Tag: manhattan
Let Me Tell You Why People Hate Health Insurance Executives

Let Me Tell You Why People Hate Health Insurance Executives

There is no condoning the cold-blooded murder of a UnitedHealth Group executive in predawn Manhattan. Moments after Brian Thompson was shot dead, a torrent of unsympathetic posts flooded social media. I was surprised by both the brazen attack and the unveiled congratulations to a killer. The reasons for the anger, however, I understood very well.

I have my own story. I shared it after the insurer had launched its cruel "Delay Deny Defend" strategy to avoid covering my husband's cancer treatment. Those three words became the title of a 2010 book on the subject, written by Rutgers University law professor Jay Feinman. They may have been the inspiration for the words etched on bullet casings found at the crime scene: "deny," "defend" and "depose."

For years, my husband and I had no serious health issues. We would go to a doctor for annual checkups, and that was it. We were ideal customers for UnitedHealth or any other insurer.

But then my husband was diagnosed with complicated liver cancer. Our plan stipulated that we use doctors in the insurer's network but that if we needed specialized care elsewhere, United Healthcare would cover it. Our network doctor, an expert in liver cancer, told us in no uncertain terms to go to Deaconess Hospital in Boston. Deaconess then offered the cutting-edge treatment my husband needed — and was only a 50-minute drive away.

The doctor obviously anticipated the battle we faced in getting the insurer to cover it. As we walked out of his office, he whispered, "Mortgage the house."

We would have done just that and sued UnitedHealth later had we not fallen victim to the "delay" scheme. The company repeatedly implied that it would seriously consider covering the treatment. To get there, we had to go through an appeal process. That meant speaking to a "handler" who said our case would be reevaluated. About a week later, a one-sentence rejection letter would arrive by snail mail. But it included a number we could call to challenge the verdict. Around we again went.

We could never talk to anyone who made decisions. We couldn't get anyone there to talk to our doctor. At one point, we were told to seek treatment at a now-failing community hospital. The handler told us that the person sending us there was "a nurse" as though that was reassuring.

My husband, an ex-Marine, was a tough customer. He said that dealing with the insurer was worse than dealing with the cancer.

We had fallen into those traps, which Feinman explained, were designed "to wear down claimants" and "flat-out deny" valid claims. Should the policyholder sue, the insurer would unleash a team of lawyers who excelled at swatting away plaintiffs.

Because insurers put the premium payments into investments, delaying payouts also enabled them make more money.

In serious cases, one suspects that delaying tactics are also intended to wait out the life of the patient: The policyholder would die before the insurer had to spend money on medical care. We finally said "the hell with waiting" and went to Deaconess for treatment.

Some months after a grueling round of chemo, my husband died. I'll never know for sure whether the delay hastened that outcome. I do know that the then-CEO of United Healthcare — widely known as William "Dollar Bill" McGuire — later walked off with a $1.1 billion golden parachute after having raked in $500 million.

One last note: Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, would, among other things, let Affordable Care Act insurers discriminate against preexisting conditions. It would deregulate Medicare Advantage plans, which are run by private insurers, and herd more Medicare beneficiaries into them.

You've been warned.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Alvin Bragg

New York Prosecutors Won't Oppose Stay On Trump Sentencing

Consequences for President-elect Donald Trump’s guilty conviction in a New York state case will be years away, as prosecutors signaled they will not oppose suspending the case while the incoming 47th president carries out his four years in the Oval Office.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg wrote Tuesday that he will fight Trump’s request to toss the case altogether. But Bragg said he will not get in the way of a stay, or pause, on the proceedings.

“Given the need to balance competing constitutional interests, consideration must be given to various non-dismissal options that may address any concerns raised by the pendency of a post-trial criminal proceeding during the presidency, such as deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of Defendant’s upcoming presidential term,” Bragg wrote in a memo that had been due Tuesday to New York Judge Juan Merchan.

