Nike Sues Lil Nas X’s Human Blood Filled ‘Satan Shoes’ Creator MSCHF for Trademark Infringement

Nike launched a successful legal battle against rapper Lil Nas X and custom shoemaker MSCHF Product Studio Inc. after the small shoemaker dropped a pair of modified Nikes featuring satanic imagery with the shoe conglomerate’s famous swoosh plastered on its side.

Following the release of Lil Nas X’s single, Montero (Call Me By Your Name), over the weekend, the rapper, who rose to fame for 2018’s hit Old Town Road, also shared an accompanying music video which left many viewers disturbed. The video features Lil Nas X, whose real name is Montero Lamar Hill, dressed as a fallen angel gleefully descending from Heaven to Hell on a stripper pole, and performing soft core sexual acts on the devil. Hill went on to tease what would be dubbed Satan Shoes on Twitter, a limited run, lightly modified pair of Nike sneakers.

Shortly after, MSCHF officially announced the production of 666 red and black customized Nike Air Max 97 sneakers with “Luke 10:18” inscribed on its side, a Bible verse referencing Satan’s decent into Hell, a bronze pentagram on its laces matching a pentagram pasted on the inner sole, and a controversial drop of human blood inside the outer soles’ air bubble.

Despite outrage, the shoes sold out almost immediately.

The musician bucked back against criticism for the video’s homosexual and Satanic imagery on Twitter, writing, “I spent my entire teenage years hating myself because of the s**t y’all preached would happen to me because i was gay. So I hope u are mad, stay mad, feel the same anger you teach us to have towards ourselves.”

After the shoe went viral, and talks of boycotts flooded social media, Nike announced it was suing MSCHF for improper use of their trademark. The billion dollar shoe maker issued a cease and desist complaint, while reiterating they had zero involvement in its design.

They told multiple outlets, “we do not have a relationship with Lil Nas or MSCHF,” and that “Nike did not design or release these shoes and we do not endorse them.”

Nike argues MSCHF took their product and applied a significant redesign turning the shoe into its own unique piece of apparel, and marketed it with the Nike logo, creating an unauthorized link between the company and the shoe.

“In its complaint,” CNN wrote, “Nike asked the court to order MSCHF to ‘permanently stop’ fulfilling orders for the ‘unauthorized Lil Nas X Satan Shoes. The lawsuit notes that social media users have threatened to boycott Nike over the controversial shoes.”

“MSCHF and its unauthorized Satan Shoes are likely to cause confusion and dilution and create an erroneous association between MSCHF’s products and Nike,” Nike’s complaint states. “In the short time since the announcement of the Satan Shoes, Nike has suffered significant harm to its goodwill, including among consumers who believe that Nike is endorsing Satanism.”

Earlier today, a decision handed down from the Eastern District of New York granted Nike a temporary restraining order against MSCHF, who, under the ruling, will be prohibited from fulfilling any of the 666 orders placed by fans.

The company cannot use any familiar Nike logos or trademarks, including the recognizable ‘swoosh,’ the ruling adds.

Lil Nas X was not referenced in the initial suit.

MSCHF also released ‘Jesus Shoe’ using the same Nike sneaker in 2019 with a steel cross and Holy water sourced from Jordan in its air bubble.

Donald Trump Set to Launch a New Social Media Platform within a Few Months; Top Advisor Says

Former President Donald Trump’s social media exile may soon be coming to an end. At least that’s the story coming from Trump’s former top advisor Jason Miller.

With less than two weeks left in his term, Trump was indefinitely banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook and Instagram without word on when it will, if ever, be lifted. Following the January 6th storming of the capital, social media companies decided to deplatform the sitting President for violating their community guidelines, citing his false claims regarding election interference, and arguing his speech ahead of January 6th’s riots incited the violence which left several people dead.

Trump was the first president to actively integrate social media into his administration, frequently making policy announcements and revealing his position on key issues with 180 characters or less.

While Americans were sharply divided on Trump’s effectiveness with Twitter, he was popular, among the media and users alike. News outlets had their daily cycle dominated by Trumps’ tweets, and the President’s reach rivaled few. At the time of his banning, Trump had over 88 million followers on Twitter, making him the 6th most followed account on the platform.

Though the 45th President has held a relatively low profile since leaving office, only releasing the occasional public statement and headlining CPAC last month, it appears a new venture is brewing behind the scenes.

.@JasonMillerinDC says former President Donald Trump will return to social media in the next two to three months with "his own platform."

