The proposed raises for the Norcross City Council would put it in line with other liked-sized communities.
A few lucky souls in a Gwinnett County city could see their paychecks rise by 50 percent. So how did they become so fortunate, and do they have any openings? Well, they voted themselves the potential raises. Norcross City Council members recently voted 4-1 to increase the pay for their positions from $5,400 a year to $8,100. The mayors pay will rise from $6,900 a year to $10,350. The increases will take effect in January, two months after the next municipal election. WXIA-TV recently did a story about the raises and criticism of the idea. The station reported that Mayor Bucky Johnson said the raises would bring Norcross in line with other liked-sized communities. Johnson told us a councilman made the initial claim. PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether the officials are right. A Norcross official sent us a salary survey of elected officials in 43 cities in metro Atlanta. The annual pay for top elected officials ranged from $147,500 for Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed to Buford City Commission Chairman Phillip Beard, who doesnt receive a salary. Atlanta, which has a population of more than 400,000 residents, isnt necessarily the most appropriate city for such a comparison with Norcross, which had 9,116 residents in the 2010 U.S. census. The city's population rose to an estimated 15,000 residents in 2012 after Norcross an annexation, Johnson said. We looked at cities with similar populations. Since serving on the Norcross City Council is considered a part-time position, our second criteria was finding elected officials who are also part-time. Lilburn, the closest municipality to Norcross, has a part-time City Council and pays its elected officials slightly less than what Norcross approved. The population is slightly higher, nearly 12,000 residents, according to the 2010 U.S. census. That citys mayor makes $5,000 a year and council members are paid an annual salary of $3,500, a Lilburn official told us. Another part-time City Council further east in Gwinnett County, Loganville, offers compensation to its elected officials thats pretty close to Norcross. Loganvilles mayor is paid $12,000 a year while its council members make $6,000 a year. Loganville officials are part-time. The citys population in 2010 was 10,458. We also looked at Doraville, which had 8,330 residents, according to the 2010 U.S. census. The mayor and council members receive annual salaries of $70,000 and $8,400, respectively, city officials say. The council voted in 2011 to cut their annual pay by $6,000 as City Hall grappled with across-the-board budget cuts, The Champion Newspaper reported. For three decades, Doravilles mayor handled the citys daily operations. Residents voted to put a city manager in charge of running Doraville on a daily basis and hired one in February 2012. In all, we looked at 10 cities in the region with populations that seemed reasonably close to Norcross. The average annual mayoral salary was $19,418. The average yearly city council salary was $8,437. The salaries are higher than what Norcross adopted. But only six of those cities have mayoral salaries that are higher than what Norcross passed. Just four of those cities have city council salaries that are more than what Norcross approved. To sum up, Norcross officials claimed the salary increases for its mayor and City Council would put them in line with other liked-sized communities. If you consider the average salaries for 10 similarly sized cities, Norcross officials would still make less than their counterparts. If you examine each of those cities separately, the Norcross officials would make more in some cases and less in other instances. From what weve reviewed, Norcross has a pretty good argument here. The council will be in the middle of other liked-sized communities concerning pay. We rate the claim True.
