Connect with us

Politics

Study Shows True Costs Of Health Care Spending Are Lives And Livelihoods

Published

on

In mid-June, Medicare’s Office of the Actuary published its annual estimate of national health spending projections for the coming decade. As usual, the document concluded that health spending would rise ever higher, from nearly $4.5 trillion in 2022, or 17.3 percent of the entire economy, to more than $7.7 trillion, and just under 20 percent of GDP, in 2032.

Most Americans’ eyes tend to glaze over at these lofty projections of ever-growing health spending — or the long-term fiscal predicament it causes. A new study, however, provides much more tangible evidence as to the true effects of rising health care costs. In some cases, it costs people their jobs.

Effects of Hospital Mergers

The study, released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, attempts to get behind the reasons health costs increase. In some cases, rising health care costs could result from people in an area becoming wealthier and therefore spending more money on care. The researchers controlled for this variable by examining areas where hospitals merged — because such mergers are associated with increasing prices but no commensurate increase in health care quality.

The researchers examined hospital mergers, of which there have been many in recent years, to conclude that a 1 percent increase in health care prices led employers outside the health care sector to reduce payroll by 0.37 percent. Economists would generally agree with this conclusion, due to the belief that the “employer’s” share of health insurance premiums ultimately comes out of employees’ pockets. With total compensation (wages and benefits) being

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Nonprofit Sues Northwestern University Over Discriminatory Affirmative-Action Hiring Practices

Published

on

Whistleblowers from within Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law reported that highly qualified white men were rejected in favor of “mediocre and undistinguished women and racial minorities” in violation of federal anti-discrimination law, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The nonprofit group Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), formed “for the purpose of restoring meritocracy in academia,” is challenging the school’s “affirmative-action” hiring practices in court. Former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan F. Mitchell authored the lawsuit, which alleges Northwestern has violated several federal laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX

“Faculty hiring at American universities is a cesspool of corruption and lawlessness. For decades, left-wing faculty and administrators have been thumbing their noses at federal anti-discrimination statutes and openly discriminating on account of race and sex when appointing professors,” Mitchell wrote in the lawsuit. “This practice, known as ‘affirmative action,’ is firmly entrenched at institutions of higher learning and aggressively pushed by leftist ideologues on faculty-appointments committees and in university DEI offices. But it is prohibited by federal law, which bans universities that accept federal funds from discriminating on account of race or sex in their hiring decisions.”

Bad Actors

The suit names a variety of individual bad actors as defendants in addition to Northwestern University. These include law school Dean Hari M. Osofsky, Professors Sarah Lawksy, Janice Nadler, and Daniel Rodriguez, and law review student editors Dheven Unni and Jazmyne Denman.

The lawsuit alleges then-Dean Rodriguez created a mandate 12 years ago

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Jill Biden Vogue Cover Sparks Concern Over Her ‘Lust For Power’ After The President’s Disastrous Debate

Published

on

Vogue magazine drew heavy criticism this week for featuring First Lady Jill Biden as its August cover girl after her husband, President Joe Biden, suffered what was widely regarded as a failed debate performance against Donald Trump. 

The first lady spoke with the magazine from Camp David days after last week’s debate, vowing that she and Joe Biden would continue to fight. She did not directly respond to criticism of her husband’s debate performance, but she said he “will always do what’s best for the country.”

According to figures on both the left and the right, however, what is best for the country is for the 81-year-old president to step down — for his own sake and the nation’s.

Conservative commentator Katie Pavlich, who has 1 million followers on X, posted the glitzy magazine’s fawning cover. “This is something else,” Pavlich said reacting to the feature story.

This is something else:

“I If you want to know what power feels like, try to get yourself driven around in a motorcade. Flashing police chaperone lights form a perimeter as you blaze down an empty highway, waiting cars backed up on entry ramps as you pass. It’s as if the world… https://t.co/MLyqyEbe2d

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) July 1, 2024

“Her lust for power is on full display. She’s not even ashamed,” Jenna Ellis, a conservative radio host and lawyer, said in response to Pavlich’s tweet.

Former special assistant to President Trump Chad Gilmartin wrote, “America gets a part-time president who is easily

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Ex-FBI Counsel Behind Russiagate, Biden Laptop Censorship Now Part Of Left-Wing Election Network

Published

on

The former FBI general counsel who pushed Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story is now working with a left-wing election influencers’ group. 

James Baker, also prominent for his role in pushing the FBI’s political persecution of former President Donald Trump for the “Russiagate” hoax, is listed as a member of the National Task Force on Election Crises. The group is a subsidiary of the left-wing Protect Democracy Project, a litigation group formed to oppose Trump’s policies, according to InfluenceWatch.

The task force pushes early and mail-in voting, claims to help prevent “cyber or other attacks by foreign adversaries or domestic disrupters,” promotes “pre-canvassing of absentee ballots,” seeks to discourage legal election challenges, and advocates for censorship of certain online speech about elections.  

Working for the Regime

Baker’s key areas of expertise, according to the group’s website, are “legal and legislative issues,” “political violence and intimidation,” “foreign and cyber interference,” and “election subversion.”

Baker certainly knows about “legal issues.” While serving as the FBI’s lead counsel, he met with Michael Sussmann — who he later admitted was a “friend” — and who provided “intel” supposedly proving connections between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Russian company. Sussmann claimed he was acting on his own behalf, though he was later found to have been working for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Baker should also know about “political violence and intimidation,” considering that he prompted the FBI to investigate Trump using Sussmann’s faulty information. He also told Congress Sussmann’s lie

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending