This reasoning dismisses the possibility that their vote was due to thoughtful consideration. Attacking a specific bloc of voters as a reason for an election defeat has become common place. It is inaccurate and ignores common sense. The reason is simple. When you repeatedly tell a group of people that they are ignorant, racist and more, it is highly unlikely they will vote for your candidate.

Vincent Turley, Hartford

The Sox have already tied the American League record for most consecutive losses at 21. (They were attempting Tuesday night to avoid another loss, which would have them supplant the 1988 Baltimore Orioles for most defeats in a row).

There was no small amount of irony on offer Tuesday, given that the awful ’88 Orioles team broke their losing streak in Chicago at Comiskey Park against the White Sox. The Orioles went on to finish the 1988 campaign with a record of 54-107.

It’s reasonably safe to assume these White Sox won’t come within sniffing distance of that mark. They’d have to go 27-20 the rest of the way to do so. A team with a 14-game losing streak and a 21-and-counting losing streak to its “credit” almost surely won’t start playing the .574 baseball necessary to keep pace with that Baltimore squad.

No, these White Sox have bigger fish to fry. At their present .235 winning percentage, they’re on course to set the all-time Major League Baseball record for losses in a season. They would finish 38-124 at that clip. The 1962 New York Mets in their inaugural year ended the season 40-120. Manager Casey Stengel, already a baseball legend at that point with nothing to prove, famously remarked on his sad sack team, “Can’t anybody here play this game?, which columnist Jimmy Breslin used as the title of his book about that legendarily horrendous group.

Will anyone be writing any books about these White Sox? If only the legendary Tribune columnist Mike Royko were still with us, we’d love to see what he would produce, given his rants back in the day about the hapless Cubs of the 1970s. But those Cubs teams were the 1927 Yankees compared with the 2024 Sox. Even Royko might be at a loss for words on the 2024 White Sox.

Pedro Grifol, who was given his “big break” as a first-time MLB manager when he got the White Sox job at the beginning of last season, is no Casey Stengel. And his utterings aren’t nearly as entertaining. When he’s mercifully fired, which baseball writers assume will happen once the season ends if not earlier, he will wind up a trivia question years from now.

But this abomination can’t all be pinned on Grifol. It’s been a real team effort. After owner Jerry Reinsdorf fired longtime baseball execs Kenny Williams and Rick Hahn a year ago or so, he didn’t bother to look outside the organization for a replacement. He named Chris Getz, then assistant general manager, to succeed Hahn and Williams. At the time, Reinsdorf explained his lack of thoroughness by saying, “Speed is of the essence.” Getz knew the players and the team better than any outsider would, and would quicken the rebuilding time frame. Or so went Reinsdorf’s thinking.

Come to think of it, that’s a quote worth remembering. And we’re betting Sox fans, more of whom are showing up to games with signs “advising” Reinsdorf to “sell the team,” will indeed etch that one into their memory banks.

So where to from here for a team that still has a mind-boggling 47 games left to play and is giving the term “playing out the string” a bad name?

Baseball being a stats- and history-obsessed sport, there’s more than one way to assess futility. The 162-game season came into being a mere 60 years ago or so. So, for the many teams that played in the decades before, winning percentage is the marker. On that score, the 1916 Philadelphia Athletics are the standard-bearers. Their 36-117 mark produced a winning percentage of .235. Which just happens to be the Sox’s winning percentage as we write.

Many White Sox fans we know aren’t bothering to watch this team anymore, and for good reason. Watching baseball is supposed to be fun. But there’s a hard-core group “hate watching” this team and rooting for them to stand alone as the all-time worst in MLB’s rich history — by every metric possible.

Grifol and his players surely will do everything in their power not to give those hate-watchers what they want.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

You can also sign up via your Courant account here.

Today’s generative AI applications were built on a foundation of such information, drawn from across the internet and from various databases totaling, according to at least one estimate, somewhere around 300 billion words.

That’s a lot of intellectual property, much of it produced by generations of professional writers, honed and polished by editors and sent out into the world by publishers in newspapers, magazines, books and more.

Hard to put an exact price on such a thing or even to measure the collective value of such an incredible library.

It definitely should not be free.

But that’s the assumption made by OpenAI when it claims that its use of all this data, much of which it acknowledges was subject to various copyrights, is fair use and did not require compensation to the original creators and owners of that knowledge and information.

If you walked into a bookstore and stole not just some of the books, but all of the books, that would be a crime, right?

That’s why newspapers, as well as authors and an array of digital publishers have filed lawsuits seeking to force OpenAI to pay for its exploitation of their work.

Regular people aren’t allowed to make copies of a recent best-seller and resell it with a different cover, nor can a studio stream a competitor’s series just because it’s on the Internet and it’s possible to copy it. They might be able to license that material, if the owner allows it, and they can certainly buy copies, but even buying a copy doesn’t give the purchaser the right to reproduce and redistribute such works.

There’s a fundamental issue of ownership in play here.

For decades, newspapers have been independent entities. They have written the obituaries of local luminaries, chronicled crimes committed, and followed fights over public works. In most every U.S. city, they’ve accumulated a great storehouse of knowledge, day by day.

The theft of that journalism to create new products clearly intended to supplant news publishers further undermines the economy for news at a time when fair and balanced reporting and a shared set of facts is more critical than ever before.

Weakening news publishers also has a collateral effect on democracy as it not only siphons off publisher revenue, but it also damages publishers’ reputations by attributing bogus information to credible publications.

AI “hallucinations” occur when an AI app provides false information in response to a user’s question.

The rise of artificial intelligence may be inevitable but that does not mean that the originators of the content should not expect adequate compensation.

OpenAI and its primary backer, Microsoft, pay their engineers to write their code and certainly recognize the value of that code. In fact, a recent valuation for OpenAI was $90 billion.

Surely all the knowledge and information required to train their apps — to develop the code, as it were — has value.

That value must be recognized and these companies must be held accountable.

Assembly Bill 886, also known as the California Journalism Preservation Act, would require Google to pay news publishers for using news content on its platform. The bill passed the Assembly last year and is currently being considered by the state Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a Friday morning blog post, Google calls the CJPA a “link tax” that would require Google to pay for “simply connecting Californians to news article.” Google also claims that over the past two decades it has “provided substantial support to help news publishers navigate the changing digital landscape and innovate.”

No one should be fooled by this.

Google made more than $300 billion last year, most of it from advertising it sells using content it did not create or pay for. In its early days, Google sent lots of traffic for news publishers, but in recent years not so much as it seeks to keep people on its site where Google makes the money.

This is why Google’s revenue keeps growing while news publishers – and not just print newspapers – can barely keep the lights on. In fact, according to data from SimilarWeb, more than half of Google searches for top news terms end without a link being clicked. In other words, more than half the time, Google doesn’t actually connect anyone to the actual source of the news.

While Google seems to believe that news should be free – at least to Google – we in the news business are painfully aware that professional news gathering is expensive. And to be clear: News is a business. Google may not want to acknowledge it, but it’s big business for Google. That’s why news was the first thing that Google launched after search and why “news” is the first tab after “all” on the search results page.

It’s why Google is testing what would happen if it removed links to news from its site for some California users. For the record, Google tested removing the news tab altogether in February but apparently didn’t like the results, announcing that it would not be removing the news tab for all users.

Maybe that’s because news is a big part of Google’s business.

According to a recent study, a fair payment from Google for its use of U.S. news content would be $10 billion to $12 billion a year.

Google obviously does not want to pay that.

In a Senate hearing in December, Google’s representative said that news publishers earn $2 billion a year in advertising revenue from traffic Google refers to those publishers. That begs the question as to whether Google itself should actually pay anything at all for the content upon which it has built its extremely lucrative advertising business.

Of course, Google’s stranglehold on digital advertising is the subject of an antitrust case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states, which allege Google has a monopoly on digital advertising and has used its control of the market to steer advertisers to its own services and sites while depressing the revenues of publishers by manipulating pricing.

