Do the majority of cruise ships operate under foreign flags?
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 the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of March 2020 threatened to shut down businesses across America for an extended period of time, the U.S. government faced the difficult task of deciding which industries should be provided economic assistance to keep them afloat for the duration. Public sentiment in some quarters was strongly against government bailouts for businesses such as airlines and cruise companies, on the grounds that over the last several years many of the major operators had spent billions of dollars in profits buying up their own stock rather than paying down their debts. In USA Today, John M. Griffin and James M. Griffin wrote: strongly against Start with the airlines. Rather than using their profits from the past five years to pay off debts and save for a rainy day, the big four  American, United, Delta and Southwest  instead grew their combined liabilities to $166 billion, all while spending $39 billion on share repurchases. That number, which is only from the big four, is almost 80% of what theyre asking for now from U.S. taxpayers. Similarly, the three largest Cruise companies -- Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean -- have liabilities of $47.5 billion and engaged in share repurchases of $8 billion. Had these companies paid down liabilities instead of using stock repurchases to bid up their stock prices, they would have been far better prepared to weather this emergency. Of course, higher share prices made their stock options more valuable. This allowed top airlines executives to pay themselves $666 million in compensation over the five-year period. The top cruise executives managed to haul in $448 million. Now, taxpayers are unwillingly being called upon to bail out their profligate behavior. A widely circulated meme on social media offered another reason why cruise lines were supposedly unworthy of government bailouts -- because although they might be headquartered in the U.S., their ships were foreign-flagged in order to put them out of reach of U.S. law:  That nearly every major cruise line registers their ships somewhere outside the U.S. is hardly a disputable point. As a 2011 news report noted, only a single major cruise ship at the time was U.S.-flagged: news report [O]nly one major cruise ship -- NCL America's Pride of America -- is registered in the United States, according to data from CyberCruises.com. Most of the big boats fly Bahamian flags, but other popular registries include Panama, Bermuda, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands. In fact, according to Cruise Lines International Association, 90% of commercial vessels calling on U.S. ports fly foreign flags. The three cruise lines called out by name in the meme -- Disney, Celebrity, and Carnival -- do indeed engage in this practice. It's not difficult to verify that Disney cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, Celebrity ships in Malta, and Carnival ships in Panama. Of course, the cruise industry and their critics offer differing reasons for why cruise ships are flagged in countries other than the U.S., with the former asserting that: Bahamas Malta Panama reasons CLIA [Cruise Lines International Association] maintains there are reasons for such policies: "There are many factors that determine where a cruise ship -- or for that matter, any maritime vessel -- is flagged. Those determinations are made by individual cruise lines and other ship operators based on varying factors including the capabilities of the flag to deliver the services needed; representation and reputation of the flag in the international shipping community; the performance of the flag state, which dictates how a ship is prioritized by port states; the pool of seafarers able to meet the needs of the flag; and the flag's fees/charges and taxes," the association said by e-mail. This can be viewed as a robust free-market debate. Some maintain burdensome U.S. regulations have forced cruise operators to plant their flags elsewhere, while others say these corporations are seeking to attract American dollars while skirting American safety and consumer protection laws. On the other hand, an academic paper by Caitlin E. Burke of the University of Florida about "Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships" made no bones of observing that reflagging of ships had long been used as a means of avoiding U.S. federal taxes, labor and safety laws, environmental laws, lawsuits, criminal investigations, and other regulations: paper Aside from the majority revenue generated by U.S. passengers, cruise lines are independent of the U.S. economy. Even though nearly 75 percent of passengers are U.S. citizens, cruise line corporations and their ships are not traditionally American-owned or registered ... (Tomlinson, 2007) Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries [such as] Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas. In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament. A vessels country of registration is commonly referred to as the "flag of convenience" (FOC). Flagging a ship under a foreign flag for the convenience of the cruise line is nothing new, nor is it rare. The majority of cruise ships today are registered to Panama, Liberia, or the Bahamas. It is important to pay close attention as many vessels within the same fleet are often registered to different countries. Carnival Corporation, for example, has flagged their cruise vessel Celebration under Panama and Destiny under the Bahamas. Cruise lines often avoid drawing attention to the FOC of by using the term "headquartered in Miami, Florida." It is important to understand that while the majority of these cruise lines have their headquarters in Miami, they are not registered in the U.S. Thus, U.S. laws do not apply and passengers are at the mercy of maritime law. That the practice of ship-reflagging is common and regular is undeniable. Whether cruise lines headquartered in the U.S. but operating ships registered in foreign countries "deserve" government bailouts in a time of pandemic is a subjective issue with no definitive answer, but certainly some critics have argued that they do not: critics Even in a crisis, companies with prudent balance sheets will survive and in time, thrive. Despite what politicians might tell you, the airplanes and ships of imprudent companies are physical property that will not suddenly disappear. They will fly or sail again under the same or different name, but hopefully with cheaper prices, better service and different executives. Like a college student sleeping off a hangover, a crisis is a time to sober up by removing debt from the system. Its not time for another drink. McGee, Bill.  "What Every Cruiser Should Know Before They Book."
  USA Today.  26 April 2011. McGee, Bill.  "Why Are Cruise Ships Registered in Foreign Countries?"
  USA Today.  11 December 2012. van Doorn, Philip.  "Airlines and Boeing Want a Bailout  But Look How Much Theyve Spent on Stock Buybacks."
  MarketWatch.  22 March 2020. Griffin, John M. and James M. Griffin.  "Coronavirus Bailout for Airlines and Cruise lines Is Socialism for the Undeserving Rich."
  USA Today.  20 March 2020. Burke, Caitlin E.  "A Qualitative Study of Victimization and Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships."
  Accessed 23 March 2020.
On Feb. 13, 2023, journalist Matt Bindertweeted, "Elon Musk deleted his Eagles tweet after they lost lol." The post included what appeared to be a screenshot of the alleged tweet reading "Go @Eagles!!!" with American flag emojis, and referenced the 38-35 loss by the Philadelphia Eagles to the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LVII.  We've seen countless fake tweets over the years; those are images that were created to look like famous people posted things that they didn't actually. However, in this case, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was real. It temporarily appeared on Musk's account the night of the Super Bowl, Feb. 12, and it was deleted hours later, after the Chiefs won. For that reason, we rated this claim  [Seealso:Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII?] Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII? According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was live for at least four hours, including for an unknown amount of time after the Kansas City Chiefs won the game around 10:15 p.m. (EST). The same page capture from the Wayback Machine showed that, about 3.5 hours later, Musk also tweeted "GG Kansas City @Chiefs !!" and described Rihanna's halftime show with two fire emojis. That post had also been deleted, as of this writing. It's unclear exactly when or why the tweets were deleted. same page capture Wayback Machine Rihanna's halftime show As of this writing,both links where the tweets once lived for public viewing read, "Hmm...this page doesn't exist. Try searching for something else." both links [See also:Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online?] Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online Binder, Matt. Twitter, 13 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1625144529136324610. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/. The alternative minimum tax indeed was started to tax the rich  specifically rich people avoiding income taxes. On Jan. 17, 1969, Treasury Secretary Joseph W. Barr told Congress that 155 taxpayers making $200,000 or more found a legal way to not pay any taxes on their 1966 income. That shook lawmakers into creating the alternative minimum tax in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. (For comparison's sake, $200,000 in 1966 is nearly $1.3-million in 2007, according to government-run inflation calculators.) Because of the law, people who are able to use deductions and legal shelters to lower their tax bill too much must pay a minimum income tax, the AMT. Under the law, taxpayers who meet the AMT threshold must pay the higher tax bill, whether it's their actual bill or the AMT. But because of the way the law calculates who meets the threshold, more and more people have been swept into the program. By 2006, 3.5-million taxpayers fell under the AMT, which equates to about 4 percent of American taxpayers, according to the Congressional Research Service. That brought in $24-billion in taxes. But that was with a patch by Congress that limited how many taxpayers are affected. Without a change for 2007, 23.4-million taxpayers are going to be paying the AMT, sending $70-billion to the federal government, according to an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Policymakers have been talking for years about changing the formula that triggers the AMT so that it only catches the very wealthiest taxpayers, but so far the rewrite hasn't happened. Republicans promised that their tax overhaul would save money for the middle class, and Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., was quick to make the case that it did. Im working alongside the White House and other members in the House to lessen the tax burden that currently weighs on so many Oklahomans, Mullin posted on hiscongressional blog. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the average American family of four will receive a $1,182 tax cut. Imagine what you could do with $1,182 more in your pocket! Mullin's talking point has been popular among House Republicans trying to sell the tax plan. In the past week, we've heard House SpeakerPaul Ryanand a Georgia congressman tout the same figure. In each case, they overstated the impact of the tax cut. Mullin did, too, but less so. Here's what you need to know. The figure comes from the House Ways and Means Committee, which wrote the tax bill. That committee calculated several scenarios for how the proposals changes could affect different types of taxpayers. The key elements in the committee's calculation involve tax brackets, the standard deduction and the child tax credit. Currently, there are seven brackets; these would be consolidated into four -- 12 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. In the meantime, the standard deduction would be raised from $12,000 to $24,000. And the child tax credit will be increased from $1,000 to $1,600, bolstered by a new $300 credit for parents and other dependents. The example Mullin highlighted refers to a family of four making $59,000 per year. Heres the scenario outlined in the Housesfact sheet, using the fictional example of Steve and Melinda with two middle school-aged children: As a result of lower tax rates, a significantly larger standard deduction, and an enhanced Child Tax Credit and Family Flexibility Credit, Steve and Melinda will pay over $1,182 less in taxes than last year, reducing their total tax bill from $1,582 to only $400. Thats more money they can use for whatever is important to them, whether its paying bills, purchasing a new refrigerator, or putting away savings for the future. The Ways and Means Committee said they chose a household income of $59,000 because its themedian household income nationally. (Mullin talked about families and families are not identical to households, but in Oklahoma, the median family income is about $58,000, so the distinction makes little difference in his state.) For that amount of income, a family today would get $12,700 from the standard deduction, $16,200 in personal exemptions, leaving $30,100 in taxable income. Of that, $18,650 would be taxed at 10 percent and $11,450 would be taxed at 15 percent, meaning the preliminary tax liability would be $3,582.50. That would be adjusted with $2,000 in child tax credits, producing a final tax liability of $1,582.50. Under the new tax bill, the family would take a larger $24,000 standard deduction (the proposal eliminates personal exemptions), leaving $35,000 in taxable income. At the 12 percent rate, that would mean $4,200 in preliminary liability. This would be offset by $3,200 in child tax credits and $600 in family credits, leaving a final tax liability of $400. Thats a $1,182.50 tax cut. So the number adds up, but there are some caveats that show it might not work out this way for all families like Steve and Melindas. The GOP bill eliminates or shrinks a number of widely used itemized deductions, and those factors arent taken into account in the figure House estimate. The deductions eliminated or pared back in the bill include the mortgage interest deduction (for future mortgages, it would be capped at half its previous maximum); the state and local tax deduction (only $10,000 in property tax deductions would be allowed); the medical expense deduction; the casualty loss deduction; and the student loan interest deduction. For example, nearly 9 million people with high medical bills deduct them on the taxes. Exchanging these changes for a higher standard deduction may benefit many taxpayers, particularly those who choose not to itemize today. But some taxpayers who depend on these itemized deductions today may end up worse off if the bill is passed as is, even with the higher standard deduction. For this type of taxpayer, the loss of even one of those deductions could conceivably wipe out that $1,182 gain for certain types of families. David Kamin, a tax and budget specialist at the New York University law school, told us that the bill has some wrinkles that can turn a tax cut into a tax hike. Kamin cited a combination of factors, including the sunsetting of the $300 per parent tax credit; the lack of inflation adjustments for the child tax credit, which effectively replace personal exemptions that were indexed to inflation; and the new use of an inflation adjustment measure known as chained CPI, which grows more slowly than the yardstick in current use. According toKamins calculations, the initial tax cut for the family making $59,000 becomes about a $450 tax increase by 2024 compared to the status quo. Heres the graph he put together:  Mullin didnt promise that the initial tax cut would last, as other Republicans have. After Mullin made his statement, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed the tax plan using a different approach. The committee found that while tax collections from people making under $40,000 would fall at first, they would go up in 2023. The groups that would do the best under the plan would be people making between $100,000 and $200,000, and those making over $1 million a year. Mullin said that the average American family of four would get a tax cut of $1,182. The number is a reasonable estimate, based on certain assumptions. What might not be obvious is that families who take advantage of deductions today might see their taxes rise. And even those who benefit immediately might see those gains turn into losses after 2023. So if you think this tax cut would be ongoing, or every year, you'd be wrong. Unlike his colleagues, however, Mullin didnt outright promise that the initial tax cut would last for more than one year. Mullin's statement therefore is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True. On October 12, 2021, a map supposedly showing searches on the pornography website Pornhub went viral on Twitter as social media users laughed about the bizarre sexual preferences of their compatriots. The state of Texas, for instance, liked lesbian porn, the map claimed, the Northwest states searched for Asians, and Oklahoma liked  Gothic Hospital? And Tennessee liked  Kevin James?   