Republican Senate candidate George Allen recently complained that corporate taxes are too high and discourage economic expansion.The tax on job-creating businesses in the United States is 35 percent, second worst in the entire world, he said during a June 14 news conference at which he unveiled his Blueprint for Americas Comeback..We wondered if the U.S. really is No.2 in the world when it comes to high corporate taxes and asked for the source of Allens information.Katie Wright, spokeswoman for Allens campaign, pointed to a March 8, 2011,reportfrom the right-leaning Tax Foundation. It indeed showed that the U.S. had the second highest total corporate tax rate among industrialized and emerging nations. Only Japan placed higher levies on business profits.But taxes are a complicated subject, and Allens claim needs elaboration.Eric Toder, co-director of the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center, noted most corporate income is taxed at the top U.S. federal rate of 35 percent, which Allen cited. The tax applies to American companies doing business here and abroad as well as to profits earned in the U.S. by affiliates of foreign companies.Allen understates his argument when he says the 35 percent federal corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. Actually, it outstrips Japan and is the highest national rate among nearly three dozen industrialized democracies, according to 2011 data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.But national tax rates on companies dont tell the whole story.When looking at how the U.S. corporate tax liability compares to other countries, analysts usually  examine a combination of federal and state corporate income tax rates.By that measure, the combined average corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.2 percent this year, according to the OECD. Among industrialized democracies, only Japans combined corporate rate of 39.5 percent is higher.Japan had planned to lower its corporate tax rate by 5 percent on April 1. But it delayed making the cut after a disastrous earthquake and tsunami struck in March.The OECD report only discusses statutory corporate tax rates. It does not address deductions and credits companies can claim in various countries to lower their liabilities. These loopholes produce an effective tax rate - the percentage of profits companies actually pay in levies.The World Bank published a report last November containing the effective corporate tax rates of 183 nations. The U.S. had an effective corporate tax rate of 27.6 percent, according to the study, which is still pretty high. Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand had higher effective tax rates on corporate profits.Allen, during his news conference, said he would like to lower the 35 percent national corporate tax rate to 20 percent and eliminate loopholes.Lets sum up:Allen said the U.S. corporate income tax of 35 percent is the second highest in the world.The national rate of 35 percent is actually the highest among democratic industrial nations. The U.S. combined corporate tax rate -- the average total of state and national levies on business profits -- is 39.2 and ranks second among industrialized democracies.So Allen is a smidgen off on tax rates, rankings and definitions. We rate his claim Mostly True. In December 2017, a set of photographs posted to Facebook led to accusations that Eddie Bauer clothing stores destroyed leftover clothing instead of offering it for donations or leaving them intact so that they could be worn or resold. The post described several Eddie Bauer-brand clothing items left damaged and discarded outside the manufacturer's store in New York City: post Eddie Bauer in NYC threw out blankets and coats and CUT THEM UP SO NOBODY COULD TAKE THEM! This is capitalism! Imagine a system where you DESTROY excess goods instead of distribute them. This happens while thousands in NYC will sleep on the streets tonight.   The post's author, Dakotah Lilly  an organizer with the advocacy group Students and Youth for a New America  also provided us with a separate picture of a damaged jacket bearing the logo of Eddie Bauer's First Ascent line: group line   Regarding the attention the post has generated, Lilly told us: I didn't think people would be so surprised that a corporation would do something like this in pursuit of profit. But obviously I'm not surprised that people are upset by it. They should be! But they should know that this is routine, and we need to change the way the system works, not just one company. Lilly also said that Eddie Bauer had contacted him regarding his photographs, but he was not confident they would respond to the apparent issue: The way things are, it wouldn't make sense for them to. Our economic system rewards people based on who can screw the little guy the best. A spokesperson for Eddie Bauer told us that the company was aware of the New York store mentioned in Lilly's post "having to dispose of some jackets," but that cutting them up and discarding them was not company policy: All Eddie Bauer products carry a lifetime guarantee; therefore, we receive returned products for various reasons ranging from a normal defect such as broken zipper or small tear, to heavily soiled and damaged items. These returned products that are deemed unsellable are shipped to our main distribution center where they are sorted. Any products that can be donated or salvaged are done so. Eddie Bauer is working with that specific store to determine why the jackets had to be disposed of, and why this seems to be an isolated occurrence at that store. The spokesperson also said that the company donates product samples to a New York City-based charitable group, Delivering Good, which distributes clothing and home-related products to people in need. We contacted Delivering Good to confirm whether there is a partnership between the two groups. group, Lilly is not the first person to accuse the clothing maker of damaging and then discarding unsold products rather than offering them to charity; in March 2010, consumer awareness blog Consumerist published an account from a reader who said she witnessed similar dumping by the company. published Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed. Marjorie Taylor Greene courted controversy interaction 9/11 conspiracy theories One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before. reported now-deleted theorized similar claims She said, "there are too many coincidences to ignore" and "oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires."   