You can’t believe everything you read. That’s a simple statement we all need to be reminded of when reading anything in the media. I was reminded of that recently while reviewing an article published in The Epoch Times.

Author George Citroner leads his article with these words: “Patients who undergo anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) surgery to repair torn ligaments may be at an elevated risk of developing early-onset knee arthritis, particularly because of issues related to the kneecap, according to a new study.”

According to the study, findings show that those who received ACLR surgery had a shift in the positions of their knee bones and joints, causing a change in load on their knees. ACLR surgery, common among athletes, aims to repair torn ligaments—but has also been linked to long-term complications, with more than 50 percent of patients developing arthritis within 20 years.

The study, recently published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, included 15 participants around the age of 26 years who had undergone ACLR, and compared their knee movements with those of 10 people with no knee problems. The kneecap, or patella, in those who had surgery moved up by 4.4 to 5.6 millimeters more than the nonsurgical group’s kneecaps, and this changed the way the knee joint moved. The patella was also pushed forward by 5.4 to 6.3 millimeters more during walking, indicating a change in knee structure that could stress the joint. The study also noted that the tendon connecting the knee cap to the shinbone was an average of 8.9 millimeters longer in ACLR patients than in the healthy group.

Among the ACLR participants, nearly half had an abnormally higher knee cap, also known as patella alta, which may put excessive stress on parts of the knee that are not used to handling load. According to researchers, a higher-riding patella may contribute to the development of knee osteoarthritis by shifting the load-bearing areas between the patella and the femur to regions of cartilage unaccustomed to load and leaving previously loaded regions unloaded.

“If this condition existed prior to the injury, then it may be a predisposing factor for ACL injury,” corresponding author Marcus G. Pandy, of the University of Melbourne in Australia, told The Epoch Times. “Alternatively, if the condition arose as a result of surgery, then it may help to explain the high rate of knee osteoarthritis seen after ACLR.” According to Pandy, the key takeaway is that people who have undergone ACLR have an abnormally longer tendon in their knees, causing a higher-than-normal kneecap position.

What’s wrong with this study?

Dr. James Penna, chair of the Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation at Stony Brook Medicine, disagreed that ACLR surgeries could be causing a longer knee tendon. The angle of the knee upon impact with the ground varies between individuals who have had an ACL injury and those who haven’t, Penna said.

The researchers who conducted the study raised the question about whether it’s the injury or reconstruction that can lead to elongation of the patellar tendons. Penna disagreed that the longer tendon in the knee could be caused by the surgery. “It doesn’t, it can’t,” he said. He believes the researchers simply happened to have patients with naturally longer tendons in their sample.

Pandy and team wrote that further research is needed to determine the cause of the longer knee tendon in individuals who have undergone ACLR surgery. The researchers didn’t compare those who received ACLR surgery with those who didn’t—this would be the next step, according to Pandy.

My Opinion

It has been well known for nearly fifty years that individuals who sustain ACL injuries are susceptible to developing post-traumatic arthritis in that knee for multiple reasons. The rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a significant trauma to the knee and is usually associated with other injuries such as a torn medial and or lateral meniscus, collateral ligament injuries, as well as articular cartilage damage. Such injuries will lead to traumatic arthritis in most patients whether or not they ever have ACL reconstructive surgery.

The premise of the Pandy team study that ACL reconstructive surgery leads to alteration of the length of the patella tendon is not credible. Although there are several different methods used for ACL reconstruction, I know of no methods that alter the pre-injury length of the tendon. That means the observation in their study that patients with longer tendons were more likely to develop arthritis is simply an indication that those individuals were at higher risk for developing arthritis, regardless of whether or not they had ACL reconstruction.

The limited size of their study, only 15 patients, means little can be learned from the results of such a study. The only possible conclusion of this study is that patients with longer patella tendons may possibly be more vulnerable to sustaining ACL injuries that those with normal length patella tendons. However, a much larger study group would be needed to draw any meaningful conclusions.

If you are facing ACL surgery, the main thing you should realize is that you are at higher risk of developing traumatic arthritis than individuals without ACL injuries. The surgery is done to stabilize your knee, which should reduce, but not eliminate, your risk of developing arthritis.

 

In Parts I and II of this series, I have tried to explain some of the problems with Medicaid. This is significant for two reasons:

First, the amount of taxpayers’ money being spent on Medicaid has been skyrocketing lately to the point where Medicaid spending was $894 Billion in 2024, exceeding the Defense Department spending of $841 Billion. It has grown from about $402 Billion in 2010, more than doubling in just 15 years.

Second, as the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) tries to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in our federal government, no one should be fooled into thinking that cuts in Medicaid spending are going to adversely impact the health of the American people. This second point is illustrated better in today’s Part III information.

Chris Jacobs, writing in The Wall Street Journal, tells us Medicaid expanded during the Covid pandemic as a temporary response to this health crisis. Medicaid eligibility was expanded to allow people to access healthcare during this crisis since many had lost their jobs. But the emergency ended in 2023, yet the Biden Administration prolonged the declared emergency allowing millions of more Americans to enroll in Medicaid who were not previously eligible due to their higher income status.

In January, 2025, the Congressional Budget Office (under the Biden Administration) increased its projection for 2025 Medicaid enrollment by another 5 million people compared with its June 2024 baseline.

Jacobs says, “This enrollment rise was the largest factor in the CBO’s projected $817 billion jump in program spending over the coming decade. As Congress works to pass Medicaid reforms in budget reconciliation legislation, lawmakers can reverse this continual expansion of government coverage by enacting policies that promote private insurance options.”\

While Covid-era legislation helped get us where we are, it was ObamaCare’s expansion of Medicaid to able-bodied adults that kicked things off. Though the Affordable Care Act prohibited those with an offer of “affordable” employer coverage from qualifying for federally subsidized ObamaCare exchange plans, it had no such restrictions regarding its Medicaid expansion. Any enrollee in an expansion state who meets the law’s income criteria qualifies for coverage, giving households every incentive to drop their existing insurance and enroll in “free” Medicaid.

As a result, expanded Medicaid has crowded out private insurance options. A 2007 study co-authored by Jonathan Gruber, one of ObamaCare’s architects, found that coverage expansions had crowd-out rates of roughly 60%. A 2008 analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that, even among households of modest means with incomes between one and two times the poverty level, 44% had private coverage, suggesting that Medicaid expansion would erode existing sources of insurance.

This exact scenario was demonstrated in Louisiana where Department of Health data showed that between 3,000 and 5,000 people a month dropped their private coverage during the initial months of the state’s Medicaid expansion. The numbers suggested that roughly a third of Medicaid enrollees had left their private coverage to join the government rolls.

This shift from private health insurance shifts the burden of providing healthcare from employers and individuals to the federal and state governments. Democrats favor this transfer of healthcare insurance from private to government because they favor total government control of healthcare – better known as socialized medicine.

But socialized medicine has been tried in many other countries, such as Great Britain, Canada, and Sweden with predictable results. In each of these countries, access to healthcare has declined as government controls that access with limited providers and resources. The government also rations healthcare by determining which procedures and medications you can get and which you can’t. If your diagnosis requires expensive treatments that don’t guarantee success, those treatments will probably not be approved. If you’re over a certain age you may not be approved for expensive procedures like heart bypass or joint replacement surgery All of which leads to diminished healthcare outcomes. We don’t want that in America.

Jacobs suggests, “Republicans in Congress can stop this unending welfare state bloat in the reconciliation process by mandating that states offer premium assistance and requiring qualifying Medicaid beneficiaries to use it. Rather than paying for everything Medicaid entails, premium assistance supplements employer coverage by helping a person pay for costs their private insurance doesn’t. If Congress did this, use of private insurance would expand.”

“Those beneficiaries who switch to premium assistance would gain more options. Private insurance generally offers higher physician reimbursements and broader access to care than Medicaid plans. Such a mandate would complement work requirements in Medicaid, by promoting a path to self-sufficiency and employer-based coverage rather than a life of dependency on the government. And requiring premium assistance would accomplish both objectives in ways that save taxpayers money.”

We must remember that expanding the rolls of Medicaid does not mean more Americans are getting better healthcare. Without access to good quality healthcare, a Medicaid card is nothing but a piece of paper.

 

In Part I of this series, we discussed the public’s reaction to President Trump’s recently signed executive order to close the Department of Education. After spending over three trillion dollars on education since 1979 when the department was created, measures of performance show students are doing worse than ever.

