Healthcare comprises almost 20% of the United States gross national product. In our effort to keep our readers informed about the topics that most impact on their lives we presented a writing last week by Dr. Robert Pearl entitled, “ In healthcare’s game of Monopoly, one player will control the board, ” in which Dr. Robert Pearl presented a private solutions to inefficiencies and problems that exist in America’s health care industry. Today we present a video from IssueOne examining the healthcare industry. Right now, healthcare lobbyists are legally allowed to buy our elected officials’ votes. As long as that’s the case, our representatives will continue to choose campaign donations over Americans’ lives. The healthcare industry spends more than anyone else lobbying politicians to rig the system on their behalf. That should be illegal, but it’s not.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Protesters hold up signs before the start of a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on October 13, 2026 in Ithaca, New York. The rally was organized by several survivor and activist groups to demand accountability regarding Jane Doe's alleged gang rape she suffered at the Chi Phi fraternity house in 2024. Officials at Cornell University announced they would ban fraternity parties for the remainder of the academic year as the university continues to face scrutiny over their handling of the 2024 rape allegations.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Sexual Violence Requires More Than Legal Accountability
Nov 12, 2026
In the wake of public attention to the Cornell fraternity alleged gang-rape, headlines resound with statements of concern and calls for greater accountability. These calls are not new. They have followed countless incidents of sexual violence, whether on a college campus, in connection with work, or within an intimate relationship. Despite decades of law and policy reform, sexual violence continues to run rampant. While law and policy reform are sorely needed, we will not see long-lasting change unless we address what accountability truly means. Our collective response should aim for a world where no one would ever think it was ok to commit, condone, or be a passive witness to sexual violence, never mind that it would be ok to send the kind of text messages that were allegedly exchanged at the Cornell fraternity where the rape allegedly took place.
As policymakers consider reform, a comprehensive approach to accountability should consider the known limitations of criminal and civil justice systems. Problems with the criminal legal system are legion, both within and beyond sexual violence cases. These include racially discriminatory application of laws criminalizing sexual violence, that, for example, have led to harsher punishment when the accused is a person of color and lesser punishment when the survivor is a person of color. Survivors continue to be doubted and subjected to biases and stereotypes, including that survivors lie about their experience, that they somehow invited the violence, or act with self-interest or ulterior motive when coming forward.
Survivors also report concern about turning to the police – they fear that the police will do nothing, will not believe them, and/or will harm them, their partners, or their children in some way. Reporting rates are low, as are rates of convictions.
The civil system can provide valuable, but limited, relief. No doubt, it is a vehicle for financial compensation, for public airing of the nature and harmful impact of gender violence, and can lead to policy change. But survivors are still doubted and dismissed when they are brave enough to come forward. Access to lawyers may be limited, and even when they receive a favorable result,civil cases can take years to resolve; survivors may struggle, and monetary judgments can be difficult to recover monetary judgments can be difficult to recover.
While law reform is critical, it should focus on delivering justice for survivors through actual accountability.
Accountability generally means accepting responsibility for one’s actions. This includes reckoning with the impact of harmful actions on others and committing to non-repetition. Yet, the link between accountability and legal recourse, whether criminal or civil, is tenuous at best. Neither of those systems builds in avenues for reflection, for grappling with the impact of harmful actions on others, for committing to changing behavior in the future, or for ensuring that survivors’ needs are taken into account.
By contrast, restorative practices offer a path for individuals who have caused harm to take responsibility for their actions. Programs on college campuses and beyond have been effective in changing attitudes towards gender violence and reducing its prevalence. Educational coaching also has had promising results in prompting those who cause harm to acknowledge the harm and change their behavior. These strategies require careful preparation and support, and they may not suit all circumstances, but they can be transformative.
Prevention programs are also critical to meaningful accountability approaches. Creative programs engage men in rethinking gender roles and lead participants to encourage other men to join in the project of preventing abuse. They also strive to help men become active allies in speaking up, speaking out, and interrupting peers who perpetuate gender stereotypes or engage in, belittle, or dismiss sexual violence. These and similar programs should be embraced and expanded.
The prevalence and persistence of sexual violence makes clear that the problem goes far beyond any one institution. The recent political advertisement demeaning a survivor of sexual assault is only one example of our culture’s insidious sanctioning of gender violence. It pervades our culture, demanding that we all consider our role in letting it persist. For example, consider how the evening might have proceeded differently if even one of the people on the text thread advertising the gang rape had objected.
Research about bystander intervention demonstrates the power of interrupting acts of gender violence in reducing violence. No doubt, interrupting violence may be particularly challenging now, given the hyper-masculine culture in which we currently live, fueled by a president who has been held liable for sexual abuse, who belittles those who speak up, and who celebrates aggression. The failure to effectively create any accountability for the rampant sexual violence surrounding Jeffrey Epstein speaks volumes about the extent of resistance to grappling with and ending gender violence.
If we do not embrace the wider goal of culture change and commit to doing our parts as we also support needed law reform, we should be prepared to be in the same place, confronting another horrifying example of gender violence, in the not-too-distant future.
Julie Goldscheid is Professor Emerita at CUNY Law School, adjunct professor of law at New York University School of Law, and a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
USA and China trade relations, cooperation strategy. US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.
Getty Images
America’s Gridlock Is Beijing’s Best Argument
Nov 12, 2026
Americans tend to treat democracy’s superiority as settled, and the long-run evidence backs them up. A major study by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues found that countries that democratize end up about 20 percent richer per person within a generation. But most of the world does not grade governments on long-run studies. For billions of people outside the wealthy West, the test is simpler: does the power stay on, are food prices steady, is there work, and do the roads get built? When the stomach is empty, a ballot can feel like a luxury.
China understands this and sells its model on exactly those terms. Its GDP per capita has climbed from about $300 in 1980 to nearly $15,000 today, by IMF figures, and the World Bank credits it with lifting some 800 million people out of extreme poverty. India, the world’s largest democracy, started from a similar place and sits near $2,800. Beijing’s centralized system, paired with Deng Xiaoping’s market reforms, built power plants, factories and rail lines at a pace India’s more deliberative politics has not matched. Anyone who values liberty will find little to admire in that model. It does explain why the model sells.
Prosperity Usually Comes First
Political science has a blunt finding here. Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi found that no democracy had ever collapsed in a country richer than Argentina was in 1975, about $6,000 per head in 1985 dollars, while poorer democracies fell again and again. South Korea and Taiwan industrialized under authoritarian rule and became durable democracies once they grew rich. Singapore took a hybrid road under Lee Kuan Yew, pairing disciplined execution with tight limits on political freedom; its GDP per capita now tops $100,000.
Silencing people is the wrong takeaway. Regimes that crush dissent blind themselves to their own mistakes. The lesson is about the order of needs. A factory worker in Shenzhen or a farmer in Uttar Pradesh wants a reliable bus and a working school first and a freer debate second. A democracy that cannot supply the first will struggle to sell the second.
America’s Vetocracy
That is where the United States should worry. In April, Gallup found just 10 percent of Americans approve of Congress, one point above the record low set in 2013, with 86 percent disapproving. Last fall the government shut down for 43 days, the longest full shutdown in American history, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates the economy permanently lost about $11 billion. This spring the Department of Homeland Security went unfunded for a record 76 days. Continuing resolutions stand in for budgets. A typical federal environmental impact statement takes about four and a half years before a shovel moves. California voters approved high-speed rail in 2008 at an estimated $33 billion; the state’s own estimate is now $126 billion, and the first passengers are not expected until the 2030s. Over the same years, China built more than 50,000 kilometers of high-speed track, more than the rest of the world combined.
The same pattern now reaches the top of the world. As Arctic ice retreats, Chinese container ships recently completed their first season of regular weekly service to Europe along Russia’s northern coast, cutting the Suez voyage nearly in half. America’s answer is a heavy icebreaker contracted in 2019 for delivery in 2024; the GAO now expects it in 2033. Until then, the Coast Guard’s only working heavy icebreaker is the Polar Star, commissioned in 1976. Congress paid for these ships. Washington simply could not get them built.
Francis Fukuyama calls this a “vetocracy,” a system so well defended against overreach that it is also defended against action. Gridlock is usually treated as a domestic annoyance. Abroad, every stalled American project is free advertising for Beijing.
When Pressure Worked
Democracies can still move fast when someone applies pressure on purpose. For years, polite diplomacy left most European allies short of even NATO’s 2 percent defense target. The Trump administration took a blunter, transactional approach, and much of the foreign-policy establishment called it reckless. Yet at The Hague in June 2025, every ally except Spain, which negotiated its way out, committed to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense and security by 2035, with 3.5 percent for core military needs. This March, NATO reported that European allies and Canada had raised real defense spending by 20 percent in 2025, and that for the first time every member cleared the 2 percent bar.
