Boston Marathon Bombing Victims Denied Insurance Reimbursement Because Event ‘Not An Act Of Terrorism’

Boston Marathon Victims Denied Insurance Reimbursement Because Bombing Was ‘Not Act Of Terrorism’ – Independent Journal Review

.

.
Were you under the assumption that the Boston Marathon bombings were an act of terrorism? Maybe it was because just after the bombings, the President said this:

“Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror.”

Turns out, if you look into the details, he actually never said it was an act of terrorism. There was much discussion about the whys and wherefores after his statement, and the mincing of the difference between the words “terror” and “terrorism” went on for quite some time.

Now, the Treasury Department has given its imprint on the perspective as well. And they haven’t “certified” it as an “act of terrorism,” either.

The context is the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which was passed just after the 9/11 attacks. It’s a federally-administered and underwritten insurance program for terrorism-caused damage, designed to be relatively inexpensive but to compensate policy owners in the event of a man-caused disaster.

Twenty-two Boston-based companies carried that insurance and for pay-out purposes, the attacks have not been classified as acts of terror.

Instead, the law’s details state that insurance losses must exceed $5 million to be certified as terrorism, and so far only $1.9 million in claims have been issued. That actual terrorists blew stuff up, killed people, and caused damage is only part of the equation and not sufficient to make an “act of terrorism” determination. The rest of the critical factors depend on the dollar value.

Whether this detail stems from a crony relationship between the government and the insurance companies, as they write the policies and benefit from the premiums whereas the payouts are taxpayer supported, or just a well-intentioned mistake, is unclear.

Yet the FBI defines terrorism as activities that:

* “Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;”

* “Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and”

* “Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.”

By this definition, the Boston Marathon bombings were unquestionably a terrorist act, and the policy holders should receive the amounts due them. Regardless of whether or not the Treasury Department’s intentions are good, this is a grievous error that must be immediately corrected.

Editor’s note: This article was edited after publication to clarify what kind of federal program it is.

.

.

Million Dollar Donor To Obama’s 2012 Campaign Indicted For Manslaughter And Insurance Fraud

Obama MegaDonor Indicted For Manslaughter And Fraud – Right Scoop

A million dollar donor to Obama’s 2012 campaign and 14 of his affiliates have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter and fraud but you probably won’t hear about it much in the mainstream media.

Here’s a local report:

.

.
Eric Lach of Talking Points Memo has followed the donor for a long time:

A California grand jury has indicted Kareem Ahmed, a major donor to President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, and 15 of Ahmed’s associates in an alleged multimillion-dollar insurance kickback scheme.

Ahmed, the president and CEO of a company called Landmark Medical Management, is accused of masterminding the scheme and faces charges including conspiracy, insurance fraud, and, most dramatically, involuntary manslaughter, according to one of two sealed indictments issued by an Orange County grand jury both dated June 17 and obtained this week by TPM.

The first of the two indictments accused Ahmed of developing topical cream formulas “based on the profitability of the ingredients,” and then giving doctors who treated workers’ compensation patients illegal financial incentives to prescribe the creams. The scheme, which ran from 2009-2013, also involved filing false claims with multiple insurance companies, the nine-count indictment alleges.

In an earlier report, Lach said that Ahmed told him, “I have the White House on notice,” when he found out the reporter was going to write an article about him, long before any indictment came down. Nice friends you got there, Obama.

Notice also the sweet photo of Ahmed with Michelle Obama:

.

.
Adorable.

.

.

20 Million MORE Americans Could Lose Insurance Thanks To Obamacare

20 Million More Americans Could Lose Insurance -WorldNetDaily

.

.
The same failed Obamacare promise that plunged the individual health-care market into chaos last year is now hitting small group plans and could result in lost coverage for 20 million Americans.

Obamacare’s employer mandate does not apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees, but many of those those companies are still receiving notices from their insurance providers informing them their previous plans are being canceled because they don’t contain all the provisions required under the new law.

Much like individual policyholders last year, small group plan holders are discovering their plans don’t qualify for being grandfathered, despite the famed assurance that if they liked their plans they could keep them.

“If you had your plan prior to March 2010 when Obamacare became law, it was supposed to be grandfathered in. You were supposed to keep it, but the Department of Labor came out with these grandfather regulations. It’s almost like telling a guy you can keep walking on the beach as long as you don’t get any sand on your feet. It’s almost impossible not to violate,” said National Center for Public Policy Research health-care analyst Dr. David Hogberg.

“If one of your co-pays goes up $10 over one year, your plan is no longer grandfathered. If the co-insurance you pay for a procedure was at 15 percent and they moved it up to 16 percent, it is no longer grandfathered,” he said.

Hogberg points to Labor Department statistics that admit 66 percent of small group plans will fail to be grandfathered because of those types of technicalities. With 31 million people employed by firms with less than 50 employees, some 20 million Americans are facing cancellation of their policies.

“It was obvious from the start that these regulations were going to result in loads of people losing their health insurance, but the president kept making that promise that if you like your insurance you can keep it, when he should have known better and I kind of suspect that he did know better,” Hogberg said.

