Do 643,000 Bankruptcies Occur in the U.S. Every Year Due to Medical Bills?
In April 2016, a meme was published by the Facebook page "The Other 98%" (among others) holding that 643,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills every year, while in a number of other first-world countries, bankruptcies over medical bills are non-existent (due to the implementation of national social health insurance/medical care systems in those other countries):   At the fine print at the bottom of the meme was a citation: "Source: NerdWallet Health Analysis." No link to the specific analysis referenced was provided, but presumably the item in question was a 19 July 2013 item published by NerdWallet pertaining to medical bankruptcies. However, in that analysis NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were "estimates" or "extrapolations," and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013. The primary portion of that article held that: In 2013 over 20% of American adults are struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies will be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, our study emphasizes the burden of health costs causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes, says Christina LaMontagne, VP of Health at NerdWallet. Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. Unfortunately this can lead to even worse financial outcomes as preventative treatments are not rendered and patients end up using expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens. Finally, many question whether President Obamas universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet, says LaMontagne. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay. Although the "643,000" figure didn't expressly appear in that article, if we take the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2013 (1,032,236) and apply NerdWallet's statement that "three in five (60%) bankruptcies will be due to medical bills," then we arrive at a number of medical bill-related bankruptcies (619,342) reasonably close to the 643,000 figure (although technically a bankruptcy filing can represent more than one person). bankruptcy Likewise, a 2013 CNBC item based on the 2013 NerdWallet Health Analysis included a chart showing the estimated total number of medical-related bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2013 to be 646,812, which is also quite close to the cited 643,000 figure: item  Since the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. is a matter of public record, the accuracy of this figure hinges on how reliable is the estimate that 60% of those filings are medical-related. In NerdWallet's "Methodology & Sources" section, the site said their medical bankruptcy estimates were based on a 2009 Harvard study, which in turn used bankruptcy data from 2007 and involved interviewing a random national sample of a bankruptcy filers: BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened. METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as medical based on debtors stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts. RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. NerdWallet themselves reported that they employed a more conservative estimate than the Harvard study figure regarding the proportion of bankruptcies that are medical-related: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts. Still, quantifying the occurrence of medical bankruptcies can be problematic, as noted in aJanuary 2016 New York Times article on the subject: article Research on medical bankruptcies has been controversial because it can be hard to untangle how medical bills fit into a familys overall pattern of financial troubles. Twenty-nine percent of the people with medical bill problems said a family member had been forced to stop working or cut back on hours. (On the other side, about 41 percent of people said theyd taken on extra work to help pay bills.) Is that a job problem or a medical bill problem? said David Himmelstein, a professor of public health at the City University of New Yorks Hunter College School of Public Health who has studied medical bankruptcies. Its both of those things. However, that article also factored in a large development that occurred after NerdWallet's 2013 analysis: the activation of major provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare): The [ACA] has led to a decline in the number of Americans suffering financial stress from health problems, thanks to the new options for receiving coverage, especially for the poor. But the problem is still widespread, touching roughly a quarter of Americans under 65, when the insured and uninsured are looked at together. Americans older than 65 are covered by Medicare, which more frequently protects people from major financial trouble. Unlike other polls, which have focused on the ways that insurance affects health care, the new Times-Kaiser survey explored the effects of medical bills on peoples daily lives well beyond the medical system. We found that medical bills dont just keep people from filling prescriptions and scheduling doctors visits. They can also prompt deep financial and personal sacrifices, affecting their housing, employment, credit and daily lives. The potentially ameliorating effect of the ACA on bankruptcies was also cited by a July 2015 Wall Street Journal article which (in part) described research into medical bankruptcy done by Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin: article So what does Prof. Austin think will happen with mandatory health care in all 50 states? Could the system designed to give people access to affordable health insurance make families more financially stable and keep them out of bankruptcy? It absolutely should show a reduction in bankruptcies [filed] due to medical debt, Prof. Austin said in an interview. Plenty of studies have pinpointed medical debt as the No. 1 reason why people turn to bankruptcy for a fresh start. In rallying for health-care reform in his 2009 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that 62.1% of consumer bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies, citing a study Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) co-wrote as a Harvard law professor. Prof. Austins study found the percentage of medical bankruptcies to be far smaller. Overall, 18% to 25% of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. were prompted by medical debt.  