The Epoch Times did a survey to measure the public’s reaction to the idea of closing the Department of Education. In Part I we read five of the responses, which were overwhelmingly in favor of President Trump’s decision. Today we will look at more responses:

6. The Department of Education should be eliminated entirely.

Strongly Disagree: 7 percent

 Disagree: 4 percent

Neutral: 11 percent

Agree: 16 percent

Strongly Agree: 63 percent

79 percent agree (63 percent strongly agree, 16 percent agree) Only 11 percent disagree (7 percent strongly disagree, 4 percent disagree) Neutral: 11 percent

7. The federal government spends too much on education.

Strongly Disagree: 7 percent

 Disagree: 3 percent

Neutral: 13 percent

Agree: 13 percent

 Strongly Agree: 63 percent

76 percent agree (63 percent strongly agree, 13 percent agree) Only 10 percent disagree (7 percent strongly disagree, 3 percent disagree) Neutral: 13 percent

9. It is important for the federal government to maintain oversight of civil rights in the education system.

Strongly Disagree: 36 percent

Disagree: 15 percent

Neutral: 22 percent

Agree: 12 percent

Strongly Agree: 15 percent

27 percent agree (15 percent strongly agree, 12 percent agree) 51 percent disagree (36 percent strongly disagree, 15 percent disagree) Neutral: 22 percent

10. Among the Department of Education’s key functions, financial aid for college students is the most essential to maintain.

Strongly Disagree: 36 percent

Disagree: 17 percent

Neutral: 26 percent

Agree: 12 percent

Strongly Agree: 9 percent

21 percent agree (9 percent strongly agree, 12 percent agree) 53 percent disagree (36 percent strongly disagree, 17 percent disagree) Neutral: 26 percent

11. The layoffs will have a negative impact on federally funded programs such as student loans and grants.

Strongly Disagree: 47 percent

Disagree: 20 percent

Neutral: 20 percent

Agree: 5 percent

Strongly Agree: 8 percent

Only 13 percent agree (8 percent strongly agree, 5 percent agree) 67 percent disagree (47 percent strongly disagree, 20 percent disagree) Neutral: 20 percent

12. The Department of Education has been effective in improving the quality of U.S. education.    Strongly Disagree: 79 percent

Disagree: 11 percent

Neutral: 4 percent

Agree: 2 percent

 Strongly Agree: 4 percent

Only 6 percent agree (4 percent strongly agree, 2 percent agree) 90 percent disagree (79 percent strongly disagree, 11 percent disagree) Neutral: 4 percent

A particularly telling result came when respondents were asked whether the Department of Education has been effective in improving the quality of U.S. education. A full 90 percent said no, with 79 percent strongly disagreeing. Only 6 percent agreed with the statement. This overwhelming disapproval aligns with the broader survey trend favoring reform, decentralization, and—in many cases—complete elimination of the department.

Readers’ Reform Priorities

In the final question of the survey, readers were asked to identify their top priorities for improving education in the United States, with the option to select from multiple choices or submit their own ideas.

The most commonly chosen priority was the removal of critical race theory (CRT) and other politically driven content from school curricula. Close behind was support for expanding school choice, including access to charter schools and voucher programs—reflecting strong interest in empowering families to choose the educational path that best fits their children. Other frequently selected priorities included modernizing school curricula to emphasize STEM subjects and job-related skills, as well as enhancing school safety and restoring discipline in the classroom.

In addition to these selections, thousands of respondents shared their views through write-in responses. While diverse, the suggestions broadly echoed the themes of the multiple-choice results and coalesced around three core ideas.

The first was a call to return to academic fundamentals. Many respondents urged schools to prioritize reading, writing, math, science, and civics—and to eliminate ideological content, including CRT, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and gender theory. There were also strong calls to restore life skills education and discipline in classrooms.

The second theme was parental authority. Respondents repeatedly emphasized that parents—not government officials—should determine what children are taught. Proposals included more school choice, greater curriculum transparency, and allowing education funding to follow students to the schools of their families’ choosing.

Finally, many readers called for decentralization of education policy. There was broad support for returning authority to state and local governments, with some respondents advocating for the complete elimination of the Department of Education. The prevailing view was that education systems should reflect the values of local communities rather than the dictates of federal agencies.

Taken together, the responses reflect widespread dissatisfaction with federal involvement in education and a powerful mandate for reform—centered on academic integrity, local control, and the primacy of parents in shaping their children’s futures.

Let us hope this move will begin the process of improving the education of our children in the future. It is vital to the future of our nation.