Saturday, January 11, 2025
■ The Week in Review
The peer-reviewed analysis estimates that Israel's assault on Gaza killed 64,260 people between October 7, 2023 and June 30, 2024—a figure significantly higher than the one reported by the enclave's health ministry.
By Jake Johnson • Jan 10, 2025
A peer-reviewed analysis published in The Lancet on Thursday found that the official Gaza death toll reported by the enclave's Ministry of Health between October 7, 2023 and June 30, 2024 was likely a 41% undercount, a finding that underscores the devastation wrought by Israel's assault on the Palestinian territory and the difficulties of collecting accurate data amid relentless bombing.
During the period examined by the new study, Gaza's health ministry (MoH) reported that 37,877 people had been killed in Israeli attacks. But the Lancet analysis estimates that the death toll during that period was 64,260, with women, children, and the elderly accounting for nearly 60% of the deaths for which details were available.
That count only includes "deaths due to traumatic injury," leaving out deaths from starvation, cold, and disease.
To reach their estimate, the authors of the new study "composed three lists from successive MoH-collected hospital morgue data, an MoH online survey, and obituaries published on public social media pages" and "manually scraped information from open-source social media platforms, including specific obituary pages for Gaza shaheed, martyrs of Gaza, and The Palestinian Information Center to create our third capture-recapture list."
"These pages are widely used obituary spaces where relatives and friends inform their networks about deaths, offer condolences and prayers, and honor people known as martyrs (those killed in war)," the authors write. "The platforms span multiple social media channels, including X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and Telegram. Throughout the study period, these pages were updated periodically and consistently, providing a comprehensive source of information on casualties. Obituaries typically included names, age at death, and date and location of death, and were often accompanied by photographs and personal stories. We translated English posts into Arabic to match names across lists and excluded deaths attributed to non-traumatic injuries."
The group of authors—which includes academics from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan—said the findings "show an exceptionally high mortality rate in the Gaza Strip during the period studied" and highlight "the urgent need for interventions to prevent further loss of life and illuminate important patterns in the conduct of the war."
Establishing an accurate count of the number of people killed in Israel's 15-month assault on the Gaza Strip, which began in the wake of a deadly Hamas-led attack, has been made extremely difficult by the Israeli military's incessant bombing and destruction of the enclave's medical infrastructure. There are also tens of thousands of people believed to be missing under the ruins of Gaza homes and buildings.
The Lancet study notes that "the escalation of Israeli military ground operations and attacks on healthcare facilities severely disrupted" Gaza officials' data-collection efforts. Prior to October 7, 2023, the MoH "had achieved good accuracy in mortality documentation, with underreporting estimated at 13%," the new analysis notes, and its figures were widely considered reliable.
But since Israel launched its catastrophic response to the Hamas-led attack, U.S. lawmakers and leaders who have backed Israel's assault—including President Joe Biden—have openly cast doubt on the ministry's data. Currently, the MoH estimates that more than 46,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, 2023.
Last month, the U.S. Congress approved a sprawling military policy bill that included a provision barring the Pentagon from publicly citing as "authoritative" death toll figures from Gaza's health ministry. Biden signed the measure into law on December 23.
"This is an alarming erasure of the suffering of the Palestinian people, ignoring the human toll of ongoing violence," Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who voted against the legislation, told The Intercept following House passage of the measure.
"We have been let down by the international community, particularly the international media organizations," said Abubaker Abed, sharing a message from Palestinian journalists.
By Jessica Corbett • Jan 9, 2025
Palestinian journalists gathered outside al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah this week to call attention to Israeli forces' genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip, their slaughter of those reporting on the ground, and the global community's failure to hold Israel accountable for the bloodshed.
On Thursday, the day after the event, Abubaker Abed, a Palestinian sports journalist now covering Israel's war on Gaza, shared on social media a short video of his remarks in English, which he said were delivered on behalf of all the reporters in blue vests who surrounded him and the podium.
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Palestinian reporters across Gaza have covered what Abed called "the most well-documented and first livestreamed genocide in history," as Israel—armed by the United States—has launched airstrikes and ground raids, and stopped humanitarian aid and international media from entering the coastal enclave.
Abed said that "we've been reporting tirelessly, extensively, and thoroughly on this genocide. It's indeed a genocide against us, which we've been documenting in makeshift tented camps and workplaces... You've seen us shedding tears over our loved ones, colleagues, friends, and family members. You've seen us killed in every possible way. We've been immolated, incinerated, dismembered, and disemboweled—and recently, we've been freezing to death."
"What more ways should you be seeing us killed, then, so that you can move and act and stop the hell inflicted upon us? There are no words to describe what we've been going through, because you've seen our bodies, how they've become fragile, skinny, and fatigued, but we never stopped," he continued, highlighting how Palestinian journalists have worked "to help the population that has seen every sort of torture and tasted every type of death," while the world has refused to "stop Israel's impunity against us."
"Our message is very clear: We are journalists, and we are Palestinian journalists. We have been let down by the international community, particularly the international media organizations," Abed declared. "We haven't seen any sort of support—a single word of support. Even the press vests we're wearing right now mark us as a target. They do not protect us at all, because we are Palestinians. Maybe if we were Ukrainians or of any other citizenship, with blond hair and blue eyes, the world would rage and rant for us. But because we are Palestinians, we have only one right, which is to die and be maimed."