But even prior to the implementation of the ACA, some sources questioned the true impact of medical debt on bankruptcy rates. A 2012 piece published by The Hill compared rates of bankruptcy between the United States and Canada (the latter a country with single-payer healthcare system): compared It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care ... Will ObamaCare's increased regulation of the healthcare marketplace help put an end to the phenomenon? Data from countries with government-run healthcare systems suggest not. Consider Canada. Our neighbor to the north features a government-run, single-payer healthcare system where private insurance is outlawed for procedures covered under the law. So you'd think that Canada would have a lower rate of bankruptcy than the United States, what with one big potential cause of bankruptcy  the cost of health care  absorbed by the government. But according to researchers at the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank, bankruptcy rates are statistically the same on both sides of the 49th parallel. In both the United States and Canada, less than one-third of 1 percent of families file for bankruptcy each year. Further, even with a socialized healthcare system, some Canadians go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors  those 55 and older  cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency. Canada wasn't the only country in which the presence of single-payer healthcare reportedly wasn't a total shield against bankruptcies (medical-related or otherwise). A 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) paper [PDF] found that: PDF Outside of the US, research on links between over-indebtedness and health has been quite limited to date, consisting largely of rankings of factors in consumer debt. For instance, within the United Kingdom, sickness or disability accounted for 5% of households in financial difficulties in 2002. A ranking of causes of over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy in Germany found that psychological problems and own sickness, if added together, would rank in fourth place of reasons for over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy. There have been a number of interesting recent studies in Germany on the subject. These have found a high risk of mental disorders among those facing the threat of over-indebtedness as well as the association of over-indebtedness with an increased prevalence of overweight and obesity apart from traditional socioeconomic factors. Additionally, there is evidence that over-indebted persons refrain from seeking medical treatment or purchasing prescriptions even under Germanys health system. One-third of participants in a study of insolvency counseling services in RhinelandPalatinate indicated that their financial difficulties were a result of accident, illness or addiction. In short, using some very specific analyses, one could make the case that (at least within the last several years) about 643,000 Americans declared bankruptcy annually due to medical bills. But the accuracy of those analyses is open to question, the playing field has changed significantly since they were undertaken (due to the implementation of the ACA), and it's far from an absolute that the other countries listed in the meme experience zero medical-related bankruptcies.  Emami, Sarah.  "Consumer Over-Indebtedness and Health Care Costs:
How to Approach the Question from a Global Perspective."
  World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 3.  2010. Himmelstein, David U. et. al.  "Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study."
  American Journal of Medicine.  12 April 2009. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  19 June 2013. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  26 March 2014. Luthra, Shefali.  "Consumers Still Struggling with Medical Debt."
  USA Today.  1 February 2015. Mangan, Dan.  "Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study."
  CNBC.  25 June 2013. Pipes, Sally C.  "Medical Bankruptcy: Fact or Fiction?"
  The Hill.  23 October 2012. Sanger-Katz, Margot.  "Even Insured Can Face Crushing Medical Debt, Study Finds."
  Thne New York Times.  5 January 2016. Stech, Katy.  "The Future of Personal Bankruptcy in a Post-Obamacare World."
  The Wall Street Journal.  1 July 2015. Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.  "Growing Old Gracefully, An Investigation Into the Growing Number of Bankrupt Canadians Over Age 55."
  31 March 2006.
In the days following the pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6. 2021, several lawmakers started calling for U.S. President Donald Trump to be impeached for a second time, this time, according to one draft of the impeachment articles, for "incitement of insurrection." one draft of the impeachment articles As the momentum for impeachment built, some social media users argued that it wasn't worth impeaching Trump again as he would be leaving office in a few days regardless.  But according to a viral message from Twitter user @BenCostiloe, the potential consequences of impeachment extended further than removal from office. This message, which was shared more than 150,000 times, claimed that impeaching Trump would also strip him of several post-presidency benefits, such as a lifetime pension, security detail, and the ability to run for office in the future: viral message   This message is generally accurate. However, it should be noted that a president is only stripped of these benefits if they are impeached and removed from office. As of this writing, Trump, who was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2019, will still receive presidential benefits as he was not convicted by the Senate and removed from office. U.S. President Bill Clinton, for example, still receives the benefits bestowed on former presidents even though he, too, was impeached.  impeached The benefits a president receives after leaving office are outlined in the Former Presidents Act of 1958. That law states that former presidents shall receive a lifetime pension (of approximately $200,000 annually), travel-related expenses up to $1 million each fiscal year, and protection from the Secret Service. It also notes that these benefits shall not be awarded to presidents whose service was terminated by removal "pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America." Former Presidents Act approximately $200,000 annually) Article II of Section 4 of the Constitution, reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." reads Mother Jones reported: reported The 1958 Former Presidents Act assures that no president leaves office without being set for lifeit guarantees a pension, access to health insurance, office space and staff. There is, however, one exception: These perks are only granted to presidents who arent removed from office in an impeachment trial. There is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose protection from the Secret Service. The Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 authorizes "the Secret Service to protect former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes." This act does not state any exceptions for an impeached and removed president. As this is ahistorical territory, it's unclear how the term "former president" would be interpreted in this instance. We reached out to various historians for comment and will update this article accordingly. Former Presidents Protection Act The final item listed in the viral tweet  "loses his ability to run in 2024"  is a possibility, but not a foregone conclusion in the case of an impeachment conviction in the Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that a president "shall be removed from office if impeached and convicted. However, it is up to the Senate's judgment as to whether a removed president should be barred from holding future office.  