Is Kohl's Offering $250 Coupons to Social Media Users?
In April 2020, a coupon purporting to offer $250 in merchandise from the Kohl's department store circulated in Facebook posts directing viewers to click on a survey question:    This was a scam. Such efforts that trick viewers by offering free goods or money are long-standing. Kohl's is also a frequent target of such scams, but this fraud can target any business, from airlines to beer makers. A good rule of thumb to follow: If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. also frequent any airlines beer makers These types of viral "coupon" scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their "free" gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. Despite the latest coupon scam above, Kohl's was indeed celebrating its 57th year as a department store, as of September 2019. It opened its first store in Brookfield, Wisconsin, according to company literature. In 2016, a variation of the same type of scam circulated, offering viewers $75 off purchases. literature variation The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers WHP.  "Scam Alert: Kohl's $75 Off Coupon Is Too Good to Be True."
  24 May 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook."
  14 April 2017.
As U.S. President Donald Trump faced impeachment following the deadly Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, a video of a Texas pastor circulated widely online alleging that anonymous sources told him Trump would soon declare "martial law"  the temporary military takeover of civil functions such as policing and courts. faced deadly Capitol Rev. Wade McKinney, who leads a ministry in rural eastern Texas, used Facebook Live to stream himself talking in a vehicle for roughly 22 minutes on Jan. 9, and that video spread rapidly on YouTube and other platforms in the following days. In the footage, which Snopes obtained via McKinney's Facebook page before it was permanently removed, he said: other platforms I have got a lot of contacts the lord has helped me build over the last few years, and those contacts are people who have given me intelligence and given me information that has to do with our nation and it's future, so I could use it for Bible prophecy teaching. [...] We are looking imminently  and when I say imminently, I'm talking about the next two or three days  we're looking at a martial law being declared. This is coming straight from my contacts in D.C., ya'll. We are going to see martial law declared. What level, what degree of martial law? Whatever they have to do to bring things under a corrective mode. So, basically, what I'm trying to tell you is, you need to be prepared for there to be a martial law declaration. McKinney also claimed Trump's opponents in government "are going to be brought down" in some "house cleaning" and that the rest of America needed to prepare for that event. He urged viewers to secure cash, food, and supplies, such as fuel tanks for vehicles and bullets for gun owners, and develop communication plans should cell service supposedly stop. supposedly stop "It's the president's last effort," McKinney said of the alleged event, while making several other baseless claims regarding military efforts, the 2020 presidential election, and the Capitol insurrection. "We are in a battle for everything that God intended for this country." 2020 presidential election the Capitol insurrection   In short, the pastor alleged that Trump was preparing to invoke martial law and use military force to arrest his political opponents before Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. use military force First, to investigate those claims, Snopes reached out to McKinney to learn more about his alleged sources in Washington, D.C., and unidentified military bases  people he did not name but said told him about the president's purported plans. The pastor did not respond to us. We will update this report when, or if, he returns our message. It is common practice for reputable news organizations to report information from credible people who requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions for speaking publicly and that journalists have cross-referenced with other sources. McKinney did not explain why, or under what circumstances, his alleged sources asked not to be named, nor did he outline any efforts to investigate their truthfulness. Now, let us explain the nature of the pastor's allegations. No federal statute nor the Constitution defines martial law. However, other executive authorities  such as those provided in the Insurrection Act  give presidents the power to deploy the military or the National Guard in U.S. cities, whether due to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other safety issues. Over the course of history, presidents have relied on martial law to order military forces to take the place of civilian governments, like in Hawaii during World War II. Insurrection Act like in Hawaii during World War II The Brennan Center for Justice said of martial law: said It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police. Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. [...] To some observers, a deployment of troops under the Insurrection Act might look and feel very much like martial law. Given the degree of confusion over the term, some within the media or the government itself might even call it martial law. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act before or after he encouraged his supporters to try to block a ceremonial vote to affirm Biden's presidency and an angry mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6. Insurrection Act encouraged Additionally, he had not declared martial law as of this writing, and no credible evidence showed that he was preparing to do so. If, like McKinney alleged, people within the White House or Department of Defense wanted Americans to know that Trump was preparing to make the declaration, history shows they would not turn to one pastor living in rural Texas to spread the important announcement. Instead, they would use official communication methods, such as a news conference or public statement, to broadcast it widely. Also, Americans should rely on emergency management departments for trusted information on when, and how, they must prepare for natural or human-caused emergencies. None supported McKinney's recommendations to stock up on food and supplies prior to Biden's inauguration. Nonetheless, thousands of National Guard members were patrolling Washington, D.C., in the days between the Jan. 6 insurrection and Biden's swearing-in ceremony, and the FBI warned law enforcement agencies nationwide of armed protests at all 50 state capitols. warned But all of those efforts by military forces and law enforcement agencies were unrelated to martial law and the Insurrection Act, and they were not a scheme by Trump to arrest his political opponents during the final days of his term. Rather, they were strategies to try to preserve government properties and safety in the event of more election violence. In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim Like many California Democrats, Assemblyman Phil Ting is no fan of the Republican tax plan signed by President Donald Trump. He has likened it to a tax giveaway for big corporations. The San Francisco lawmaker hasproposed a surchargeon large companies in California, to claw back some of the billions of tax dollars that would be lost to the state under the plan. Such a bill, Ting said, would help blunt the impact of the federal tax plan on everyday Californians. We wondered, however, whether Ting accurately described the GOP tax plan in thestatementhe provided to theSan Francisco Chronicleon Jan. 21, 2018. Trumps tax reform plan was nothing more than a middle-class tax increase, Ting, who formerly served as San Francisco's Assessor-Recorder, said in the statement. It is unconscionable to force working families to pay the price for tax breaks and loopholes benefiting corporations and wealthy individuals. We decided to check the facts, with a focus on the first part of Tings claim that the tax plan was nothing more than a middle-class tax increase. His words could be considered a burst of political rhetoric, but they also make an assertion about how millions of Americans would be impacted by the GOP plan. Our research We spoke with experts at the centrist Tax Policy Center and conservative-leaning Tax Foundation to assess Tings claim. Both said it was off the mark. What we found is most taxpayers would be getting a tax cut,Frank Sammartino, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, told us. That includes most middle-income taxpayers, at least in the short-run, he said. The Tax Policy Center center estimates 91 percent of those who earn between $50,000 and $85,000 would receive a tax cut averaging about $900 in 2018, Sammartino said. Seven percent in this group would see their taxes go up, he said, while the rest would see their taxes remain the same. Additionally, 93 percent of Americans who earn between $85,000 and $150,000 would experience a tax cut in 2018, an amount averaging $1,800. Were just not seeing that in the data, Sammartino said of Tings statement that the plan results in nothing more than middle class tax increase. Were not seeing that its a tax increase for most people. A fairly substantial tax cut for the middle class Scott Greenbergis a senior analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. He described the GOP tax plan as a fairly substantial tax cut for the middle class in the short term. And in the long-term, after many of the provisions in the bill expire (at the end of 2025), the net effect of the tax bill on middle income households will be more or less zero. The Tax Foundation concluded it will amount to tax cut of about1.7 percentof ones after-tax income, on average, for the middle quintile of taxpayers, Greenberg said. Meanwhile, the Tax Policy Center found it will amount to nearly the same amount, a tax cut of about1.6 percentof ones after-tax income for middle income earners. Greenberg said the plan accomplishes this by lowering rates for several tax brackets, expanding the standard deduction and the child tax credit. Assemblyman Phil Ting / Capital Public Radio file photo Response from Ting When asked about the statement, Tings spokeswoman Jessica Duong pointed to newsarticlesthat show some in the middle class will see higher taxes under the GOP bill. She