The method has costs. Alliances rest partly on predictability, and an adversary who cannot tell which commitments are firm may miscalculate. Still, deliberate pressure inside an existing structure broke an inertia that decades of consensus diplomacy could not.
Reforms Worth Debating
None of this argues for abandoning checks and balances. It argues for sorting the checks that produce accountability from those that merely produce paralysis. Several reforms would push the system toward delivery without touching the Constitution: a narrow filibuster exception for infrastructure and budget bills; sunset dates that force major programs to be reauthorized on a schedule rather than run on autopilot; and a public, plain-English scorecard for every large federal project. Congress already accepts the logic of the first idea, since budget reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered. In my years running R&D programs, a project with no milestones was one nobody could kill or save.
A bolder idea deserves debate, if only for what it forces us to confront: a president elected to a single, non-renewable term of five or six years, with narrow authority to break legislative deadlock on designated infrastructure and economic bills, subject to full judicial review. It would require a constitutional amendment and carries real risk of abuse, so it should be considered only with guardrails at least as strong as the power it grants. But removing the reelection motive would strip out much of the posturing that fuels gridlock today.
The postwar assumption that democracy wins by default, whether or not it delivers, is wearing thin across the developing world and, increasingly, at home. Ordinary people need full refrigerators more than fine speeches. The contest with China will not be settled by speeches about freedom. It will be settled in part by which system can pass a budget, build a bridge and keep a promise on time. If America keeps mistaking gridlock for principle, it will keep handing its rivals their best argument.
Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D., is the Director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking.
Keep ReadingShow less
Taking back Congress is only step one. Read a proposed Democratic Manifesto outlining bold policies on inflation, equal opportunity, AI, and the American social contract.
Getty Images, Omar Chatriwala
A Democratic Manifesto: The First 100 Days of the Democratic Congress
Nov 11, 2026
While the American people's freeing Congress from Trump and Republican Party dominance is important to saving our democracy, it is only the first step. Now the Democratic Party must use the opportunity to re-dedicate itself as the Party of the people. Spiraling inflation, wage stagnation, and unaffordable housing have created a crisis for most Americans. I thus urge the Democratic Party members of the next Congress to proclaim the following Manifesto to the American people.
DEMOCRATIC MANIFESTO
It is fitting and proper that Congress in the 250th year after our nation's birth rededicate itself to the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .”
That, in Lincoln's words, "we here highly resolve ... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
To that end, we, the Democratic Party members of the 120th Congress, commit ourselves to the following:
Our mission shall be to build a country of greater opportunity where:
- each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: "that all men [persons] are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness";
- government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration—"to secure these rights"; and
- all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure these rights and promote the public good, each according to their ability.
This will be our litmus test. All policies we advocate must be consistent with this mission statement and any proposed policy that is antagonistic to it will be dropped.
The war in Iran is antagonistic to our mission—we will vote to stop it. Spiraling inflation is antagonistic to our mission—we will act to foster lower prices. Tax cuts which benefit mainly the rich are antagonistic to our mission and we will vote to reverse them. An unleashed AI is antagonistic to our mission—we will act to regulate it so that its positive values are harnessed and its destructive risks are either controlled or eliminated. Corruption in government officials is antagonistic to our mission—we will root it out.
The government's role in securing equality: What does "equality" mean? It means equal opportunity; that everyone should have an equal chance to pursue happiness. This means regulations relating to employment, housing, health care, and finance that insure equal treatment and equal opportunity. Part of this process includes programs that encourage diversity, equality, and inclusion. No person should be left out of the American dream, and that dream must once more become a reality. Our nation will be stronger when each person, regardless of background, is encouraged to make the most of themselves, their skills and talent, and thus contribute both to their own and the nation's well-being.
However, in pursuing equality, no person regardless of sex or color should by virtue of that attribute be given preference over others; that would be replacing one inequality with another. The saying, "May the best person win," should be the rule that is applied and that everyone should accept. If the decision is that a man or woman who is Black is the best person for the job or for admission to a school, then the White person must accept that; and vice versa.
The government's relationship with industry: Government should support industry and commerce insofar as they support this mission. But if industry interests do not further this mission, if they seek power and riches for themselves without corresponding benefit to the people, then we should not support those interests.