Here's an excerpt from the U.S. Senate website (emphasis ours): website In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called managers, acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office. In short, if Trump is impeached and removed from office, he would lose many of the benefits awarded to former presidents.    Updated [13 January 2021]: Article update to note that there is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose secret service protection. In February 2024, a rumor went viral allegingKid Rock and Jason Aldean removed New York stops on a concert tour in protest of a judge's decision in a civil fraud case to make former U.S. President Donald Trump pay $355 million in penalties. judge's decision For instance, on Feb. 18, 2024, a Facebook post by America's Last Line of Defense went viral with side-by-side photos of Aldean and Kid Rock and the text, "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean Remove New York From the 'You Can't Cancel America' Tour: 'We Support 45'," referring to Trump's ranking as America's 45th president. post  The claim spread on other social media platforms, as well, including X (formerly Twitter), where someusersappeared to show support for the singers. Days earlier, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay the penalties in a sweeping civil fraud verdict, finding he had lied for years about his wealth on financial statements for loans and to make real-estate deals, The Associated Press reported. other social media platforms users The Associated Press reported Conservative pundit Brigitte Gabriel wrote, for example: "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean have responded to New York's extreme attack on President Trump by REMOVING the state from their 'You Can't Cancel America Tour.' This is a BIG DEAL and a sign of the silent majority rising again!" wrote (Screenshot via X) However, the claim about Aldean and Kid Rock was fictional. While they have indeed headlined concerts together before, there appeared to be no evidence of a "You Can't Cancel America Tour," like the posts claimed. Since the tour was made up, so was the notion they had removed New York dates due to their feelings on Trump. headlined concerts no evidence The rumor stemmed from an articleby The Dunning-Kruger Times, a site that is part of a network of websites and social media accounts operated by America's Last Line of Defense's (ALLOD). The article stated: article stated 'We support 45 [referring to Trump],' the tour's website announced, 'Therefore, we won't be bringing the tour to the state that has treated him so poorly.' The tour was set to play more than a dozen dates in New York, adding untold millions to local economies and giving patriotic Americans living in a liberal nightmare the chance to have a night to themselves. The Dunning-Kruger Times describes its output as satirical. The website's "About Us" section states: About Us Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this site's pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical. See above if you're still having an issue with that satire thing. The website's creators callpeople who believe its stories "taters." The website states: call 'Taters' are the conservative fans of America's Last Line of Defense. They are fragile, frightened, mostly older caucasian Americans. They believe nearly anything. While we go out of our way to educate them that not everything they agree with is true, they are still old, typically ignorant, and again  very afraid of everything. Kid Rock has been a vocal supporter of Trump. Also, Trump oncedefendedAldean amid accusations of racist imagery in his "Try That In A Small Town" music video. vocal defended We've fact-checked numerous satirical claims stemming from Dunning-Kruger Times, including one about Aldean supposedly saying Garth Brooks was not welcome at Toby Keith's candlelight vigil and another about Mark Wahlberg supposedly joining Kid Rock and Aldean on tour. about supposedly For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why "About Us." Dunning-Kruger-Times.Com, 1 Aug. 2022, https://dunning-kruger-times.com/about-us/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. "Here's a Look inside Donald Trump's $355 Million Civil Fraud Verdict." AP News, 17 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-letitia-james-new-york-engoron-38bc3a7f2ccb22555c026e9bf70fd5bb.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean Remove New York from the 'You Can't Cancel America' Tour: 'We Support 45.'" Dunning-Kruger-Times.Com, 18 Feb. 2024, https://dunning-kruger-times.com/kid-rock-and-jason-aldean-removes-new-york-from-the-you-cant-cancel-america-tour-we-support-45/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. PerryCook, Taija. "Is Mark Wahlberg Joining Jason Aldean and Kid Rock on Tour?" Snopes, 12 Dec. 2023, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/is-mark-wahlberg-joining-jason-aldean-and-kid-rock-on-tour/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. PerryCook, Taija. "Jason Aldean Said Garth Brooks Was 'Absolutely Not Welcome' at Toby Keith's Vigil?" Snopes, 13 Feb. 2024, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/aldean-brooks-keiths-vigil/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. Sforza, Lauren. "Trump Defends Jason Aldean amid Song Controversy." The Hill, 20 July 2023, https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4107561-trump-defends-jason-aldean-amid-song-controversy/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. Walker, Jackson. "Kid Rock Doubles down on Trump Support: 'Toughest Son of a B**** on Earth.'" WPDE, 12 Dec. 2023, https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/kid-rock-doubles-down-on-trump-support-toughest-son-of-a-b-on-earth-president-2024-race-biden-trump-tucker-carlson-presidential-election-republican-gop-race-haley-desantis-nashville-music.