Bragg requested that motions be due December 9. Trump still has a criminal sentencing date on the calendar for November 26, unless Merchan orders otherwise.

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung declared “a total and definitive victory” in a statement issued shortly after Bragg’s letter became public.

“The Manhattan DA has conceded that this Witch Hunt cannot continue. The lawless case is now stayed, and President Trump’s legal team is moving to get it dismissed once and for all,” said Cheung.

History-Making Conviction

Trump, the first former president to become a convicted felon, was found guilty in May of 34 felonies for falsifying business records related to paying off porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election to hide a decade-old sexual encounter with her at a Lake Tahoe golf club.

The likely delay of Trump’s sentencing while he serves as president brings to a close, if temporarily, the only one of Trump’s criminal cases that went to trial.

The case, brought by Bragg’s office, was among four criminal cases the then-former president faced as he campaigned to again occupy the Oval Office. Trump also faced several civil lawsuits and now stares down roughly half a billion dollars in damages for committing fraud, defamation and sexual abuse.

As Trump readies to take the oath of office in just two months, Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s office is also winding down its two federal cases against Trump, as the department does not prosecute sitting presidents.

The federal cases include fraud and obstruction charges stemming from Trump’s actions to undermine his 2020 election loss, which culminated in a violent attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The other case, appealed by Smith after a federal judge tossed it, revolved around charges that the then-former president unlawfully took and stockpiled classified documents at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate upon leaving the White House.

Not The First Delay In New York

Each of the 34 class E felonies Trump is convicted of carries a penalty of up to four years, according to the New York penal code.

Trump’s sentencing date was twice delayed. Merchan granted Trump’s request in September to delay the criminal sentencing until after November’s presidential election.

Merchan had already delayed Trump’s initial July sentencing date following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision ordering that former presidents are immune from criminal charges for core constitutional duties, and presumed immune for other actions while in office. The court’s opinion also brought into question what types of evidence can be admitted in criminal cases against former presidents.

Trump asked Merchan to “set aside” the guilty verdict almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling. Merchan has yet to rule on the motion.

New York prosecutors and Trump’s defense team on Nov. 12 jointly asked Merchan to delay all proceedings while the prosecutors decide if and how their case would proceed following Trump’s election victory.

Originally published in Arizona Mirror, a division of the nonprofit news network States Newsroom.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Donald Trump

Where Political Violence Begins: Crazy Talk, Crazy People And Guns

One evening, just over a week ago, I was walking in Midtown Manhattan when dozens of police cars, sirens blasting, lights flashing, descended on the area. Cops cut off entire avenues to traffic. Soon a phalanx of police vehicles, followed by a column of identical black SUVs, whooshed past red lights.

They were taking former president Donald Trump to his home at Trump Tower. The New York Police Department was clearly determined not to let anything happen to him on their watch, certainly not after a young man of no obvious political persuasion nearly killed him in Butler, Pennsylvania.

But on Sunday, someone else evidently wanted to take a shot at Trump through an unguarded chain fence surrounding his golf course in West Palm Beach. The suspect is a former construction worker with grandiose notions, a sizable rap sheet and more than a few screws loose.

Here's the bigger picture: Crazy political talk may be activating crazy people bent on violence. And about 99 percent of the blather is coming from the Trump side. Am I blaming the victim? This in no way justifies physical threats against him, but the answer, to a large part, is yes.

Trump has called for killing the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's argued that as president, he could assassinate his political rivals using SEAL Team Six and get away with it. He mocked the savage attack against Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul. He unleashed the January 6 riot on the Capitol, calling the thugs who attacked police "hostages."

Violent talk does percolate in the fringe left, but now we have off-the-wall intimidation by the official Republican candidate for president. I defy defenders of Trump's behavior to cite similar rhetoric from anyone who matters on the Democratic side.

These disturbing head games also hurt ordinary Americans, for whom MAGA evinces minimal concern. After a 14-year-old murdered two students and two teachers at a Georgia high school, Trump's running mate JD Vance dismissed such shootings as "a fact of life." When a school shooting took the life of a sixth grader in Perry, Iowa, Trump opined that we "have to get over it."