The Friday announcement that Google will suppress news for some Californians comes from the same playbook. Here is Google using its command of search – it controls 91.5% of the global search market, according to Semrush – to intimidate publishers and the public alike by threatening to withhold news.

Make no mistake about it: Content, especially news, is the cornerstone of Google’s business model, and Google’s criticism of legislation that would force it to pay for the materials it uses is a naked attempt to preserve its revenue streams by intimidating not only the media but also the public that wants to be connected to news online.

This kind of anticompetitive behavior is exactly why legislation like the CJPA is needed.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the acts of its agents on Oct. 7, when they crossed the border into Israel with the express intent of killing and kidnapping civilians, were terrorism.

That makes them terrorists.

While some have suggested Hamas’ political role in Gaza means it is not a terrorist organization, it is clearly targeting civilians for political ends, which is the very definition of terrorism..

The danger in using euphemisms such as “militants” to describe terrorists is that it normalizes heinous acts of terrorism and implies that the deliberate targeting of civilians is a military act and that Hamas at large has some other, less despicable objective.

But let’s be clear: Hamas’ stated goal in its founding charter calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel. The United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada have all formally designated Hamas a terrorist organization. It should not be confused with Palestine or the innocent Palestinians now suffering in Gaza.

Hamas’ terror attack on Israel is clear and indisputable proof that Hamas continues to be committed to its original goal, despite its 2017 charter revisions.

The grisly details that have emerged in the days since the attack leave no doubt.

Terrorists stormed Israeli towns, killing and kidnapping anyone they encountered. They recorded the atrocities on body cameras and posted the video to social media sites.

Footage compiled by the Israeli government shows civilians shot in bedrooms, bathrooms and yards.

At a music festival celebrating “friends, love and infinite freedom,” terrorists gunned down 260 revelers and took an unknown number of hostages.

Authorities also released photographs of slain babies, their bodies shot and burnt.

In Be’eri, over 100 are known to have been killed and others were taken hostage. News reports describe homes riddled with bullet holes and cars reduced to burnt husks. In kibbutz Nir Oz, at least 20 people were murdered and upwards of 80 were kidnapped.

In response to all of this, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin described the atrocities committed by Hamas as “worse than what I saw with ISIS.”

Hamas currently holds more than 200 hostages from its Oct. 7 attack on Israel and has promised to begin executing them if Israel retaliates.

There is a word to describe the intentional targeting of civilians to political ends, and that word is “terrorism.” Those who commit acts of terrorism are terrorists.

To call these acts or their perpetrators anything other than terrorism and terrorists is not only intellectually disingenuous, it also risks normalizing such acts by obfuscating the essential truth of their nature.

This editorial is being published in all MediaNews Group/Tribune Publishing newspapers.

And you don’t have to go as far as Russia to find people scratching their heads. Even a trip to Canada will do.

In Russia, the buck stops with Russian President Vladimir Putin — and everyone here knows it. That goes for everything from foreign affairs to the price of parking in Moscow. As someone who has been able to sit in and ask questions at the Russian president’s annual press conferences, it’s not unusual to witness Russian journalists tearing into Putin over municipal affairs that would normally be within the purview of city council. Yet Putin still offers a polite response.

But when Biden responds to journalists, are they absolutely certain that he’s the guy with whom the buck stops in practice rather than just in theory? Or is there an unspoken understanding that there’s a Team Biden that’s discreetly doing the heavy lifting behind the scenes? Because this assumption that bureaucrats are playing an outsized role in the Biden administration would certainly explain the free pass that Biden seems to be getting from the press lately — particularly compared to his predecessor.

With former President Donald Trump, there was no doubt who was in charge — if only because he kept saying so. So when photos of a bathroom at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, filled with boxes allegedly containing classified material, ended up in a federal indictment for charges of mishandling state secrets, there was no doubt about who would have given the orders. A flurry of coverage ensued — 291 minutes over four days on ABC, CBS, and NBC, according to Washington’s Media Research Center.