"We are just documenting a genocide against us," he concluded. "After almost a year and a half, we want you to stand foot-by-foot with us, because we are like any other journalists, reporters, and media workers all across the globe—no matter the origin, the color, or the race. Journalism is not a crime. We are not a target."
Some journalists around the world reposted Abed's video and called out their colleagues for ignoring Israel's decimation of Gaza or reporting on it in ways favorable to the far-right Israeli government and its supporters, including the United States.
"The past 15+ months have been one of the most shameful periods in the history of Western journalism," said Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of Drop Site News, which has published Abed's reporting from Gaza. "The refusal of so many journalists to speak out in defense of our Palestinian colleagues in Gaza as they and their families have been hunted down and killed is a bloody stain."
The New Yorker editor Erin Overbey similarly said that "the staggering silence of Western journalists this past year as their Palestinian colleagues have been targeted, intimidated, and killed by Israeli forces during the genocide in Gaza will go down as one of the most shameful periods in media/journalism and human rights history."
British writer Owen Jones said: "How to describe the refusal of Western journalists to speak out about the biggest slaughter of journalists in the history of human civilization? Damning. Racist. Nauseating. You will never be forgiven. History will damn those who stayed silent—every last fucking one."
Hamza Yusuf, a London-based British Palestinian writer, said that "we will never forget that whilst Palestinian journalists in Gaza were being systematically slaughtered by Israel, their industry peers at best looked on with indifference and at worst used their positions and their coverage to whitewash Israel's crimes. Blood on their hands."
As of Thursday, health officials in Gaza put the death toll from Israel's 15-month assault at 46,006, with at least 109,378 other Palestinians wounded, the vast majority of the enclave's population displaced, and civilian infrastructure in ruins. Israel faces global accusations of genocide, including in a case at the International Court of Justice.
Figures for press deaths have varied. The International Federation of Journalists—which works with its affiliate, the Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate, to verify information—has documented the killings of 148 Palestinian media workers while the Committee to Protect Journalists has a list of 152 confirmed fatalities, at least 13 of which the group classifies as murders by Israeli forces.
At the end of last year, Al Jazeera published a long-form article titled "Know Their Names" and reported that "from October 7, 2023, to December 25, 2024, at least 217 journalists and media workers had been killed in Gaza. Five more were killed on December 26 when an Israeli airstrike targeted a news van near al-Awda Hospital."
"Eighty percent of the journalists and media workers killed were between the ages of 20 and 40, a stark statistic that captures the young age of those who risk their lives to document the conflict," according to Al Jazeera. "They were reporters and writers, photographers and video directors, analysts and editors, sound engineers and voiceover artists, and even founders of media outlets. Their stories remind us of the heavy price paid by those who strive to document humanity's darkest moments."
Dr. Elisabeth Potter shared "another horror story from a doctor dealing with United Healthcare's terrible authorization process."
By Julia Conley • Jan 9, 2025
A month after the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson prompted many Americans to share personal horror stories of the company's coverage denials and other practices, a doctor in Austin, Texas on Wednesday shared her own experience that she said exemplified how the for-profit health system "just keeps getting worse."
In a video posted to TikTok, Dr. Elisabeth Potter said she recently received an unprecedented phone call from UnitedHealthcare about a patient—one who was already under anesthesia and having surgery.
Potter, a plastic surgeon who specializes in reconstructive surgery for breast cancer patients who have had mastectomies, said she was performing a bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator [DIEP} surgery when UnitedHealthcare called her in the operating room.
The call was urgent, she was told, and needed to be returned right away.
"So I scrubbed out of my case and I called UnitedHealthcare, and the gentleman said he needed some information about her," said Potter. "Wanted to know her diagnosis and whether her inpatient stay should be justified."
Potter found that the person calling wasn't aware that the patient whose care he was questioning had breast cancer and was in the operating room—that information was known by "a different department" at UnitedHealthcare.
Potter's account, said Nidhi Hegde, managing director at the American Economic Liberties Project, was "another horror story from a doctor dealing with United Healthcare's terrible authorization process."
"Ridiculous that doctors/nurses are spending time explaining their work to an insurance company instead of being able to focus on care," said Hegde.
As Common Dreams reported last month, cancer patients have become disproportionately affected by "prior authorizations" demanded by for-profit health insurers, which require doctors to get approval for treatments. Prior authorization can delay lifesaving care and one survey of oncologists in 2022 found that patients experienced "disease progression" 80% of the time an insurance company's bureaucratic requirements delayed their treatment.
Potter had to inform the UnitedHealthcare staffer that the company had already given her approval for the surgery.
She said she told him, "I need to go back and be with my patient now" and was able to continue the procedure.
"But it's out of control," she said. "Insurance is out of control. I have no other words."
Even before Thompson's killing, UnitedHealthcare has garnered outrage for the numerous methods it uses to deny healthcare coverage to patients.