The issue is not just theoretical for Hogberg, whose employer has fewer than 50 workers. In January, the National Center for Public Policy Research was informed by Kaiser Permanente that the policy the organization used since 1996 no longer met federal standards and had to be canceled. Hogberg said the plan Kaiser now recommends requires a six percent hike in premiums, which is a much better deal than other small firms are seeing.

Hogberg said his boss noted the cancellation would provide most small employers plenty of incentive to scrap insurance altogether and force employees onto health-care exchanges. He said it’s hard to estimate how many businesses would actually do that.

Another concern for Hogberg is how the story seems to be slipping below the radar for a mainstream media that were all over the headaches caused by individual policies getting canceled. He said it’s probably because of how enrollment periods are defined for different groups.

“Individual policies are mostly renewed in January of each year, and so these cancellation letters had to all be sent out over a period of a few months. Small group plans are renewed practically every month,” Hogberg said. “I think that’s one reason why the media might not be giving small group cancellations quite the same coverage because it’s happening over a more protracted period of time. The number of cancellations doesn’t escalate very quickly, so at this point it’s not making a huge media story.”

However, the number of Americans set to lose their small group plan coverage is much greater than those affected by the individual market, whether their employers end up finding another plan or dropping coverage and forcing employees to find insurance on the exchanges. As a result, Hogberg predicts this will be another black eye for Obamacare.

“I think this is another reason why Obamacare is in such trouble. First of all, the law shouldn’t be forcing people to lose their insurance to begin with. But if that’s going to happen, if many people are going to lose the plans that they like, I suspect most people would at least prefer to get a new plan that’s better than the old one,” Hogberg said.

“So far, I really don’t see much evidence that that’s happening and quite a bit of evidence that it’s not. People are paying higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs. Networks of doctors and hospitals are more restrictive,” he said. “I suspect the Obama administration and other Obamacare supporters are kind of in denial about that. Maybe that denial will end come November, but who knows?”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Dick Durbin’s Fantasy World: Where Obamacare Helped 10 Million Uninsured Americans Get Insurance (Video)

Sen. Durbin’s Fantasy World: Where Obamacare Helped 10 Million Uninsured Americans Get Insurance – Independent Journal Review

.

.
Senator Richard Durbin revealed his wild imagination on Face the Nation this week, where he proclaimed that Obamacare has insured an additional 10 million Americans who wouldn’t have otherwise had insurance:

“Bob, let’s look at the bottom line. The bottom line is this. Ten million Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it without the Affordable Care Act – 10 million. And we can also say this. It is going to reduce the deficit more than we thought it would.”

However, there are some major problems with Durbin’s statement, which he seems to have taken by combining two numbers:

* The more than 3 million who signed up for Obamacare through the exchanges: The federal exchange counts people as enrolled as long as they have selected a plan, even if they haven’t paid for it. Also, a McKinsey & Co. survey estimates that only 11 percent of those who bought insurance under Obamacare didn’t have insurance previously.

* The 6.3 million people who were deemed eligible for Medicaid this year: In addition to some who were added to Medicaid as a result of Obamacare, this group also includes those who had Medicaid prior to Obamacare and those who are joining Medicaid in states that did not accept the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

The Washington Post Fact Checker estimated that, at the very most, the number of newly insured under Obamacare is 4 million but that even that number is generous. Durbin’s estimate of 10 million is ridiculous and not at all backed by fact though, sadly, many who hear his statement will believe it.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Impeachable Offenses Update: Obama Illegally Delays Insurance Mandate For Medium-Sized Employers Until 2016

White House Delays Health Insurance Mandate For Medium-Sized Employers Until 2016 – Washington Post

.

.
The Obama administration announced Monday it would give medium-sized employers an extra year, until 2016, before they must offer health insurance to their full-time workers.

Firms with at least 100 employees will have to start offering this coverage in 2015.

By offering an unexpected grace period to businesses with between 50 and 99 employees, administration officials are hoping to defuse another potential controversy involving the 2010 health-care law, which has become central to Republicans’ campaign to make political gains in this year’s midterm election.

Even the nation’s largest employers got a significant concession: They can avoid a fine by offering coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent starting in 2016. Under an earlier proposal, employers with at least 50 employees would have been required to offer insurance, beginning 2015, to 95 percent of those who work 30 hours or more a week, along with their dependents.

The regulation finalized by the Treasury Department involves one of the biggest issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act: how the law’s employer mandate plays out in practice. The mandate has enormous ramifications for how businesses classify their employees and how much these men and women work.

Initially, these requirements – which affect firms employing 72 percent of all Americans – were supposed to take effect this year, at the same time that most individuals faced a new obligation to obtain health insurance or risk a tax penalty. Last July, the administration announced it would delay the regulation for a year after many employers and some unions complained about the law’s reporting requirements and classification system for workers.

A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the proposal on the condition of anonymity because the rule was not yet public, said the Treasury Department decided to allow medium-sized businesses more flexibility because they “need a little more time to adjust to providing coverage.”

Businesses that fail to offer coverage face a fine of up to $2,000 for each employee that is not covered, though workers are not required to sign up for the benefits.