Read more: https://t.co/QHCRGJE8qG pic.twitter.com/bXLngyPH3T

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) March 21, 2021

“I do think that we’re going to see President Trump returning to social media in probably about two or three months here, with his own platform,” Trump senior adviser Jason Miller told Fox News’ Media Buzz Sunday morning. “And this is something that I think will be the hottest ticket in social media, it’s going to completely redefine the game, and everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what exactly President Trump does, but it will be his own platform.”

Within Mar-A-Lago, Trump has been hosting several “high-powered meetings” around starting his own social media platform. Miller added his team was approached by “numerous companies” wanting to help make this project a reality.

Conservatives have argued for years that tech giants unfairly target right wing opinions and commentators, applying two sets of standards for content moderation in order to limit their reach. Trump’s platform would likely challenge this approach, and it’s unlikely many from the political left would join the site.

The free speech alternative to traditional platforms, Parler, was banned from the app store and AWS website hosting after tech companies decided they did not like their lax approach to moderating content. The site went back online about a month later after ousting their CEO and founder. It’s unlikely that Trump’s platform would be linked to Parler. At its peak, Parler had 10 million registered users, a number dwarfed by Trump’s following.

Walmart Removes Firearms and Ammunition from Shelves Citing ‘Civil Unrest;’ Quickly Restocks after Backlash

Walmart is the largest gun distributor in the U.S., but earlier this week the discount retail conglomerate tried dethroning themselves. However, after a massive backlash, Walmart reversed its decision and will continue displaying firearms on their floor.

On Thursday, Walmart, which sells firearms in about half of their 4,700 stores, took all firearms and ammunition off the shelves and stored them in back rooms out of sight and presumably in more secure safes. The company cited growing “civil unrest” in areas across the country. Customers could still view and purchase guns and ammunition upon request.

Walmart spokesman Kory Lundberg released a statement Thursday saying, “we have seen some isolated civil unrest and as we have done on several occasions over the last few years, we have moved our firearms and ammunition off the sales floor as a precaution for the safety of our associates and customers.”

According to the Washington Post, “the company did not specify the incidents to which it was referring. But according to local media in Philadelphia, at least one Walmart store was ransacked after rioting broke out after the police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr.,” a black man who was fatally shot by police after he charged two officers with a knife.

Philadelphia Police reported a mob of 1,000 people were looting businesses, including a local Walmart, on Tuesday after a BLM protest turned violent.

*Alert* A large crowd of appx 1000 is looting businesses in the area of Castor and Aramingo. Avoid the area

— Philadelphia Police Department (@PhillyPolice) October 28, 2020

Local police departments have proven unable or unwilling to control mass lootings as seen in most major cities over the summer. A firearm retailer as large as Walmart getting ransacked would result in dozens if not hundreds of illegal firearms flooding the streets.

“Walmart took similar measures in June after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked widespread protests around the country,” the Washington Post continued.

It didn’t take long for the super store to reverse its decision. On Friday, a Walmart spokesman announced they would return firearms to their shelves.

“After civil unrest earlier this week resulted in damage to several of our stores, consistent with actions we took over the summer, we asked stores to move firearms and ammunition from the sales floor to a secure location in the back of the store in an abundance of caution,” the spokesperson said, announcing a reversal of policy. “As the current incidents have remained geographically isolated, we have made the decision to begin returning these products to the sales floor today.”

Firearm sales are booming across the country, so Walmart’s move to return stock to their shelves may have been financial. The NSSF found that firearm related background checks “for January through July 2020 is a record 12.1 million, which is up 71.7 percent from the 7.1 million NSSF-adjusted NICS January through July 2019.” 40% of which were from first-time gun buys. “This equates to nearly 5 million first-time gun owners in the first seven months of 2020,” the firearm trade association reports. 40% of first time gun buyers were women.

Gun shops are reporting a 95% increase in firearm sales and a staggering 139% in ammunition sales. The massive demand spike coupled with lockdown restrictions is causing shortages and price hikes across the industry. One fact is clear; Americans want more guns.

Yelp Report: 60% of Business Closures due to Coronavirus Lockdown are Permanent

Despite the seemingly strong recovery, more than half of the businesses closed due to the COVID-19 shutdowns will not be opening their doors once life returns to normal.

Yelp’s September economic report confirmed what many of feared: small businesses lost to Coronavirus inspired shutdowns may be gone forever, or at least those listed who’re listed on the popular review website are.

