Does This Photograph Show Beetles Embedded in a Dog's Mouth?
In mid-November 2015, a photograph purportedly showing what resemble common ladybugs and Japanese beetles embedded on the roof of a dog's mouth began circulating via Facebook:   Most of the users who shared the above-displayed image on Facebook included a variation of the following message: SOMEBODY ASKED ME TO PASS THIS ALONG .... Japanese Beetles and Lady Bugs can attach to the roof of your dog's mouth, and make him/HER become ill. Symptoms include excessive drooling. Check your dog's mouth and remove any insects. While we haven't been able to identify who the "Somebody" is in the above-quoted Facebook post, a message posted by the Hands & Paws group did provide some information about the image's origin: provide This posted photograph is recent  posted by a vet tech and when I saw the photo started doing research - because I too thought there was no way the photo could be real. There is no photoshop  there is no hidden agenda. It's just me. The Founder of a tiny little dog rescue in Florida finding the photo and the facts behind the photo amazing, astonishing and wanted to share the information with my fellow dog lovers. We reached out to Hands & Paws for more information about the image without results, but multiple incidents are on record of beetles embedding in dogs' mouths, such as this one from November 2016: this one Frances Jiriks brought her pooch Bailey into Hoisington Veterinary Hospital after he refused to eat, she told KAKE. He was also foaming at the mouth and a bit lethargic, the dog owner said. When they arrived at the animal clinic, Dr. Lindsay Mitchell discovered between 30 and 40 lady beetles clinging to the roof of Baileys mouth. The beetles look nearly identical to ladybugs though they secrete a mucus which allows them to stick, as they did inside Baileys mouth. The bugs were successfully removed from the dogs mouth, but Mitchell warned their presence could pose a variety of health risks to mans best friend. [Video here] Video here In 2008, Lindsey Derek published an article in the journal Toxicon about the subject: article A six-year old mixed-breed dog presented with severe trauma to the oral mucosa suggestive of chemical burn. Sixteen Harmonia axyridis (Coccinellidae) were removed from the oral cavity, which revealed trauma consistent with chemical burn. The beetles had become embedded in mucosa covering the hard palate and required manual removal. A diagnosis of beetle-induced chemical burn was warranted and consistent with the nature of the chemical constituents of H. axyridis hemolymph. That article also included a photograph of the beetles in the dog's mouth, which closely resembled the image circulated in November 2015:   KAKE-TV [Wichita].  "Lady Beetles Causing Problems for Pet Owners."
  19 October 2016. Schladebeck, Jessica.  "Photo of Kansas Dog with Mouth Full of Asian Lady Beetles Illustrates Health Issue for Pups."
  [New York] Daily News.  4 November 2016. Stocks, Ian C. and Derek E.Lindsey  "Acute Corrosion of the Oral Mucosa in a Dog Due to Ingestion of Multicolored Asian Lady Beetles."
  Toxicon.  10 May 2008.