did not counter the estimate that most would see a tax cut. The quote was intended to counter Trumps claim that this is going to be one of the great gifts to the middle income people of this country that theyve ever gotten for Christmas  it is being sold as a middle-class tax cut but the benefits for such families will expire in 2025 while the corporate tax cuts are permanent, the spokeswoman told us in an email. Assemblymember Tings use of nothing more is intended to counter that misleading billing and highlight the fact that the plan currently and purposefully relies on the middle class paying for future tax cut deficits, she added. Little if anything We also examined the California Budget and Policy Centers assessment of the tax plan. The group, considered more liberal leaning, painted a dire picture of the plans impact on most taxpayers. It warned in a recentpostthe plan would do little if anything for middle- and low-income families across the nation, andespecially in California. By scaling back the federal income tax deduction for state and local taxes, known as the SALT deduction, the plan would harm many middle-income families. It added that the plan is clearly tilted to wealthy households and major corporations, while providing very little if any benefit for most middle- and low-income families. National tax experts dont dispute the wealthy would see larger tax cuts. The top one percent of households by income, for example, would see a tax cut of 3.4 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. Thats about twice the rate of savings compared with middle class households. The plan cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. California hardships? In California, which has high state and local taxes, the GOP plan is expected to create more financial hardships compared with lower-tax states because it caps state and local income tax deductions. Heres how Forbes.comexplainedthe changes: Under the old tax law all property taxes paid to state and local governments could be claimed as an itemized deduction. It was also possible to deduct state and local income or sales taxes. The new law bundles all these so-called SALT taxes together and limits the deduction, in total, to $10,000 for both individuals and married couples. For some homeowners in high-tax areas such as California, $10,000 does not come close to covering their combined property and income tax bills. Theres also a change that affects mortgage interest deductions for homeowners. Under the previous law, homeowners could write off any interest they pay on mortgages up to $1 million. The new law will limit these deductions to mortgages of $750,000 or less. Given the Golden States high housing costs, some Californians will be impacted by the new cap. The change, however, impacts new mortgages, not existing ones. Sammartino of the Tax Policy Center told us those factors will would hurt some Californians. Even so, he said, the vast majority of middle class taxpayers in the state will still see a tax cut. The overall tax cuts might be a little bit less, Sammartino said. But in general, probably upwards of 85 percent of the middle class or so should see a tax cut in California, for 2018. What happens when the tax cuts expire? While the plans corporate tax cuts are permanent, the individual reductions are temporary. The national PolitiFact took a closer look at who would be paying more once the individual tax cuts expire. It found all filers who make $75,000 or less annually will see a tax increase. Some of those are middle-class households. Only those income ranges above $75,000 still see a cut by 2027, according to thePolitiFact analysis. Thats a significantly different pattern than in 2019, when every group saves, on average. Republicans hope a future Congress will extend the individual provisions. Experts believe thats likely, though its not guaranteed. Our ruling Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting recently claimed the GOP tax plan is nothing more than a middle class tax increase. That doesnt match up with estimates from the centrist Tax Policy Center and conservative leaning Tax Foundation. They project the plan will result in a tax cut for about 90 percent of middle-income households nationwide in 2018. Those cuts would range from about $900 to $1,800. The remaining middle-income households would see their taxes stay the same or go up. The California Budget and Policy Center, a liberal leaning group, warns the plan will provide little if any help to middle- and low-income earners in high-tax California, given new limits placed on state and local tax deductions. But even with those new caps, plus a change to the mortgage interest deduction, national tax experts told us the vast majority of middle-class Californians -- up to 85 percent -- will still experience a tax cut in the plans first year. That could change by 2027 after the individual tax cuts expire, when households who make $75,000 or less are expected to see a tax hike. Congress could extend those cuts, though nothing is guaranteed. There might have been some truth to Tings statement had he said the plan was nothing more than a middle class tax increase by 2027, after the cuts expire. But his statement ignores the fact that the vast majority in Americas, and Californias, middle class are expected to get a tax break between now and then. We rate Tings claim False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On 21 November 2017, several outlets published articles under irresponsible headlines claiming that ISIS had called for the assassination of Barron Trump. One of the most egregious was published by The Daily Caller, which in addition to stating that the terrorist group had called for the assassination of President Trump's son, also claimed that they had released a "detailed plan" of how the deed would be accomplished: several published published ISIS Calls For Assassination Of Barron Trump, Release Detailed Plan To Kill 11-Year-Old Nearly all of these reports linked back to an article published by The Washington Beacon which in turn cited a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit that provides translations of foreign reports. The claims made in the initial report, however, were far less daunting than subsequent headlines made them appear.  article The MEMRI report was not available on their web site at the time of this writing. The full report, which MEMRI sent to us via email, can be seen below. The MEMRI report states this threat was posted in a "pro-ISIS" channel on Telegram, a popular communication app, by a "supporter of ISIS." The report did not state that the threat came from a known-terrorist, or from a leader of ISIS, or through some form of official communication from the terrorist organization. This lack of verification of the message's original source puts the post on shaky ground, and was omitted from the exaggerated headlines. When we reached out to MEMRI for comment, they emphasized this distinction: Please note the report indicates it was a supporter of ISIS on a pro-ISIS Telegram channel. Popular in the Middle East, Telegram is an encrypted chat application that has been used by ISIS in the past, with The New York Times reporting in February 2017 that one of the Islamic State's most influential recruiters instructs newcomers to contact him on the messaging app. The New York Times reporting Additionally, the message on Telegram did not include a "detailed plan." The Telegram post, which MEMRI shared with us, consisted solely of a photograph of Barron Trump, a map showing the location of his school, and a few hashtags. One of these hashtags, which MEMRI translated to mean "handle the son of the mule of America," appears to be the only reference to a "plan" for an assassination. It should also be noted that the location of Barron Trump's school was publicly known long-before this message was posted on Telegram.  known Here is the full report from MEMRI: On November 21, 2017, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS) on Telegram called for the assassination of Barron Trump, and shared the name of the school that Barron attends along with a Google map pinpointing its location. Using the hashtag "handle the son of the mule of America," the supporter, who uses the name "Dak Al-Munafiqeen," Arabic for "striking the hypocrites," wrote: "Barron Trump goes to this school in Washington." The post was followed by a photo of Barron Trump. To widely disseminate the call for assassination, several pro-ISIS Telegram channels have shared and forwarded the post.    Although we have no reason to dispute MEMRI's translation, it should be noted that the group has been accused of biased reporting in the past. In an article entitled "Selective MEMRI," Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker argued that the non-profit has a habit of translating articles that shine a particularly bad light on the Muslim world: Selective MEMRI The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by MEMRI for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible." Threats against the President and the First Family should not be taken lightly, but the outlets reporting that "ISIS Call(ed) for Assassination of Barron Trump" exaggerated the contents of a message posted to Telegram to make it appear as if this were a credible threat sent directly from the terrorist organization. Strauss, Valerie.  "Barron Trump to Attend Private St. Andrews Episcopal School in Maryland This Fall."
  The Washington Post.  15 May 2017. Whitaker, Brian.  "Selective Memri."
  The Guardian.  12 August 2002. There are some things you just don't do if you want to be considered a conservative politician. Raising taxes is at the top of the list.Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle has proudly told audiences that Georgia leaders, amid one of the worst economic periods in American history, passed a budget this spring without raising taxes. Cagle, a Republican running for re-election, bragged about this at a Sept. 4 GOP rally in Carroll County, giving some of the credit to Gov. Sonny Perdue. [Perdue] was able to help us balance the budget without raising taxes on the residents of Georgia, Cagle said, according to the Times-Georgian newspaper in Carrollton.Some AJC PolitiFact Georgia readers have questioned the claim in recent weeks and asked us to check it out. Carol Porter, Cagle's Democratic opponent in the Nov. 2 election, cut a television commercial this week calling out her opponent.Casey Cagle raised our taxes during a recession, a voice says over ominous music.There are three main points of debate about Cagle's statement.The first is centered on House Bill 1055. It is 84 pages of legalese that raises fees on many items. Most are for services not used by the average Georgian, such as the licensing fee for a fertilizer distributor. Some, however, included the annual fee to register a business in Georgia, the cost for a personalized license plate and fees to run a child care business. Combined, the fee increases are estimated to collect an additional $90 million over a year.Some say a fee increase is simply a politician using a different word for a tax increase. Others disagree. It's a longtime argument. Webster's defines a tax as a charge, usually of money, imposed by an authority on persons or property for public purposes. Webster's says a fee is a sum paid or charged for a service. University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock considers a fee as the cost for a service people can choose to use or not. He contends a tax is for a service that serves a general purpose, such as public schools or roads.Kelly McCutchen, president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, defines a fee as a charge that covers the cost of providing a service. He says a tax is when the government collects revenue that is greater than the cost of providing the service. Alan Essig, executive director of the liberal-leaning Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, also believes it is not accurate to say not providing the credit is a tax increase.What was taken out of the [state] budget was an appropriation, said Essig, a former state budget analyst. It was a local tax that you give a credit to.Clint Mueller, the legislative director for the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, agreed.They didn't force the [property tax] rate to go up, he said of the Legislature. It was the elimination of the credit. ... Technically, it's not a tax increase.Still, the bottom line is that many Georgia homeowners will pay more for their property taxes. We found this the most persuasive argument.So where does that leave us? It's clear that there was no direct, across-the-board tax increase on Georgians. Some of the discussion turns into a semantic debate concerning what's a fee and what's a tax -- and whether there's truly a difference. We won't be able to settle that here. On the tax relief grant, while its demise wasn't technically a tax increase, the effect is that Georgia property owners are paying more. In all, we found Cagle's statement accurate but needs clarification on the tax relief grant. By the definition of our Truth-o-Meter, that rates as Mostly True. Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014 In their third and final gubernatorial debate on Oct. 25, 2010, Rick Scott and Alex Sink traded accusations that each has been party to fraud.Sink again hammered Scott for his time running Columbia/HCA and the hospital company's convictions and $1.7 billion in fines for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid. But this time Scott countered with allegations that Sink was the president of NationsBank operations in Florida when that company was accused of fraud and forced to pay government fines and settle a class-action lawsuit.Unlike Scott, Sink said she had what amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card.That case, the lawyer that brought that case -- it was a class-action case against another company -- he even has said publicly that Alex Sink had nothing to do with the case, had nothing to do with the situation and didn't know about the problems, Sink told CNN's John King and theSt. Petersburg Times'Adam C. Smith, the debate's moderators. What more can I say?In a separate item, we dealt with Scott's accusations. You can read that item,here. In this fact check, we'll explore Sink's rebuttal.Some quick background about the case. In 1994, while Sink was president of NationsBank's Florida operations, a stock broker with bank subsidiary NationsSecurities came forward with what he described as an orchestrated nationwide scheme to get bank customers to move investments from safe, federally insured accounts to more risky brokerage and mutual funds.NationsSecurities broker David Cray, who worked in Florida, said the bank intentionally blurred the lines between its traditional banking business and its securities business and misled customers into thinking those securities investments were protected by the bank or the federal government. The scheme permeated the entire bank, Cray, and later others, said. Brokers were given sales scripts to try to convince bank customers to move their money into more risky securities.NationsSecurities branch managers encouraged employees to use fear to sell securities. In one orientation sales meeting, a manager suggested that a broker could ask customers: Is this your risky money or safe money? If this is risky, I know a guy at Merrill or Dean Witter.And NationsBank helped NationsSecurities by providing brokers with lists of customers who had Certificates of Deposit about to mature.The bank and stock brokers pushed