Greene also speculated that a range of people or groups were involved in this fire, including former California Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Rothschild Inc., an investment firm. She said that Roger Kimmel, who was on the board of PG&E, was also "Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc," and "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I'm sure they wouldn't ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don't know. I hope not! That wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E." The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy. targets An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation, and strong winds. showed In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page. removed Given that Greene did not directly state that "Jewish lasers" caused the fires, but did speculate that laser beams somehow connected to the Rothschild investment firm were a cause, we rate this claim as "Mixture." In his 1948 book The Affairs of Dame Rumor, Jacobson mentions this rumor "flooded the Atlantic states in 1934" and notes the story had been published in the Boston Traveler a few years earlier: Example: [Brunvand, 1984] This teen age girl, growing up in a California coastal town, was obviously pregnant  stomach starting to swell, morning sickness, etc. She, however, tearfully insisted to her mother that she couldn't possibly be pregnant. She had never "done it" with a boy and it just wasn't possible. As time went on, however, the signs continued. Her stomach continued to grow, her appetite increased, and so forth. Her mother insisted she was pregnant. The girl insisted it wasn't possible. She was still a "good" girl. Finally x-rays were taken and the girl was vindicated. She had a large tumor in her stomach and surgery was performed immediately. To everyone's amazement the surgeons removed not a tumor but a small, live octopus that had fastened itself to the lining of the girl's stomach. What happened to this girl supposedly is really possible. Octopus eggs are microscopic in size and laid in clusters of tens of thousands. They are usually affixed to kelp at the ocean bottom by a sticky secretion. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a few could escape and float to the surface where they could be swallowed by an unsuspecting swimmer . . . Anyway, don't scoff, because the girl was a close friend of my older brother's girlfriend. Fishbein's 1930 book Shattering Health Superstitions includes the text of the Traveler piece: A London factory girl is reported to have swallowed something while taking a swim, and immediately after was seized with terrible pains. A local doctor and a specialist both failed to diagnose the case, but an X-ray examination finally showed that she had swallowed an octopus egg, which had hatched out inside her anatomy. Folklorist Jan Brunvand points out there is a traditional folk motif assigned to this type of tale:  B784.1.4  Girl swallows frog spawn; an octopus grows inside her with tentacles reaching to every part of her body. How an octopus can grow from frog spawn remains unexplained, however. There are numerous versions of the basic legend:  All of these tales might be considered variations of the "bosom serpent" legend, described by Harold Schecter as a tale in which "through some unfortunate circumstance or act of carelessness . . . a snake. . . is accidentally ingested by, or grows inside the body of, the unlucky individual, where it remains until it is expelled or in some way lured out of the victim's body." This motif remains popular in films such as Alien, which features a crew member "impregnated" by an alien creature; once the incubation period is complete, the alien lifeform is "born" by bursting out through his chest. As Schechter notes, "like the traditional, oral versions that have been popular for hundreds of years, [the] only purpose [of the birth scene in Alien] is to produce emotional response: shock, revulsion, morbid fascination." In June 2004 the Iranian daily Etemaad reported that an unnamed woman from the south-eastern city of Iranshahr had given birth to a frog. According to that paper, the woman's gynaecologist confirmed that the lady in question, whose period had stopped for six months, had undergone sonography in May which showed she had a cyst in her abdomen and that following severe bleeding, she gave birth to a live grey frog accompanied with mud. Numerous news outlets subsequently carried the story, but in the manner of reporting that an Iranian paper had run the item, not as a confirmation of the facts of the account. If the photo of the frog (as initially provided by the BBC  it was later stripped from their online article and replaced by a map of Iraq) was accurate, it disproved the theory that the purported mother of Kermit came by her amphibian pregnancy through having swum in or drunk frog spawn, because the lily pad jumper so pictured was of a species not native to Iran. In any event, it was always a case of news outlets repeating a weird story that had come to them, not of vetting the tale's claims. Humans cannot give birth to frogs, or snakes, or fish, or lizards, or octopuses  our biology rules it out.  Also told in:   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 77).  The Big Book of Urban Legends   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Choking Doberman.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.  ISBN 0-393-30321-7  (pp. 110-111). The Choking Doberman   BBC News.  "Iranian Woman Gives Birth to Frog."
  27 June 2004.   Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.
  London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 74-75). The Tumour in the Whale   Fishbein, Morris.  Shattering Health Superstitions.
  New York: Horace Liveright, Inc., 1930  (pp. 90-97).   Jacobson, David J.  The Affairs of Dame Rumor.
  New York: Rinehart & Co., 1948  (p. 23). The Affairs of Dame Rumor   Schecter, Harold.  The Bosom Serpent: Folklore and Popular Art.
  Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1988. The item reproduced below originated as an e-mail sent to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in July 2010 by Dr. Sebastian J. Ciancio, a urologist practicing in Danville, Illinois. In that e-mail, the doctor encouraged the radio host to "share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars." In this example collected from the Snopes inbox in August 2010: I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20's came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Children and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly "Link" card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" in the family. Variations: In December 2010 the following photograph was added to circulating versions of this item, even though the pictured family has no connection to the story and no mention of race appeared in the original text:  In 2014, the setting was moved from Illinois to Florida. The gist of this "story" is the claim that an Illinois woman who was pregnant with her eighth child (while still in her 20's) admitted to an emergency room physician that she was deliberately having children and giving them up to foster care in order to earn money for her family, with her grandmother volunteering to raise the children and collecting $1,500 per month from the state for each child, for an annual tax-free income of $144,000 (plus additional benefits). Is the story true? It's a second-hand account, and Dr. Ciancio declined to identify the physician who supposedly told it to him, which makes verification of that aspect of the tale difficult. Nonetheless, whatever a pregnant patient may have told an unnamed emergency room physician, the scenario described simply isn't possible. According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for licensed relative home care range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child: payment rates  The maximum monthly payment (for a child age 12 and over) is $471 per month, not $1,500 per month, so the largest amount of money a foster parent caring for eight children would receive in a month (assuming all of those children were at least 12 years old) would be $3,768, for an annual total of $45,216  a far cry from the $144,000 yearly income claimed above. (And even the $45,216 figure is a generous projection, given that it's an obvious impossibility for a woman who is pregnant with her eighth child to already have eight children all over the age of twelve.) Pickel, Mary Lou.  "Tea Party at the Capitol."
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  28 February 2009. Memesclaiming that former President Ronald Reagan continued his golf vacation after nearly300 people were killed in an attack in Beirut in 1983 are frequently circulatedon Facebook:      The above-displayed memes have been circulating for several years, but they regained popularity in March 2016 as President Obama was criticized for remaining in Cuba (where he was making a state visit) after 31 people were killed during terrorist bombings in Brussels, Belgium. criticized While these images correctly reflect that Ronald Reagan was on vacation when a suicide bomber crashed a truck full of explosives into an airport building that was being used as barracks for U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, on 23 October 1983 (killing 241 American servicemen), the former president did not continue his golf vacation after receiving the news.The first image showing Reagan on the golf course was taken the day before the bombing, not the day after: before President Reagan playing golf at the Augusta National Golf Club. 10/22/83. An article published by theNew York Timesthe day after the attack also noted that Reagan cut his vacation short to return to the White House: noted "There are no words that can express our sorrow and grief over the loss of those splendid young men and the injury to so many others,'' the President said gravely this morning, standing in the rain outside the White House after a hurried return from a golfing weekend in Augusta, Ga. The second photo displayed abovewas also taken the day before the Beirut bombings: before President Ronald Reagan, clad in pajamas and bathrobe, talking on telephone to Robert McFarlane and Secretary of State George Shultz, re urgent request from five members of Eastern Carribbean States on the situation in Grenada. However, the former president wasn't always necessarily quickto react after deadlyinternational incidents. After a Korean airliner was shot down by the Soviet Union on 1 September 1983, President Reagan remained at his ranch in Santa Barbara: remained At this point, (White House spokesman Larry Speakes) Speakes was interrupted and asked if Reagan was going back to Washington. He ignored the question and read a statement on the Middle East. Asked again if Reagan was going back to Washington, Speakes answered, "There are no plans for the president to return to Washington earlier than anticipated." Speakes walked away from the podium and then came back to take questions. He announced, as he does every day in California, what Reagan intended to do that day: "The president, as usual, is planning at horseback ride this morning and will generally work around the ranch in the afternoon. The weather there is as it is here, sunny and warm." Thesememes are based on an assumption that a U.S. president has to react immediately to breaking news of a violent incident or crisis by returning to the nation's capital, even when such an action does not facilitate the handling of the situation. When President Obama was criticized in 2014 for his reaction toMalaysian