Claim:  Thieves are using camera cell phones to capture credit card information.   Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Keep a watch out for people standing near you at retail stores, restaurants, grocery stores, etc., that have a cell phone in hand. With the new camera cell phones, they can take a picture of your credit card, which gives them your name, number, and expiration date. Identification theft is one of the fastest growing scams today, and this is just another example of the means that are being used. So... be aware of your surroundings.   Variations:  Some October 2004 versions are prefaced "CBS reported this type of identification theft is one of the fastest growing scams today."  (If CBS had run a piece on cell phone cameras used by thieves to capture credit card numbers, it has escaped our notice. More likely, this claim was added by someone looking to infuse the mailing with a greater sense of credibility.) Origins:  Camera phones, the latest in cell phone wizardry, allow users to take pictures on the go and transmit these images by e-mail or post them to the Web. With video phone in hand, unexpected sightings of celebrities can be snared with a flick of the wrist (turning the celled into the snaparazzi), as can chance encounters with pretty girls or gorgeous sunsets. Though introduced in the USA only in 2002, camera phones have already helped solve crimes and aided in the capture of criminals when quick-thinking phone owners had the wit to turn their units on their attackers. They   are fast growing in popularity. Yet they also have a dark side, one that ultimately might be their undoing. Most who purchase such instruments have only the most innocuous of pleasures in mind  they want to be able to take and transmit pictures of places they're visiting and people they're meeting. Or they want to have something handy with which to snap photos if something hilarious plays out in front of them. However, at least some who are equipping themselves with this latest in technology are doing so for nefarious purposes. Camera phones have been banned in many public areas like swimming pools and locker rooms in the U.K. and Japan after police discovered pedophiles were using the technology to add to their child porn collections. In Japan, police have apprehended people using camera phones to take photos up the skirts of unsuspecting women in crowded trains and stores. In the U.S., some state legislatures have before them bills that would serve to ban cell phone cameras in venues where folks have an expectation of privacy, such as locker rooms and restrooms. Even without this legislation, a number of American health clubs and courthouses have barred their use on their premises.  Yet the danger posed by these instruments may not end with embarrassing or lewd photos of the unsuspecting  quite possibly such phones may be used to harvest credit card data. Information in other forms has already been purloined via camera phone, with newsstand owners in Japan complaining folks armed with such gadgets have been photographing magazine articles instead of buying the issues, thereby cutting into their business. In January 2003,  a Web-based fashion magazine used video phones to beam photos from Paris fashion shows, producing almost-live coverage of the catwalks and scooping the competition. Pictures were sent directly to the Web. We first saw the warning against camera cell phone enabled identify thieves in January 2004. Although we've yet to stumble across reports of actual incidents of theft of credit card information by this method, the warning implicit to the e-mail is valid  the ill-intentioned could indeed photograph the face of your credit card with such devices. At this time, most of the units on the market don't take very good pictures, possibly not nearly high enough quality to capture what is, after all, fairly small raised print on fairly small items. Video phone pictures aren't high-resolution, and most camera phones can't autofocus, lack onboard flash, and rely on long exposures  all limitations that conspire to make them unsuitable for data mining over someone's shoulder. However, what they (at this time) lack in clarity of image, they make up for in distance their captures can be transmitted. Unlike the cameras found secreted at ATMs, which could send their images to receivers no farther than about 200 meters away, video phones can relay what they see to the other side of the world. They are, after all, telephones. ATMs Although at this time the phones' limitations might appear to rule out the risk of your VISA or Mastercard details being harvested by camera phone-wielding thieves, the danger should not be discounted. The more expensive of these instruments take better photos, meaning they could pick off minute detail that lesser phones couldn't, so every video phone should not be judged safe to flash your plastic to.  Moreover, the technology is improving, which makes it a good bet the next generation of camera phones will transmit sharper, clearer images. In February 2005, a retail fraud investigator for one of the larger chain stores told us that while he is still unable to capture a useable image of a credit card from even the newer camera phones, he has been able to grab readable images of all account and routing info from the personal checks customers have produced at the checkout. Check writers, he says, have a tendency to "lay out" their check books on the writing counter at the registers and keep them stationary enough to obtain a clear image of all the personal information printed on the check.  