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. In May 2023, a reader informed us by email of a scam appearing in Facebook and Instagram ads that claimed Delta Air Lines was holding a promotion to give away $500 gift cards for $1 each. On the same day, we reviewed a second "Delta Airlines Online Shopper" scam in an email from an address ending in asahi.com that promised a "$100 reward" or gift card, simply for taking a survey. Needless to say, these were not legitimate giveaways, nor were they offered by Delta Air Lines. Always remember with online offers that if they seem too good to be true, they probably are. Worse, they are likely to be phishing scams that can result in both privacy and monetary losses for victims. First, Delta Air Lines was not giving away $500 gift cards for $1 each. Even something as small as $5 gift cards for $1 each would make little sense, as it would be putting Delta or other airlines in the position of losing money to the throngs who would buy up the cards. The scam ads read as follows: Elevate your travel experience with Delta! We're giving you an extraordinary opportunity to fuel your dreams of exploration. For only $1, you can get a $500 gift card - a limited time offer that's too good to pass up. It's time to see why Delta isn't just an airline, it's the Delta difference. Apply now and book your next Delta journey today! The paid ads on Facebook and Instagram led to a fake survey onduwucuu.info. After filling out the survey, the scam led users towb.giftgiveaways.xyz where they were asked to fill out personal information and a credit card number. As for the email scam that promised $100 Delta Air Lines "rewards" or gift cards for taking a survey, the messages were often coming from "ozdxuofbqh.asahi.com via loi5sir.classyield.site." Clicking the link in the message led to a strangely-labeled "Hitech Research" website onignitesurge.org. The page instructed users to take a survey and then pick a "free" offer on gadgetspromodeals.com or other websites. However, these "free" offers came with monthly subscription fees that were hidden in the terms and conditions. Nowhere on these pages did we find a box for customers to check to indicate that they agreed to the fine print that appeared on another page. The domain name giftgiveaways.xyz was last registered on May 15, just seven days before we looked into the "$500 gift cards for $1" scam. Meanwhile, ignitesurge.org, the website associated with the $100 Delta Air Lines "reward" email scam, was last registered on April 5. Newly-registered domain names are often a big red flag associated with scams. We advise all readers to do their due diligence before giving their credit card number to a website they've never heard of. Scammers often hide subscription fees in terms and conditions and purposely do not mention these fees anywhere on the product checkout pages. Contact your credit card company immediately if you believe you have given your credit card number to scammers. Delta Air Lines hosts a page about the scams they've seen over the years, including gift card promotional websites: page Over the years, Delta has received reports of attempts by parties not affiliated with us to fraudulently gather customer information in a number of ways including: fraudulent emails, social media sites, postcards, Gift Card promotional websites claiming to be from Delta Air Lines and letters or prize notifications promising free travel. These messages were not sent by Delta Air Lines. We do not market to our customers this way, but individuals or groups intending to gather and use your personal data for their gain can be inventive in their approach  often adding messages to generate a sense of urgency so you take action. Scammers know that airfare can be quite pricey. By pushing fake offers for cheaper airline tickets, they attempt to scam the masses with their fraudulent schemes. If readers encounter offers in the future that seem suspicious, we recommend contacting the airline company directly to ask questions. For further reading n the realm of "way too good to be true," we once covered anotherscam that claimed Delta Air Lines was giving away first-class air travel tickets and $10,000 in cash. scam "Protect Your Data." Delta Air Lines, https://www.delta.com/us/en/legal/privacy-and-security/protect-your-data. Claim:  President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this.   Origins:  On 2 October 2013,  the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce  that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report,  a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show  about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...":  (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated:  5 October 2013 On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a "Green New Deal." resolution The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, smart grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making green technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as "a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one," "basic income programs" and "universal health care programs." proposal On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford" that would kill off entire domestic industries and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a "sham" intended to "quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change" and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: criticized Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didnt actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government, Ocasio-Cortez said. What McConnells doing is that hes trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee  because he doesnt want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned. In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted present in protest of the GOPs action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. voted down A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a "100% retard" for failing to "even vote for [her] own bill":  The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: not voting cloture This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether "it is the sense of the Senate" that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become "the policy of the United States," without so much as a hearing. a version Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This "cloture" vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a "socialist" plan that would "uproot life as we know it." He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't "neglect" or "forget" to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution. Daly, Matthew.  "Senate Shuns Green New Deal Amid Claims of Bad Faith."