Yelp’s analysis of businesses on their site found not only was there a 23% increase in closures since July 10th, but 60% of them are permanent.

By recording all the businesses open on March 1st, Yelp saw almost 180,000 businesses shut down by April 10th, 36,700 of which were already permanently out of business. While the total business shutdowns decreased significantly to 132,500 on July 10th, the number of businesses that permanently closed spiked to almost 73,000. That number continued to rise to 98,000 on August 31st, whereas 65,700 closed businesses still hope to reopen their doors one day. As states continue to relax their restrictions, it’s becoming apparent that their efforts are too little too late for many entrepreneurs.

Not all industries were hit equally, but all are struggling. “Yelp closure data shows that businesses providing home, local and professional services have been able to withstand the effects of the pandemic particularly well. But despite bright spots in some sectors, restaurants and retail continue to struggle and total closures nationwide have started to increase,” the report reads.

Sectors faring relatively well “includes lawyers, real estate agents, architects, and accountants [and healthcare specialists]– all with only two to three out of every thousand businesses closed, as of August 31.”

“In fact,” Yelp adds, “the share of consumer interest in home and local services is up 24% between March 1 and August 31, relative to all categories on Yelp, compared to the same time last year.”

While home, local, professional, and auto services see less pressure, restaurants and retail stores are facing between 25 and 60 closures per 1,000 businesses. Restaurants alone account for 32,109 closures with 19,590 being permanently shut down. 3,499 bars and nightlife businesses have permanently closed as well.

Where the business is located matters too. “Bigger states and metros with higher rents and more stringent local operations for small businesses throughout the last six months have felt a greater toll.” Hawaii, California, and Nevada are the hardest hit whereas West Virginia and the Dakotas have the lowest closure rates.

“Las Vegas in Nevada, Honolulu in Hawaii, and several of the largest California urban areas all are among the metro areas with the highest total closure and permanent closure rates (San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles and others), with roughly 20 businesses per thousand temporarily or permanently closing their doors since March 1.”

Though a bit outdated, Axios reported “the number of business owners between February and April [decreased by] least 3.3 million,” giving us a broader perspective of the real world impact of Coronavirus shutdowns crafted to minimize the number of illness related deaths. Back in April, MSNBC reported, “nearly 7.5 million small businesses are at risk of closing their doors permanently over the next several months if the coronavirus pandemic persists.”

“Around two-thirds of entrepreneurs said they may have to shut forever if business disruption continues at its current rate for up to five months,” consistent with Yelp’s findings four months later.

Despite the troubling findings, the U.S. unemployment rate continues to drop month over month from its high of 14.7% in April to 8.4% in August. While the unemployment rate is still higher than the sub 4% unemployment rate prior to the pandemic, it remains impressive nonetheless. However, studies like Yelp’s leaves many wondering whether we can continue this V-shaped recovery.

Uber and Lyft Threaten to Shut Down Operation in California… but Not just Yet

After a new controversial law altering the classification of workers in California was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom late last year, rideshare companies have threatened to shut down operations in the state. However, a new court ruling may have halted those plans.

To get the full picture, we need to step back almost a year to September 18th, 2019, when Californians were still allowed outside, where, according to ABC7, Gov. Newsom “signed sweeping labor legislation that aims to give wage and benefit protections to rideshare drivers at companies like Uber and Lyft and to workers across other industries.”

The bill makes it harder for companies to classify employees as contractors, a designation given to drivers and deliverymen of popular ridesharing and food delivery apps such as Uber, Lyft, and Grubhub. Drivers would be entitled to California’s minimum wage, which currently sits at $13 an hour and is slated to rise to $15 in the coming years, and would have access to workers compensation.

At the time, Newsom was also pushing to unionize ride-sharers so they could collectively bargain with employers.

Nationally, gig workers were considered independent contractors; employers were not responsible for any set minimum salary or benefits. California was the first in the nation to expand the classification of what an employee is. The vast majority of Uber drivers drive part time, working an average of 3-months and averaging 17-hours per week, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The majority of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week.

According to the HuffPost, “the law applies an ‘ABC’ test under which workers can be considered independent contractors only if (A) the workers are “free from the control and direction” of the company that hired them, (B) their work falls outside the usual business of the company and (C) they are engaged in work in an independent business of the same type as the company’s.”

Though the law went into effect January 1st, 2020, Uber and Lyft refused to reclassify drivers, claiming their drivers still passed the ‘test’ of being classified as independent contractors.

