Dean Baker describes the "massive shift of resources" that would accompany a move to a Medicare-for-All, single-payer health insurance system. He generally finds less savings from single-payer than you'd hope, but also finds more savings in the area of prescription drug costs than you'd think, and he also thinks it's "a good working assumption" that, under a single-payer system, wages would rise by about the amount employers are paying for health insurance now, and I hope he's right, because I suspect big corporations would try their damnedest to keep that money for themselves and push the cost onto their workers in the form of payroll taxes. (He's also skeptical of raising taxes significantly on the wealthy, figuring they'll try harder to avoid it -- but we largely prevented that in the 1950s, so why can't we do that now?)
The Obamacare repeal deadline is all in the news these days (and the CHIP reauthorization deadline, which is the same day, uh, isn't,) but yet another health care-related funding deadline is coming up, and that's for federal funding for community health centers. 61 Senators, from both parties, have gone on record supporting reauthorization of this funding, so if Congress fails at this, it should be grotesquely easy to run ads against incumbents next year. If Congress kills it with poison pill amendments, of course, they could avoid defeat more easily, since most folks don't like to peer inside the sausage-making factory. But they would deserve defeat. Evil works always deserve defeat.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) demands information about "wasteful and potentially unlawful spending by the U.S. Marshals Service" with assets seized from civil and criminal proceedings. I do like it when Mr. Grassley performs actual oversight the way an actual people's representative would do, though his moments of partisan hackery, unfortunately, seem to get more attention. And if you'd prefer he concentrate his efforts on ending asset forfeiture, keep in mind that a damning indictment of asset forfeiture abuse would help such an effort.
The AP reports on state government bodies actually suing folks who request public records. Can you say "frivolous lawsuit," boys and girls? If you're even entertaining the notion that state government agencies might have a point, look at their argument -- "it’s best to have courts determine whether records should be released when legal obligations are unclear" (as the AP summarizes it) cries out for a punch in the nose. It's so obviously an attempt to intimidate watchdogs and muckrakers that the reactionary Michigan state House unanimously banned the practice earlier this year. It's so awful maybe even Neil Gorsuch would rule against it.
Finally, Verizon disconnects over 8,000 rural customers, thus threatening the ability of these residents to deal with emergencies (among other things). By the time you figure out the labyrinthine reason Verizon is dropping these folks, you'll be thinking maybe the real problem is that Verizon wanted to look like it was serving rural customers without actually doing the hard work that comes with serving them. Either that, or that they're just not very good at anything but making money. You know what would solve this problem? Community broadband! You know what big telecom corporations like Verizon spend inordinate amounts of time and effort fighting? Community broadband!