Airlines Flight 17 being shot down (reportedly by pro-Russian insurgents), reporter ChrisWallace noted that sometimes, "the best thing presidents can do is nothing": criticized I know there's like an immediate reaction, that you want to say he should have run back to Washington and gone back to the Situation Room. I know that a lot of folks at Fox here are saying that. As somebody who covered the White House and saw for six years Ronald Reagan in various situations, sometimes the best thing presidents can do is nothing, to continue on. If he had gone back to Washington and gone to the situation room  first of all, there's not much he can do, we're not in control of the situation. And it would have dialed it up. I was covering Ronald Reagan at that time [i.e., when the Korean airliner was shot down].He was in Santa Barbara at his ranch when that happened, and quite frankly he didn't want to leave. And his advisers realized how terrible this looked, and eventually persuaded him he had to fly back to Washington and had to give this speech to the nation, but it did take him four days. A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente!   This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: described When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals -- and the charitable religious groups that funded them -- afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of providing high-quality, affordable health care for all. In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care, as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: HMO In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the "member," whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or "own") selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: described Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: initially With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the conservative appropriation of liberal reform: described Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixons support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixons who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixons aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaisers plan to be recognized: advocated not allow While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his health maintenance organization vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwoods ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the memes claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the first taste of federal subsidies incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make: conversation Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ... President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: ... the less care they give them, the more money they make. President Nixon: Fine. [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] ... and the incentives run the right way. President Nixon: Not bad. Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixons later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: crude and inarticulate Despite Ehrlichmans miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called health maintenance an important part of a new national health strategy. He continued: If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents, Nixon said, fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true health systemand not a sickness system alone. ... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy. All told, little factual basis supports the memes assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. Rosenthal, Elisabeth.  "Insurance Policy: How an Industry Shifted from Protecting Patients to Seeking Profit."
  Stanford Medicine.  Spring 2017. Sekhri, Neelam K.  "Managed Care: The U.S. Experience."
  WHO Bulletin.  2000. Altman, Stuart and David Shactman.  Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: The Inside Story of a Century-Long Battle.
  Prometheus Books, 2011.  ISBN 1616144564. Markovich, Martin.  "The Rise of HMOs."
  RAND Graduate School Dissertation.  7 August 2003. Starr, Paul.  The Social Transformation of American Medicine.
  Basic Books, 2017  (2nd edition).  ISBN 0465093027. Kaiser Permanente.  "Kaiser Permanentes Prominent Role in American Health Care Reform."
  22 June 2007. Wikisource.  "Transcript of Taped Conversation Between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman (1971) That Led to the HMO Act of 1973."
  17 February 1971. Claim:  Ted Cruz said that veterans should start selling cookies in order to raise funds.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2015] There is a meme going around Facebook that Ted Cruz has said that veterans should pay for their care by selling cookies, like the Girl Scouts do. What is the truth?  Origins:  On 6 May 2015, the fake news site National Report published an article reporting that Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz had suggested military veterans should start selling cookies in order to raise funds, the way Girl Scouts do: article During a campaign stop in Iowa on Wednesday, Texas Senator and 2016 GOP Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz made a suggestion that some military veterans may find controversial, if not outright offensive: he believes that the office of Veterans Affairs and the Pentagon should sell cookies to raise funds, a concept he admittedly borrowed from the Girl Scouts of America. Ted Cruz spoke at a town hall event in Des Moines, Iowa Wednesday morning, answering questions from a crowd of approximately 200 to 250 likely voters. One of the attendees, an Iraq War veteran named Dan with a prosthetic