acegame 888
acegame 888
Tulsa fires coach Kevin Wilson a day after blowout loss to South Florida
Spanish Results
NoneNEW YORK — The masked gunman who stalked and killed the leader of one of the largest U.S. health insurance companies outside a Manhattan hotel used ammunition emblazoned with the words "deny," "defend" and "depose," two law enforcement officials said Thursday. The words were written in permanent marker, according to one of the officials, who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. With the gunman still at large, police also released photos of a person they said was wanted for questioning in connection with the shooting. UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, 50, died in a dawn ambush Wednesday as he walked to the company's annual investor conference at a Hilton hotel in Midtown. The reason behind the killing remained unknown, but investigators believe it was a targeted attack. This image shows a man wanted for questioning in connection to the investigation of the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel. The message left on the ammunition echoes the phrase "delay, deny, defend," which is commonly used by attorneys and insurance industry critics to describe tactics used to avoid paying claims. It refers to insurers delaying payment, denying a claim and then defending their actions. Health insurers like UnitedHealthcare have become frequent targets of criticism from doctors and patients for complicating access to care. Investigators recovered several 9 mm shell casings from outside the hotel and a cellphone from the alleyway through which the shooter fled. Inside a nearby trash can, they found a water bottle and protein bar wrapper that they say the gunman purchased from a nearby Starbucks minutes before the shooting. The city's medical examiner was looking for fingerprints. The killing and the shooter's movements in the minutes before and after were captured on some of the multitudes of security cameras present in that part of the city. The shooter fled on a bike and was last seen riding into Central Park. Bullets lie on the sidewalk Wednesday outside the Hilton Hotel in midtown Manhattan where Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed in New York. The hunt for the shooter brought New York City police to at least two hostels on Manhattan's Upper West Side on Thursday morning, based on a tip that the suspected shooter might have stayed at one of the residences, according to one of the law enforcement officials briefed on the investigation. The photos police released Thursday of a man wanted for questioning were taken in the lobby of the HI New York City hostel. "We are fully cooperating with the NYPD and, as this is an active investigation, can not comment at this time," said Danielle Brumfitt, a spokesperson for the hostel. Police received a flood of tips from members of the public, many of them unfounded. On Wednesday evening, police searched a Long Island Rail Road train after a commuter claimed to have spotted the shooter, but found no sign of the gunman. "We're following up on every single tip that comes in," said Carlos Nieves, a police spokesperson. "That little piece of information could be the missing piece of the puzzle that ties everything together." Investigators believe, judging from surveillance video and evidence collected from the scene, that the shooter had at least some prior firearms training and experience with guns and the weapon was equipped with a silencer, said one of the law enforcement officials who spoke with the AP. This still image from surveillance video shows the suspect, left, sought in the the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, center, Wednesday outside a Manhattan hotel. Security camera video showed the killer approach Thompson from behind, level his pistol and fire several shots, barely pausing to clear a gun jam while the health executive tumbled to the pavement. Cameras showed him fleeing the block across a pedestrian plaza before getting on the bicycle. Police issued several surveillance images of the man wearing a hooded jacket and a mask that concealed most of his face, which wouldn't have attracted attention on a frigid day. Authorities also used drones, helicopters and dogs in an intensive search, but the killer's whereabouts remained unknown. Thompson, a father of two sons who lived in suburban Minneapolis, was with UnitedHealthcare since 2004 and served as CEO for more than three years. The insurer's Minnetonka, Minnesota-based parent company, UnitedHealth Group Inc., was holding its annual meeting with investors in New York to update Wall Street on the company's direction and expectations for the coming year. The company ended the conference early in the wake of Thompson's death. UnitedHealthcare is the largest provider of Medicare Advantage plans in the U.S. and manages health insurance coverage for employers and state and federally funded Medicaid programs. In the U.S. healthcare system, even the simplest act, like booking an appointment with your primary care physician, may feel intimidating. As you wade through intake forms and insurance