After a long legal fight, the duo were set to shut down all operation within the state Thursday at midnight, leaving tens of thousands of drivers without jobs. Lyft released a statement yesterday announcing their shocking move, claiming Newsom’s new policy would be too harmful to business to provide the same level of service in the state. Lyft is pushing for an alternative to the new law which would include “a minimum earnings guarantee, mileage reimbursement, a health care subsidy, and occupational accident insurance.”

In a last minute decision, a California judge issued a stay on the rule requiring ridesharing companies reclassify contractors as employees, allowing Uber and Lyft to remain in the state. According to Business Insider, “the companies are fighting the ruling, and had threatened to shut down if their stay request wasn’t granted after a 10-day injunction that’s set to expire Thursday night.”

The stay remains in effect until a court hearing which is scheduled for October. Until then, the status quo remains.

Voters will have their chance to either fight this new law, or support it. “In November, Californians will vote on Proposition 22, which Uber and Lyft, alongside other gig-work firms, have supported as an alternative to current labor law,” Business Insider added.

In an Op-Ed, Uber CEO wrote, “our current employment system is outdated and unfair. It forces every worker to choose between being an employee with more benefits but less flexibility, or an independent contractor with more flexibility but almost no safety net.” However, he argues against classifying drivers as employees saying, “Uber would only have full-time jobs for a small fraction of our current drivers and only be able to operate in many fewer cities than today. Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips. Uber would not be as widely available to riders, and drivers would lose the flexibility they have today if they became employees.”

U.S. Considers Banning TikTok for Collecting Data on Americans for the Chinese Government

Public backlash against Big Tech for collecting and storing data on users is being heard among top officials in the Trump Administration as the State Department mulls over banning the popular video sharing app, TikTok.

Outrage against apps and websites collecting, storing, and selling data is nothing new. In mid-2018, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress after it was revealed that Facebook used and stored users personal data in order to sell targeted ads to third party companies.

However, unlike Facebook, TikTok is a Chinese company which raises the suspicion that collected data could fall into the hands of Chinese Communist Party officials, or the app could be directly used by Chinese officials to spy on users, posing a risk to American security.

According to the New York Times in November of 2019, “the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a federal panel that reviews foreign acquisitions of American firms on national-security grounds,” is investigating “TikTok’s growing influence in the United States, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was confidential. One of the people said that the American government had evidence of the app sending data to China.”

TikTok, which now has over 2 billion downloads worldwide, became popular in the U.S. after TikTok’s parent company ByteDance acquired Music.ly, an American app where users can lipsync popular songs, in 2016.

ByteDance released the following denial following the investigation:

“While we cannot comment on ongoing regulatory processes, TikTok has made clear that we have no higher priority than earning the trust of users and regulators in the U.S.,” a ByteDance spokesman said in an email. “Part of that effort includes working with Congress, and we are committed to doing so.” TikTok does not send any user data to China, he added.

New York Times

TikTok has been known to censor certain political content, most notably by instructing moderators to suppress the popularity of videos featuring Anti-China Hong Kong protestors, and other similar messages. United States officials fear a similar censorship campaign among American users. While ByteDance denied the accusation, a former TikTok administrator contradicted the company’s statement, claiming they were ordered to suppress all political content.

During an interview with Fox News, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. is seriously considering banning TikTok and other apps susceptible to Chinese data harvesting and censorship. “We are taking this very seriously. We are certainly looking at it,” Pompeo said.

“We have worked on this very issue for a long time. Whether it was the problems of having Huawei technology in your infrastructure we’ve gone all over the world and we’re making real progress getting that out. We declared ZTE a danger to American national security,” Pompeo added, citing the two Chinese telecommunications networking companies. 

“With respect to Chinese apps on peoples’ cellphones, the United States will get this one right too,” Pompeo continued.

Many fear the potential of China accessing the data and information of American users due to their broad national security laws which “contains sweeping language that requires companies to comply with intelligence gathering operations, if asked.”

Currently, the New York Times reports, “China blocks many foreign companies from openly existing online in the country, but Chinese companies that have developed cutting-edge technologies are growing more popular around the world.” Banning Chinese technology would not be without precedent. Currently, software and hardware from Huawei and ZTE, both Chinese telecom companies, are heavily restricted from operating in the U.S.

When asked if Americans should continue using TikTok, Pompeo said, “only if you want your private information in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.”

According to CNN, last year TikTok “agreed to pay $5.7 million to settle allegations that it illegally collected personal information from children under the age of 13, such as names, email addresses and their location.”

Many major U.S. tech companies like Facebook and Google have ceased complying with data requests from Hong Kong after they passed a similarly broad national security law late last month.

TikTok was banned in India last week after board disputes between the two countries erupted into bloodshed.

Japan to Pay Companies $2.2 Billion to Move Production out of China

According to the Japanese government’s latest budget, the vibrant island nation has allocated nearly $2.2 billion to help subsidized its manufacturers who are looking to move factories outside of China in the wake of the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, which leaked from a disease research lab in Wuhan, China.

According to Bloomberg, “Japan has earmarked $2.2 billion of its record economic stimulus package to help its manufacturers shift production out of China as the coronavirus disrupts supply chains between the major trading partners.” $2 billion is designated to help Japanese companies relocate to mainland Japan whereas $200 million is set aside for companies looking to move out of China to another country. This marks the first attempt by a world power to shift its own manufacturing sector out of China following the pandemic.

China has come under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks for its intentionally trying to bury initial reports of the Coronavirus in late December and early January.

President Trump has retaliated against the WHO for taking Chinese propaganda about the virus at face value by withholding funding, but has not yet proposed any way to punish China directly.

The new funding comes as “imports from China [to Japan] slumped by almost half in February as the disease shuttered factories, in turn starving Japanese manufacturers of necessary components.”

Also, “a February survey by Tokyo Shoko Research Ltd. found 37% of the more than 2,600 companies that responded were diversifying procurement to places other than China amid the coronavirus crisis.” It remains to be seen whether other countries follow Japan’s lead.

Jobless Claims Hit Historic Levels: 3.28 Million Unemployment Claims in 1 Week

The second major indicator of the economic impact from the Coronavirus driven extreme social distancing was released Thursday morning. The Department of Labor, which publishes weekly unemployment claims, reported there were 3,280,000 unemployment claims during the week ending on March 21st.

A major economic recession was all but obvious when the Trump administration in unison with most states encouraged, and in some cases mandated, stay-at-home orders for non-essential employees, essentially shutting down large swaths of the economy.

CNBC Graph of weekly jobless claims.

According to CNBC, “the number shatters the Great Recession peak of 665,000 in March 2009 and the all-time mark of 695,000 in October 1982.” The effects of the Coronavirus shutdown is hitting the U.S. economy like a freight train; “the previous week, which reflected the period before the worst of the coronavirus hit, was 282,000, which was higher than expected at the time.”

The stock market was the first to face the reaper with major stock indexes dropping by more than 1/3 over the course of 6-weeks.

Despite the shocking report, the Dow Jones shot up by 6.38% today, indicating the sudden and widespread layoffs was expected. The general prediction across Wall Street was 1.5 million jobless claim, but this week’s relatively strong, but volatile, market bounceback may indicate traders do not expect the situation to get much worse.

The $2 trillion stimulus package passed by the Senate earlier today will be a much needed lifeline to the millions of people suddenly without jobs due to existential circumstances.

All this raises the very real question of whether destroying the economy and putting millions of people out of work will actually slow the spread and flatten the curve.

China Agrees to Increase Imports from U.S. by $200 Billion in ‘Phase 1’ of Trade Deal

After two years of trade wars and what seemed like never ending tariffs being levied against China by the U.S., and vice versa, a groundbreaking deal has been made which is projected to dramatically increase U.S. export to China and protect American intellectual property… and that’s just ‘Phase One.’

Markets are up today as President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping sign what Trump has dubbed the long awaited “phase one” of a new trade deal with China.

According to an analysis from CNN, the trade deal signals a “pause” to the ongoing trade war, and “commit[s] Beijing to buy $200 billion in US agricultural, auto, manufacturing and aviation goods.” The deal also allows Trump and China to keep the current tariff’s on nearly $380 billion worth of goods and services in place.

Yahoo Finance broke down the additional purchases China pledged to make over the course of the next two years. “Beijing will make at least $32.9 billion in additional agricultural purchases over the next two years… an additional $77.8 billion in U.S. manufactured goods, $52.4 billion in U.S. oil and gas purchases, $37.9 billion in financials and other services, and increase protections for U.S. intellectual property.”

On the issue of intellectual property protection, the agreement reads, American companies will “be able to operate openly and freely in the jurisdiction of the other Party without any force or pressure from the other Party to transfer their technology to persons of the other Party.” Within 30-days of signing, China must create a plan to “strengthen intellectual property protection aimed at promoting its high-quality growth.”

