Tag: health care

Gavin Newsom Scales Back Plan to Provide Illegal Aliens With Free Healthcare as California’s Financial Crisis Deepens

California Governor Gavin Newsom is scaling back his ludicrous pledge to offer free healthcare to all illegal aliens in the state.

His 2025–26 budget proposal, released Wednesday, includes a freeze on new Medi-Cal enrollments for adults without legal immigration status and imposes a $100 monthly premium for those already enrolled.

The freeze would begin in 2026, affecting new applicants over the age of 19.

According to Newsom’s office, the change will not impact those currently enrolled or those receiving limited emergency or maternity coverage.

The new premium would apply starting in 2027 to all adults with what the administration calls “unsatisfactory immigration status,” a term that includes both illegal aliens and certain legal residents ineligible for federal Medicaid.

Newsom’s office says the revised policy is necessary due to a $16 billion shortfall in state revenue, driven in part by ballooning Medi-Cal costs linked to his earlier expansions.

Rather than his own failings and the mismanagement of Democratic authorities, Newsom cited Trump’s decision to impose tariffs as justification for the shortfall.

“California is under assault,” Newsom said. “The United States of America, in many respects, is under assault because we have a president that’s been reckless in terms of assaulting growth engines.”

However, Newsom insisted that he was not cancelling the program altogether.

Keep reading

Congress advances $3.5 billion cut for CA for covering illegal immigrant health care

A new Congressional budget proposal would cut federal payments to California by $3.5 billion for allowing illegal immigrants to enroll in the state’s taxpayer-funded health care program.

California largely does not get federal reimbursements for illegal immigrant health care, though it is reimbursed for emergency care under a federal law requiring hospitals receiving federal funding to treat anyone in need of emergency medical attention.

The budget proposal would cut the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage to states that “use their Medicaid infrastructure to provide health care coverage for illegal immigrants under Medicaid or another state-based program.” The cuts would not impact emergency care reimbursements.

California has spent $9.5 billion this year on illegal immigrant health care and is reportedly set to face a $10 billion budget deficit the coming fiscal year.

According to an analysis Monday morning from California Policy Center Visiting Fellow Marc Joffe, cutting the federal reimbursement share from 90% to 80% would reduce California’s federal funding by $3.5 billion.

While the federal government does not reimburse the state for non-emergency care for illegal immigrants, other federal health care reimbursements enhance the state’s available resources for fully state-funded health care programs, such as coverage for illegal immigrants.

Joffee also noted the $3.5 billion cut equates to roughly the cost of coverage of five million beneficiaries at $7,000 per year.

In March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom requested a $6.4 billion emergency bailout for Medi-Cal. He said that while benefits for illegal immigrants had a “partial” impact, ending benefits for such individuals was not on his “docket” and that he believes in “universal healthcare.”

With an estimated 1.9 million illegal immigrants and $9.5 billion spent by Medi-Cal on their health care, the state is spending approximately $5,000 per illegal immigrant on health care this year.

Working illegal immigrants in California earn a median wage of $13 per hour — well below the state’s $18 per hour minimum wage — and thus pay up to $1,846 per year in state taxes, assuming all income is property reported and taxed, and all non-rent, post-tax funds are spent at businesses collecting sales tax.

That’s well short of the average of $5,000 spent on each illegal immigrant’s health care — not including other state programs — leaving the program highly reliant on other state revenue, including indirectly via federal funding, for support.

Keep reading

CT Scans May Account for 5 Percent of US Cancers—Doctors Say the Story Is More Complex

CT scans are essential to modern medicine, quickly diagnosing conditions from strokes to cancer. However, new research suggests that the very tool used to save lives could, in some cases, contribute to future cancer cases.

A University of California–San Francisco study estimates that CT scans performed in 2023 could lead to more than 100,000 future cancer cases—about 5 percent of annual U.S. diagnoses. That level of risk is comparable with other known factors such as alcohol and obesity.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the study concludes that while CT scans remain essential, they should be used more cautiously, especially for children and patients who undergo repeated imaging.

“CT can save lives, but its potential harms are often overlooked,” Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, lead author of the study and UC–San Francisco radiologist, said in a statement. “Reducing the number of scans and reducing doses per scan would save lives.”

Some experts worry that the message lacks balance and may scare patients from necessary care by emphasizing long-term cancer risks without proper context.

“It is frightening to see these numbers,” Dr. Donald Frush, pediatric radiologist at Duke University, told The Epoch Times. “But without putting them in the context of how valuable CT can be, we risk eroding public trust in a tool that saves lives every day.”