He has also tested this theory with camera-equipped palm tops and has found that with the adjustable resolution he has been able to get a pretty clear picture, with zoom, from a reasonable distance away (3-5 feet). So at this point in time, while your credit card might still be secure, your personal check might not be. As for camera phones themselves, whatever their limitations or potential for misuse, unless legislated out of existence, they are likely to become the next "must have" item. We do so love our toys, after all.  Barbara "surfeit USA" Mikkelson Additional information:        Preventing Credit Card Fraud   (Consumer @ction)   Last updated:  22 July 2011    Bradley, Kim.  "Camera Phones Bug Cop; Fears It'll Be Used By Perverts."    The Toronto Sun.  26 December 2003  (p. 128).    Hanluain, Daithi.  "Forget F-Stops: These Cameras Have Area Codes."    The New York Times.  3 July 2003  (p. G1).    Ihnatko, Andy.  "Camera Phones an Idea Whose Time Shouldn't Have Come."    Chicago Sun-Times.  2 December 2003  (p. 64).    The Associated Press.  "Bill Would Ban Cell Phone Cameras from Locker Rooms."    10 January 2004. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In late December 2020, social media users shared a meme claiming that the transition team for U.S. President-elect Joe Biden was "removed" from the Pentagon for leaking intelligence to the Chinese government:   The text of the meme reads: Last week the Biden transition team was removed from the Pentagon and now we know why. The Secretary of Defense gave disinformation to the Biden team about Naval movements in the South China Sea. Within 30 minutes the intel was leaked to the CCP. Anyone that is okay with this needs to have their head checked. Biden is in bed with China. Notably, the meme didn't include any evidence to support its claims  and there is no evidence that Biden's team was "removed" from the Pentagon or had leaked any intelligence to the Chinese Communist Party, the ruling political party in China. Had such a stunning event actually happened, we'd doubtlessly see mainstream news coverage. We found no credible news reports that the incoming presidential administration leaked intelligence to China, which would be a bombshell report. In fact, it's been an ongoing issue that outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump has not only refused to admit his electoral loss in the Nov. 3, 2020, election, but his administration has also demonstrated an unprecedented lack of cooperation with the incoming administration. cooperation On Dec. 18, 2020, Axios reported that Trump's acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller had "ordered a Pentagon-wide halt to cooperation with the transition of President-elect Biden, shocking officials across the Defense Department," citing "senior administration officials." reported Miller said in a statement that his staff had been cooperating, and would continue to do so after a "mutually-agreed upon holiday pause." Biden's team responded by stating Miller's comments were false and that they had never agreed on a holiday break in transition meetings. statement Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan said in a Dec. 29, 2020, interview with NPR that Trump's political appointees have continued to obstruct the transition process and haven't turned over vital information pertaining to things like a massive Russian cyberattack against American government agencies or plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccines to the American public. interview Biden called the lack of cooperation from the Trump administration "nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility." called On April 26, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Republicans, narrowly passed budget legislation raising the federal government's legal debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion on the condition that deep spending cuts would also be undertaken. Democrats balked at the spending-cuts requirement, demanding instead the passage of what they called a "clean bill" without preconditions to raise the debt ceiling before the deadline of June 1, when the government would default on its debts. passed budget legislation debt ceiling Some Democrats, notably U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., claimed that by demanding budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans were "creating an economic crisis" and "threatening default" for partisan gain. No such demands were made during the administration of former President Donald Trump, Omar argued in a May tweet: "Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling 3 times when Donald Trump was President, with no preconditions."  argued in a May tweet   (Image Via @IlhanMN/Twitter) What exactly is the debt ceiling? This is how the U.S. Department of the Treasury defines it (emphasis added): U.S. Department of the Treasury The debt ceiling, or debt limit, is a restriction imposed by Congress on the amount of outstanding national debt that the federal government can have. The debt ceiling is the amount that the Treasury can borrow to pay the bills that have become due and pay for future investments. Once the debt ceiling is reached, the federal government cannot increase the amount of outstanding debt, losing the ability to pay bills and fund programs and services. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit  49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit It is true that during the Trump administration, legislation to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default was passed three times with varying degrees of bipartisan support, according to Bipartisan Policy Center: Bipartisan Policy Center   (Image Via Bipartisan Policy Center) In 2017, 2018, and 2019, the debt limit was reset at $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion, respectively. None of these bills, when signed into law, contained a precondition to cut spending, despite the wishes of some Republicans.  $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion wishes It should be noted, though, that the 2019 legislation, which included hefty spending increases for defense and domestic programs, did mandate $77 billion in "offsets" for those spending increases. According to Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., the $77 billion in offsets would be achieved in two ways: 1) "$15.5 billion from extending the expiration date of customs user fees" from May 26, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029, and 2) $61.7 billion from "extending mandatory spending sequester" (described by the Congressional Budget Office as "automatic spending cuts that occur through the withdrawal of funding for certain but not all  government programs") from Sept. 30, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029. These administrative offsets were described by some as "cosmetic."  $77 billion in "offsets" Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa. mandatory spending sequester By contrast, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's "Limit, Save, Grow Act" of 2023, as passed by the House, would require broad-based spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion, according to CBS News. As of this writing, Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden had said he would refuse to sign the act into law, and it was said to be "dead on arrival" in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Limit, Save, Grow Act spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion Davis, Susan. "Trump, Congress Reach Agreement On 2-Year Budget Deal." NPR, 22 July 2019. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744104213/hill-and-trump-administration-close-in-on-2-year-budget-deal. "Debt Limit." U.S. Department of the Treasury, 17 Apr. 2023, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/debt-limit. Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit, February 2023 | Congressional Budget Office. 19 Jan. 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58945. Fiscal Data Explains the National Debt. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/. Accessed 3 May 2023. "House Republicans Pass US Debt Bill, Push Biden on Spending." AP NEWS, 26 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/speaker-mccarthy-debt-biden-republicans-d4995f10a26d6c8bfa89a2bbfd1de93c. Interactive: Recent History of the Debt Limit | Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-history/. Accessed 3 May 2023. Sequestration | Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget/sequestration#:~:text=Sequestration%20refers%20to%20automatic%20spending,but%20not%20all)%20government%20programs. Accessed 3 May 2023. Tausche, Kayla. "GOP Group Assembles Debt Ceiling Wish List  for 2018." CNBC, 30 Nov. 2017, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/gop-group-assembles-debt-ceiling-wish-list----for-2018.html. The Debt Limit Through the Years | Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-through-the-years/. Accessed 3 May 2023. Torry, Harriet, and Anthony DeBarros. "WSJ News Exclusive | Economists in WSJ Survey Still See Recession This Year Despite Easing Inflation." Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2023. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-easing-price-pressures-economists-in-wsj-survey-still-see-recession-this-year-11673723571. Trump Signs Budget Deal and Suspends Debt Ceiling until 2021. 2 Aug. 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-the-budget-deal-negotiated-by-congress-and-the-white-house/. "What's behind the Looming 'x-Date' on the US Debt Limit?" AP NEWS, 24 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/biden-mccarthy-debt-limit-ceiling-cap-2b76f685cff4a284021f9b5c2c95cd4c. This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. Claim:  The magnitude of the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake was deliberately under-reported in order to spare the government from having to pay out emergency relief funds.  Status:  False. Examples:  [Harvey, 1994] Urban Myth No. 5,212: It's linked to the earthquake, of course  what isn't these days? The [Los Angeles] Times has heard from several callers who claim there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that the quake's magnitude was really 8.0. One caller quoted an unnamed structural engineer who said that only an 8.0 temblor could have inflicted the damage of the Northridge quake. And why the conspiracy? The unfounded rumor that FEMA is obligated to give outright grants, rather than loans, to damaged houses and businesses after quakes of 8.0 or more.  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Right after the Northridge earthquake in 1994, word was going around that the State of California coerced CalTech to declare the magnitude of the earthquake under 7.0. This was due to a hidden clause in the state laws saying state income tax in California is suspended that year for affected areas when there is a major earthquake over 7.0 on the Richter Scale. Origins:  On 17 January 1994, Los Angeles area residents were shaken awake at 4:31 A.M. by the seismic event that would come to be known as the Northridge quake. In the usual way of earthquakes, those few seconds of violent shaking took a terrible toll.  The quake killed 57 people, injured another 9,000, and caused property damage in the $13-$15 billion range. It closed seven freeway sites and two hospitals, and left 150,000 people without water, 40,000 without natural gas, and 25,000 without homes.  It was devastatingly awful. Folks were shocked when the quake was reported to have registered a mere 6.7 on the Richter scale. They were thus prepared to believe almost anything that would confirm the quake's intensity to have been much higher. After the Northridge quake, a bogus fax on fake Caltech letterhead (misstated as "Cal Tech") was circulated throughout the Los Angeles area. It purportedly assigned an "intensity scale" to different Los Angeles ZIP codes, with the strength  of the quake measured in one ZIP code area listed as a whopping 9.5. The numbers quoted in the fax were, in fact, estimates of the intensity of the shaking around the Los Angeles basin based on the modified Mercalli scale, which uses the Roman numbers I through XII. (The Mercalli scale is a measurement derived from observable earthquake damage; the Richter scale is based on seismometer readings.  The Mercalli scale is thus largely a subjective measurement, while the Richter scale is generally considered to be more objective and scientifically accurate.)  Parts of Santa Monica and the San Fernando Valley experienced Mercalli IX-level intensity, which was misconstrued on the fax as a 9-level Richter scale measurement (instead of  the officially reported 6.7).  Caltech (actually the U.S. Geological Survey at Caltech) had not under-reported the figure  the Northridge quake was a 6.7 no matter who measured it. Earthquake data is almost instantaneously shared among a number of organizations worldwide, and one group's under-reporting the magnitude would have been quickly picked up by the others. Even if Caltech had wanted to suppress the real numbers, it would have been unable to do so without the cooperation of a number of other scientific organizations. The scary fax played into what people wanted to believe.  Those who'd lived through the quake swore it had to have been much stronger than the 6.7 that was being reported. From this belief was the legend born: if Caltech was fudging the magnitude of the event, there had to be a reason. Inventive sorts that humans are, it wasn't long before someone advanced the plausible-sounding explanation that the amount and type of aid provided to disaster victims by the government was predicated upon the severity of the event; by convincing Caltech to under-report, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) slipped off the hook. According to this rumor, since the quake's intensity was under 7.0, FEMA only had to provide loans to earthquake victims rather than outright grants, which saved the agency billions of dollars. The rumor, of course, was false. FEMA never gives loans to those disadvantaged by disaster; its assistance comes in the form of grants to those affected. That agency works with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which provides low-interest loans.    Also, FEMA bases its aid on need, not upon a standardized chart that determines how much can be allocated according to what scientists measure.  Likewise, insurance companies base their earthquake policy liability on damage estimates, not on magnitude scales. This makes sense  under a system like the one hinted at in the legend, survivors of a large earthquake in a relatively unpopulated zone would be eligible for free aid while those trying cope with the aftermath of a lesser disaster in a far more densely populated area would be saddled with repaying government loan debts (or would receive no financial assistance at all). An extreme hypothetical example could see millions of free dollars directed towards the rebuilding of one house in Alaska while 200,000 uninsured and homeless Californians had do without, all because Alaska was hit by an 8.2 while California had to cope with only a 6.7.  The legend took off the way it did for reasons other than just the usual mistrust of government and science that marks such whispers. Getting up close and personal with the unthinkable heightens the experience, which explains in part why this legend was so widely believed by Los Angeleans: they'd been shaken out of bed and back to reality by this earthquake, whereas they had experienced other large quakes that had taken place in other lands merely as words on a page or images on a television screen. In a world where the ruin of the 6.9 Kobe quake (17 January 1995) was dispassionately presented by the nightly news and barely given a second thought here in California, what the authorities were telling skeptical Los Angeleans was a 6.7 felt like it was more because it had been experienced with all our senses, not just the television-dulled ones.  There was yet another reason for this legend's running rampant: its location. The quake's epicenter was in the heart of the San Fernando Valley, a heavily-populated area, and so felt stronger to many people because those who experienced the sensation were right on top of the worst of it.  Additionally, we humans have a desire to star ourselves in the drama of the moment. A 6.7 didn't sound worthy of the harrowing experience endured by those resident on 17 January 1994, and those who'd been through the shake and looked to regale others with their horrific accounts were especially receptive to any suggestion that the figure was far too low. On a final note, one further rumor attached to FEMA in California: that illegal immigrants who surfaced to apply for disaster relief would be rounded up, handed over to INS, and deported. That rumor did not begin with the Northridge quake, however; it was recorded in the aftermath of the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. While FEMA's aid is now available only to U.S. citizens, legal residents of the U.S., and the resident parents of U.S. citizens (that is, children born in the USA), at the time of the Loma Prieta quake, the assistance it directed was available to citizens and non-citizens alike. As for alerting the INS to potential illegals, FEMA pointed out at that time that it didn't ask about the citizenship status of aid applicants, with  questions about citizenship status not even being presented on any of its forms. (That has since changed  FEMA Form 90-69 is specifically for that purpose.) Barbara "not a milked shake" Mikkelson Additional information:        Federal Emergency Management Agency   (FEMA)        Earthquake Myths   (U.S. Geological Survey)   Last updated:  18 July 2007    Sources:   Harvey, Steve.  "Only in L.A."    Los Angeles Times.  2 March 1994  (p. B2).    Jackson, Robert and Miles Corwin.  "Aid Centers Open But No Money Yet."    Los Angeles Times.  23 October 1989  (p. A1).    Mitchell, Sean.  "Warning: The Following L.A. Stories Are Not True."    Los Angeles Times.  24 November 1996  (Magazine, p. 32). On Feb. 13, 2023, journalist Matt Bindertweeted, "Elon Musk deleted his Eagles tweet after they lost lol." The post included what appeared to be a screenshot of the alleged tweet reading "Go @Eagles!!!" with American flag emojis, and referenced the 38-35 loss by the Philadelphia Eagles to the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LVII.  We've seen countless fake tweets over the years; those are images that were created to look like famous people posted things that they didn't actually. However, in this case, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was real. It temporarily appeared on Musk's account the night of the Super Bowl, Feb. 12, and it was deleted hours later, after the Chiefs won. For that reason, we rated this claim  [Seealso:Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII?] Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII? According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was live for at least four hours, including for an unknown amount of time after the Kansas City Chiefs won the game around 10:15 p.m. (EST). The same page capture from the Wayback Machine showed that, about 3.5 hours later, Musk also tweeted "GG Kansas City @Chiefs !!" and described Rihanna's halftime show with two fire emojis. That post had also been deleted, as of this writing. It's unclear exactly when or why the tweets were deleted. same page capture Wayback Machine Rihanna's halftime show As of this writing,both links where the tweets once lived for public viewing read, "Hmm...this page doesn't exist. Try searching for something else." both links [See also:Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online?] Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online Binder, Matt. Twitter, 13 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1625144529136324610. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/. In July 2020, a rumor started to circulate on social media in an apparent attempt to link 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in August 2019. This rumor held that former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden owned an island right next to "Little St. James," the island at the center of Epstein's alleged pedophile ring:   Biden does not own an island in the Caribbean. (Side note: The above-displayed tweet claims that Biden owns the "biggest mansion" in Delaware. That's also false. You can read more about that claim here.) here Those spreading the rumor that the former vice president owns an island in the Caribbean across from Epstein's island appear to be confusing Joe Biden for his brother, James Biden. And while it's true that James Biden (not Joe) owns property in the Caribbean, details about this property purchase were distorted as they spread online.  For instance, James Biden does not own an island. He owns a small piece of property on Water Island, an island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Water Island is approximately 500 acres and in 2005 James Biden purchased a single acre of land on it. The following year, James Biden sold a portion of this land to lobbyist Scott Green. When Politico reported on this deal in January 2020, the story focused on how James Biden may have gotten a favorable price for the plot due to Green's lobbying connections: reported In 2005, Joe Bidens brother bought an acre of land with excellent ocean views on a remote island in the Caribbean for $150,000. He divided it into three parcels, and the next year a lobbyist close to the Delaware senator bought one of the parcels for what had been the cost of the entire property. Later, the lobbyist gave Bidens brother a mortgage loan on the remaining parcels. The Virgin Islands land deal, reported here for the first time, furthers a pattern in which members of the Biden family have engaged in financial dealings with people with an interest in influencing the former vice president. Politico did not report that Joe Biden owned this island or that he was even aware of this land deal. When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Joe Biden told Politico: "Joe Biden was wrong. Politico does have a sense of humor. Because this story is an absolute joke." Biden does not list any properties in the Caribbean on his financial disclosure forms that are available on his presidential campaign website. Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, told the AFP that Biden "does not and never has" owned property in the U.S. Virgin Islands.  financial disclosure AFP It should also be noted that describing the island where James Biden owns land as being "right across from Epstein island" is misleading. Little St. James, the island that was owned by Epstein and reportedly the site of many of his crimes, is in close proximity to several other populated islands, such as St. Thomas, Thatch Cay, Greater St. James, Water Island, and the Virgin Islands National Park. Owning property in this area does not make you (or your relatives) complicit in Epstein's crimes:     To sum up: Former Vice President Joe Biden does not own an island in the Caribbean. Joe Biden's brother, James Biden, owns a small piece of property on Water Island.  Schreckinger, Ben.  "Lobbyist Bought Tropical Land From Bidens Brother."
  Politico.  28 January 2020. Reuters.  "Fact Check: Joe Biden Does Not Own Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands."
  5 July 2020. Timberlake, Ian.  "Joe Biden Does Not Own Island Next to Sex Offender Jeffrey Epsteins Hideaway."
  AFP.  31 July 2020. Clover Chronicle.  "Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein And Joe Biden: Private Islands, Secret Ports And Submarines."
  5 July 2020. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   false WHAT'S   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S   President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 Claim:  Opera singer reads embarrassingly misprinted lyrics. LEGEND Example:  [Healey and Glanvill, 1994] A friend had landed his first big role as an opera singer, even if it was in a Gilbert and Sullivan show. It had been a struggle for him to find anything prestigious before because his memory was so bad. I'll tell you another thing: he had a terrible memory. But in this case his voice was sufficiently good  a lovely rounded bass  to warrant the producer giving him a chance to prove he could cope. The role was that of the famous Tax Collector and, as a concession, the stage director allowed the singer to have a crib sheet positioned in the pit to remind him of his words. On the opening night, the bass crooner paid more than the standard number of visits to the toilet facilities, but his voice was in good shape. On cue, he strolled confidently onstage and positioned himself in front of his idiot board. The band struck up his theme, and a deep, rich timbre filled the theatre. Sadly, hazards lie in wait for the unwary. The words of the song go, 'My stately pen is never lax  / When I'm assessing income tax'.  Unfortunately, the mischievous scamp who'd felt-tipped the words on to the card had neglected to leave a space between 'pen' and 'is', and the nervous artiste simply sang what he read, bringing a right royal flush to his cheeks  and raising a few eyebrows among the genteel ladies in the boxes. Origins:  Just  as English abounds with puns that play on the  homophony of 'seamen' vs. 'semen',  'seamen' vs. 'semen' numerous bits of humor turn on the slight difference in orthography between the very different concepts 'penis' and 'pen is.'   A favorite proofreading joke with many variations employs a punchline that has the familiar phrase "The pen is mightier than the sword" being rendered as "The penis, mightier than the sword."  The piece featured here comes from a collection of urban legends but is really more joke than legend, its convoluted "opera singer with a really bad memory" set-up a bit too far-fetched for a true belief tale.  (For the record, the lyrics quoted don't correspond to any genuine Gilbert and Sullivan opera.) An item in our Photo Gallery also plays on the orthographic similarity of "pen is" and "penis," and an apocryphal quote often attributed to the wife of French president Charles de Gaulle is based on the homophonic similiarity of other common words to "penis" when pronounced by non-native English speakers. Photo Gallery quote Last updated:  15 March 2014 Urban Myths Unplugged Virginia Democrats believe they have found evidence showing states that expand their Medicaid rolls are better off than those that reject expansion. Sen. George Barker, D-Fairfax,toldthose gathered for an expansion rally in Woodbridge that hospitals in Medicaid expansion states have fewer patients who cant pay. Those states who have adopted Medicaid expansion, and half of the states have -- what they have seen just in the first few months of this calendar year, 2014  is a reduction in uncompensated care, he said. That means people who show up at the hospital, show up at the emergency department, are uninsured and cant pay anything  charity care thats provided by the hospital  thats gone down by 30 percent just in the first few months. This seems to be an important point for their case, so we wondered about the origin of the figure. First, lets remember how we got here. The Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- gives states the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility. Uncle Sam will pick up the entire tab for new enrollees during the next two years, that slowly declines to 90 percent with states picking up the remaining cost.Virginia has estimated that as many as 400,000 state residents could join Medicaids rolls. The Republican-controlled House of Delegates refused to broaden the program, saying the federal government cant be trusted to pay its promised share. That led to a months-long stalemate between the House and the Democratic-controlled Senate on the states two-year budget. Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, who earned aPromise Brokenby signing a budget that did not include expansion, is exploring whether he can broaden the program without the consent of the legislature. Uncompensated care is a key reason Virginia hospitals have pleaded with legislators to expand Medicaid. Across the country, uncompensated care totaled $45.9 billion in 2012, the most recent year for which data was available, according to the American Hospital Association. It was 6.1 percent of hospitals expenses that year. When we asked Barker about his claim, he sent us a link toan articlefrom Governing magazine. The article citesa studyfrom the Colorado Hospital Association that looked at 30 states, 15 with Medicaid expansion and 15 without. In the states with expansion, hospitals had charity care decreases from an average of $2.8 million per hospital in the first quarter of 2013 to $1.9 million per hospital in the first quarter of 2014, a 32 percent drop. And out-of-pocket charges decreased from 4.7 percent of all charges to 3.1 percent of all charges -- a 34 percent drop. Meanwhile, Medicaid charges surged from 15.3 percent to 18.8 percent, a 19 percent jump. While the survey covered a short period of time, the difference between hospitals in states with Medicaid expansion and those without was stark. States that balked at Medicaid expansion saw little change in their uncompensated care levels, the study found. Governing also linked to Arkansas Democratic Gov. Mike Beebes May 31columnin which he stated 42 hospitals in the state reported an average of 30 percent decline in uncompensated care. For emergency room visits, the hospitals had an average of 24 percent drop in uncompensated care. Beebe said the survey was not comprehensive for every acute-care center in the state, but its a good snapshot of early progress. Tenet Health, a publicly traded company with 80 hospitals in 14 states,reportedthat its hospitals in four states that expanded Medicaid saw a 33 percent decline in uninsured and charity admissions in the first quarter this year. In the second quarter, which ended in June, the numbers improvedeven more. With hospitals in five states that expanded Medicaid, the company had a decline in uninsured and charity admissions of 54 percent. Meanwhile, Medicaid admissions increased 23 percent. We also found an Arizona Daily Stararticlereporting on a survey of hospitals in the state done by the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. In the first four months of 2014, the associations hospitalsreporteda 31 percent drop in uncompensated care expenses compared to the same period in 2013. So this seems to be a broader trend. This is how the law was intended to work, said Gayle Nelson, director of hospital community benefit program at The Hilltop Institute, part of University of Maryland, Baltimore County. This was all part and parcel of the same anticipation that this would happen, she said. The need for uncompensated care would reduce and the funds needed to address uncompensated care would also be reduced  This is good news. Of course, in those states where uncompensated care is reduced, that presumably leaves some resources freed up to be used in other ways. The Governing article said the trend was positive, but hospitals are hoping its enough to offset cuts called for in the Affordable Care Act. The biggest piece of this will be $39 billion in cuts to the Disproportionate Share Hospital program, which helps hospitals that serve the poor. In Virginia, this primarily means the University of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University hospitals. Our ruling Barker said hospitals in states with Medicaid expansion have already benefited from a 30 percent drop in uncompensated care. The evidence is based on the first three months after Medicaid expansion took effect and from a few sources. Its early, but he accurately reported the results. The statement is True.