A Senate investigation found the company intentionally denied claims submitted by nursing home patients who suffered strokes and falls, in order to increase profits. The company also faces a class-action lawsuit for using an AI algorithm with a 90% error rate to deny coverage to senior citizens with Medicare Advantage plans,
In December, ProPublica published an investigation that found the company is one of several insurers who repeatedly relied on the advice of company doctors who have wrongly recommended denying care.
In a follow-up video, Potter said on Wednesday that insurance companies have created "a fear-based system where, if an insurance company calls me and says I've got to call them right back, I'm afraid they're not going to pay for my patient's surgery, that patient is going to get stuck with a bill."
Potter told Newsweek that the experience confirmed for her that "there is no room in healthcare where the pressure of insurance isn't felt by both patients and doctors. Not even the operating room."
UnitedHealthcare suggested in a comment to Newsweek that it did not call Potter during surgery, saying, "There are no insurance related circumstances that would require a physician to step out of surgery and it would create potential safety risks if they were to do so. We did not ask nor would ever expect a physician to interrupt patient care to answer a call and we will be following up with the provider and hospital to understand why these unorthodox actions were taken."
Potter joined many Americans in speaking out against the for-profit health insurance system in the days after Thompson's killing, offering a doctor's perspective.
"I want you to know that insurance companies are affecting the kind of care that you're getting, because they're applying pressures to physicians through their policymaking," said Potter in one video posted on TikTok. "This is a dark, dark time for healthcare, and we have to fix this or we're gonna go down a path that we can't get back from."
"Americans see right through Musk's scheme to pay for his own tax breaks by defunding Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare," said one critic.
By Jake Johnson • Jan 9, 2025
Mega-billionaire Elon Musk conceded Wednesday that he's not likely to achieve his fantastical goal of slashing $2 trillion from the federal budget, an admission that one critic said underscores the folly of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
"President-elect [Donald] Trump hasn't even taken office and Elon Musk is already admitting failure on DOGE's deeply unpopular and unrealistic agenda," Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement. "Americans see right through Musk's scheme to pay for his own tax breaks by defunding Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare."
Musk, the world's richest man and a close ally of Trump, said in an interview Wednesday that cutting $2 trillion in federal spending would be an "epic outcome" but described it as a "best-case" scenario. Economists have dismissed Musk's $2 trillion target as absurd, given that the entire annual discretionary budget was $1.6 trillion for Fiscal Year 2024.
Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, said Thursday that Musk's lower target of $1 trillion in cuts is also "too large," noting that "if you protect Social Security, Medicare, vets, and defense, it would mean cutting every other program by 45% on average." Republican lawmakers have floated similarly outlandish cuts.
Opponents of the Department of Government Efficiency—an advisory commission set to be led by Musk and fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy—have warned it is a thinly veiled effort to target Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other nondiscretionary programs, a concern amplified by recent comments from GOP supporters of the panel.
"I am a strong advocate of discussing this and reevaluating them, and I do believe, at the end of the day, there will be some cut," Rep. Greg Lopez (R-Colo.) said of Medicare and Social Security outside of the first meeting of the House DOGE Caucus.
Musk said ahead of the 2024 elections—on which he spent heavily to influence—that spending cuts he envisions would "necessarily" bring "some temporary hardship," but he hasn't specifically detailed which programs he would target.
"If the incoming president follows through on even a fraction of the $2 trillion in cuts that Musk and his allies have promised, the pain will be felt well beyond struggling small-town America," journalist Conor Lynch wrote for Truthdig earlier this week. "Veterans, especially, who voted overwhelmingly for the president-elect, could be in for a rude awakening."
"Shortly after being tapped to be Musk's co-chair at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Vivek Ramaswamy posted on X that the first order of business should be to eliminate all spending on programs with expired authorizations from Congress, which amounts to over half a trillion dollars," Lynch noted. "Users were quick to point out that if Trump followed Ramaswamy's advice, he would instantly defund healthcare for veterans, which is by far the largest spending program on that list."
One observer blasted MAGA's "conflagration of lies and disinformation."
By Brett Wilkins • Jan 9, 2025
Progressive critics were left shaking their heads this week as Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and his MAGA allies absurdly blamed the Los Angeles County wildfires on everything from an ichthyophile governor to diversity policies—while ignoring what experts say is the true cause of the deadly infernos.
On Wednesday, Trump took to his Truth social media platform to falsely accuse Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom—whom he repeatedly called "Newscum"—of refusing "to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water... to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way."
Newsom's office responded to Trump's accusation by correctly noting that "there is no such document as the water restoration declaration."
Trump also accused Newsom of wanting "to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water," a red herring and false statement given that the state's plan to protect the endangered delta smelt actually involved increasing the amount of fresh water flowing into its habitat.
Jeffrey Mount, a water policy expert at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, told MSNBC newsletter editor Ryan Teague Beckwith on Thursday that Trump got "nothing right" in his post.
Summarizing his interview with Mount, Teague Beckwith wrote:
Without getting into too much detail, here's what did happen... During Trump's first term, his administration sought to divert some of the water coming into a river delta near San Francisco to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, among others. They came up with a plan for the water, which Newsom challenged in court. The Biden administration later negotiated a new plan with California on how to divvy up the water.