the mutual funds because they received more lucrative fees, Cray said.The allegations led to a class-action lawsuit from investors who lost money by unknowingly making the risky investments, which in the end lost money. The Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission also began investigations. Eventually, NationsBank and NationsSecurities settled the investigations, agreeing to pay $8.1 million to investors in 2002, paying civil fines to the federal government of $6.75 million in 2000 and $6.4 million in 2002 and $4 million to the SEC in 1998. No criminal charges were ever filed.Sink says the lawyer who started the case, Jonathan Alpert of Tampa, has said Sink had nothing to do with the scheme.Here's what Alpert told theSt. Petersburg TimesandMiami Heraldin October when previously asked about Sink's role in selling the risky investments.Alex Sink could've done nothing about it. It was run out of Charlotte, said Alpert, referring to NationsBank's headquarters. I know she knew what was going on - that investments were being sold in the bank -- but that's it. And she was powerless to stop it, anyway. I had e-mails where the state presidents were being told what to do, that they had to help the securities people. They would dig into customers bank accounts to identify people who had enough money to buy securities. Charlotte said: 'This is what's going to happen in your bank lobbies and this is the way it's going to be.' They didn't say you're going to do A, B, C and D, they would say the bank cooperates fully with NationsSecurities, Alpert said. If Alex Sink were involved in it, it would be a wonderful story for the gubernatorial election. But she didn't know anything about it.Alpert, who said he voted for Sink, said she no doubt knew that riskier investments were being sold in the bank, but that she was likely not aware of the way brokers were manipulating customers to close the sales. And Sink has previously told theTimesshe had no authority or control over the securities sales. There were very, very strict firewalls between any kind of securities and brokerage operations and operations of commercial banking, she said. Those firewalls, Sink said, were the result of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking. (The act was repealed in 1999.) But that didn't prevent Sink from finding out what was going on in her bank, noted Yale University finance expert Jonathan Macey. She's the state bank president, he said. She has the authority and perhaps the responsibility to know what's going on in her lobby. The original whistle-blower in the case, former NationsSecurity broker Cray, said, I would tend not to point the finger at Alex Sink for this. Which brings us back to her statement. At the CNN/St. Petersburg Timesdebate Sink said that the lawyer who brought the case against NationsBank said publicly that Alex Sink had nothing to do with the case, had nothing to do with the situation and didn't know about the problems. We think Sink is mostly quoting the lawyer in the NationsBank case, Jonathan Alpert, accurately. Alpert said Sink wasn't involved in the deceptive selling of more risky involvements through NationsSecurities and didn't know anything about the deceptive practices being employed. The companies NationsBank and NationsSecurities were managed separately. But Sink did know securities were being sold in her banks, and was in a position to voice questions or concerns about the practice if she sensed anything was being handled inappropriately. That's enough of a connection in our minds to knock this claim down one notch, and rate it Mostly True. A meme circulating on social media in late February 2017 attributed a quote about paying taxes to actor Bill Murray, but it was originally shared by a parody Twitter account. The parodyquotestated that "The best way to teach your kids about taxes is by eating 30% of their ice cream":  The twitter account from which it was posted, however, bore this disclaimer: I AM NOT BILL MURRAY. This is a parody account. This account is not in any way affiliated with the actor Bill Murray. Before it was finally suspended by Twitter, the Murray parody account posted mostly benign jokes in the casual tone and pithy humor associated with Murray, such as "Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&Ms with obstacles" and "When one door closes another one opens. Or you could jut re-open the closed door. Because thats how doors work." The fact the Twitter account was not real, as usual, did not prevent its tweets from being widely shared. For example, in November 2015, the disreputable site PoliticalInsider.com shared the above meme as fact, as did TheFederalistPapers.org. shared TheFederalistPapers.org We were unable to find any genuine comments made by the actor Bill Murray about his feelings on taxes. He also does not have an official Twitter account.  Kasperowics, Pete."Actor Bill Murray to CNBC: 'I Think We Ought to Be Personally Responsible.'"
The Hill.10 February 2012. Shoard, Catherine."The Gospel According to Bill Murray: Impending Apocalypse, Seatbelt Safety and His Favourite Saint."
The Guardian.20 November 2014. Read, Max."Bill Murray on the Bill Murray 'No One Will Ever Believe You' Urban Legend."