For example, business regulations that protect the interests of the people—whether in breathing clean air, drinking clean water, or being treated fairly in financial transactions—impact the profits of industry. But the interests of the people must come first. Industry should not be asked to carry burdens that would ruin them, but reasonable burdens necessary to protect the health and wellbeing of the public and consumer interests they will have to accept. With regard to free trade agreements, the globalization which they fostered certainly helped American multi-national corporations grow richer, but the American worker and public have suffered. The answer to this problem isn't clear, but one must be found.
The Democratic position on cultural issues: Regarding cultural issues that are of concern to many Americans, we state unequivocally that:
* We have no desire to deprive law-abiding citizens of guns for sport and self-defense. But because guns do kill people, the sale of guns must be carefully controlled, and guns that have no role in sport or self-defense should be outlawed.
* We revere life and are not pro-abortion. We will do everything we can to insure that no child is conceived that is not wanted so that abortion becomes rare, except when the mother's health is threatened. After birth, we will strive to ensure that all children receive the support they deserve to grow into strong adults.
* We believe that everyone has the right to pursue his or her life as they wish, so long as they do not thereby interfere with another person's rights. Differing approaches to lifestyle do not interfere with another person's rights. We thus support the rights of free speech and religion as well as the rights that have been granted LGBTQ persons, including the right to marry. And we support the right of trans individuals to receive the medical and other care they need to pursue their lives and to be accepted in their gender identity.
All American men, women, and children are owed the support of government policies in education, health care, civil rights, security, the economy, the environment, and taxation that provide a foundation of equal opportunity for all to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness. That is the American social contract.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are all about the people. We must never lose sight of that fact and work for their wellbeing.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building on September 30, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Trump’s Weaponization of the DOJ Threatens Democratic Governance
Nov 11, 2026
The dust from the November 2026 midterm elections has barely settled, yet a familiar, toxic chorus of political warfare is already drowning out the clear message from American voters.
With Democrats securing majorities in both the House and Senate, voters signaled a desire for checks, balances, and a focused effort on the pressing economic issues squeezing everyday families. Instead, President Donald Trump has chosen to meet the incoming legislative branch not with an open hand, but with a weaponized Department of Justice.
Following the election, Trump issued a series of directives ordering the DOJ to investigate Democratic lawmakers, accusing them of "criminal acts" and "extortion" for simply fulfilling their constitutional duty of congressional oversight. Without offering any supporting evidence, Trump alleged in his post that Democrats were distributing "threatening letters to many people, all innocent."
Meanwhile, congressional members have publicly released several letters requesting documentation on issues like tech company contributions intended for the new White House ballroom project.
Attorney General Todd Blanche quickly fell in line, saying, “What we've seen over the past several days and even over the past several weeks are outright threats,” on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Blanche used the national television appearance to validate counter-investigations against political opponents whose rhetoric he deemed "vile and dangerous."The hypocrisy here is as blinding as it is dangerous.
For years, Trump and his supporters have weaponized the term "lawfare," crying foul at every legal proceeding, impeachment, and investigation, labeling them as partisan witch hunts. Yet, the moment the American electorate votes to shift the balance of power, the administration turns around and uses the literal apparatus of federal law enforcement to intimidate the incoming majority. When incoming House Oversight Chairman Robert Garcia tells the White House to "lawyer up" regarding administration activities, federal contracts, and mass firings, he is not committing a crime—he is doing the job the Constitution mandates and voters just demanded.
The leading Democrat on the House Oversight Committee promised Sunday to launch multiple investigations into Trump administration officials, saying Democratic leadership would no longer “take the high road.”
“When Republicans go low, what we’re not going to do anymore is just take that, take the high road, and turn the other cheek,” Garcia declared. “The days of us not fighting back are over.”This retaliatory escalation fundamentally rejects how a democratic government is supposed to function. Oversight is not extortion. Checks and balances are not criminal acts.
More importantly, this playground retaliation completely ignores the mandate of the midterm elections. Voters did not go to the polls demanding a never-ending cycle of mutual legal destruction. They went to the polls looking for solutions to economic anxieties, inflation, healthcare, and governance that actually functions.
Governing requires collaboration, especially in a divided Washington. It requires a willingness to sit across the table from political rivals, find common ground, and pass legislation that helps the American people. By using the DOJ as a personal shield and sword, Trump is poisoning the well before the new Congress is even sworn in.
If the Trump administration spends the next two years consumed by vengeance and retaliatory investigations, ordinary Americans will pay the price. It is time to drop the threats of prosecution, respect the constitutional role of congressional oversight, and get to work on the issues that actually matter to the people who cast their ballots last Tuesday.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More