This is basic stuff, so the fact that Trump describes this as Newsom refusing to sign some kind of document that never existed should give you a sense of how disengaged he is with his own policy.
Meanwhile, MAGA acolyte and soon-to-be Department of Government Efficiency co-leader Elon Musk used his X social media network—formerly Twitter—to amplify racist posts disparaging Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, an antisemitic diatribe by defamatory conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, implicitly sexist and homophobic attacks on Los Angeles' fire chief, and his own frequent aspersions of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
Slate web editor Nitish Pahwa condemned MAGA's "conflagration of lies and disinformation."
"Just one day after Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook and Instagram would no longer be fact-checking informational posts, and mere months after nonstop online hoaxes obstructed federal efforts to assist North Carolinians in the recovery from Hurricane Helene, we're getting an early-year preview of how the United States is going to experience and respond to these rampaging climate disasters throughout the near future," Pahwa said.
"In the vacuum left by mainstream TV networks that did not at all mention climate change in their fire coverage, bad-faith digital actors swooped in with their own takes," Pahwa added. "Climate change doesn't just boost record weather events—it boosts the snake-oil salesmen, too."
Climate experts and defenders weighed in with science-based explanations for the increase in extreme weather events like the Los Angeles County wildfires.
As Common Dreams reported earlier Thursday, Aaron Regunberg, Public Citizen's Climate Program senior policy counsel, noted that "a recent study found that nearly all of the observed increase in wildfire-burned area in California over the past half-century is attributable to anthropogenic climate change."
"This devastation is the direct result of Big Oil's conduct," Regunberg asserted.
As Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn said, "This is exactly the sort of disaster that Exxon's own scientists predicted more than 50 years ago, but they spent billions to keep us hooked on fossil fuels."
According to the U.S. National Park Service, the area burned annually by California wildfires has increased fivefold since the 1970s.
"The fires in Los Angeles aren't just a tragedy, they're a crime."
By Jake Johnson • Jan 9, 2025
As massive wildfires continued ripping through Los Angeles on Thursday, leaving utter devastation in their wake, climate campaigners said blame for the infernos ultimately lies with the mega-profitable oil and gas giants that have spent decades knowingly fueling the crisis that made the emergency in southern California possible.
"Los Angeles is burning. Entire neighborhoods have been wiped off the map. We are devastatingly unprepared for the climate that fossil fuel greed is creating," the youth-led Sunrise Movement wrote on social media as several mostly uncontained fires wreaked havoc, supercharged by roaring winds and abnormally dry conditions.
"Oil and gas CEOs know they're responsible for these disasters," the group added. "But still, they choose to fight investments in renewable energy, spread propaganda, and bribe politicians into supporting $757 BILLION in fossil fuel subsidies."
With appalling speed, the Los Angeles fires have so far scorched tens of thousands of acres, destroyed thousands of homes, and killed at least five people—a death toll that's expected to rise.
"It's like Armageddon," said one resident, a sentiment echoed by a CNN reporter in Los Angeles.
"Everyone keeps saying 'apocalyptic,'" said CNN's Leigh Waldman. "But that doesn't begin to cover it."
The Palisades fire, the largest of five blazes currently ravaging Los Angeles County, has already been deemed the most destructive in LA history.
Early estimates indicate the total economic damage of the Los Angeles fires could exceed $50 billion.
With a Thursday social media post featuring footage of the raging fires and damage in Los Angeles, Warren Gunnels, staff director for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), wrote: "They say the Green New Deal is expensive. Compared to what?"
Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement Wednesday that "these fires have taken lives and destroyed homes, livelihoods, and landscapes."
"We are holding those affected by this disaster close in our hearts and appreciate the first responders who are bravely working to contain the fires. It is essential that federal and state authorities continue to provide these communities with all the resources and support they need to recover and heal," said Jealous. "Barely a week into the new year, and fire season is here. This is not normal."
"Time and again, we are witnessing fossil fuel-driven climate change heighten extreme weather, making wildfires increasingly common and increasingly destructive," he continued. "We cannot be passive. We cannot elevate misinformation about what is needed to confront the worsening crisis. Leaders must take the action necessary to fund and support the home-hardening efforts that make our communities resilient."
People watch smoke and flames from the Palisades Fire on January 7, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Tiffany Rose/Getty Images)
The Los Angeles fires come as states and localities across the United States are suing oil and gas companies for climate damages as extreme weather becomes increasingly frequent and destructive on a warming planet.
According to the Center for Climate Integrity, more than one in four Americans currently live in a community taking legal action against Big Oil, "underscoring the rapidly growing wave of calls to hold the oil and gas industry accountable for its decades-long climate deception and the harms it has caused."
Aaron Regunberg, an attorney who is helping build a legal case against the fossil fuel industry, wrote Wednesday that the Los Angeles crisis "didn't just happen."
"A recent study found that nearly all of the observed increase in wildfire-burned area in California over the past half-century is attributable to anthropogenic climate change," Regunberg, senior policy counsel with Public Citizen's Climate Program, wrote on social media. "This devastation is the direct result of Big Oil's conduct."
Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, offered a similar assessment, writing that "the fires in Los Angeles aren't just a tragedy, they're a crime."
"This is exactly the sort of disaster that Exxon's own scientists predicted more than 50 years ago, but they spent billions to keep us hooked on fossil fuels," Henn added. "It's time to make polluters pay."
One observer said it "really feels like the climate crisis is putting the home insurance industry on a fast track to being almost as reviled as the health insurance industry."
By Brett Wilkins • Jan 8, 2025
As deadly wildfire incinerated more than 1,000 homes and other structures in Los Angeles County this week, insurance companies are sparking outrage for having recently canceled homeowners' policies across California—including in some of the areas hit hardest by the current blazes.
More than 1,000 homes, businesses, and other buildings have burned in the Palisades, Hurst, and Eaton fires—the latter of which has killed two people, The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. Fueled by fierce Santa Ana winds and extraordinarily dry conditions, all three fires were at 0% containment as of Wednesday afternoon, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).
Authorities have issued mandatory evacuation orders for more than 80,000 residents. Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone told reporters Wednesday morning that a "high number of people who didn't evacuate" suffered serious injuries. Hundreds of thousands of area residents are also without power.
CAL FIRE said on Wednesday afternoon that the largest of the three blazes, the Palisades Fire, had burned more than 11,000 acres, while the Eaton Fire had scorched over 10,600 acres and the Hurst Fire topped 500 acres burned. Firefighters battling the Palisades Fire reported hydrants coming up dry.
Amid increased extreme weather events driven by the climate emergency, insurance companies have faced criticism for canceling policies and pulling out of states with elevated wildfire or hurricane risk.
State Farm, one of California's largest insurers, announced last year that it would not renew 30,000 home insurance policies throughout the state—including at least hundreds in areas affected by the current wildfires—explaining that the move was meant to avert a "financial failure" that would "detrimentally impact the entire market."
Other insurance companies have taken similar action, leaving their customers scrambling to find coverage.
Michael DeLong, research and advocacy associate at the Consumer Federation of America, told Common Dreams Wednesday that while climate-driven extreme weather has "made many areas riskier to insure," insurance companies are also canceling policies because "they're trying to take advantage of the situation of rising risks and rising costs to weaken consumer protections."
"They've been waging a campaign against Proposition 103… a ballot initiative that got passed in the late 1980s that, among other things, puts in place a lot of consumer protections about insurance," he added. "This has been a big deal for consumers and it's helped keep rates down. But insurance companies really hate these consumer protections and have been trying to weaken them."
In a Wednesday interview with Common Dreams, Jamie Court, president of the Los Angeles-based group Consumer Watchdog, noted that "under Prop 103, we could challenge rate hikes, and we saved $1 billion by challenging rate hikes that were too high last year."
However, advocates say that California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's new "sustainable insurance strategy" will make it harder to challenge rates and lacks transparency and public input.
DeLong said Lara is "allowing the net cost of reinsurance to be passed on to consumers."
Reinsurance is an arrangement in which insurance companies transfer risk to another insurer to mitigate damages.
"Until a few weeks ago, California's regulations didn't allow the cost of reinsurance to be passed on to consumers, and now they do," DeLong explained. "So that's probably going to drive up costs for consumers. The commissioner and the department say it's going to make the insurance industry more stable—we're kind of skeptical of that."
"Another reform that he's done is allowing the use of catastrophe models in insurance," DeLong added, referring to a risk management tool that helps insurers assess potential financial impacts of disasters. "Every other state allows insurance companies to use them; California did not until recently. Catastrophe models can be helpful and useful; the problem is that many catastrophe models aren't that good; they're based on inaccurate or incomplete information and they don't have any transparency."
Court also decried the lack of transparency in catastrophe models, which he said "can say anything they want, and then we have to pay the rate." He also criticized Lara's proposal to allow insurers to hike rates in exchange for a purported commitment to cover more properties in wildfire areas.
Lara said last year that "insurance companies will write no less than 85% of their statewide market share in wildfire distressed areas,"
However, Court cautioned that Lara is assuming "that the companies are actually going to increase their footprint in wildfire areas."
"When you look at the details... there are these big loopholes," he said. "Insurance companies have to commit to 85% [wildfire area saturation] within two years—or they can do 5% more than they're doing now. So if they're at 0%, they can go to 5%. This is complete bullshit."
As coverage becomes more difficult to obtain, hundreds of thousands of California homeowners have turned to the state's FAIR Plan, an insurer of last resort, which has more than doubled the number of policies issued since 2020.
"If the FAIR Plan is the only thing you can do, take that," DeLong said. "In the meantime, you can reach out to the Department of Insurance and let them know that you want them to protect consumers and reject excessive rate increases."
"You can also try mitigation measures to reduce risk, like clearing brush around your home, improving your roof so it's a Class A roof, which means it's very difficult to catch on fire, you can take measures to prevent embers from starting fires on your property," he added. "The problem is that all of that costs money, and not everyone may be able to afford that… California has recently started some proposals to provide grants to consumers to undertake these measures, and these should be expanded even more."
"There is some good news," DeLong said. "The California Department of Insurance is working on a public catastrophe model, one that would have opportunities for input from consumers, that would be based on data that's fair and open."