Gawker.com.20 July 2010. A genuine Michael Kors handbag for $7.95? Good luck with that. In early July 2023, we looked for the hidden catch behind a new scam that was originating in TikTok ads. The ads claimed that luxury design company Michael Kors was giving away handbags for a small fee of $7.95. All that users would supposedly need to do to receive one of the handbags was answer three or four questions in a short survey. However, this was not a giveaway that Michael Kors was managing, nor was it a legitimate promotion in any way, shape, or form. The TikTok ads misleadingly claimed, "Michael Kors sends out handbags. Answer 4 questions and get a handbag."  Users who clicked on the ads were led to a page on 20mccsd.tech, a website that showedregistration information for a domain registrar in Russia. This may have been the country from which the scam was originating. showed The 20mccsd.tech website was designed to fool users into believing they were on the official website for Nordstrom, nordstrom.com. The scammers also made sure that anyone trying to visit the website with a copied link and not through a TikTok ad would see a strange facade that cloaked the fake Nordstrom website, as seen below:  As for users who did click on the ads, they saw the Nordstrom logo and the following text: "Congratulations! You have been selected to participate in the Nordstrom campaign. You could win a Michael Kors handbag!"  After answering three questions, users were redirected to exclusiveluckyshop.com. This website then claimed users would be eligible to enter into a supposed giveaway for a Michael Kors Voyager Medium Crossgrain Leather Tote Bag. This product normally retails for $298, according to Michael Kors' official website. website The scam had changed from promising handbags for $7.95 in the TikTok ads to instead saying that users would be paying the small fee simply to enter to win in a suspicious giveaway.  At the very bottom of exclusiveluckyshop.com, in a small font size, we found the terms and conditions. The terms included the catch behind the entire scam: Any users who paid the fee of $7.95 would later be billed $67.32 per month until they found a way to cancel. This monthly charge was purportedly meant to fund a $125 gift card for customers to use in what was referred to as a "best consumer gadget club." In other words, this was a hidden subscription scam, a topic that we previously reported about with another scam. previously reported about with another scam  The terms also showed the phone number (866) 877-1602. In a call we placed to this number, an automated voice message thanked us for calling "customer support." Just as we'd seen in past years with other scams involving CBD and keto weight loss gummies, no specific company name was announced like it would be when placing calls to legitimate businesses. If any readers fell victim to this scam, we recommend callingyour credit card company or the phone number for whatever payment method you used to make the purchase. Always bear in mind that if an online offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. Liles, Jordan. "This Cash App Email Scam About a Fake Deposit Could Cost You Thousands on Your Credit Card." Snopes, 19 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cash-app-scam-email-fake-deposit/. "Voyager Medium Crossgrain Leather Tote Bag."Michael Kors, https://www.michaelkors.com/voyager-medium-crossgrain-leather-tote-bag/_/R-US_30H7GV6T8L. "WHOIS Search."GoDaddy.Com, www.godaddy.com/whois/results.aspx?domain=20mccsd.tech. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a statewide mask mandate starting July 23, 2020, amidst a rise in COVID-19 cases in the region, online rumors suggested any mask manufacturers, including those selling masks from home, were at risk of facing lawsuits.  announced rise Snopes readers alerted us to the circulation of the above-displayed letter purportedly from the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA), printed on an American Bar Association (ABA) letterhead. Dated July 19, 2020, the letter claimed that under "Ohio Consumer Laws" individuals could bring a lawsuit against establishments selling or manufacturing masks without licenses or warning labels, including those selling out of their homes, especially if wearers got lung damage. The letter, full of grammatical errors and deprived of punctuation, stated: Under Ohio Consumer Laws you can now bring lawsuit against any retail establishment selling or manufacturing Face Masks or Facial Coverings for the purpose virus protection You can now file lawsuits against anyone selling a facial covering that has not been Medically Approved to filter contagious diseases. This includes any Homemade or Factory made mask With the rise in lung damage caused by pleurisy you can Legally sue for Medical Damages and or selling a Medical Device without license Any mask sold without proper warning labeling sewn into the fabric will be considered in violation, you can also file a mislabeled or not FDA approved lawsuit You can also pursue anyone selling face masks out of their homeYou can also bring suit if selling a medical device without licenseYou can also bring suit for Illegal Monetary Sales and failure to disclose income under IRS 254-70994USYou can also now bring suit against any small business that knowingly sells a defective face covering that causes lung damage We believe these lawsuits will be very lucrative moving forward We learned that the letter attribution was fake and its contents were suspect. In a statement on their Facebook page, the OSBA said they did not issue a letter and readers should be wary of its contents: statement   We reached out to the OSBA who would not comment on the contents of the letter because as an organization they refrain from giving legal advice.  