This map has been floating around social media since at least February 2019 when it was posted by @sortabad. When the fake map went viral again more than two years later in October 2021, they claimed credit for the map and shared their original tweet:  Pornhub does release analytics via their insights page and they have released maps in the past that show the top searches by state. Heres one such map from around election day in 2020. insights   In 2016, they released a map that looks similar to the viral joke map (except, unfortunately, for the inclusion of Kevin James). released a map   So what does all this mean? Do Tennesseans find or do they not find Kevin James sexy? Well, we cant really answer that. But we can say that the answer isnt reflected in this viral joke map. 2020 Election Week Searches  Pornhub Insights. https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2020-election-week-searches. Accessed 14 Oct. 2021. February 26, { 72 comments }, and 2016 Tweet. The United States Top Searches  Pornhub Insights. https://www.pornhub.com/insights/united-states-top-searches. Accessed 14 Oct. 2021. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., believes the governments economic policies over the past few decades have cut the legs out from underneath America's middle class. At the AFL-CIO National Summit on Raising WagesJan. 7, Warren spoke about growing income inequality, particularly since the 1980s, when the trickle-down economics policies gained traction under former President Ronald Reagan. She argued that this theory -- that giving tax breaks and other economic benefits to corporations and the wealthy will benefit the poor by improving the economy overall -- hasnt worked. Warren, a former law professor and expert on the economic challenges of the middle class, cited a number of statistics to support her point, including: Well, since 1980, guess how much of the growth in income over the last 32 years -- how much of the growth in income did the 90 percent get? Zero. None. Nothing. In fact, it is worse than that. The average family not in the top 10 percent makes less money today than they were making a generation ago. We wondered if that was true -- that the bottom 90 percent of earners in America have a lower income than they had more than 30 years ago. The statistic comes from data compiled by well-known economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, who study income inequality. TheirWorld Top Incomes Databasespecializes in cataloging the highest level of incomes over time in more than 20 countries. To check out Warrens claim, we looked at average income data from 1979 to 2012 for the top 10 percent and bottom 90 percent of earners. (The time frame Warren used in her speech was a generation, which is vague, but in context its clear shes talking about since the 1980s.) The Saez-Piketty data comes from millions of tax returns filed over the past century. The data supports her claim. Adjusted for inflation, the top 10 percent of earners in the United States made, on average, $144,418 in 1979 and $254,449 in 2012. Thats about 76 percent growth. The bottom 90 percent of earners, on the other hand, made $33,526 in 1979 and $30,438 in 2012. Thats adecreaseof about 9 percent. This chart generated on the Saez-Piketty top income database shows the growth of the top 10 percent of earners average income over time, compared to the relatively stagnant progression of the bottom 90 percent of earners average income. Compare this to the 30 years prior, where -- according to Saez and Pikettys data -- the average income for the bottom 90 percent of earners grew alongside the top 10 percent, albeit at a slower pace. However there is some context to consider. Mainly, not everyone approves of the Saez-Piketty approach to cataloging income. Their approach uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. Because the richest Americans earn a lot of capital gains and pay a lot of taxes, this arguably magnifies their income. On the other hand, the approach lowballs the income of lower-level earners -- the bottom 90 percent in this case. The income calculation does not include government payments, such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and the earned income tax credit. Salim Furth, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, also noted that the data looks at tax units -- individuals or married couples filing together -- rather than households, which may artificially lower average incomes. For example, a young adult living with his parents are two separate tax units; together they are one household or family. The Saez-Piketty data captures that the young worker has a very small income, but not the fact that he lives in a house with multiple incomes. Also, tax law has changed over the past 50 years to increase the number of units, Furth said. Of the general trend in income growth, he said, Data sources that are more widely used show solid, though not fantastic, income growth for most of the income distribution through 2007. There are big losses in the Great Recession, and then an incomplete recovery since then. TheCongressional Budget Officeproduced a report in November 2014 showing that the bottom 80 percent of earners (measured by households rather than tax units) saw income increases of about 16 percent between 1979 and 2011. The top 81-99 percent, on the other hand, saw increases of about 56 percent over the period. And the top 1 percent alone saw their household income grow 174 percent. That report also found that if it includes government benefits in its income calculation, all income brackets saw even more income growth. Still, this data shows that top earners incomes are growing at a faster pace than everyone elses -- which supports Warrens broader point. Richard Burkhauser, an economist at Cornell University, pointed us to a paper he co-wrote on income inequality that compares Saez-Piketty-style data to other income measurements. The results are consistent with the Saez-Piketty data until households are adjusted for size, and capital gains taxes and government payments are factored in. With those controls, incomes have grown across the board, and income inequality has also grown -- but not at as dramatic a rate as the Saez-Piketty data implies. Ultimately, Burkhausers report concludes that different measurements work for different policy questions. If Warrens talking specifically aboutmarket income-- that is, income earned before taxes and before government payments -- the Saez-Piketty data is appropriate, and undoubtedly income inequality has grown substantially in recent years, and the middle class is struggling. If the question is, alternatively, whether government programs are doing something to close the gap and help the middle class -- other measures show that programs like food stamps and Medicaid are helping to a certain extent, at least for people who qualify. (And of course not everyone in the bottom 90 percent of earners does qualify.) Arguably, in a speech directed at working and middle-class Americans at a summit on raising wages, the context of Warrens remarks give credence to the fact that she was referencing data that emphasizes earned income over government-provided income. In the speech, Warren wasnt advocating for new government programs that give out payments to individuals in need. She was making a policy argument against the idea of trickle-down economics and in favor of broad economic policies that she believes would improve Americans job-earned income, like raising the minimum wage and breaking up the Wall Street banks. We can make new choices, she said. And one way to make those choices is to talk openly and honestly and directly about work, about how we value work, and how we value those who do the work. Our ruling Warren said, The average family not in the top 10 percent makes less money today than they were making a generation ago. According to one measurement, the bottom 90 percent of American earners had a lower income in 2012 than they had 30 years ago. By other measurements -- mainly ones that include government payments such as Social Security -- incomes have grown across the board. However, this data still supports Warrens overall point that income inequality is growing. Additionally, given the context of her speech at a forum about wages, it makes sense that Warren would reference data that gives more weight to pre-tax income. Shes arguing that middle-class wages havent increased enough over the past couple decades. We rate Warrens claim Mostly True. Help fund PolitiFacts Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response. The economic struggles of ordinary Americans are getting a good airing this presidential season and a statistical finding from the Federal Reserve provides ammunition for a candidate in either party who wants to make the case that too many people have been left behind. Washington PostreporterHunter Schwarzplugged some Fed data into a little segment called By the numbers, in the newspapers June 8, 2015, edition: 47: The percentage of Americans who cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money, according to the Federal Reserve. The dollar figure caught our eye. It seemed surprisingly low. Other researchers have tried to gauge the financial vulnerability of American households to an economic setback, but typically, the amounts they test are much higher, in the thousands of dollars. We thought wed take a closer look. The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking A few years ago, the Federal Reserve Board began asking Americans how well theyre doing financially. In May, the Fedreleased the 2014 results. The questions ranged from retirement planning, to how people managed any student debt they might have, to whether they think their overall situation is headed up or down. To measure participants sense of financial vulnerability, the survey asked them to imagine they had an emergency expense that cost $400, and it asked them how they would cover it. The better-off group said they would use cash-on-hand or a credit card that they would pay off in a month. Others said they would use a credit card but take time to pay it off, or they might borrow from a family member or a pay-day loan company, or they might sell something. And some said there was no way they could cover an unexpected $400 expense. Across the more than 5,800 people who completed the online survey, 53 percent said they would be able to pay essentially immediately. That left 47 percent who said they could not. Specifically, respondents indicate that they simply could not cover the expense (14 percent); would sell something (10 percent); or would rely on one or more means of borrowing to pay for at least part of the expense, including paying with a credit card that they pay off over time (18 percent), borrowing from friends or family (13 percent), or using a payday loan (2 percent), the report said. Interestingly, making over $100,000 a year was no guarantee of security. About a quarter of the more affluent group said that at the very least, they would pay off the $400 over time. As this chart from the report shows, ethnicity and income strongly affected the ability to absorb a $400 outlay. Other studies George Washington University business professor Annamaria Lusardi and two colleagues (Daniel J. Schneider at Princeton University and Peter Tufano at Oxford University) conducteda similar surveyin the depths of the recession in 2009. Their study asked people how they would handle a sudden $2,000 bill that they had to pay in 30 days. About half the respondents said they would probably or certainly be unable to cope with such an emergency out of their own funds. Lusardi said she considers the results comparable. The Federal Reserve had a lower amount, but it had to be paid right away, she told PunditFact. We gave people more time, so I think the percentages are consistent. In fact, even with five years separating the surveys, it is the similarity in the responses that caught her eye. Lusardi said it is a sign of the recessions deep damage to the typical Americans balance sheet. Until recently, the labor market and wages have been stagnant, Lusardi said. In the recession, many families used up their reserves of liquidity. It takes a long time to reestablish a good financial situation. There are other indications that most Americans live with a limited financial cushion. When the government shutdown for two weeks in 2013, aUniversity of Michigan research teamtracked a hefty drop in household spending among government workers. Even though their paychecks were interrupted only a short time, households cut their outlays in half, and many delayed paying their mortgages and credit card bills. Some racked up high cost credit card debt that took them up to nine months to pay back. Lusardis 2009 research included a number of other western nations. For the record, the United States ranked sixth out of eight in residents saying they would certainly or probably be able to manage a sudden $2,000 bill. Rank/Country Percent able to cope Rank/Country Percent able to cope 1. Italy 80.1 5. Portugal 54.1 2. Netherlands 73.2 6. United States 50 3. Canada 71.7 7. Germany 49.4 4. France 62.8 8. United Kingdom 47.8  Our ruling Schwarz said 47 percent of Americans cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money. The only caveat here, and its a very minor one, is that figure represents the number of people who say they cant make that payment, based on a Federal Reserve Board survey. The Federal Reserve Board results are in line with a similar study and related research. We rate the claim True. In March 2020, Facebook posts offering free coupons supposedly worth $50 in merchandise from Walmart began circulating with the claim that the company was celebrating its anniversary:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupon:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users are then required to click a button to share the "offer" with all their Facebook friends before they can retrieve their coupon. Those who comply by spamming their friends are then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button. However, there is no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook (including previous examples targeting Walmart customers), this one is a scam. We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: other free merchandise offers targeting 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. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers Better Business Bureau.  Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook.
  14 April 2017. In mid-July 2015 a video began making the online rounds, accompanied by claims that it depicted a man who had consumed 24 cans of Red Bull energy drink in a short period of time. (One 250ml can of Red Bull contains about 80mg of caffeine, while a typical cup of brewed coffee has about 95 to 200 mg of caffeine.) video coffee WARNING The outcome of drinking 24 cans of RED BULL quickly   The "24 cans of Red Bull" was a familiar trope in mid-2015 due to recent reports in the UK press that a 31-year-old British woman had managed, through the help of hypnosis, to kick a 24-can-a-day Red Bull habit that was having profound effects on her health (and finances): reports   A mother-of-four whose addiction to Red Bull saw her drinking 24 cans of a day claims she has been cured of her habit by hypnosis. Sarah Weatherill, 31, became so dependent on the energy drink she was told if she cut down too quickly she could suffer a seizure as her body was so used to the caffeine. The law student spent a staggering 5,460 every year on the popular energy drink since she became hooked in 2009. Her habit was at its worst the following year when she was studying for a law degree and wanted to stay awake to revise for exams. She soon became dependent on the drink and couldn't get out of bed unless she knew she had some in the fridge. She also became lethargic, depressed, had heart palpitations and was constantly feeling anxious as her 105-a-week habit spiralled out of control. She finally decided to do something about the problem after she realised the constant need for the Red Bull was severely damaging her health.   However, the video shown above has nothing to do with the effects of consuming large quantities of caffeine or energy drinks.  What it depicts is a flail chest, a condition usually seen after automobile accidents or other forms of blunt trauma, when a segment of the rib cage breaks and becomes detached from the rest of the chest wall.  In flail chest patients, pressure changes associated with respiration that the rib cage normally resists produce the motion seen in the video above, as demonstrated here: flail chest   During normal expiration, the diaphragm and intercostal muscles relax increasing internal pressure, allowing the abdominal organs to push air upwards and out of the thorax. However, a flail segment will also be pushed out while the rest of the rib cage contracts.   Although we haven't identified the precise source of this video, it's said to have captured the victim of an automobile accident being treated by emergency medical personnel shortly before his death. 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. On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015.