MAGA likes to say that Trump is being endangered by the mean things Democrats say about him. Does the movement have anything to match Trump's ludicrous lies about Haitian migrants stealing and eating pet dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio? Bomb threats ensued, forcing the city to close schools and cancel town hall meetings.

Asked whether he would denounce the bomb threats, Trump refused to take even that baby step toward decency.

Vance, meanwhile, admitted on Sunday that he knew the story about the dogs and cats was phony, but it was a useful way to rile up the locals over a large influx of Haitian migrants into their community. Has the bar fallen so low that Vance expects praise for admitting he lied?

"If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do," he said. Few question that a sudden large influx of immigrants can create strains on local services. But the city and state are dealing with it while balancing the advantages of a needed new work force.

Ohio's governor, the city manager and religious leaders were asking Trump to stop. These migrants are there legally, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine noted. "What the companies tell us is that they are very good workers ... and frankly, that's helped the economy."

Springfield has a revitalized downtown and diversifying economy. Give the place a break.

Crazy talk, crazy people and guns everywhere. It doesn't have to be this way.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Jury Orders Trump To Pay $83 Million In E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case

Jury Orders Trump To Pay $83 Million In E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case

Donald Trump will have to pay journalist E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in total damages in her defamation case, after nine jurors – seven men and two women – deliberated for just under three hours in a lower Manhattan federal courthouse Friday afternoon.

This is the second civil defamation and sexual abuse case Carroll brought against the ex-president, who is facing 91 state and federal criminal felony charges. Hen is also facing a civil business fraud case in New York, which has the potential to cost him hundreds of millions and bar him from doing business in the Empire State.

E. Jean Carroll’s case surrounded defamatory statements Trump made in June of 2019, and jurors were required to determine compensatory and punitive damages Trump owes for those statements. In the first case a jury determined Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The judge in both cases, senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan determined those facts would hold over for this case. He also had noted after the first case that Trump had effectively been found liable for rape, making the ex-president an adjudicated rapist.

Initially Carroll’s attorney asked for $10 million in compensatory damages in the current case, but expert testimony revealed it would cost the journalist, author, and advice columnist at least $12 million to repair her damaged reputation, and millions more in lost wages and other injuries.

Just Security last week described that as, “economic loss (lost income, career opportunities, or business deals due to damaged reputation) as well as for emotional distress (mental anguish, humiliation, and reputational harm).”

Carroll’s attorneys on Friday asked the jury for $24 million in compensatory damages. During closing arguments Carroll’s attorneys told the jury Trump’s claims of high net worth should be taken in to account when deciding how much to award Carroll in punitive damages.

Throughout the trial, and as recently as 11:30 AM Friday, Donald Trump continued his attacks, calling the trial the “E. Jean Carroll False Accusation Case,” and falsely claiming, “This is another Biden Demanded Witch Hunt against his Political Opponent, funded and managed by Radical Left Democrats. The Courts are totally stacked against me, have never been used against a Political Opponent, like this.”

The jury was required to answer these three “yes” or “no” questions:

“Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Carroll suffered more than nominal damages as a result of Mr. Trump’s publication of the June 21 and June 22, 2019 statements?”

“In making the June 21, 2019 statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll’s rights?”

“In making the June 22, 2019 statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll’s rights?”

During the final day of trial, Donald Trump stormed out of the courtroom when he was criticized by Carroll’s attorney, the highly-respected Roberta Kaplan. Judge Kaplan (no relation) announced that would become part of the trial record.

Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, repeatedly ignored Judge Kaplan’s directions to not question the facts of the case, that Trump had been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, yet she repeatedly ignored his warnings.

Judge Kaplan was forced repeatedly to warn and rebuke Habba, and at one point during closing arguments, he threatened Habba with jail if she continued.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World