statements, and research out-of-network coverage , you might wonder, "When did U.S. health care get so confusing?" Short answer? It's complicated. The history of modern U.S. health care spans nearly a century, with social movements, legislation, and politics driving change. Take a trip back in time as Thatch highlights some of the most impactful legislation and policies that gave us the existing healthcare system, particularly how and when things got complicated. In the beginning, a common perception of American doctors was that they were kindly old men stepping right out of a Saturday Evening Post cover illustration to make house calls. If their patients couldn't afford their fee, they'd accept payment in chicken or goats. Health care was relatively affordable and accessible. Then it all fell apart during the Great Depression of the 1930s. That's when hospital administrators started looking for ways to guarantee payment. According to the American College of Healthcare Executives, this is when the earliest form of health insurance was born. Interestingly, doctors would have none of it at first. The earliest health plans covered hospitalization only. A new set of challenges from the Second World War required a new set of responses. During the Depression, there were far too many people and too few jobs. The war economy had the opposite effect. Suddenly, all able-bodied men were in the military, but somebody still had to build the weapons and provision the troops. Even with women entering the workforce in unprecedented numbers, there was simply too much to get done. The competition for skilled labor was brutal. A wage freeze starting in 1942 forced employers to find other means of recruiting and retaining workers. Building on the recently mandated workers' compensation plans, employers or their union counterparts started offering insurance to cover hospital and doctor visits. Of course, the wage freeze ended soon after the war. However, the tax code and the courts soon clarified that employer-sponsored health insurance was non-taxable. Medicare, a government-sponsored health plan for retirees 65 and older, debuted in 1965. Nowadays, Medicare is offered in Parts A, B, C, and D; each offering a different layer of coverage for older Americans. As of 2023, over a quarter of all U.S. adults are enrolled in Medicare. The structure of Medicare is not dissimilar to universal health care offered in other countries, although the policy covers everyone, not just people over a certain age. Medicaid was also signed into law with Medicare. Medicaid provides health care coverage for Americans with low incomes. Over 74 million Americans are enrolled in Medicaid today. The Obama administration was neither the first nor the last to champion new ways to provide health care coverage to a wider swath of Americans. The first attempts to harmonize U.S. healthcare delivery systems with those of other developed economies came just five years after Medicare and Medicaid. Two separate bills were introduced in 1970 alone. Both bills aimed to widen affordable health benefits for Americans, either by making people Medicare-eligible or providing free health benefits for all Americans. As is the case with many bills, both these died, even though there was bipartisan support. But the chairman of the relevant Senate panel had his own bill in mind, which got through the committee. It effectively said that all Americans were entitled to the kind of health benefits enjoyed by the United Auto Workers Union or AFL-CIO—for free. But shortly after Sen. Edward Kennedy began hearings on his bill in early 1971 , a competing proposal came from an unexpected source: Richard Nixon's White House. President Nixon's approach , in retrospect, had some commonalities with what Obamacare turned out to be. There was the employer mandate, for example, and an expansion of Medicaid. It favored healthcare delivery via health maintenance organizations, or HMOs, which was a novel idea at the time. HMOs, which offer managed care within a tight network of health care providers, descended from the prepaid health plans that flourished briefly in the 1910s and 1920s. They were first conceived in their current form around 1970 by Dr. Paul M. Ellwood, Jr. In 1973, a law was passed to require large companies to give their employees an HMO option as well as a traditional health insurance option. But that was always intended to be ancillary to Nixon's more ambitious proposal, which got even closer to what exists now after it wallowed in the swamp for a while. When Nixon reintroduced the proposal in 1974, it featured state-run health insurance plans as a substitute for Medicaid—not a far cry from the tax credit-fueled state-run exchanges of today. Of course, Nixon had other things to worry about in 1974: inflation, recession, a nation just beginning to heal from its first lost war—and his looming impeachment. His successor, Gerald Ford, tried to keep the proposal moving forward, but to no avail. But this raises a good question: If the Republican president and the Democratic Senate majority both see the same problem and have competing but not