It’s estimated that intellectual property theft by Chinese companies, enabled and encouraged by Beijing, costs American businesses at least $225 billion per year with estimates hitting as high as $600 billion a year. 

If the trade export estimates are correct, then U.S. exports to China will sore to $260 billion a year in 2020, and $310 billion in 2021. Currently, yearly U.S. exports to China hovers around $120 billion.

This deal is expected to be a huge relief to American farmers, who have been hit hard after agricultural exports dried up amid new tariffs levied by China in response to Trump’s tariffs.

Many worry that the intellectual property proactive measures put in place may not be enough, as the deal does not leave much room for punitive punishments for failing to abide by the provisions in the agreement. If a consensus on a trade or IP dispute between the United States and China is not met, the only recourse would be exiting the deal, according to Yahoo. 

“The signing of the Phase 1 deal would represent a welcome, even if modest, de-escalation of trade hostilities between China and the U.S.,” said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist and former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China division. “But it hardly addresses in any substantive way the fundamental sources of trade and economic tensions between the two sides, which will continue to fester.’’

Market Watch

The effectiveness of the deal will depend largely on China’s willingness to enforce its promises; the cost of intellectual property theft is far greater than any amount of soy the Chinese could buy from American farmers.

One of the greatest trade deals ever made! Also good for China and our long term relationship. 250 Billion Dollars will be coming back to our Country, and we are now in a great position for a Phase Two start. There has never been anything like this in U.S. history! USMCA NEXT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 16, 2020

President Trump called ‘Phase One’ “one of the greatest trade deals ever made” in a tweet.

Phase two of the three phase plan is expected to come before the November election, according to statements made by Trump. 

Major Healthcare Win: Hospitals Will be Forced to Disclose Pricing by 2021

Back in November, the Trump administration introduced new regulations aimed at curbing the seemingly uncontrollable rise in healthcare costs nationwide. In a departure from the political norm, this new piece of regulation targets procedure cost disclosure and increasing competition among healthcare providers.

According to Health Affairs, this new rule “introduces into federal price transparency requirements the concepts of service standardization, consumer-friendly organization and terminology, and bundling.” The medical field remains the only industry which does not have widely available pricing for the services consumers use, and because of that Americans are unable to shop around for healthcare.

Health Affairs adds, “the new rule supplements an existing requirement, from a rule published last year, which forced hospitals to post online all of their charge master rates starting in January of this year.”

The current rule does little to help consumers as most codes, pricing, bundles, and terminology is indecipherable to most Americans, and will often vary from clinic to clinic. Inconsistency in what each package and service listing means and includes makes shopping impossible. Hospitals are also known for not being upfront with which additional services will be charged for prior to, for example, a simple operation. Blood tests, antibiotics, anesthesia, etc. might be listed as separate line items and no included in the quoted price.

The new rule combats this by requiring healthcare providers to be more specific and provide real prices paid for all inclusive packages.

“Hospitals would be required to post their privately negotiated rates for a list of 300 shoppable services.” 70 of which were predetermined in the regulation while the remaining 230 are to be chosen at the facilities discretion. There will now be a standardization of some of the most common procedures so consumers can shop around for the medical services they need.

Not surprisingly, special interest is not on board with the new rules. Hospitals in California, Nebraska and Missouri joined forces to sue the department of Health and Human Services.

According to Healthcare Dive, “revealing negotiated rates will confuse patients, overwhelm hospitals and thwart competition and said it does nothing to help people understand their actual out-of-pocket costs and what they will owe a provider.”

However, a study by the National Center for Policy Research came to the opposite conclusion. Between 1992 and 2012 – a twenty year period – medical care costs increased in price by 118% while the overall consumer price basket increased by 64%. While this seems like common sense for anyone over 18 in the 90’s, the price increase for elective procedures – ones not covered by insurance or medicare and susceptible to market forces – only increased by 30%.

When looking to get liposuction or laser eye surgery, patients are forced to look around for the best service at the most competitive price. Because people are fully aware of the costs, they’re able to make more informed decisions about how they spend their money.

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it,” HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said.

The hospitals argue HHS is infringing on their 1st Amendment rights by compelling them to publish confidential information about their business.

A ruling has yet to be made on this case, but if the healthcare industry fails to stop the regulation, it will go into effect January 1st, 2021.