Snopes also reached out to the Ohio attorney generals office about the information in the letter. A representative confirmed that under Ohio law consumers can bring lawsuits against suppliers for unfair and deceptive practices, but much of what constitutes a violation relies on court interpretation. According to the Ohio Revised Code, such deceptive practices include: Ohio Revised Code That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not [...] It is likely that this applies to any mask manufacturers that make deceptive promises about the quality of their product(s) and the level of protection the product(s) provide. DeWine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended the use of homemade and non-medical grade masks in addition to practicing social distancing. The CDC stated that surgical masks or respirators are critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers. The Ohio state and federal governments have shared recommendations for do-it-yourself (DIY) or homemade masks without any requirement for a license or warning labels. Consumer protection laws may apply to people selling these homemade masks without affixed labels, but the actual legal implications remain unclear given government recommendations.  DeWine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Ohio The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulates masks used for medical purposes only. In April 2020, when health care providers in the U.S. reportedly did not have access to enough personal protective equipment, including masks, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for face masks used by the general public and in health care settings during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In short, this EUA required that face masks should be labeled accurately and their use not be misrepresented. Authorized masks were to meet the following requirements:  Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) 1. The product is labeled accurately to describe the product as a face mask and includes a list of the body contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); 2. The product is labeled accurately so that it does not claim to be intended for use as a surgical mask or to provide liquid barrier protection; 3. The product labeling includes recommendations against use in a clinical setting where the infection risk level through inhalation exposure is high; 4. The product is not labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the products intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction; 5. The product is not labeled as a respiratory protective device, and therefore should not be used for particulate filtration; and 6. The product is not labeled for use in high risk aerosol generating procedures. In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as false. Codes.Ohio.gov.  "Chapter 109:4-3 Deceptive Acts or Trade Practices in Connection with Consumer Transactions."
 Accessed 3 August 2020 FDA.gov. "To: Manufacturers of Face Masks; Health Care Personnel; Hospital Purchasing Departments and Distributors; and Any Other Stakeholders."
  24 April 2020.  Ingles, Jo.  "Coronavirus in Ohio: Ohioans Advised To Wear Homemade Masks in Public."
  WOSU.  6 April 2020. Morello, Carol.  "Coronavirus Cases on the Rise in the Midwest as They Ebb in the Sun Belt."
  The Washington Post.  28 July 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Considerations for Wearing Masks."
  16 July 2020. Waldrop, Theresa.  "Ohio Governor Orders Statewide Mask Mandate as of Thursday."
 CNN. 22 July 2020. Did ODNI Photoshop the Cover of a Diversity Report? One lesson that organizations should have learned by now is not to make groups appear to more diverse than they really are by digitally editing photographs since that type of manipulation is too easy to catch: digitally editing photographs https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uw-booklet-student-added/ Unfortunately, that was one lesson the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) hadn't learned by mid-2021, when that office published their annual demographic report on Hiring and Retention of Minorities, Women, and Persons with Disabilities in the United States Intelligence Community." ODNI annual demographic report The cover to that report featured a photograph of a group of smiling, well-dressed professionals, including a woman in a wheelchair and a (presumably) visually impaired man wearing sunglasses and holding the leash to a guide dog:   A press release about the report quoted the director of National Intelligence as stating the following: press release The Intelligence Community should reflect the diverse makeup of America and demonstrate that we are fostering an environment where every professional can succeed, said Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion is fundamental to our democratic values and critical to meeting the ICs mission. This takes work every single day. We are committed to doing more to address this critical issue and accelerate our progress. There's one problem, though. The image used on the ODNI report cover was a stock photograph from the Shutterstock service, titled as representing "Portrait of Multi-Cultural Office Staff Standing in Lobby." Although the Shutterstock photo may have included women and minorities among the pictured group, it but it didn't include any persons with obvious disabilities: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-multicultural-office-staff-standing-lobby-174469094 As multiple social media users pointed out, rather than finding a more representative cover graphic to utilize for the report, someone at ODNI apparently utilized an altered version of the stock photo  a version into which the figures of the woman in the wheelchair and the visually impaired man had been clumsily added via Adobe Photoshop (or some other digital editing program) to create the requisite appearance of diversity:  The ODNI had not responded to our request for comment on the altered image at publication time, but we will update this story if we hear back.