  Associated Press.  26 March 2019. Nilsen, Ella and Li Zhou.  "Senate Democrats Broadly Shut Down Republican Trolling on the Green New Deal."
  Vox.  26 March 2019. Grandoni, Dino and Felicia Sonmez.  "Senate Defeats Green New Deal, As Democrats Call Vote a Sham."
  The Washington Post.  26 March 2019. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "The Green New Deal and Why It's Happening Now."
  The Balance.  2 April 2019. Lavelle, Marianne.  "Senate's Green New Deal Vote: 4 Things You Need to Know."
  Inside Climate News.  26 March 2019. Claim:  A Texas business provides big game hunters with an opportunity to participate in "horse hunt adventures."   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] There's a blog going around about "Texas Horse Hunts" where horses are hunted on paid hunts....could this possibly be true?   Origins:  In May 2013, social media were abuzz with chatter regarding (and at least one petition calling for the shutdown of) a three-month-old blog site for an outfit advertising Texas Horse Hunts, presented as an opportunity for big game horse hunters to bag themselves some equines:  petition blog site If youve dreamed of big game horse hunting in Texas and are interested in a superior, top quality, exciting and successful horse hunting experience, join Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions, LLC and Master Guide Tom D. Welderman IV on your next horse hunt adventure. Youll enjoy some of the most dynamic and beautiful wilderness in the world! We guide areas within National Wildlife Refuges and receive the  finest guiding expertise, personal service and attention to detail found anywhere. Im a guide because I love horse hunting, Texas, the outdoors and because I enjoy sharing these things with other humans who appreciate what horse hunts have to offer. Our goal, aside from helping you harvest a magnificent trophy horse, is to share with you this incredible state and all that it has to offer. When you leave one of our camps as a friend, we want you to take home fond lifetime memories of your horse hunt experience. The quality of your horse and your whole experience is my primary concern. We are not narcissistic; your hunt with us is not about us but about you and your horse. This is your horse hunt and we want to help fulfill all of your expectations. Multiple factors pointed to the whole thing being a satirical hoax, however, including:  The lack of any previous news coverage or any effort to publicize the business beyond a single blog entry.  The photographs on the Texas Horse Hunts blog site were all lifted from other web sites.  The picture of the dead equine in the back of a truck was taken from a May 2009 blog entry for Rogues Gallery Kennel (a  rescue kennel for sled dogs) about the picking up of a naturally deceased horse in Alaska; the photo of a pair of horses lying dead on the ground was taken from a 2010 news article about San Joaquin County Sheriffs Office investigating five dead horses believed to have died of thirst in a field off Interstate 580 in California; and the picture of a single (apparently undead) brown horse lying on the ground is a stock photo from 2004. Rogues Gallery Kennel lying dead news article stock photo Joseph Robertia, the rightful owner of the first photograph penned an article for The Redoubt Reporter describing the harm the theft of his photo had caused for him and his family, saying (in part): article Hi, my name is Joseph, and I hunt horses with sticks, crossbows and firearms. And if you believe this, Ive got some prime swampland in Florida to sell you. Sadly, though, several people do believe it, thanks in part to a photo stolen from my personal blog, https://www.rogueskennel.com, and used out of context on a site proclaiming to be for Texas Horse Hunts. Not hunting on horseback, but actually hunting and killing horses. It's left me having to assert and explain something so bizarre I never thought Id have to utter these words  I have not, do not and would not ever hunt horses. The photo they found on my site and reposted was taken in Alaska, after my wife and I retrieved a horse that died of natural causes from Sterling residents who had no way to bury it and didnt want it to attract summer bears. The part that really smarts is that the most extensive damage to our reputations was not done by the initial website post. Rather, it was from the dozens of outraged animal rights activists on Facebook pages and other social media sites who began spreading the photo with lightning speed. (A week after we published this article, all the photos and descriptive information were removed from the Texas Horse Hunt page.)  The promotional material in the Texas Horse Hunts blog states that "All horse meats will be processed at our facilities," but laws forced the shutdown of the last remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. (including two in Texas) back in 2007, and no such facilities are currently legally operating in the U.S. horse slaughterhouses  We could find no record of "Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions" being registered as an LLC (limited liability company) in Texas or any other state.  The blog site contains obvious jokes such as "You will have the option of killing your horse traditionally (with a stick)," and a "Brief History of Horse Hunting" article describing  Henry VIII as a horse hunting enthusiast who "instituted a policy of horse hunting exclusively by club" and referencing a "Back to the Future lead actor who's a vocal supporter of the sport." article  One of the best ways of determining whether web-advertised businesses of suspect nature are legitimate is by attempting to purchase what they're supposedly offering for sale (because the whole point of businesses to make money by servicing customers). But the Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions page includes neither a physical address nor even a general indication of where in the world the supposed hunts take place (somewhere in Texas, presumably), key pieces of information which any prospective customer would want to know.  