online game zuma

Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling , claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont's high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents' wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella's suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella's son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school's assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct" that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn't want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn't say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court's mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.” John Klar, who also represents the Politellas, went a step further, telling the AP that the Vermont Supreme Court ruling means that “as a matter of law” schools can get away with vaccinating students without parental consent and that parents can only sue on the federal level if death or serious bodily injury results. — Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck . By Melissa Goldin, The Associated Pressonline game zuma 。

NEW YORK (AP) — Walmart's sweeping rollback of its diversity policies is the strongest indication yet of a profound shift taking hold at U.S. companies that are re-evaluating the legal and political risks associated with bold programs to bolster historically underrepresented groups. The changes announced by the world's biggest retailer on Monday followed a string of legal victories by conservative groups that have filed an onslaught of lawsuits challenging corporate and federal programs aimed at elevating minority and women-owned businesses and employees. The retreat from such programs crystalized with the election of former President Donald Trump, whose administration is certain to make dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs a priority. Trump's incoming deputy chief of policy will be his former adviser Stephen Miller , who leads a group called America First Legal that has aggressively challenged corporate DEI policies. “There has been a lot of reassessment of risk looking at programs that could be deemed to constitute reverse discrimination,” said Allan Schweyer, principal researcher at the Human Capital Center at the Conference Board. “This is another domino to fall and it is a rather large domino,” he added. Among other changes, Walmart said it will no longer give priority treatment to suppliers owned by women or minorities. The company also will not renew a five-year commitment for a racial equity center set up in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd. And it pulled out of a prominent gay rights index . Schweyer said the biggest trigger for companies making such changes is simply a reassessment of their legal risk exposure, which began after U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2023 that ended affirmative action in college admissions. Since then, conservative groups using similar arguments have secured court victories against various diversity programs, especially those that steer contracts to minority or women-owned businesses. Most recently, the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty won a victory in a case against the U.S. Department of Transportation over its use of a program that gives priority to minority-owned businesses when it awards contracts. Companies are seeing a big legal risk in continuing with DEI efforts, said Dan Lennington, a deputy counsel at the institute. His organization says it has identified more than 60 programs in the federal government that it considers discriminatory, he said. “We have a legal landscape within the entire federal government, all three branches -- the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress and the President -- are all now firmly pointed in the direction towards equality of individuals and individualized treatment of all Americans, instead of diversity, equity and inclusion treating people as members of racial groups,” Lennington said. The Trump administration is also likely to take direct aim at DEI initiatives through executive orders and other policies that affect private companies, especially federal contractors. “The impact of the election on DEI policies is huge. It can’t be overstated,” said Jason Schwartz, co-chair of the Labor & Employment Practice Group at law firm Gibson Dunn. With Miller returning to the White House, rolling back DEI initiatives is likely to be a priority, Schwartz said. “Companies are trying to strike the right balance to make clear they’ve got an inclusive workplace where everyone is welcome, and they want to get the best talent, while at the same time trying not to alienate various parts of their employees and customer base who might feel one way or the other. It’s a virtually impossible dilemma,” Schwartz said. A recent survey by Pew Research Center showed that workers are divided on the merits of DEI policies. While still broadly popular, the share of workers who said focusing on workplace diversity was mostly a good thing fell to 52% in the October survey, compared to 56% in a similar survey in February 2023. Rachel Minkin, a research associate at Pew, called it a small but significant shift in short amount of time. There will be more companies pulling back from their DEI policies, but it likely won’t be a retreat across the board, said David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at New York University. “There are vastly more companies that are sticking with DEI," Glasgow said. "The only reason you don’t hear about it is most of them are doing it by stealth. They’re putting their heads down and doing DEI work and hoping not to attract attention.” Glasgow advises organizations to stick to their own core values, because attitudes toward the topic can change quickly in the span of four years. “It’s going to leave them looking a little bit weak if there’s a kind of flip-flopping, depending on whichever direction the political winds are blowing,” he said. One reason DEI programs exist is because without those programs, companies may be vulnerable to lawsuits for traditional discrimination. “Really think carefully about the risks in all directions on this topic,” Glasgow said. Walmart confirmed will no longer consider race and gender as a litmus test to improve diversity when it offers supplier contracts. Walmart says its U.S. businesses sourced more than $13 billion in goods and services from diverse suppliers in fiscal year 2024, including businesses owned by minorities, women and veterans. It was unclear how its relationships with such business would change going forward. Organizations that have partnered with Walmart on its diversity initiatives offered a cautious response. The Women’s Business Enterprise National Council, a non-profit that last year named Walmart one of America's top corporation for women-owned enterprises, said it was still evaluating the impact of Walmart's announcement. Pamela Prince-Eason, the president and CEO of the organization, said she hoped Walmart's need to cater to its diverse customer base will continue to drive contracts to women-owned suppliers even if the company has no explicit dollar goals. “I suspect Walmart will continue to have one of the most inclusive supply chains in the World,” Prince-Eason wrote. “Any retailer's ability to serve the communities they operate in will continue to value understanding their customers, (many of which are women), in order to better provide products and services desired and no one understands customers better than Walmart." Walmart's announcement came after the company spoke directly with conservative political commentator and activist Robby Starbuck, who has been going after corporate DEI policies, calling out individual companies on the social media platform X. Several of those companies have subsequently announced that they are pulling back their initiatives, including Ford , Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s and Tractor Supply . Walmart confirmed to The Associated Press that it will better monitor its third-party marketplace items to make sure they don’t feature sexual and transgender products aimed at minors. The company also will stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s annual benchmark index that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees. A Walmart spokesperson added that some of the changes were already in progress and not as a result of conversations that it had with Starbuck. RaShawn “Shawnie” Hawkins, senior director of the HRC Foundation’s Workplace Equality Program, said companies that “abandon” their commitments workplace inclusion policies “are shirking their responsibility to their employees, consumers, and shareholders.” She said the buying power of LGBTQ customers is powerful and noted that the index will have record participation of more than 1,400 companies in 2025.

What's On Tap in Chicago Bulls news ? Welcome to the 53rd edition of "Tasting Flight," a daily newsletter to keep fans updated on all the latest news in Bulls Nation. Bulls Debut 2024-25 City Edition Uniform Against Memphis Grizzlies The Bulls are on the second night of home-home back-to-back games, Saturday against the Grizzlies, after a Friday 136-122 victory over the Atlanta Hawks . For the second time in the 2024-25 NBA season, the Bulls meet the Grizzlies. A road victory was earned by the Bulls in their first matchup with the Grizzlies , 126-123. Tip-off is at 7 p.m. CT, and the game will air on Chicago Sports Network (CHSN) . Breaking out the City Edition threads ⏰: 7:00 pm CT : https://t.co/dLgvAjfc2T : @670TheScore @ATT | #SeeRed pic.twitter.com/82E3wb9gGx Uncertainty About Patrick Williams ' Return Timeline Darnell Mayberry of The Athletic published a column Saturday detailing the circumstances behind the foot inflammation that has sidelined Bulls forward Patrick Williams indefinitely. In his column, Mayberry states, "He [Williams] hasn't been ruled out for next week, but the Bulls are making it clear no one can be sure when Williams returns to the court." Bulls get win, but Patrick Williams out indefinitely with foot inflammation https://t.co/O9748oXMOA Williams' absence will create additional game minutes for Matas Buzelis and Julian Phillips, on a positive note. However, the possibility of another extended injury absence for Patrick Williams will likely ring a loud negative note in the ears of Bulls fans, who perhaps are reaching a "now or never" tone with Williams in light of his new Bulls contract . Billy Donovan Considering Game Minutes for End-of-Bench