"However, that's going to take at least a couple of years to get off the ground," he added.
Court concurred. "We're a long way away from that, and it's not even going to be something that companies have to use, it's something that would be supplemental," he said of the public model. "I think it's giving lip service, but I think it's the right direction. It just needs to be much more aggressive."
"Palestinians and allies have been silenced and marginalized in the media for decades as these institutions choose silence over accountability," said the secretary-general of the American Friends Service Committee.
By Eloise Goldsmith • Jan 8, 2025
The American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization, announced Wednesday that it has cancelled planned advertising with The New York Times after the outlet rejected one of the group's proposed ads that read: "Tell Congress to stop arming Israel's genocide in Gaza now! As a Quaker organization, we work for peace. Join us. Tell the President and Congress to stop the killing and starvation in Gaza."
AFSC alleges that after receiving the text of ad, the Times suggested they swap the word "genocide" for the word "war." The word war has "an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law," the Quaker group wrote.
AFSC said they rejected this proposed approach and then received an email from outlet's "Ad Acceptability Team" which read, in part, according to AFSC: "Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions."
"New York Times Advertising works with parties submitting proposed ads to ensure they are in compliance with our acceptability guidelines. This instance was no different, and is entirely in line with the standards we apply to all ad submissions," a spokesperson for the Times said in an email to Common Dreams.
AFSC counters that a number of entities and individuals, such as the international human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have determined that Israel is committing genocide or acts of genocide in Gaza.
"The New York Times advertises a wide variety of products and advocacy messages on which there are differing views. Why is it not acceptable to publicize the meticulously documented atrocities committed by Israel and paid for by the United States?" said Layne Mullett, director of media relations for AFSC, in a statement.
Joyce Ajlouny, general secretary of AFSC, said that "the refusal of The New York Times to run paid digital ads that call for an end to Israel's genocide in Gaza is an outrageous attempt to sidestep the truth. Palestinians and allies have been silenced and marginalized in the media for decades as these institutions choose silence over accountability."
The AFSC has been a loud voice calling for a cease-fire and ending U.S. military support for Israel. For example, in April, the group announced a Tax Day campaign, a day of action where people held events and met with their members of Congress to demand they stop voting to spend U.S. tax dollars on military assistance to Israel.
AFSC staff in Gaza have also provided 1.5 million meals, hygiene kits, and other units of humanitarian aid to internally displaced people since October 2023, according to the Wednesday statement.
This article was updated to include an emailed statement from The New York Times.
MUST READ!
"All these stories paint a picture of a healthcare industry in desperate need of transformation," said the head of the think tank behind the awards.
By Brett Wilkins • Jan 7, 2025
The "winners" of the annual Shkreli Awards—named after notorious "pharma bro" Martin Shkreli and given to the 10 "worst examples of profiteering and dysfunction in healthcare"—include a Texas medical school that sold body parts of deceased people without relatives' consent, an alleged multibillion-dollar catheter scam, an oncologist who subjected patients to unnecessary cancer treatments, and a "monster monopoly" insurer.
The Shkreli Awards, now in their eighth year, are given annually by the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based think tank "advocating bold ideas for a just and caring system for health." A panel of 20 expert judges—who include physicians, professors, activists, and others—determine the winners.
This year's awardees are:
10: The University of North Texas Health Science Center "dissected and distributed unclaimed bodies without properly seeking consent from the deceased or their families" and supplied the parts "to medical students as well as major for-profit ventures like Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson," reporting revealed.
9: Baby tongue-tie cutting procedures are "being touted as a cure for everything from breastfeeding difficulties to sleep apnea, scoliosis, and even constipation"—despite any conclusive evidence that the procedure is effective.
8: Zynex Medical is a company facing scrutiny for its billing practices related to nerve stimulation devices used for pain management.
7: Insurance giant Cigna is under fire for billing a family nearly $100,000 for an infant's medevac flight.
6: Seven suppliers allegedly ran a multibillion-dollar urinary catheter billing scam that affected hundreds of thousands of Medicare patients.
5: Memorial Medical Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico allegedly refused cancer treatment "to patients or demanding upfront payments, even from those with insurance."
4: Dr. Thomas C. Weiner is a Montana oncologist who allegedly "subjected a patient to unnecessary cancer treatments for over a decade," provided "disturbingly high doses of barbiturates to facilitate death in seriously ill patients, when those patients may not have actually been close to death," and "prescribed high doses of opioids to patients that did not need them." Weiner denies any wrongdoing.
3: Pharma giant Amgen was accused of pushing 960-milligram doses of its highly toxic cancer drug Lumakras, when "a lower 240mg dose offers similar efficacy with reduced toxicity"—but costs $180,000 less per patient annually at the lower dose.
2: UnitedHealth allegedly exploited "its vast physician network to maximize profits, often at the expense of patients and clinicians," including by pressuring doctors "to reduce time with patients and to practice aggressive medical coding tactics that make patients seem as sick as possible" in order to earn higher reimbursements from the federal government."
