While Abdul El-Sayed Pushes for Socialized Medicine, His Psychiatrist Wife Won't Accept Any Insurance 70%

By Amy Curtis90%

7/14/2026, 9:00:53 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 48.1% saturation with 273 hits. Analysis detected 2,194 faulty-reasoning hits from 567 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.1% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,404 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.80% of the article peer group.

Rules for thee, but not for me. 
That's the honest slogan of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). 
As we've pointed out, while the DSA rails against private property, they  or their families  all own expensive houses in nice neighborhoods. 
They hate the wealthy, but most of them are trust fund nepo babies, like Zohran Mamdani and Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson. 
They want to fight climate change, but fly private jets, as Bernie Sanders does, and who can forget AOC wearing that 'Tax the Rich' dress to the Met Gala, where tickets cost $100,000? 
In Michigan, U.S. 
Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is running on a platform of getting Medicare for All passed. 
The socialists paint this as an issue of fairness, but it's not. 
It's about control. 
They want to have power over our medical decisions, so they can force us to comply with their political agenda at the threat of withholding lifesaving care from us. 
If you don't believe they'd do that, remember how many Leftists were clamoring to deny treatment to the unvaccinated during COVID, and the countless stories about healthcare providers saying they'd inflict pain on or deny care to conservative patients. 
That's why it's very interesting that El-Sayed's wife, psychiatrist Sarah Jukaku, refuses to accept any insurance. 
Instead, she makes patients pay out of pocket for her services. 
Jukaku works in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 
Here's more: 
Left-wing Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed supports universal health care through a single-payer "Medicare for All" system that would cover every American "from cradle to grave." 
His wife, psychiatrist Sarah Jukaku, does not take Medicare or any other insurance plan, forcing her patients to pay out of pocket for the services they receive. 
She also appears to have scrubbed a portion of the "Frequently Asked Questions" page on her website making clear that she does not accept insurance. 
Jukaku, who has a medical degree from Columbia University and a masters from the University of Oxford, worked as co-chief of psychiatry at University of Michigan Health—which does accept Medicare—before starting her own Ann Arbor, Mich.-based practice, Mind Work Psychiatry, in 2024. 
The following March, Jukaku opted out of Medicare, records show, meaning she cannot bill the program and requires Medicare patients to pay out of pocket. 
The same goes for patients with private insurance plans, though they can often submit bills to their providers and recoup some of the costs. 
Patients who have private insurance plans that include out-of-network coverage can submit their bills to the insurance company for reimbursement, but only after meeting costly deductibles. 
El-Sayed himself has said that "your healthcare shouldn’t depend on who signs your paycheck” and that “we can and must guarantee healthcare from cradle to grave.” 
Except for his wife. 
She's (D)ifferent. 
The Free Beacon also notes that it appears Jukaku has removed the insurance question from her page. 
Gee, we wonder why. 
We're sure that those with connections to the DSA, like Jukaku, or those with the means to bribe officials will get exemptions from the socialists' Medicare for All program. 
For the rest of us? 
We get to experience run-down facilities, long waits, and euthanasia instead of healthcare. 
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.2%Amy Curtis: 8.5%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Amy Curtis: 3.6%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic15.7%This article: 7.9%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias10.8%This article: 7.9%Amy Curtis: 10.8%Townhall: 11.3%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 6.5%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion6.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Amy Curtis: 2.8%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias14.8%This article: 48.1%Amy Curtis: 15.2%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias48.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.5%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error4.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Amy Curtis: 4.6%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 6.0%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.4%Amy Curtis: 1.2%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.4%This article: 2.8%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Amy Curtis: 8.3%Townhall: 5.1%Ad Hominem5.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.4%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 4.5%Appeal to Authority10.4%This article: 7.8%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 2.0%False Dilemma7.8%This article: 12.5%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope12.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.8%Amy Curtis: 16.5%Townhall: 9.2%Hasty Generalization14.8%This article: 1.9%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring1.9%This article: 5.8%Amy Curtis: 1.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon5.8%This article: 16.2%Amy Curtis: 9.7%Townhall: 11.3%Appeal to Emotion16.2%This article: 7.8%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.3%Begging the Question7.8%This article: 2.8%Amy Curtis: 2.8%Townhall: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.5%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.1%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal17.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.0%Amy Curtis: 2.2%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 9.5%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading9.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.4%Amy Curtis: 4.1%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote16.4%This article: 7.4%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection7.4%This article: 36.7%Amy Curtis: 24.4%Townhall: 16.2%Biased Writer Voice36.7%This article: 12.5%Amy Curtis: 8.0%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination12.5%This article: 4.6%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.6%This article: 37.2%Amy Curtis: 21.9%Townhall: 13.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias37.2%This article: 11.5%Amy Curtis: 6.1%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.5%

567 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers10%attributed speech510writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageFree Beacon • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall VIP • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Free Beacon

100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words30% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+90.2 ptsWriter: 9.8%Free Beacon: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -41.4 ptsWriter: 41.4%Free Beacon: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-40.8 ptsWriter: 40.8%Free Beacon: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.9 ptsWriter: 13.9%Free Beacon: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Free Beacon: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Free Beacon: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Free Beacon: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.