Rotation With the Chicago Bulls playing five games in seven nights, head coach Billy Donovan is considering giving Chris Duarte and Jevon Carter minutes to allow Ayo Dosunmu and Coby White some time to rest. Billy Donovan said he’s considering potential minutes for Chris Duarte or Jevon Carter on Saturday because of the B2B, 5 games in 7 nights and heavy minutes for Coby White and Ayo Dosunmu. On This Day In Bulls History Five years ago today, Zach LaVine put on a shooting clinic, complete with late-game heroics, to break the hearts of the Charlotte Hornets. LaVine poured in 49 points, making 13 three-pointers, including the game-winner. Ice cold from Zach LaVine! Remember his CLUTCH game-winner against Charlotte from this day in 2019? What an ending... pic.twitter.com/EOQdLMCFT9 This article first appeared on On Tap Sports Net and was syndicated with permission.MIAMI BEACH, Fla., Dec. 12, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Herzfeld Caribbean Basin Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: CUBA) (the “Fund”) today announced that Thomas J. Herzfeld, Chairman of the Board of Directors has resigned from the Board as of December 31, 2024. Mr. Herzfeld has also resigned as Portfolio Manager for the Fund effective as of the same date. Mr. Herzfeld has held the position of Chairman since the Fund’s launch in 1994. He will retain the position of Chairman Emeritus and participate in board meetings on a non-voting basis. The Board has elected Cecilia Gondor to serve as Chairperson effective December 31, 2024. Ms. Gondor has served on the Board of Directors since 2014. She also served as Executive Vice President of Thomas J. Herzfeld Advisors, Inc. (the Fund’s investment manager) from 1984 through May 2014. During her years at the investment manager, her research analysis garnered her the reputation as being one of the most knowledgeable analysts in the industry. Additionally, she was the Executive Vice President of Thomas J. Herzfeld & Co., Inc., a broker-dealer, from 1984 through 2010. Ms. Gondor currently is an owner and the Managing Member of L&M Management LLC group of partnerships, a residential and commercial office space investor located in Alexandria, Virginia. In addition, the Board has named Brigitta Herzfeld to fill the board vacancy created by Mr. Herzfeld’s resignation. Ms. Herzfeld is a current member of the investment manager’s executive committee and will join the Board as of December 31, 2024. She is a graduate of Bowdoin College (BA), Stanford University (MA) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology – MIT Sloan School of Management (MBA) and Wharton-Singapore Management University (Executive Management Program). She has held positions at Goldman, Sachs & Co and Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. Mr. Herzfeld commented: “It has been my privilege and honor to serve on the Board of Directors of The Herzfeld Caribbean Basin Fund for its entire history. As I approach my 80 th birthday, it is with much pride that I turn the leadership of the Fund over to a new generation. Cecilia Gondor has been a consistent source of expert guidance for the Fund for many years and is a great choice to take over the chair position. And Brigitta Herzfeld’s financial background and long history with our firm will be an invaluable source of expertise for the board. While I will remain active with the management company, it is clear that the time has come for me to step down from active leadership of the Fund. As Chairman Emeritus I will be working harder than ever to ensure that we maximize shareholder value; we are currently exploring several options that we think will be beneficial to our shareholders.” Mr. Herzfeld has had a long and illustrious career and is generally considered to be “the father of closed-end fund investing”. Mr. Herzfeld wrote the first of his six books on the subject of closed-end funds in 1979. He is the publisher of The Investor's Guide to Closed-End Funds monthly research report and is quoted and interviewed on the subject of closed-end funds by the world’s most renowned financial papers. He has served as a contributing editor for the Global Guide to Investing (published by Financial Times ), and The Encyclopedia of Investments . Ms. Gondor responded to her election to Chairperson: “To follow in the footsteps of Tom Herzfeld is a very humbling experience. He has been a mentor to me and many others in the closed-end fund industry. I look forward to working with Brigitta Herzfeld and the other board members to continue the work that Tom started 30 years ago and am honored to contribute to the legacy he has built in any way that I can.” A graduate of Philadelphia University in 1966, Mr. Herzfeld served in the United States Army Reserve from 1966-1972, and on active duty in 1967. He received an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters (LHD) from Philadelphia University in 2008. He joined the Wall Street firm Reynolds & Co., in 1968 and began a specialization in closed-end funds. He formed the NYSE member firm of Carlino, Herzfeld and Kemm in 1970 and served as the firm's Senior Partner at the age of 25. He also became an Allied Member of the NYSE, an Associate Member of the AMEX and a senior register options principal. In 1981, he formed a stock