And none of our e-mails or phone calls to Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions expressing interest in participating in one of their "adventures" was returned. Last updated:  29 May 2013 In the years 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore made statements about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013. While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists, they stemmed from a selective reading of aggressive estimates regarding future melting. The comments became a popular talking point for human-cause climate change deniers in 2014 and onward when the predictions, which in some cases were overstated, did not pan out:  On 10 December 2007, in his Nobel prize acceptance speech, Gore said: acceptance speech Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Here, Gore referred to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) announcement and two different climate studies, one of which became the source for his most aggressive statements. On 21 September 2007, NOAA did announce that sea ice had hit its lowest recorded point in history. The second, more aggressive estimate for when summer sea ice would disappear in the Arctic came from a conference talk at the 2007 American Geophysical Fall Meeting, which was undertaken by researchers associated with the Naval Postgraduate School and was presented later that week. The BBC reported that the study did make the prediction that Gore claimed: conference talk BBC Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. The BBC article also noted that Maslowskis group, frequently cited by Gore, often made predictions that were more aggressive than their peers': "Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at NASA and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams." On 13 December 2008, Gore appeared to have made a similarly flawed statement while speaking at the opening of a German natural history museum. Although transcripts and clear audio are hard to find, one video of the event documented Gore's saying that "The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years. Given the dates presented, it is likely that Gore was once again referring to Maslowskis data, and unless he preceded his statement with some qualification not captured by the video, Gore's statement either intentionally or accidentally neglected to mention that this prediction, aggressive as it was, concerned only summer sea ice. opening video On 14 December 2009, during a speech at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Gore cited newer research from the same group, saying: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." cited That statement put Gore in hot water when Maslowski told rhe Times of London that his data did not allow for such a prediction:   told Its unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, Dr Maslowski said. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this. Mr Gores office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a ballpark figure several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore. The claim that Gore predicted an ice-free Arctic in 2014 is a simplification of these events. However, Gore was definitely guilty in these cases of cherry-picking science or playing loose with the details of that science. Gores statements gained the most viral attention in 2014 and 2015, both because these were years in which Gores statements implied an ice-free summer in the Arctic and because those years had relatively more arctic sea ice than preceding years. relatively more From a broad perspective, however, summer sea ice in the Arctic has in fact been declining at faster rates relative to 20th century, and the year 2016 tied with the year 2007 (the year highlighted by Gore in his Nobel speech) for the second least Arctic summer sea ice on record (the lowest recorded sea ice extent occurred in 2012). declining tied While the disappearance of summer sea ice is difficult to predict, a 2013 review of different approaches (including Maslowskis) summarized the range of various predictions for the first ice-free summer in the Arctic: review We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers [three quantitative approaches used to make predictions]. At present, it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses ... Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers ... It is reasonable to conclude that Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the rst rather than the second half of the 21st century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two. Arctic sea ice is without question on a declining trend, but Gore definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research. Because Gore himself did not claim to have made these predictions, however, and because his statements applied specifically to summer sea ice in the Arctic, we rate the claim that Gore "predicted the ice caps will melt by 2014" as a mixture. Gore, Al  "Al Gore - Nobel Lecture"
  Nobeprize.org.  10 December 2007 Whelan, J. et al.  "Understanding Recent Variability in the Arctic Sea Ice Thickness and Volume - Synthesis of Model Results and Observations."
  AGU Fall Meeting, 2007.  December 2007. Amos, Jonathan.  "Arctic Summers Ice-Free 'by 2013.'"