🥁🥁🥁
1: Steward Health Care CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre was accused of orchestrating "a dramatic healthcare debacle by prioritizing private equity profits over patient care" amid "debt and sale-leaseback schemes" and a bankruptcy that "left hospitals gutted, employees laid off, and communities underserved" as he reportedly walked away "with more than $250 million over the last four years as hospitals tanked."
"All these stories paint a picture of a healthcare industry in desperate need of transformation," Lown Institute president Dr. Vikas Saini said during the award ceremony, according to The Guardian.
"Doing these awards every year shows us that this is nothing new," he added. "We're hoping that these stories illuminate what changes are needed."
The latest Shkreli Awards came just weeks after the brazen assassination of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealth subsidiary UnitedHealthcare. Although alleged gunman Luigi Mangione has pleaded not guilty, his reported manifesto—which rails against insurance industry greed—resonated with people across the country and sparked discussions about the for-profit healthcare system.
NORTH CAROLINA GOP VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMMENT!
One journalist warned that the state court "laid the groundwork for potentially overturning the election" in favor of Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs' GOP challenger, Jefferson Griffin.
By Jessica Corbett • Jan 7, 2025
Democracy defenders across the United States on Tuesday responded with alarm to Republicans on the North Carolina Supreme Court blocking certification of incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs' November victory to review GOP challenger Jefferson Griffin's attempt to toss out over 60,000 votes.
Over 5.5 million people voted in the election, and after two recounts, Riggs is ahead by just 734 votes. Griffin, a judge on the state Court of Appeals, has been contesting the results for weeks. The North Carolina State Board of Elections moved the case to federal court, but U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers II—an appointee of Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump—sent it back to the state judicial system on Monday.
Although the board notified the North Carolina Supreme Court that it intended to appeal Myers' decision—and it did so later Tuesday—four of the five Republican justices still granted the temporary stay and wrote in their order that "in the absence of a stay from federal court, this matter should be addressed expeditiously because it concerns certification of an election."
"The Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court is now attempting to give itself sole power to decide its next member rather than the North Carolina voters who unquestionably elected Justice Riggs."
Riggs did not participate in the Tuesday decision due to her involvement with the case. The court's only other Democrat, Justice Anita Earls, dissented—arguing that Griffin's motion is "procedurally improper," and even if it were not, his request "should be denied because he has failed to meet the standard for granting preliminary relief."
"Griffin seeks to retroactively rewrite the rules of the election to tilt the playing field in his favor. His filings amount to a broadside legal attack, raising a laundry list of statutory and constitutional objections to long-established election laws," Earls wrote, calling out the high court's "indulgence of this sort of fact-free post-election gamesmanship."
Republican Justice Richard Dietz also dissented, citing "our state's corollary to a federal election doctrine known as the 'Purcell principle'" and warning that "permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state's election rules—and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules—invites incredible mischief."
Attorneys, journalists, Democratic leaders, and political observers in North Carolina and across the country were similarly critical.
With its stay and schedule for filings over the next few weeks, "the state's highest court laid the groundwork for potentially overturning the election and handing the seat to Riggs' GOP challenger," wrote Ari Berman, Mother Jones' national voting rights correspondent.
Berman also laid out some long-term and national impacts of this battle:
Riggs' victory would give Democrats a shot at retaking the court's majority after 2028. That would allow them to oversee the state's redistricting process in 2031. That is particularly consequential because the current majority on the court upheld heavily gerrymandered maps drawn by the Republican-controlled state Legislature that allowed Republicans to pick up three U.S. House seats in November—just enough to maintain control of the chamber and ensure one-party rule in D.C.
Democratic elections lawyer Marc Elias declared on social media Tuesday that "the GOP is mounting the largest, most brazen post-election disenfranchisement effort since Trump's frivolous litigation in 2020. This time, however, they may get away with it and the legacy media is largely asleep."
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who is now chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, called the state court's actions "alarming" and stressed that "the vote is the voice and the power of the people. It is not for a court to decide the outcome of an election. In a functioning democracy the will of the people—as expressed in an election—prevails."
"Should the North Carolina Supreme Court throw out lawful ballots, it could potentially overturn the results of a free and fair election—achieving the same goal as those who perpetuated a violent coup attempt on our nation's capitol just four years ago," he said, referring to the January 6, 2021 insurrection. "This must not be tolerated."
"I am concerned that the very recent actions of the court presage a continued diminution of a democracy already under attack in North Carolina," he added. "The arrogant, anti-democracy move to stop the certification of a free and fair election while this court considers whether or not to throw out 60,000 lawfully cast ballots underscores that."
The News & Observer reported Tuesday that "the vast list of challenged voters ensnared people from assistants to state lawmakers to Riggs' own parents."
According to the North Carolina newspaper:
A News & Observer analysis of the challenges found that Black voters were twice as likely to have their votes challenged as white voters.
The challenge that affected the largest number of voters was Griffin's argument that voters who did not have a driver's license number or Social Security number on file should not have been allowed to vote.
State election officials say there are myriad reasons a voter may not have those numbers in the database—many of which are no fault of their own. But Griffin argued it could lead to ineligible voters being able to cast a ballot.