By contrast, a nascent scandal implicating Biden wasn’t even worthy of a mention after Republican Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) took to the floor of the Senate and referenced an FBI document that emerged during the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into Biden family business dealings.

“President Joe Biden was allegedly paid $5 million by an executive of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, where his son Hunter Biden sat on the board, a confidential human source told the FBI during a June 2020 interview,” Fox News reported exclusively.

While the allegations against Biden are unproven, it’s not like that’s stopped rampant media speculation before. How many years were we bombarded with talk of alleged collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump presidential campaign, which continued even after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative report failed to find any?

For months, the accusations alone placed Russia, Trump’s entire family and entourage, in the US media’s firing line. By the time the underwhelming report was released, most people who had been following the coverage were already convinced of Russia’s meddling and Trump’s guilt.

With this new Biden information, the same kind of overwhelming media curiosity simply doesn’t exist. You’d think that it would, though. Particularly given that the US now finds itself deeply involved with Ukraine, as US taxpayer cash gets funneled to it via the US military-industrial complex under the pretext of fighting Russia. A “good investment” as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls it, or “the best money we ever spent” according to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has long been jonesing for Russian regime change.

You’d think that the allegations’ ties to Ukraine alone would warrant at least a bit of curiosity about the kind of shady activities in which US and western economic and military interests have been engaged in Ukraine since at least the Orange revolution of 2004. “The campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes,” the Guardian reported at the outset of the unrest in November 2004.

A Biden scandal could, at the very least, be used as a news hook for Ukraine-related stories. Instead the media insists on maintaining a sole focus on Trump rather than on the guy who’s actually supposed to be running the country right now.

Not that the wall-to-wall Trump coverage is unbiased, either. MSNBC and CNN hosts recently said that they wouldn’t be covering Trump’s response to the indictments against him, if only because they were committed to airing only the truth and not a platform of lies.

Give me a break. They had no problem running months worth of wall-to-wall Russiagate speculation that turned out to be bunk. And what about all the gatekeeping they did during the Covid fiasco that resulted in the marginalization of information now accepted as fact, like the value of acquired immunity or the fact that an anti-Covid jab doesn’t actually stop infection or transmission.

Trump is a big boy who will get his day in court and can handle the media storm. If Biden is equally competent in his own self-defense, then why the double standard and kid gloves? Surely Russians aren’t the only ones who are curious.

(Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of independently produced talk shows in French and English. Her website can be found at http://www.rachelmarsden.com.)

©2023 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

This marks the anniversary of D-Day, the seaborne invasion of continental Europe that signaled the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany and its murderous pursuit of global conquest, and no amount of hyperbole can possibly do it justice.

Those commemorations take on added importance as the generation who fought in the war, who worked stateside in support and who sacrificed to ensure the nation’s success dwindles in number and succumbs to age and illness. We must remember them — their bravery and perseverance, even in the darkest moments when all seemed lost — so that future generations never forget.

“You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months,” Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his “Order of the Day” for June 6, 1944, “The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.”

The supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force knew what he was asking of the Marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen who had massed in southern England and drilled for months in preparation for the multi-pronged assault. He even had jotted down notes for a public message to accept blame — writing “it is mine alone” —  in case the audacious attack failed.

Despite the extensive preparations, meticulous planning and repeated practice, failure did seem imminent time and again.

Bombing runs meant to degrade German defenses along the beaches were ineffective. Heavy cloud cover complicated and confused the airborne insertion of allied troops behind enemy lines, meant to help forces landing on the beach. And the weather was uncooperative, with storms and roiling seas forcing Eisenhower to pause the invasion for 24 hours.

Yet, the cause could not wait. The goal of liberation — first the beachhead, then the continent — was both noble and urgent. The Nazis had to be stopped, whatever the cost.

So on this morning, 79 years ago, nearly 160,000 troops, primarily from the United States, Great Britain and Canada, but with the support of nine other Allied nations, launched the largest amphibious invasion in history. They attacked positions along a 50-mile stretch of beach in northern France to establish a foothold that would allow the Allies to drive toward Berlin.