  BBC News.  December 2007. Rhein-Zeitung.  "Al Gore hlt Rede zur Erffnung des Gondwana-Park."
  13 December 2008. FORA TV.  "COP15: Gore and Stre Report on Arctic's Melting Ice."
  14 December 2009. Devlin, Hannah et al.  "Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore as His North Pole Sums Don't Add Up."
  The [London] Times.  15 December 2009. Starr, Cindy et al.  Annual Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979-2015 with Area Graph."
  NASA Scientific Visualization Studio.  10 March 2016. National Snow and Ice Data Center.  "2016 Ties With 2007 for Second Lowest Arctic Sea Ice Minimum."
  15 September 2016. Overland, James E. and Muyin Wang.  When Will the Summer Arctic Be Nearly Sea Ice Free?"
  Geophysical Research Letters.  21 May 2013. Making an economicspeechat the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse on July 2, 2015, Barack Obama ticked off a list of his accomplishments as president -- and made a bolder version of a claim we have heard before about slashing the federal budget deficit. So, weve got a record streak of private-sector job growth, Obama said in his remarks, which includedveiled criticismsof Gov. Scott Walker on the day Walker filed federal papers as a precursor to announcing his run for president. Weve cut the deficit by two-thirds. Our stock market has more than doubled, restoring 401(k)s for millions of families. This is progress. Step by step, America is moving forward. Middle-class economics works. It works. Yes!Here's why the deficit claim caught our attention: In September 2014 in Milwaukee, Obama said he had cut the deficit in half. Werated that statement True, and it has become one of our most-clicked fact checks. Could it be that, less than a year later, the deficit is down by two-thirds? Deficit vs debt Lets be clear at the top that Obama is talking about the deficit, which has been getting smaller -- not the debt, which is getting bigger. The deficit is an annual number. Its the difference between what the government collects in revenues and spends in one year. The United States hasnt seen budgetsurplusessince the days of President Bill Clinton. The debt, meanwhile, is a running tally -- its the total of annual deficits minus any annual surpluses. The nation's debt currently exceeds$18 trillion, and it has risen by more than$7 trillionunder Obama. (Heres agood primerfrom PolitiFact National on the difference between the two.) Tracking the deficit numbers In reviewing the cut-the-deficit-in-half claim, our baseline was fiscal 2009. That period started on Oct. 1, 2008, when George W. Bush was still president, and ended on Sept. 30, 2009, eight months after Obama took office. We found the deficit was $1.41 trillion in 2009 and $679.5 billion in 2013 -- a drop of more than half. Measured another way, the deficit made up 9.8 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 2009 and dropped to less than half of that -- 4.1 percent -- by the end of fiscal 2013. But now we have figures for fiscal 2014. PolitiFact National examined those figures in January 2015, after Obama said in his State of the Union speech that we've seen our deficits cut by two-thirds. Our colleagues rated his statementMostly True. The 2014 deficit was $486 billion -- a drop of two-thirds from the $1.41 trillion in 2009. And it was 2.8 percent of GDP, a reduction of more than two-thirds from the 9.8 percent in 2009. (In June 2015, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 2015 will end with a deficit that, as a percentage of GDP, will be the lowest since 2007.) So, math wise, Obamas two-thirds claim is solid. But there are a few caveats. Yes, we reduced the deficit two-thirds from its peak in 2009, but that was after deficits had just increased by nearly 800 percent to theirhighest leveloutside of World War II, Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget told us. Indeed, Obamahelped growthe 2009 deficit with his stimulus spending, although he can take some credit for the economy, which has improved since the Great Recessionendedin June 2009 and helped bring down the deficits. And although the Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits relative to GDP will decline slightly over the next few years, they will then rise and add more to the debt. Largely as a result of the aging population and rising health care costs, CBOprojectsthe deficit to grow from less than 3 percent of GDP in 2015 to more than 6 percent in 2040. Our rating Obama said: We've cut the deficit by two-thirds. In raw dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy, the annual federal deficit in 2014 was two-thirds smaller than in 2009, the year Obama took office. But there are several caveats, including the fact that his stimulus spending helped raise the 2009 deficit and the economy, for which he can take some credit, has improved since the end of the Great Recession the same year. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. If you received a text message purportedly from Amazon, chances are you are one of many and it is a scam. Over March and April 2021, many Snopes readers told us they received messages on their phones claiming they had won an AirPod or another device in a raffle. One of our editors also received the message, which said: Amazon: Congratulations Bond, you came second in this weeks Amazon pods raffle! Follow this link to [...]   