TLDR: the multicausal situation causing excess deaths is also causing “excess” health care costs. I’m convinced that my job’s health care costs are one anecdote of this trend.
I work in finance, and part of that job is doing the budgeting and expense/revenue tracking for a mid-sized employer. Now, this is just one data point, but when people say the vaxxed are ill and dying off, I would proffer my experience on top of the other data. I won’t give specifics, naturally, but here’s a short summary.
My employer is such that we are self-insured. That is to say our revenues cover the health care costs of the employees, with the employees kicking in a bit. We are fairly generous with the health care benefit plans, with low co-pays. Starting in 2022 and accelerating in 2023, we are experiencing a huge increase in the actual expenses for our benefit costs. We have less than 1,000 employees, most of whom are young to late middle age at most. Only a few Boomer oldsters in corner offices.
Given that we have a younger working population, we usually have 1-2% of our employees/families be high casualty claimants (cancer, premature babies, etc.). In the last two years, that’s jumped to about 5%. That may not sound like much, but in hypothetical numbers we’ve gone from 1-2 cancer cases to 3-4 and with some other serious issues, and that’s expensive. Again, in hypothetical but comparable numbers, if our budget was $1,000 year , we are at $1,200 per year. If it’s an outlier, then it’s gone on for 1-1/2 years, which makes it not an outlier anymore, but a trend.
I told the boss to budget 5% for medical inflation for 2023, and that still wasn’t enough. I new it at the time, but that was the best I could get out of the corner office Boomer. Said Boomer, triple vaxxed himself, thought that the pandemic is over and costs will go back to normal. Side note, working for boomers is both good and bad. They are way less backstabby and will look after those that report to them, but well, new ideas are sometimes difficult to convince them of.
Medical inflation is always higher than core inflation, if you watch this chart in the future, you’re going to find an increased divergence.
Watching a video on Free Masonry, where they show that Tom Cruise's daughter is (likely) a Free Mason. But what about dad?
Below is my conjecture. Bonus points (just like on Who's Line is it Anyway) if you can create a scenario where the the riots will APPEAR to get worse if Trump wins, and that act as a sort of threat to the normies who want a "return to normalcy" and can be turned off or shut down after an inauguration.
A racial incident? Nah, to obvious even to the normies at this point.
A mega-racial incident like a bunch of whites with swastikas curb stomping a cutish black woman? Maybe, but there would have to be arrests, it can't be a glowie op, so they would have to trick a bunch of MFs.
Threat of "civil war" if Trump wins? Nah, overplayed that hand or the J6 Reichstag fire event.
Russia/Chinese/Mohamaddian terrorist attack? It would have to be a big one.
Food shortages? Possibly...but there is a lot of bad junk food people will turn to in order to keep the hunger pangs at bay, even if there are shortages of bread/milk/eggs.
Power outages? Getting warmer. Hot summers and power outages did the trick in the 1970s...calls out our "aging infrastructure" and creates food shortages and stuff spoils in the local Walmart freezer. Add in that this primarily happens in black urban areas the negroes will throw the bricks, and will say they won't stop unless they get reparations, which won't happen if Trump wins.
Not being a "royal watcher" I had no idea this was a thing, that is, that Harry's wife likely faked her pregnancy. I only discovered in conversation with a fellow conspiracy theorist who is a woman, and thus her topics of interest are slightly different than mine..
There is plenty of evidence. We see it through a combination of pictures showing inconsistent belly size taken only days apart, as well as pictures that show her doing things quite difficult to do (if not impossible) for a pregnant woman, like squatting in high heels, and just the way her body looks in staged photos. Nobody who knows a real woman in her late 30s/early 40s has a belly that defies gravity like that.
Plenty of articles and videos offering evidence and "de-boooking" out there. But here is a good collection of pictures that tell the tale.
https://www.pinterest.nz/DuchessDisaster/harrys-wife-moonbumps-1-2-fakeancy/
One last thing. If it's ever proved the there was a surrogate, than this means the baby is ineligible for the thrown, even though it's way down the line. Apparently the rules are the baby must be born "from the body."
Here is the original paper: https://www.newdualism.org/papers/D.MacDougall/soul-substance.htm
In short, taking into account every eventually and using very precise scales (for 1907) a man named MacDougall measured the body's weight for 6 people that died of conditions (like TB) where they would be non-moving and stable. The results indicate the human body weight about as much as a slice of bread less when the soul departs.
No good naturalistic/materialistic explanations for his results has not been found. MacDougall wanted to perform many more experiments, but opposition to the project made this impossible. The experiment has never been replicated on humans. Replications on animals show they gain weight at the moment of death. Strange.
Here is a decent summary of the issue, with the theory that perhaps the soul has some sort of psycho-kinetic effect on the weight of the body.
Congress has the power to “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States”. That’s Article 1 of the US Constitution. They need to explicitly authorize borrowing money. Only Congress has the authority to “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”
A spending bill that Congress passes does not “implicitly” authorize borrowing money to pay for it, anymore than it “implicitly” authorizes raising taxes to pay for it.
Historically, the executive branch appears to have obeyed all these statutory limits. One possible exception occurred in 1789, when Alexander Hamilton obtained loans on his own authority to "meet expenses incurred at the beginning of the present government of the United States." But Hamilton conceded the next year that the loan was "the result of necessity," and told Congress it wouldn't happen again.
In a 1930 annual report on the state of American finances, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon wrote with recommendations for a single statutory debt limit, separate from individual appropriations, which would make Treasury's life easier.
Congress acceded to Mellon's request. By 1941, Congress had combined all the statutory borrowing authorities and limits into the single cap that persists today.
(Excerpts drawn mostly from this blog post: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/24/why-do-we-have-a-debt-limit/?comments=true#comments)
