It seems like this fact comes from Thomas Stanley, author of The Millionaire Next Door: http://www.thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/
I can't tell much about his research methods but he estimates that 80% to 86% of millionaires did not inherit their wealth. Even if this were accurate, it does not mean that they came from nothing.
Here's a report on economic mobility from the Pew Charitable Trust: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/pursuing-the-american-dream
It shows that only 8% of Americans in the top quintile by family income ($80k/yr and up) had parents in the lowest quintile. It would be unlikely that more than 8% of the millionaires in this quintile had parents who were in the bottom income quintile.
Google Scholar for the final filing here.
TL;DR Case dismissed largely because everything the case was about, is now lost to time: Blackwell is no longer secretary, the filing asked for fixes before the 2006 election (that ship sailed long ago), etc, etc.
Basically, if you are corrupt but have enough lawyers to drag your case out, the case eventually becomes irrelevant and the judge happily closes it out at that point, without ever having to make a decision. Tidy!
The Shock Doctrine probably applies reasonably well here. But basically, if some major catastrophe happens (Hurricane Sandy, earthquakes in New Zealand, Obama gets elected), you can do something you'd like to do anyway, and then avert blame by blaming it on the disaster.
Papa John's raising prices, Hospital's merging, Schools merging in New Zealand, etc.
The actual occurence is more complicated and less "conspiracy theory"-esque, but basic principle is there.
There is a book you should check out called Network Propaganda that breaks this down in detail including citing FB accounts, posts, and mapping a Twitter web of influence across various bot accounts.
Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190923636/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_0rC7CbZD1BJ99
Based on the "OH" in the middle of the plan names, I'm guessing they're shopping in Ohio. Based off her LinkedIn, she's in the Columbus area, so I'll use zip code 43201. It sounds like she has grown kids and someone else in the house (I'll call husband), so let's put 65 and 60 years old. And they both smoke because why not. I put the household income at $100k so they wouldn't get any subsidies.
If I use the calculator on healthcare.gov, I come up with $1182 (~$200 less) for the cheaper option and $1217 for the Aetna plan. (Note: you knock ~$150 off if you aren't a tobacco user.)
So, it's in the right ballpark, especially since we don't have all the pertinent details to exactly recreate the options.
On the other hand, I am thoroughly and completely skeptical on that Aetna plan for two older individuals ever coming to $258 a month. Based on personal experience shopping pre-Obamacare, that sounds like a good price for a high deductible 80/20 plan with no out-of-pocket maximum.
Summary - Unverifiable in general without more details. Plausible for the screenshot prices, but skepticism warranted on older plans.
I'm not sure Mckay Coppins, the staff writer for Buzzfeed would be considered "non-credible" or "biased." http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins
But that said, I agree, was hoping to have dug up a second or third source on this.
I'll reiterate that this is missing the key context of the Embassy's deleted tweets. They released the first statement before the attacks, and then had a second tweet which read "This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." The "unjustified breach of the Embassy" is the attack being referred to here.
The Daily Beast does not cite these deleted tweets, perhaps because they're unaware of them. Buzzfeed has them all: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/us-embassy-in-cairo-deletes-controversial-tweets
> Now, it's true that the US borrows money from China, and it's true that the federal government partly funds PBS.
Even if we grant those two points (a) the government gives a paltry amount of money to PBS relative to the US budget, so it's difficult to assert that PBS is a specific reason we borrow money instead of the military or Medicaid or oil subsidies, and (b) China isn't the largest holder of US debt (the Federal Reserve holds ~$6T, China ~$1T), so it's more likely we're borrowing from ourselves than from China.
I'd rate this mostly false. Like much of what Romney said during the debate, there is a small nugget of truth buried in there (we are running a deficit and China is one of the countries that buys bonds from us). However, there are clearly "critical facts that would change the reader's impression".
Indeed.... but these protections should at least reduce the risk of this happening drastically.
Unless you fall to 400% the poverty line or below. In that case the maximum out of pocket maxes begin to be subsidized as seen in this chart at the bottom
The people that are susceptible to bankruptcies from bills like the above listed are being subsidized and will never incur medical bills that high in a given year. I can see some older people with higher incomes and thus higher premiums getting to the insured out of pocket expense. But they are far more likely to be able to withstand it.
The book appears real, with a listing on Amazon showing a publishing date of 1989. However, its importance seems highly exaggerated. The book only has 25 reviews on the website, and the majority of those are from just within the last few years, by conservatives complaining about it, and the book doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia. Again, not a definitive indication, but a pretty good one.
Yes! found it, very expensive for delivery though. The Oprah Winfrey Show: 20th Anniversary Collection https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000B91N3S/ref=nav_timeline_asin?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
Most likely more of this interview: http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/What-Donald-Trump-Told-Oprah-About-His-Presidential-Hopes-Video