Mary Beth Mohr

07/29/2026

🤬

Dr. Oz just killed a program that kept seniors' drug costs down, called it a "bailout" for insurers, and handed millions of older Americans a bigger bill.

Here's what the TV-doctor-turned-Medicare-boss actually did this week.

His agency is ending a subsidy that lowered the average senior's prescription premium by roughly 27 percent this year. Gone after 2026.

That program sent about $3.6 billion to hold premiums down. Now nearly half of the 25 million people in standalone Part D plans are expected to pay more, most of them an extra $20 a month.

Oz swears it's under ten bucks. Fine. Tell that to a 74-year-old on a fixed income choosing between her heart medication, her electric bill, and groceries.

Because that's the real math. Roughly one in four Americans already report trouble affording their prescriptions. Millions ration doses or skip them entirely. An extra twenty dollars a month isn't a rounding error to those folks. It's a decision nobody should have to make.

And notice the pattern. This is the same administration that always finds room for tax cuts aimed at billionaires and corporations. But when it comes to seniors, suddenly the cupboard is bare, and keeping grandma's medicine affordable gets branded a "bailout."

Before running Medicare, Oz was a loud cheerleader for privatized Medicare Advantage.

Gut the subsidy for standalone drug plans, and guess where seniors get funneled? Straight into the for-profit system he spent years promoting.

This didn't have to happen. The subsidy came from the Inflation Reduction Act, the same law that capped insulin at $35 and out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000 a year. It was working. They ended it anyway, a full year early.

So this fall, when your parents open their 2027 enrollment packet and the number is higher, remember: it wasn't inflation. It wasn't the market. It was a choice, made by people who decided seniors could pay more so donors could pay less.

They spent their whole lives paying into this system. The least they've earned is the medicine that keeps them here.
Call it what it is. Not the end of a bailout. A promise broken.

07/21/2026

🚨 Trumparrhea 💩

07/07/2026

Two health policy experts explain how new federal legislation will affect eligibility for and affordability of health insurance—and how individuals can prepare to avoid losing coverage.

06/22/2026

😡

A Justice Department lawyer just signed a memo saying disabled Americans have no right to live in their own homes. In the same document, she admits no court in the country agrees with her.

Read that again. A government official wrote down, in black and white, that her own argument is wrong by every legal standard of the last thirty years, and she made it anyway.

Here is what it means in plain terms.

Right now, 8.4 million people get help that lets them stay in their own homes. Aides who help them dress. Care that lets them work, see friends, raise their kids, sleep in their own beds at night.

This memo tells states they can cut all of it.

And if they cut it, where do those people go? Into nursing homes. Into institutions. Into facilities where someone else decides when you wake up, what you eat, who your roommate is, whether you go outside today.

A lawyer who has visited people locked in these places said their whole world shrinks to one hallway. That is the future this memo is opening the door to.

Keeping people in their own homes is cheaper. In one case, home care cost under $7,500 a year. The nursing home would have cost close to $50,000. The cruel option is also the expensive one. They want to spend more money to make people's lives worse.

So why?

Because last summer Trump signed an order to deal with homelessness by force, by sweeping people off the streets and committing them. He said it out loud during the campaign: the mentally ill belong back in institutions.

The only thing standing in the way was the law that says people deserve to live in their own communities.

This memo is how they get around it. And it landed the same week Republicans slashed Medicaid, giving every cash-strapped state the perfect excuse to start cutting.

A think tank drew up the plan. A lawyer wrote the memo. A president signed the order. Three signatures, and millions of people could lose the right to their own front door.

We are about to spend the summer celebrating 250 years of American freedom.
Some Americans are about to find out it doesn't include them.

06/22/2026

😡

06/05/2026

06/02/2026

👍🏼 Storm the Court!

⚠️ : For the first time in American history, a sitting Supreme Court Chief Justice is facing Articles of Impeachment.

John Roberts' corruption is now permanently etched into the historical record.

The Six Articles of Impeachment are summarized below:

Article One – The Chief Justice allowed the Court to become a partisan force, in breach of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, due process, and equal protection of the laws, and the Chief Justice’s obligation to “administer justice without respect to persons” and “faithfully and impartially” discharge his duties. Time and time again, the Court has violated its own principles with a pattern of interfering in elections on behalf of Republican candidates.