leg, asked Senator Cruz what his administration would do to help veterans, while further asking how Cruzs proposed tax cuts would affect the Department of Veterans Affairs. "We need to be innovative if we want to help veterans. We need to be practical and pragmatic. But we also need to remain vigilant with our governments out-of-control spending, and find ways of mitigating expenses wherever possible," Cruz answered. "So we need a president whose willing to tackle the hard issues, and come up with innovative solutions to these problems, head-on." Although the article was initially published by the fake news site National Report, it was later republished on a spoofed web site designed to look like the real USA Today site. This led many people, including actor James Morrison, author John Scalzi, and reporter David Nelson, to believe that the article was real: USA Today James Morrison John Scalzi David Nelson    The National Report is one of many fake news web sites operating on the Internet. The site's disclaimer states that all articles published on  National Report "are fiction and presumably fake news." disclaimer   Last updated:  11 May 2015 Claim:  Burying a statuette of St. Joseph on the property will help speed the sale of a home.  LEGEND Example:  [Cohen, 1997] Many realtors have their "Believe It or Not" stories.  Such was the case of a woman who moved from Maryland to Arizona.  After eight months of paying the mortgage on her unsold home in Baltimore, she sent her agent a statue and burial instructions.  Within two weeks, the house sold.  Another case involved a couple moving because of a new job. But their house, which was in a very active neighborhood, wasn't doing anything, even with St. Joseph in the ground. But St. Joseph's presumed inattention turned out to be for the better. The husband got a better job offer, and that's when the house sold.  In 1995, Betsy Moyer was determined to sell her house on Lake Avenue in Baltimore at a premium. She listed it for $15,000 more than other sellers in the same neighborhood. After seven quiet months a friend recommended that Moyer plant St. Joseph. The next week a group of nuns arrived to look at the house. Three months later, the house was sold at the highest price ever in that area, according to her agent. Origins:  Those trying to sell a home often feel in need of a miracle when a quick sale fails to materialize. Folklore purports to have the remedy: Bury a plastic statue of St. Joseph in the yard, and a successful closing won't be long in the offing. Realtors across the nation swear by this. The reputed origins of the practice vary. Some say an order of European nuns in the Middle Ages buried a medal of St. Joseph while asking   the saint to intercede in its quest for a convent. Others claim it may be connected to a practice of German carpenters who buried the statues in the foundations of houses they built and said a prayer to St. Joseph. Yet others trace the connection to a chapel building effort in Montreal in the late 1800s. Brother Andre Bessette wanted to buy some land on Mount Royal in Montreal to construct a small chapel called an oratory. When the landowners refused to sell, Bessette began planting medals of St. Joseph on the property. In 1896 the owners suddenly relented and sold, and Bessette was able to build his oratory.  But these theories may well be instances of retrofitting lore to a custom because mentions older than contemporary times have failed to materialize in standard folklore references. That the custom now has an interesting backstory does not mean its backstory is valid or even that old. The practice of burying a plastic St. Joseph to help speed the sale of a home dates at least to 1979 in the U.S.A. In 1990 it seemingly became all the rage, with realtors buying plastic saints' statues by the gross. The standard practice calls for the statue to be dug up once the property has sold and placed on the grateful seller's mantel or in another place of honor. Some, however, who have trouble remembering where they interred their statues prefer to leave the buried saints where they've been placed to help protect the properties for the new owners. (Which may not work all that well  some believe leaving the statue underground will cause the land to continue changing hands.)  But why Joseph, you ask? Why not another saint  say, St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes? Joseph, Jesus' earthly father, is the patron saint of home and family in the Roman Catholic religion. According to one of the hottest new customs, the statues are buried upside down and facing the road in front of a house for sale.1 Actually, different realtors quote different placements of the statue:   Upside down, near the 'For Sale' sign in the front yard. (An upside down St. Joseph is said to work extra hard to get out of the ground and onto someone's mantel.)  Right side up.  In the rear yard, possibly in a flower bed.  Lying on its back and pointing towards the house "like an arrow."  Three feet from the rear of the house.  Facing the house.  Facing away from the house. (One who tried this reported the house across the street sold, and it hadn't even been up for sale.)  Exactly 12 inches deep. The custom of burying St. Joseph has become so widespread that some retailers even offer a Home Sale Kit, which includes a plastic statue, a prayer card, and an introduction to the St. Joseph home sale practice.  Home Sale Kit Prudent realtors also recommend the following advice in addition to burying Joe: "For this practice to be fully effective, the seller must, of course, first do such  practical yet all important chores as completing all necessary fix-ups, properly staging the home and finally, adjusting the price so as to exactly reflect market value."  