partner organizations - like shelters, faith-based groups, and social services - to do outreach and help people fill out paperwork.
Additionally, the fiscal 2027 state budget, which Governor Maura Healey signed on Thursday, appropriates around $30 million for MassHealth to hire staff, communicate with members, and improve its data systems so the state can help people maintain coverage under the new rules.
The work requirements will be onerous enough for many MassHealth enrollees. Federal Medicaid officials should work with states to make it as easy as possible to comply. They shouldn't impose rules that require a low-income person with Parkinson's disease to jump through bureaucratic hoops to justify why they can't work in order to receive health insurance.
ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/07/10/opinion/are-feds-trying-kick-sick-people-off-medicaid/
___
July 12 - The Guardian says the world loses when the U.S. and Iran overplay their hands
The cycle's familiarity should not obscure the gravity of the consequences as the US and Iran return to threats, strikes and a futile search for an exit from war via escalation. On Sunday, Tehran said that it had closed the strait of Hormuz again. The World Food Programme is already feeding 1.5 million fewer people this year owing to the illegal war launched by the US and Israel. Vulnerable countries are suffering most as existing crises are compounded: an extra 2.5 million people in Somalia and 2.3 million in Afghanistan are struggling to meet basic food needs.
Even de-escalation would not fix this humanitarian crisis. The full impact on food production has yet to be felt. The strait was key to global fertiliser exports; as prices soared, many farmers cut back on use. The drying up of remittances from migrant workers in the Gulf hurts Asian as well as African nations.
In Iran itself, and Lebanon, thousands of people, including civilians - many of them children - have been killed and essential infrastructure destroyed. Iranians are sliding deeper into economic catastrophe, and the regime is cracking down harder under the cover of war. Tehran's retaliation has caused death and damage across the region. Consumers worldwide are paying more for energy and food.
With the midterms approaching, the domestic impact helped push Mr Trump towards agreeing a memorandum of understanding (MOU), with 60 days to negotiate a broader deal. Yet less than a month in, strikes have resumed, after Iran struck ships transiting the strait and the US retaliated. At issue is a key section of the MOU. Its vagueness was not an oversight, but an attempt to accommodate clashing positions. It states that Iran will restore shipping, ensure safe passage and work with Oman on the strait's future administration, with the possibility of future fees apparently left open. Iran interpreted that as cementing, not overturning, its new control - and targeted ships which then used a separate US-coordinated route.
Rhetoric from both sides does not help. Tehran decreed, as it mourned for its late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, that revenge for his killing "must inevitably be carried out". Mr Trump responded that the US military will "decimate and destroy all areas of Iran" if he faces any assassination attempt, and has called its leaders "scum". Yet while Mr Trump has said that the MOU and ceasefire are over, he maintains that talks will continue. This is not so much a repeat as a doom loop; each iteration increases suspicion and complicates issues. The US can U-turn again to allow Tehran to export oil - but the sector cannot recover when customers have no confidence.
Ending the war depends on resolving an issue the war created: Iranian control of the strait. The immediate priority should be to facilitate humanitarian shipments. Beyond that, Oman and others are attempting to establish the exit route from a crisis which its principals have been unable to find. One proposal would allow navigational fees to be charged, but on a non-compulsory basis and under the aegis of a UN body. That has potential, though leverage probably matters more than profit to a militarised, more hardline regime. Mr Trump wants to claim a triumph, not a compromise. But neither side can secure decisive victory, and neither wants an open-ended war, even if they are unwilling to make the concessions needed. The rest of the world must try to coax them back to their senses - or live with the consequences.
___
July 10 - The Philadelphia Inquirer says Donald Trump is assaulting free and fair elections
Let's begin with the obvious: Donald Trump is out to rig the midterm elections.
We know this because the president commits many of his illegal acts in broad daylight.
For the past year, Trump has revved up his election-tampering efforts by throwing everything at the proverbial wall.
He called for nationalizing elections, pushed to redraw election maps, slashed funding for election security, moved to restrict voting, targeted election workers, rewarded election deniers, and continued to repeat baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was fixed.
Trump even mused about canceling the November midterms. The White House said it was a joke, but his track record indicates anything is possible.
Trump has ignored court orders, trampled presidential norms, and even refused to uphold the Constitution. He has cheated at everything, including the draft, golf, taxes, and marriage, so why not elections?
If the Great Experiment in self-government that the founders began 250 years ago is to continue, we need free and fair elections. But Trump is working feverishly to tilt the playing field to ensure Republicans win.
Last summer, he pushed GOP lawmakers in Texas to take the rare step of redrawing congressional maps in the middle of the decade to add more Republican seats.
Lawmakers in other red states, including Florida, Ohio, and Missouri, followed Trump's blatant call for gerrymandering. Some blue states, like California, moved to do the same to offset the Republican scheme, sparking an undemocratic arms race.
The U.S. Supreme Court joined in by further obliterating the Voting Rights Act that previously provided for majority-minority districts. With that safeguard dismantled, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama carved up Black majority districts to eliminate Democratic seats.
Polls indicate deep dissatisfaction with Trump and Republicans, who control the House and Senate. He fears hearings and investigations into his corruption, incompetence, and self-dealing if Democrats take control of either chamber.
"If we don't win the midterms ... I'll get impeached," Trump said earlier this year.
Hence, the all-out attack on the election system.
Trump called for the federal government to seize control of elections - even though the Constitution put the states in charge.
He demanded the end of mail-in voting - even though presidents do not have the power to change voting laws.
Trump signed an executive order that would require voters to show proof of citizenship and that all mail-in ballots be received by the time polls closed - moves that were blocked last month by a federal judge, but the president remains relentless.
This week, Trump's Justice Department threatened criminal charges against Pennsylvania's top election officials if they let noncitizens vote. Other states received a similar warning, even though the issue is exceedingly rare and already illegal.
But Trump's baseless rhetoric helps to sow distrust in elections - something he has done throughout his tumultuous decade in politics.
Trump has demonstrated he will cross any line. As president, he incited an insurrection as part of a broad conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential results - an act of treachery that has earned its place in infamy.
Trump was criminally indicted for his monthslong effort to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, but the charges were dropped after he returned to the White House and assumed control of the U.S. Department of Justice.
To this day, Trump refuses to admit he lost the 2020 presidential race, despite producing no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud and abusing the legal system by mounting 60 failed election cases before state and federal judges.
In fact, Trump is still seeking to overturn the 2020 results.
In February, he ordered Tulsi Gabbard, the then-director of national intelligence, to attend an FBI search of election facilities in Georgia, where Trump lost in 2020.
The FBI recently assigned more than 200 agents to search for election fraud in Georgia, six years after exhaustive state and federal investigations found none.
During a ballyhooed visit to Arizona to discuss election security, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem couldn't cite a single case of election fraud.
But a Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation did find top Trump campaign officials had extensive contacts with Russian operatives during the 2016 election.
For all of Trump's bluster about rigged elections, he remains the poster child for election interference. Now, he is willing to undermine national security to get the election results he wants. He demanded states change election rules, such as requiring voter identification, or risk losing federal terrorism prevention funds.
Trump also put his political gain above the public's pain. He refused to sign a landmark bipartisan bill designed to lower housing costs until Congress passed legislation that would require proof of citizenship for all voters.
Trump has taken other steps recently to weaken election security.
One directive disbanded an FBI task force created to combat foreign influence in U.S. elections, and another crippled the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency that Trump created.
The moves come as Russia, China, and Iran ramp up efforts to meddle in U.S. elections, just as they did during Trump's victories in 2016 and 2024.
Before Jan. 6, 2021, it was hard to imagine a sitting president inciting a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol, attack police, defecate in offices, and look to hang the vice president.
So, how much further will Trump go to get his desired election results?
With Trump, there is no bottom.
Related Stories
More Top Stories