For example, in the eight days following Callais, Tennessee dismantled its only majority-Black congressional district, splitting Memphis into three pieces. Alabama and South Carolina indicated they would follow suit. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved Democratic redistricting amendment, a case the Court declined to stay, within days. In contrast, the Court bypassed its rules to enable Louisiana to redraw its map in time for the 2026 elections. Similarly, on an expedited basis, the Supreme Court vacated lower court injunctions preventing Alabama from redistricting and allowed a new map to take effect eight days before the primary election. The asymmetrical application of the Purcell principle in a way that benefits Republicans demonstrates either the Chief Justice’s inability to administer the court impartially, or that his gross negligence would prevent him from faithfully discharging his duties.

The asymmetrical application of the Purcell principle in a way that benefits Republicans demonstrates either the Chief Justice’s inability to administer the court impartially, or that the Chief Justice is so negligent that he was unable to foresee that releasing the Callais decision days after Virginia’s referendum, and then subsequently picking and choosing which states will be redistricted with one line orders, would be perceived as political by the American people, and, in so doing, destroy their confidence in the neutrality and independence of the Court.

Article Two – Under Chief Justice Roberts’ stewardship, the Court systematically preferred the powerful over the people, undermining the notions of popular sovereignty, representation, and democracy at the heart of a constitutional republic. Taken together, Chief Justice Roberts led the Court to license a system of political exclusion that could entrench minority rule at the expense of the will of the people – a grave violation, with incalculable damage, to participatory democracy enshrined in our Constitution.

Article Three – Chief Justice Roberts violated his oath to “do equal right to the poor and the rich” by endorsing a corrupt campaign finance system that privileges the wealthy at the expense of all other citizens.

Article Four – Chief Justice Roberts violated the Constitution of the United States and his Judicial Oath by usurping Congress’s legislative role and exempting the President of the United States from criminal liability for illegal conduct. In placing a single person above the law, Chief Justice Roberts breached his oath to “administer justice without respect to persons.”

Article Five: Chief Justice Roberts’s leadership of the Court is marked by the Court’s arbitrary, unexplained, and inconsistent decisions that violate the Constitutional protections of the parties.

Article Six: Chief Justice Roberts violated his ethical and statutory obligations by failing to fully report assets on his financial disclosures and refusing to recuse himself from cases that presented perceptions of a conflict of interest. While on the bench adjudicating some of the most sensitive matters, Jane Sullivan Roberts, the Chief Justice’s spouse, was being paid millions of dollars to recruit attorneys by the very firms litigating before the Court. This conduct directly violates 28 U.S.C. § 455. More importantly, it violates the constitutional structure and the parties’ constitutional rights to an independent and impartial magistrate to adjudicate their claims.

05/26/2026

Your local office could be next. 😱🤬

Despite his promises to protect Social Security, Trump is cutting i...

05/18/2026

UnitedHealthcare built an AI system to deny claims with a 90 percent error rate and nobody went to prison. Luigi Mangione’s fate rests on a gun and a handwritten notebook.

As documented by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and confirmed across multiple sources, UnitedHealthcare deployed “nH Predict” to automatically deny post-acute care claims for elderly Medicare Advantage patients, overriding the assessments of their actual treating physicians.

The subcommittee found that nine times out of ten denials were overturned when patients appealed to federal administrative law judges.

UHC kept using it anyway because the company also knew that only 0.2 percent of denied patients ever appeal.

The rest either paid out of pocket, went without care, or did not survive long enough to complete the process. No executive was charged. No algorithm was shut down by court order.

UnitedHealthcare reported record profits.

Today, Judge Gregory Carro rules on whether a gun and a handwritten notebook, seized from Luigi Mangione's backpack without a warrant, can be shown to a jury at his state trial, which begins September 8th.

As reported by CNN and confirmed by NBC News, the federal charges that would have made him eligible for the death penalty have already been dismissed by a separate judge who found them legally incompatible with the remaining counts. Pam Bondi had personally directed prosecutors to pursue ex*****on.

One person faces life in prison for what he is accused of doing to one executive in broad daylight on a public street.

The people who built a system with a 90 percent error rate that denied elderly patients medically necessary care will not be in that courtroom.

04/30/2026

The US "healthcare" system is neither healthy for all, nor do they care.