British and Canadian forces captured the Normandy beaches nicknamed Juno, Gold, and Sword with relative ease. For the Americans, however, Utah and Omaha beaches proved to be more troublesome. Omaha, in particular, was still well defended and the landscape more suitable for German forces dug in on the cliffs.

The fighting was fierce and brutal, the casualties heavy. More than 9,000 Allied troops were killed or wounded on D-Day. More than half, 4,700, were American. The National World War II Museum notes that represents a loss rate of more than 13% from the approximately 35,000 U.S. forces who participated in the attack.

Their sacrifice was not in vain. The Allies had secured a foothold in Europe. By the end of the month, more than 850,000 men, 148,000 vehicles and 570,000 tons of supplies had landed on the Normandy shores, according to the Eisenhower Presidential Library. Eleven months later, Germany formally surrendered.

In an age when hostile nations increasingly rely on cyberattacks and drone strikes, what happened at D-Day almost defies comprehension. It can be difficult to grasp the scope and scale of what happened, and nearly impossible to imagine the sort of bravery required to run headlong toward enemy fire when all hell is breaking loose around you.

But the heroes of D-Day did that in service to this nation. They did it for us, so that we and future generations may enjoy the blessings of liberty they helped to secure. Honor their sacrifice.

On July 25, 2019, then President Donald Trump spoke with Zelensky from the White House residence, ostensibly to congratulate Zelensky on his election.

During that conversation, Trump reminded Zelensky that “the United States has been very good to Ukraine.”

Trump knew full well that Zelensky was desperate for some demonstration of support from the American president. Some 13,000 of Zelensky’s people already had been killed in the five-year conflict between Russian-backed separatists and government forces in Ukraine. Nonetheless, just days before phoning Zelensky, Trump froze nearly $400 million of U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Trump continued:

“I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it…. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it …. It sounds horrible to me…. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.”

Zelensky did not want to offend Trump but did not commit to helping Trump dig up dirt on the son of the person most likely to oppose Trump in the 2020 election.

Fast-forward. On Feb. 20, 2023, just before the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Joe Biden spoke directly with Zelensky in Kyiv, noting that “Kyiv stands. And Ukraine stands. Democracy stands.”

For Trump, Ukraine was a pawn to get dirt on Biden before the 2020 election.

For Biden, Ukraine is a critical ally in America’s fight against global tyranny.

Trump’s goal in speaking with Zelensky in 2019 was the aggrandizement of Donald Trump. That was to be expected. As president, Trump had no agenda except to feed his monstrous ego. Trump described his 2019 call with Zelensky as “perfect” because Trump saw nothing wrong in suggesting that continuing U.S. support for Ukraine should hinge on Zelensky’s helping him win reelection.

Yet that phone call posed a direct challenge to American democracy. The use of presidential power to solicit a foreign nation’s help in getting reelected is not only barred by law and the Constitution; it undermines public trust in our system of self-government.

Biden’s goal in speaking with Zelensky in Kyiv was the opposite — to strengthen democracy against authoritarianism. As Biden explained, he made the dangerous trip because “I thought it was critical that there not be any doubt, none whatsoever, about U.S. support for Ukraine in the war. It’s not just about freedom in Ukraine. It’s about freedom of democracy at large.”

As Biden said the next day in Warsaw, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine had tested “all democracies.” Over the last year “the democracies of the world have grown stronger, not weaker. But the autocrats of the world have grown weaker, not stronger.”

For Biden, American policy — both foreign and domestic — should be premised on protecting democracy from authoritarian forces seeking to undermine it, whether that force is Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.

Biden’s speech in Warsaw came just hours after Putin gave his own address in Moscow. Putin characterized the war in Ukraine as an existential struggle against the West, which he claimed started the war.

In response, Biden charged that “Putin chose this war,” and that “every day the war continues is his choice. “

By traveling to Kyiv, the oldest president in American history also demonstrated the stamina and grit of someone decades younger. Biden departed Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, D.C., early Sunday morning, Feb. 19, landed in Poland, took a 10-hour train ride from the Polish border, and arrived in Kyiv-Pasazhyrsky station roughly 24 hours after leaving Washington.

He then met with Zelensky at Mariinsky Palace, joined him in laying a wreath at the Wall of Remembrance at St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery, and stopped by the U.S. Embassy to meet with staff before heading back to the Polish border by train and then on to Warsaw.

The undertaking required courage and determination. Biden is the first president since Abraham Lincoln to venture into a war zone not under the control of American forces.

Donald Trump’s notorious conversation with Zelensky in 2019 required neither stamina, nor grit, nor courage. It did show determination — but not to protect democracy. It showed Trump’s fanatical resolve to remain in power, democracy be damned.

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of “The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It.” Read more from Robert Reich at https://robertreich.substack.com/. (C)2023 Robert Reich. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Prioritizing advance care planning before it’s needed can save you and your loved ones from stress in moments of crisis and provide peace of mind that your wishes will be met. Exploring your care options and making these wishes known gives you control of the treatment and support you’ll receive as you age. Planning future care can prevent unwanted hospital visits and procedures and help you avoid unnecessary pain or discomfort.

Many individuals don’t know where to start when it comes to planning for future care. Consider this guidance to make navigating this process a bit easier and provide insight into the decisions you’ll encounter.

Begin an open and honest conversation with your doctor and loved ones. Starting a dialogue about how you’d like to receive care as you age is the best way to make sure you and your loved ones are on the same page. As you navigate these discussions, consider who you will name as your health care proxy or power of attorney. This is the person who understands your values and preferences well enough to make medical decisions for you if you’re no longer able to speak for yourself.

Then make sure your preferences are written down and give copies to your family and physicians. Specific requirements for advance directives vary from state to state, but the purpose of the documents is to spell out medical treatments you would or would not want if you couldn’t speak for yourself. Advance directives can include a living will, health care or medical power of attorney, physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (a POLST form) and do not resuscitate (DNR) orders.

Familiarize yourself with care options before they’re needed. As you age you may require increased care due to serious illness or injury or simply the passage of time. This can be daunting for you and your loved ones to address in the moment so it is wise to consider options ahead of time. Whether you receive care at home, in a hospital or another type of care facility, there are varying levels of care available depending on your needs and goals. Your doctor will provide recommendations for the most appropriate care, but it’s a good idea to be informed about the options so you understand what they are and how they work.

* Home care is non-medical assistance with daily activities like bathing, meal preparation and transportation.

* Home health is medical care provided where a patient resides and can help you maintain independence while receiving increased support from health care professionals. It is often used to help individuals transition back to their living environment following an inpatient stay; however, it can also be appropriate for ongoing management of certain chronic conditions.

* Home infusion is a safe and effective way to receive intravenous medications in a home setting and can be provided as part of home health, hospice or palliative care, or as a standalone service.

* SNF at home, which provides a higher level of skilled nursing care in the home rather than a facility, is a growing option that can result in a better patient experience at lower costs.

* Palliative care provides relief from the symptoms and stress of serious illness and can be provided at any stage of illness, including alongside curative treatment.

* Hospice is appropriate for individuals with a life expectancy of six months or less and focuses on helping patients live as well as they can, in their environment of choice, for the time they have left. The goal of hospice is to bring comfort and peace to the patient and their loved ones while tending to their physical, emotional and spiritual needs.

As you age, it is important to talk with your doctor to ensure you have a clear understanding of your care options and any future needs you may have due to your medical conditions, but older adults aren’t the only ones who should plan for the future. Unexpected circumstances can happen at any time and it’s best to prepare as early as possible. Take the first step and become a wise health care consumer by initiating important conversations with your doctor and loved ones so you can make the most informed decisions for your future care.

February is National Wise Health Care Consumer Month. Jeremy Bolling is a registered nurse and division president at Compassus, a national leader in post-acute care.