Many who have experienced difficulty selling their homes have reported seemingly miraculous sales shortly after burying a statue of St. Joseph on their property. Stephen Binz's 2003 book, Saint Joseph, My Real Estate Agent, is replete with many such examples. However, one tale included in the book (which might well be apocryphal)  indicates that everything doesn't always go as planned. One impatient man moved his statue from the front yard to the backyard to the side of the house and finally threw it in the trash. A few days later the frustrated seller opened the newspaper and saw the headline "Local Dump Has Been Sold." Barbara "joe work" Mikkelson Last updated:  11 June 2011    1.  Beard, Betty.  "Answer to Special Prayers."   The Arizona Republic.  16 May 1998  (p. EV1).    Binz, Stephen.  Saint Joseph, My Real Estate Agent.   Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2003.   ISBN1-569-55361-0.    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.   ISBN 0-393-31208-9   (p. 181-184). The Baby Train   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 246-247). Too Good To Be     Cohen, Charles.  "And He Does It All Upside Down."   The [Baltimore] Sun.  30 March 1997  (p. M1).    Galletta, Jan.  "Believing that Faith Not Only Moves Mountains . . ."   Chattanooga Times.  8 April 2000  (p. E1).    Ivey,  James.  "Gregory With Statue of St. Joseph."   Omaha World-Herald.  9 December 1984.    Shea, Jim.  "Home Sellers Tap a Saint as Dealmaker."   The Washington Post.  16 August 1997  (p. E5).    Vigue, Doreen Iudica.  "St. Joseph Sells."   The Boston Globe.  7 December 2003.    Chicago Sun-Times.  "A New Compass Aims to Please."   14 January 1986  (p. 71).    Los Angeles Times.  "Desperate Sellers Dig That Saint."   25 November 1990  (p. K1).    Omaha World-Herald.  "Priest Doesn't Buy Story . . ."   21 November 1985  (p. K1).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 193). The Big Book of Urban Legends Claim:  A debtor can discharge his obligations by sending his creditor a check made out for a fraction of the amount owed with the words 'Paid in full' written on it.  Example:  [Los Angeles Times, 2002]  A friend of a friend has racked up credit card debt and student loans totaling $100,000. Not securely employed, she has been planning on continuing her dinners out, lavish shopping trips, a car purchase and vacations, figuring it all will get wiped out soon enough. She says she is working with a lawyer who advised her to write $10 checks to all her creditors, with a note saying "paid in full" on the check. Origins:  "Get rich quick" (or, in this case, "get poor more slowly") schemes never seem to lose their appeal, even though common sense should warn that if getting rich quickly were truly so easy, everyone would be  wealthy. Obviously, if getting out of a debt were as simple a matter as executing the method described above, no one would ever lend money or extend credit.  Nonetheless, these schemes maintain their hold on the public because people are willing to entertain the fiction that they're a form of "secret knowledge"  that such loopholes do exist because only a select few are smart enough to know about and take advantage of them. It's not uncommon for creditors to agree to settle debts for less than the full amount due.  After all, some payment is better than none, and if debtors can be encouraged to pay at least a portion of their debts back through promises that they will relieved of any further financial obligations towards their creditors, then both sides come out ahead.  Better to accept a fraction of what you're owed than to risk your debtor's declaring bankruptcy or choosing to pay off other debts instead, leaving you with nothing. For such arrangements to be valid, however, both sides must agree to them.  A debtor cannot unilaterally declare a partial payment to be "payment in full" simply by attaching a note with those words to his check or writing them in the memo field and assuming that if the creditor fails to notice the notation then the entire debt has been discharged: This "paid-in-full" nonsense has achieved the status of urban legend, says J. Scott Bovitz, a Los Angeles bankruptcy lawyer. A creditor sometimes will reduce a claim for a disputed payment, but this kind of settlement usually won't happen if the debtor acts in bad faith, Bovitz says. The act of writing "paid in full" on a $10 check pretty much defines the term "bad faith." Section 3-311 of the Uniform Commercial Code does state that a debt can be discharged with a check designated as payment in full "if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim."  However, it's up to the claimant to prove "that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim."  So if you receive a check marked "paid in full" made out for less than the amount you have agreed upon, you'd best not cross out the words "paid in full" or write "disputed" on it and cash it anyway, as you risk having the entire debt discharged.  However, this condition does not apply to "transactions conducted or performed, in whole or in part, by electronic means or electronic records, in which the acts or records of one or both parties are not reviewed by an individual in the ordinary course [of business]," which means that this scheme will not work at all for most bill or credit card payments, as those payments are typically handled by automated systems and not humans. Uniform Commercial Code The best method for paying off debts with small payments remains not to run up large debts in the first place. Last updated:  18 April 2011