Keep reading

Ontario Chief Coroner reports raise concerns that MAID policy and practice focus on access rather than protection

The Chief Coroner for Ontario recently released two new reports of its interdisciplinary MAID Death Review Committee: on Same or Next Day Provision of MAID and on Waiver of Final Consent.

The MAID Death Review Committee — of which I am a member — reviews cases of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) that are selected by the coroner’s MAID team for the common issues they raise. The review helps inform policy recommendations.

Committee reports contain case summaries and summaries of committee discussions, and the Chief Coroner’s recommendations. The newly released reports appear to confirm what is argued in several chapters in our recently co-edited volume, Unravelling MAiD in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care, and in other publications: Canada’s MAID law, policy and practice focuses excessively on promoting access to death, not on protection.

Some of the cases suggest a troubling prioritizing of ending patients’ lives with MAID rather than a precautionary approach. In my opinion, they reveal an urgent need for more rigorous legal and professional standards. Committee members’ starkly contrasting views on the ethics of some of the practices, which can be gleaned from the anonymous summaries of the committee’s discussions, are striking.

Keep reading

Human ‘bodyoids’: We will soon be able to manufacture brain-less human bodies to generate replacement organs

Why do we hear about medical breakthroughs in mice, but rarely see them translate into cures for human disease? … [In] large part from a common root cause: a severe shortage of ethically sourced human bodies.

[We are forced] to rely heavily on animals in medical research, a practice that can’t replicate major aspects of human physiology and makes it necessary to inflict harm on sentient creatures. In addition, the safety and efficacy of any experimental drug must still be confirmed in clinical trials on living human bodies. These costly trials risk harm to patients, can take a decade or longer to complete, and make it through to approval less than 15% of the time.

Keep reading

The Perfidy of 60 Minutes

It is a truism, a trope, a meme, common knowledge, a cliché, as obvious as a nose on a face, an actual fact and something so apparent that it is impossible in any way, shape, or form to deny unless utterly delusional.

But, somehow, time and time again, the major media players defy actual reality and try and try to substitute their own absurd version and – even more incredibly, like a lunatic accusing the clouds in the sky of conspiring against him – demand everyone within earshot to believe that it is true.

Typically, pointing out media propaganda is the same as pointing out that air exists – it is an atmosphere that we all must breathe and is typically specifically unremarkable due to its omnipresence.

But sometimes, when it is so egregious, so absurd, so literally dangerous, it must be challenged.

Which brings us to Sunday’s episode of the once-vaunted, now vile 60 Minutes.

The show that once intentionally made bad actors deeply uncomfortable by asking difficult questions is a shadow of its former self, with its story on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) a perfect example of the depths to which it has fallen.

The NIH has a new director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Even before he officially took over a few weeks ago, the Trump administration had already announced a few changes: dropping 1,200 probationary employees, putting new purchasing standards in place, and cutting the amount of “overhead” its research and academic “partners” can charge to conduct studies.

This, of course, led to much wailing and gnashing of teeth – not of course from the public, but from the staff, current, past, and future. 

Breaking down the segment into its constituent parts, one finds three main points.

First, a grad student is worried she may not get a job because of the looming budget cuts.

Second, a woman in an Alzheimer’s research study worries she will be negatively impacted by the cuts.

These two bits are rather silly but very heartstring tuggy. In the case of the grad student, she’s complaining about what may or may not be, as if she were entitled to a position somewhere.

In the case of the Alzheimer’s patient, it is rather telling – and may even be terrifyingly true – that she is worried that the study she is part of may face an overhead cut.

As the show notes – moments after her worried statement – the NIH has cut the amount it pays for overhead – administrators, paper clips, etc. – to institutions from an overhead of about 28% to 15%.

Note – the cut is not for the research project itself, but just to the administrative overhead. Second note – the much-vaunted Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (like almost every other funder of medical research) has always capped its overhead costs at 15%.

So, ironically, what the patient is – even if she does not know it – really worried about is whether or not the folks that run the study (being done by Duke University and UNC jointly) could actually prioritize paying administrators over caring for patients.

Keep reading

RFK Jr: “Pediatricians who vaccinate 80-85% of the kids in their office, get these GIANT bonuses!”

This is perhaps the most important — and most dangerous — article I have ever posted.

But I have to print the truth wherever I find it.

Let’s start with this clip from RFK Jr. explaining how pediatricians are given an incentive to vaccine your children with ALL the vaccines produced by Big Pharma…

So to summarize what he just said, he claims that pediatricians are given a monetary payout — a BONUS — if they vaccinate a high rate of children in their clinic.

He claims it can be as high as $400/child….

But ONLY IF they maintain high levels of vaccination overall at the clinic.

Which is why they freak out on you if you refuse to get the vaccines or don’t want to follow the CDC schedule.