brokerage firm, Thomas J. Herzfeld & Co., Inc., that was the first to specialize in the field of closed-end funds. He created the industry's first and only Closed-End Fund Index, "The Herzfeld Average," which has been published in Barron’s weekly since its establishment in 1987. He also coined the term “lifeboat provisions” used in the industry to define tactics funds take to narrow discounts and keep prices afloat. About Thomas J. Herzfeld Advisors, Inc. Thomas J. Herzfeld Advisors, Inc., founded in 1984, is an SEC registered investment advisor, specializing in investment analysis and account management in closed-end funds. The Firm also specializes in investment in the Caribbean Basin. The HERZFELD/CUBA division of Thomas J. Herzfeld Advisors, Inc. serves as the investment advisor to The Herzfeld Caribbean Basin Fund, Inc. a publicly traded closed-end fund (NASDAQ: CUBA). More information about the advisor can be found at www.herzfeld.com . Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. An investment in the Fund is subject to certain risks, including market risk. In general, shares of closed-end funds often trade at a discount from their net asset value and at the time of sale may be trading on the exchange at a price which is more or less than the original purchase price or the net asset value. An investor should carefully consider the Fund’s investment objective, risks, charges and expenses. Please read the Fund’s disclosure documents before investing. Forward-Looking Statements This press release, and other statements that TJHA or the Fund may make, may contain forward looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, with respect to the Fund’s or TJHA’s future financial or business performance, strategies or expectations. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words or phrases such as “trend,” “potential,” “opportunity,” “pipeline,” “believe,” “comfortable,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “current,” “intention,” “estimate,” “position,” “assume,” “outlook,” “continue,” “remain,” “maintain,” “sustain,” “seek,” “achieve,” and similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “may” or similar expressions. TJHA and the Fund caution that forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties, which change over time. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and TJHA and the Fund assume no duty to and do not undertake to update forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking statements and future results could differ materially from historical performance. With respect to the Fund, the following factors, among others, could cause actual events to differ materially from forward-looking statements or historical performance: (1) changes and volatility in political, economic or industry conditions, particularly with respect to Cuba and other Caribbean Basin countries, the interest rate environment, foreign exchange rates or financial and capital markets, which could result in changes in demand for the Fund or in the Fund’s net asset value; (2) the relative and absolute investment performance of the Fund and its investments; (3) the impact of increased competition; (4) the unfavorable resolution of any legal proceedings; (5) the extent and timing of any distributions or share repurchases; (6) the impact, extent and timing of technological changes; (7) the impact of legislative and regulatory actions and reforms, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and regulatory, supervisory or enforcement actions of government agencies relating to the Fund or TJHA, as applicable; (8) terrorist activities, international hostilities and natural disasters, which may adversely affect the general economy, domestic and local financial and capital markets, specific industries or TJHA or the Fund; (9) TJHA’s and the Fund’s ability to attract and retain highly talented professionals; (10) the impact of TJHA electing to provide support to its products from time to time; (11) the impact of problems at other financial institutions or the failure or negative performance of products at other financial institutions; and (12) the effects of an epidemic, pandemic or public health emergency, including without limitation, COVID-19. Annual and Semi-Annual Reports and other regulatory filings of the Fund with the SEC are accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and on TJHA’s website at www.herzfeld.com/cuba, and may discuss these or other factors that affect the Fund. The information contained on TJHA’s website is not a part of this press release. Contact: Tom Morgan Chief Compliance Officer Thomas J. Herzfeld Advisors, Inc. 1-305-777-1660

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com, Healthcare costs have soared. Obamacare failed to live up to its promises. And my lead image dramatically understates the problems with costs... Data from the BLS, chart by Mish The numbers look bad but they are much worse than they look because of the way the BLS calculates the CPI. On all CPI calculations, the BLS only counts costs directly paid by consumers. To the extent corporations and Medicare are obscuring more of the costs, the CPI numbers are understated. The above is an AI-generated response. It totals 86.6 percent. Census. Gov says that in 2022, 92.1 percent of people, or 304.0 million, had health insurance at some point in the year. Those in various Medicare plans have seen smaller increases than those buying insurance for themselves. And the cost of direct pay is outrageous. Large corporations can get better deals than smaller ones. The BLS averages this all in to arrive at the numbers posted in the chart. Heaven help anyone paying for their own insurance who gets cancer or other serious needs. Obamacare penalizes young and healthy for the benefit of those older and with conditions. Young adults not working for a company that provides health care benefits frequently opt out. No one can blame them. The Wall Street Journal discusses the ObamaCare Con Progressives are at last acknowledging that ObamaCare is a failure. They aren’t doing so explicitly, of course, but their social-media screeds against insurers, triggered by last week’s murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, suggest as much. “We’ve gotten to a point where healthcare is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations,” CBS News medical contributor Céline Gounder said during a Friday segment on the roasting of health insurers. Remember Barack Obama’s promise that if you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them? Sorry. How about his claim that people with pre-existing conditions would be protected? Also not true. The biggest howler, however, was that healthcare would become more affordable. Grant Democrats this: The law has advanced their political goal of expanding government control over insurers, in return for lavishing Americans with subsidies to buy overpriced, lousy products. (One might observe that Democrats are driving a similar Faustian bargain to induce automakers to produce more electric vehicles.) One problem is that simply having insurance doesn’t change people’s behavior. It does, however, cause them to use more care. This is a particular problem in Medicaid, since beneficiaries often rush to the emergency room for nonemergencies because they don’t have deductibles or co-pays. Another problem: The nearly 100 million Americans on Medicaid or tightly regulated and generously subsidized exchange plans struggle to find doctors to treat them. Physician access for Medicaid patients has long been limited owing to the program’s low reimbursement rates. It has gotten worse since ObamaCare expanded eligibility, as states have tried to hold down Medicaid costs by reducing reimbursements. A 2019 study found that patients were only half as likely to get an appointment with a doctor compared with privately insured patients before the law passed. Post-ObamaCare, they were less than one-third as likely. Medicaid is insurance in name only. Patients with exchange plans hardly fare better. Affordable Care Act plan networks include on average only 40% of local physicians and 21% of those employed by hospitals. Patients must pay significantly more out of pocket to see out-of-network doctors. If you find a doctor in network, there’s no guarantee he’ll continue to be. Insurers are narrowing coverage to keep down costs. They are also hiking deductibles, which this year averaged $5,241 for a typical plan . That’s up from $2,425 in 2014. Although subsidies reduce how much people with ObamaCare plans pay toward their premiums, they are stuck paying out of pocket until they hit their deductible. Most healthy young people never do. That means their insurance is worthless except in the event of a catastrophic emergency, which was the gist of recent rants against insurers. Perhaps they should take up their grievances with Mr. Obama, since his law’s mandates and regulations are to blame. ObamaCare requires plans to cover myriad government-determined “essential benefits” regardless of whether people need them. It also prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums based on a patient’s health-risk factors and limits their ability to do so for older people. The young and healthy are thus required to subsidize their elders, while taxpayers are required to subsidize everyone on the exchanges . The WSJ noted “states have tried to hold down Medicaid costs by reducing reimbursements.” Everyone else pays more because if it. Wait times and the struggle to find a doctor who takes Medicaid are not factored into the CPI at all. The Huffington Post reports ‘This Is A Warning’: Warren, Sanders Address Sympathy For UnitedHealthcare CEO Killing Two of the biggest critics of the U.S. health care system condemned the assassination of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson while calling out “vile” insurance company practices aimed at maximizing profits. “The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the health care system,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told HuffPost in an interview on Tuesday when asked about the cold response to Thompson’s death, which included celebratory posts on social media. “Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far,” Warren added. “This is a warning that if you push people hard enough, they lose faith in the ability of their government to make change, lose faith in the ability of the people who are providing the health care to make change, and start to take matters into their own hands in ways that will ultimately be a threat to everyone.” After drawing some criticism for her remarks, Warren clarified her comments in a statement provided to HuffPost on Wednesday. “Violence is never the answer. Period,” the senator said. “I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called Thompson’s killing “outrageous” and “unacceptable” before similarly criticizing insurance company practices. “I think what the outpouring of anger at the health care industry tells us is that millions of people understand that health care is a human right and that you cannot have people in the insurance industry rejecting needed health care for people while they make billions of dollars in profit,” Sanders said. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) also criticized “vile” social media posts for celebrating an “assh*le that’s going to die in prison.” “If you gun someone down that you don’t happen to agree with their views or the business that they’re in, hey, you know, I’m next, they’re next,” he added. “And people want to celebrate it. It’s twisted.” Government meddling is one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive. Obamacare failed across the board. And it did so by creating big pools of those who overpay and underpay. Let’s not mince words. People who smoke ought to pay more for healthcare because they are a higher risk. Those who are grossly overweight ought to pay more as well. Medicaid encourages emergency visits by paying primary care doctors so little that the doctors refuse new patients. To avoid lawsuits, doctors perform more tests than necessary. Fraud is rampant. Paperwork is excessive. “Medicare for All” would enhance problems in all of the above. Customers who have already reached their max out of pocket deductibles have no skin in the game. And that’s a huge problem. According to Medicare.Gov “ No Medicare drug plan may have a deductible more than $505 in 2023. Some Medicare drug plans don’t have a deductible. In some plans that do have a deductible, drugs on some tiers are covered before the deductible. ” Once deductibles are reached, sometimes in one month, consumers have no incentive to shop around. Other customers, unaware of cost differentials, fill prescriptions on the basis of convenience, that being the nearest pharmacy. January 24, 2024: Denver Health at “Critical Point” as 8,000 Migrants Make 20,000 Emergency Visits The Denver hospital system is turning away local residents because it is flooded with migrant visits. March 9, 2024: Medicaid Expansion Was Supposed to Pay for Itself, Instead Hospitals Are Closing 10 states did not fall for the Medicaid expansion trap under Obamacare. The rest are suffering. Private payers (you, one way or another) make up the loss. Medicaid does not pay enough to cover hospitals’ costs, meaning hospitals need to make up for the shortfall by charging private payers more. This was one of the easiest “I Told You So” advance predictions in history. Best of all, we have a decade of data to prove it thanks to ten states that resisted the trap. May 9, 2024: Hospitals Turn to Pay In Advance, In Full If you are in the hospital emergency room, and that’s where most people without insurance go, then you get treated. Otherwise, many hospitals are turning to pay in advance for services. It’s interesting to note that hospitals want payment in advance for births. Most illegals just walk in and never pay for anything. Nonpayment is one of the reasons costs are soaring for everyone who does pay. Obama claimed Medicaid expansion would pay for itself. Whenever you hear that claim please run. Free government handouts are never free and most often backfire completely. As long as we are going to have Medicare, and no politician will ever get rid of it, It would behoove Medicare and insurers to require the cheapest cost alternative on all drugs. That would force competition and eliminate fraudulent collusion. US consumers are subsidizing the rest of the world. I would put an end to that by allowing drug imports. It’s an uncomfortable topic, where demagoguery about “death squads” abounds, but we need to have a talk about the right to die and how much money we spend prolonging a terminal patient’s life, in massive pain, for a few weeks or months. I have made my wishes known. I do not want to be kept alive by heroic means if the quality of my life is expected to be grim. That’s a personal decision. At the national level, we must face this very uncomfortable question: Should we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping someone alive whose life expectancy is 3 months? 6 months? a year? I say no to all for those without insurance, and no for me personally, regardless. Also, hospitals should be free to turn away those without insurance. We need tort reform to cut down legal expenses. When consumers have no skin in the game or not enough skin in the game, no one other than the insurers are interested in reducing costs. That is the fundamental problem with US healthcare. Senators Warren and Sanders proposals would make everything worse.'Ailing' Bushra won't participate in PTI's final showdown: spokespersonuLab® Announces Strategic Collaboration with Voxel and LuxCreo to Revolutionize Direct Print Aligner TechnologyHealthEquity Reports Third Quarter Ended October 31, 2024 Financial Results