Former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who left office earlier this month after two terms, said Tuesday that "Riggs won and the recount confirmed it. Republicans want to toss thousands of legal votes in the trash because they don't like the outcome. This shouldn't be about party politics—this should be about making sure every vote counts and that our elections still mean something."
The battle over the North Carolina Supreme Court is part of what The New York Times described as "the bar-fight nature of politics in the state," where voters in November also elected Democratic Gov. Josh Stein to succeed term-limited Cooper and ended the GOP supermajority in the General Assembly—leading to last-minute attempts by Republican lawmakers to limit Stein's power.
Vowing that the North Carolina Democratic Party "will continue to fight for justice," its chair, Anderson Clayton, said in a Tuesday statement that Riggs "won her seat fair and square" and "deserves her certificate of election."
"We are only in this position due to Jefferson Griffin refusing to accept the will of the people," Clayton added. "He is hell-bent on finding new ways to overthrow this election but we are confident that the evidence will show, like they did throughout multiple recounts, that she is the rightful winner in this race."
The outgoing Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, Jaime Harrison, also weighed in, blasting "what has become a monthslong, anti-democratic campaign at taxpayers' expense against Justice Allison Riggs."
"The Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court is now attempting to give itself sole power to decide its next member rather than the North Carolina voters who unquestionably elected Justice Riggs," he said. "Make no mistake—these craven attacks on North Carolina voters are an affront to this country's foundational values of democracy and the rule of law."
Harrison also pointed to Trump supporters' deadly invasion of the U.S. Capitol in 2021, saying that "one day after the four-year anniversary of January 6, Republicans are once again attempting to overturn an election in plain sight."
Ben Wikler, who is running to be the next DNC chair, said Tuesday that "the crisis of democracy didn't end with Trump's victory—it got worse. When North Carolina's state Supreme Court is blocking certification of a state Supreme Court election, the house is on fire."
"In short, recent proposals for a per capita cap or block grant would cause people to lose health coverage and benefits, shift costs and risks to states, and destabilize healthcare providers."
By Brett Wilkins • Jan 7, 2025
Republican proposals to impose a per person cap on federal Medicaid funding or turn the government health insurance program for lower-income Americans into a block grant would leave millions of people without coverage or care, according to an analysis published Tuesday.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a progressive think tank, examined GOP policy proposals including the per capita funding cap and making Medicaid a block grant and found that such policies "would dramatically change Medicaid's funding structure, deeply cut federal funding, and shift costs and financial risks to states."
"Faced with large and growing reductions in federal funding, states would cut eligibility and benefits, leaving millions of people without health coverage and access to needed care," CBPP added.
According to the analysis:
Many of those losing Medicaid coverage would be left unable to afford lifesaving medications, treatment to manage chronic conditions like cardiovascular disease and liver disease, and care for acute illnesses. People with cancer would be diagnosed at later stages and face a higher likelihood of death, and families would have more medical debt and less financial security. A large body of research shows that Medicaid improves health outcomes, prevents premature deaths, and reduces medical debt and the likelihood of catastrophic medical costs.
"Before resurrecting harmful per capita cap proposals, policymakers should consider how similar past proposals would have impacted states' budgets and thus their ability to support Medicaid enrollees," CBPP advised.
The analysis comes as Republicans—who control both houses of Congress and, starting on January 20, the White House as President-elect Donald Trump takes office—pursue a massive tax cut that would be funded in part by cutting social programs including Medicaid. GOP lawmakers are also considering work requirements for Medicaid recipients in order to help pay for the tax cut, which critics argue would primarily benefit rich people and corporations.
According to a 2024 report by the National Association of State Budget Offices, Medicaid—which, along with the related Children's Health Insurance Program, serves nearly 80 million U.S. adults and minors with limited income and resources—makes up more than half of all federal funding for states.
Total Medicaid spending was approximately $860 billion for fiscal year 2023, with the federal government contributing around 70% of the funds. The CBPP analysis notes that "under a per capita cap, states would get additional funding as the number of enrollees increased, but if the caps were set at an insufficient level, the state's funding shortfall would grow as more people enrolled."
The report also says that "the design of per capita caps can expose states to cuts even if spending falls below caps for some eligibility groups, and even if spending growth falls below the cap on average over time. And as the caps would be permanent, the size of the cuts and the number of states affected would continue growing over time. These losses in federal support would impose significant strain on states and put millions of people at risk of losing benefits and coverage."
Under a block grant, "the funding shortfall would be even worse since federal funding wouldn't change in response to enrollment increases," the analysis states.
"In short, recent proposals for a per capita cap or block grant would cause people to lose health coverage and benefits, shift costs and risks to states, and destabilize healthcare providers," the publication concludes. "The federal funding cuts to states would be large and unpredictable. Restructuring Medicaid's financing would also make the program highly vulnerable to future cuts, as it would impose a funding formula that could be easily ratcheted down further—for example, by setting the cap or its growth rate even lower. Policymakers should reject proposals for per capita caps and block grants and instead retain the current federal-state financial partnership."
Trump claimed both the canal and the Danish territory are needed for U.S. "economic security."
By Julia Conley • Jan 7, 2025
"This is his last chance to do something right," said one activist.
By Jake Johnson • Jan 7, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.