It’s not hard to imagine in this scenario where they start to see each little kid with a dollar sign over their heads instead of a patient!

RFK Jr. explains how the business model is to increase traffic into the clinic.

Unlike when we were kids, and you only went to the doctor if you got hurt, now you go all the time!

Why?

“BUSINESS MODEL”.

Keep reading

Religion Is Not The Only Thing That Should Be Separated From The State

The Act of Supremacy of 1534 declared that King Henry VIII (and his successors) was “the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England” and not the pope of Rome. The Treason Act of 1534 made it an act of treason, under punishment of death, to deny the Act of Supremacy. During the reign of Queen Mary, the daughter of Henry VIII, the Act of Supremacy was repealed, but was enacted by the English Parliament again in 1559 after Henry’s other daughter Elizabeth became the queen. The British monarch is to this very day still the head of the Church of England or Anglican Church, which is the established church in England. This is one of the main differences between the United States and Great Britain. Although the United States has a National Cathedral where some state funerals are held (most recently for Jimmy Carter), it is actually an Episcopal church (part of the worldwide Anglican Communion), not owned or controlled by the federal government. The “separation of church and state” is a hallmark of the American system of government.

The First Amendment

The Constitution was drafted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and took effect in 1789. It established the United States as a federal system of government where the states, through the Constitution, granted a limited number of powers to a central government. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was ratified by the states in 1791 in response to criticisms of the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists that the Constitution contained no explicit protection of speech, assembly, religion, or the right to bear arms.

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It was President Thomas Jefferson who, in an 1802 letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, equated the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the “separation of church and state”:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

That the “separation of church and state” applied to just the federal government is evident by the fact that some of the states still maintained established churches at the time the Constitution was adopted. The phrase was resurrected by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947). But as Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center has observed: “The federal government’s use of the First Amendment to prohibit religious displays in local parks, to force the removal of the Ten Commandments from public schools, or to ban prayers in public assemblies would horrify the founding generation.” Massachusetts was the last of the original states to fully disestablish its churches in 1833. The idea of the “separation of church and state” is now enshrined in all state constitutions.

But religion is not the only thing that should be separated from the state. Unfortunately, the very people who talk the loudest about the separation of church and state never call for the separation of anything else from the state.

Keep reading

The False Claims of WHO’s Pandemic Agreement

One way to determine whether a suggestion is worth following is to look at the evidence presented to support it. If the evidence makes sense and smells real, then perhaps the program you are asked to sign up for is worthy of consideration. 

However, if the whole scheme is sold on fallacies that a child could poke a stick through, and its chief proponents cannot possibly believe their own rhetoric, then only a fool would go much further. This is obvious – you don’t buy a used car on a salesman’s insistence that there is no other way to get from your kitchen to your bathroom.

Delegates at the coming World Health Assembly in Geneva are faced with such a choice. In this case, the car salesman is the World Health Organization (WHO), an organization still commanding considerable global respect based on a legacy of sane and solid work some decades ago. 

It also benefits from a persistent misunderstanding that large international organizations would not intentionally lie (they increasingly do, as noted below). The delegates will be voting on the recently completed text of the Pandemic Agreement, part of a broad effort to extract large profits and salaries from an intrinsic human fear of rare causes of death. Fear and confusion distract human minds from rational behavior.

Keep reading

Google’s Updated Local Services Ads Terms Spark Privacy Fears, Threaten Confidentiality in Medical and Legal Sectors

Google has once again raised considerable privacy and surveillance concerns – including affecting sensitive sectors like the medical industry – this time with its updated Terms of Service for Local Services Ads (LSA).

The LSA scheme is designed to give local business leads, like calls and emails, directly from local customers who search for their services on Google.

But an email sent to participating advertisers last week informed them that failure to accept the terms by June 5 will mean their ads will no longer appear either in the giant’s Search or Maps.

The new rights over advertiser assets benefit not only Google but also the company’s affiliates, and what they now can do is access all content in an LSA profile (including calls from potential customers) in order to use, modify, and display it across Google products and services.

This by no means exhaustive list of content includes business photos, entity name, location, phone number, category, site, and hours.

Google is also claiming the right to select, modify, display, and use content such as photos, provider bios, service descriptions, pricing information, and discounts.

That content is derived from phone calls and messages with end users routed through Google, and URLS identified and shared in the LSA account.

Ad agencies can be the ones to consent to the terms on behalf of advertisers, and in that case, the new rules apply to both. However, it is at this time not clear whether agency manager accounts can make this decision without letting the clients know how their data will be handled starting June 5.

When applied to advertisers representing legal and medical firms, Google having the right to record phone calls and messages means they would be unable to continue to use LSA without breaking confidentiality.

Keep reading