She did not follow that link, however, because this appeared right away to be a scam. Indeed, the link did not connect to an official Amazon webpage. According to Amazon, all of its web pages normally follow the same format, ending in amazon.com, for example: pay.amazon.com or aws.amazon.com. Any link that is an IP address or a random string of numbers should be automatically suspicious. Amazon The Better Business Bureau (BBB) alerted users to this scam back in March. It warned that if you get a text message from a range of unknown numbers and with a suspicious link for collecting your item: alerted users Dont click! The text message is not from Amazon and it is the latest in a long list of impersonation scams that have been happening since the start of the pandemic, often using Amazons brand. The bogus raffle and suspicious link are part of a con used to trick people into visiting a phishing website, where they unwittingly share account credentials as well as personal and financial information with fraudsters. According to Amazon, any customer who receives a questionable email, text or call from a person impersonating Amazon or an Amazon employee should report them to Amazon customer service. Amazon investigates these complaints and will take action, if warranted. You can submit suspicious information to stop-spoofing@amazon.com. Amazon also offers a page to help identify if an email, text or phone call is really from Amazon. BBB also included a screenshot of a message similar to the one received by our editor, except the recipient was told that they came third in the raffle. When our editor reported the number that texted her to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), it recommended a number of tips to block spam messages. The tips can be read here.  Federal Trade Commission (FTC) here Given that the link to collecting the so-called prize does not direct us to an official Amazon website, and it could potentially share your private information, we rate this claim a Scam. Before Gov. John Kitzhaber released his budget proposal for the next two-year cycle, he gave a few hints at how hed budget some of the biggest pieces of state government. In an e-mail sent out before the Feb. 1, 2011, budget announcement, he says hell allocate some $5.56 billion for the states K-12 public school system.But thats not all. He gets even more specific. Kitzhaber plans to make 52 percent of the total (about $2.89 billion) available in the first year of the cycle.This, he says, is the equivalent to a $5.78 billion budget for school funding. The effect is to provide an increase in state funding for the 2011-12 school year.That, naturally, piqued our curiosity given that most of what you hear down in Salem is worrying comments about how education will have to take a cut going forward. And yet, heres Kitzhaber talking about increased spending.Could he really be offering the schools more money next year? We decided to find out.To start off, its helpful to have a clear understanding of where funding is currently. The thing is, the budget for public education has fluctuated several times over the past couple of years. The state revenue forecast is consistently down, which has led to reductions in the budget. Meanwhile, theres been movement on the federal level to kick funds to states, which have helped balance, in part, some of those earlier cuts. But not all of them.To get the most recent number, we called Oregon's Legislative Fiscal Office. According to the offices most recent calculations, K-12 education is operating on a budget of $5.756 billion. Thatincludes the promise of $35.5 million from a state education stability fund, which may or may not come through. But, for the purpose of this article, well keep it in the total.Of that $5.75 billion, $342 million has come from the federal government in various forms and $5.41 billion has come from the state. To parse it even more (who doesnt love lots of numbers? ), $2.94 billion went to schools during the 2009-10 school year, while the remaining $2.82 billion went to schools for the current year.So, lets compare these numbers to what Kitzhaber is proposing. According to the e-mail statement, Kitzhaber is suggesting a K-12 budget of $5.56 billion for the next two-year period. But for next year in particular, he is suggesting $2.89 billion go to schools. Thats a clear increase in funding (not just state funding, but overall funding) this year over next, by about $70 million.Still, its important to note here, that funding, overall, will take a hit. Sure, the state is throwing in more cash for the upcoming biennium than it did the current -- about an extra $150 million. And yes, the school system will have more cash to work with next year than it did this year. But overall the bienniums budget is down, $5.756 billion to $5.56 billion. Thats because the states increase in funding still doesn't offset lost federal dollars.Whats more, under Kitzhabers proposal, that reduction will be felt strongest come the 2012-13 school year. Whereas there will be a $70 million more to work with next year, as compared to the current school year, there will be a $150 million decrease the following year, if you use the current year as the baseline.By front-loading 2012, you necessarily leave 2013 with a smaller slice of the funds.Kitzhaber explains his logic in the e-mail: Front-loading the funding also provides a year to find cost savings through consolidation and other efficiencies to maintain this level of classroom support during the 2012-13 school year.Whether those cost savings will be realized, nobody can say, so well stick the initial statement, which is that this proposed budget represents an increase in state funding for the upcoming 2011-12 school year. Kitzhaber is right, it does. That said, its important to recognize that even with the increase in state funds, the school system will have to make do with less sooner or later. Kitzhaber seems to have chosen later.Since we think that bit of context is important, we rate this claim Mostly True. Comment on this item.