The coverage must encompass a core set of benefits and be affordable – which the law defines as premiums costing no more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s income – and the employer must pay for the equivalent of 60 percent of the cost of coverage for workers but not their dependents.

Until now, the government had not defined exactly which workers should be considered full-time. Nor had it spelled out important details of the insurance benefits that employer-sponsored health plans must cover, given that they are not the same as the “essential benefits” required of health plans that are sold to individuals or small businesses through the new federal insurance exchange, HealthCare.gov.

Brian Haile, senior vice president for health care policy at Jackson Hewitt, said the announcement was significant because how the federal government defines a full-time employee will affect hiring decisions across the country.

“This final rule may seem like an obscure accounting matter, but it gets to the heart of whether and how employers hire new workers – and whether these workers will have the opportunity to transition from part-time to full-time or seasonal to permanent employment,” Haile said. “This rule hits on a core question as to how employment is structured in the United States.”

Administration officials said that organizations with a large number of volunteer employees – such as firefighters and first responders – would not have to provide coverage, along with those hiring seasonal employers who work six months or less in a given year.

Teachers will not be considered part-time just because they do not work for three months during the summer, officials added, while the status of adjunct faculty will be calculated on a formula where they would receive credit for 2¼ hours of service per week for each hour they spent teaching or in the classroom.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Remember when we thought Bill Clinton was a shameless liar?

The Other McCain looks at President Conflation and sums him up perfectly!

Just got through watching President Obama lying on TV, and the method of his dishonesty is what fascinates me. He (and other liberals) engage in a sort of rhetorical prestidigitation, whereby health insurance is conflated with health care. In other words, the Democrats would have you believe, if you don’t have insurance, you just get sick and die. But what they never mention is that most people are healthy, and the vast majority of Americans — whether healthy or sick — had health insurance before ObamaCare was enacted.

If you were part of the X-million who did not have health insurance (those numbers were always estimates, and there was serious disagreement about how many were in the supposedly pathetic legion of The Uninsured), that didn’t mean you were doomed to die a painful death without benefit of medical care.

Most people without health insurance were healthy young people. But by relentlessly hyping the allegedly widespread misery of The Uninsured, liberals  sought to justify a complex new federal regulatory apparatus that changed health insurance for everybody — including people who already had insurance with which they were satisfied.

The President therefore promised that everybody who already had insurance could keep it, and further promised that their rates would not go up as a result of the new law. But he lied.

Now, the President is attempting to convince us that everything is just hunky-dory. People who continue to oppose this law, the President would have us believe, are against health care — that is to say, he is conflating this legislation with health care per se, so that if you are against this particular law, you’re pro-cancer or something.

That’s right: Republicans want people to get sick and die, because illness and death are the only alternatives to the President’s policy.

 

Welcome to Marxism 101 America. ObamaCare punishes those who had insurance

Donald Douglas has a link to a WSJ piece that looks into the truth about how bad ObamaCare REALLY is. Odd isn’t it the “Affordable Care act” is proving to be anything but affordable, or Americans or America. Even odder, perhaps, is that this bill shows how little Democrats “care” about working Americans.

Another essential analysis, at the Wall Street Journal, “ObamaCare’s Plans Are Worse“:

Liberals justify [ObamaCare's] coercive cross-subsidies as necessary to finance coverage for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions. But government usually helps the less fortunate honestly by raising taxes to fund programs. In summer 2009, Senate Democrats put out such a bill, and the $1.6 trillion sticker shock led them to hide the transfers by forcing people to buy overpriced products.

This political mugging is especially unfair to the people whose plans on the current individual market are being taken away. The majority of these consumers are self-employed or small-business owners. They’re middle class, rarely affluent. They took responsibility for their care without government aid, and unlike people in the job-based system, they paid with after-tax dollars.

Now they’re being punished for the crime of not subsidizing ObamaCare, even though the individual market was never as dysfunctional or high cost as liberals claim. In 2012, average U.S. individual premiums were $190, ranging from a low of $123 in North Dakota to a high of $385 in Massachusetts. Average premiums for family plans fell that year by 0.5% to $412.

Those numbers come from the 13,000 different policies from 180 insurers sold on eHealthInsurance.com, the online shopping brokerage that works. (Technological wonders never cease.) Individuals can make the trade-offs between costs and benefits for themselves. This wide variety is proof that humans don’t all want or need the same thing. If they did, there would be no need for a market and government could satisfy everybody.

That is precisely what the Obama health planners believe they can do. Regulators mandated a very rich level of “essential” health benefits that all plans in the individual market must cover, regardless of cost. This year eHealth reported that its data show individual premiums must be 47% higher than the old average to fund the new categories in the individual market.

The ugly face of Marxism has begun to show itself hasn’t it? The promise of ObamaCare is far removed from the reality of ObamaCare. But that is true of all promises made in the name of Marxism. That anyone would still defend this gargantuan power grab is inconceivable, unless you accept the truth about those people. They are Marxists, or are blindly supporting Marxism out of sheer ignorance. Even though they see the train coming, they refuse to accept that it is, indeed, a train.