irreconcilable proposals to address it, why wasn't there some kind of compromise? What major issue divided the two parties? It was a matter of funding. The Democrats wanted to pay for universal health coverage through the U.S. Treasury's general fund, acknowledging that Congress would have to raise taxes to pay for it. The Republicans wanted it to pay for itself by charging participants insurance premiums, which would be, in effect, a new tax. The next significant legislation came from President Reagan, who signed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, in 1985. COBRA enabled laid-off workers to hold onto their health insurance—providing that they pay 100% of the premium, which had been wholly or at least in part subsidized by their erstwhile employer. While COBRA offers continued coverage, its high expense doesn't offer much relief for the unemployed. A 2006 Commonwealth Fund survey found that only 9% of people eligible for COBRA coverage actually signed up for it. The COBRA law had a section, though, that was only tangentially related. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, which was incorporated into COBRA, required all emergency medical facilities that take Medicare—that is, all of them—to treat patients irrespective of their insurance status or ability to pay. As Forbes staff writer Avik Roy wrote during the Obamacare debate, EMTALA has come to overshadow the rest of the COBRA law in its influence on American health care policy. More on that soon. It wasn't until the 1990s that Washington saw another serious attempt at healthcare reform. Bill Clinton's first order of business as president was to establish a new health care plan. For the first time, the First Lady took on the role of heavy-lifting policy advisor to the president and became the White House point person on universal health care. Hillary Clinton's proposal mandated : The Clintons' plan centralized decision-making in Washington, with a "National Health Board" overseeing quality assurance, training physicians, guaranteeing abortion coverage, and running both long-term care facilities and rural health systems. The insurance lobbyists had a field day with that. The famous "Harry and Louise" ads portrayed a generic American couple having tense conversations in their breakfast nook about how the federal government would come between them and their doctor. By the 1994 midterms, any chance of universal health care in America had died. In this case, it wasn't funding but the debate between big and small governments that killed the Clinton reform. It would be another generation before the U.S. saw universal health care take the stage. Fast-forward to 2010. It was clear that employer-sponsored plans were vestiges of another time. They made sense when people stayed with the same company for their entire careers, but as job-hopping and layoffs became more prevalent, plans tied to the job became obsolete. Thus the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, was proposed by Barack Obama's White House and squeaked by Congress and the Supreme Court with the narrowest of margins. The ACA introduced an individual mandate requiring everyone to have health insurance regardless of job status. It set up an array of government-sponsored online exchanges where individuals could buy coverage . It also provided advance premium tax credits to defray the cost to consumers. But it didn't ignore hat most people were already getting health insurance through work, and a significant proportion didn't want to change . So the ACA also required employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to provide health coverage to at least 95% of them. The law, nicknamed Obamacare by supporters and detractors, set a minimum baseline of coverage and affordability. The penalty for an employer that offers inadequate or unaffordable coverage can never be greater than the penalty for not offering coverage at all. The model for Obamacare was the health care reform package that went into effect in Massachusetts in 2006. The initial proposal was made by then-Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican who now serves as a senator from Utah. Despite an onslaught of court challenges, Obamacare remains the law of the land. For a while, Republican congressional candidates ran on a "repeal-and-replace" platform plank, but even when they were in the majority, there was little legislative action to do either. Still, Obamacare is not the last word in American health care reform. Since then, there have been two important improvements to Health Reimbursement Arrangements, through which companies pay employees back for out-of-pocket medical-related expenses. HRAs had been evolving informally since at least the 1960s but were first addressed by the Internal Revenue Service in 2002. Not much more happened on that front until Obama's lame-duck period. In December 2016, he signed the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, which was mainly a funding bill supporting the National Institutes of Health as it addressed the opioid crisis. But, just like the right to free emergency room treatment was nested in the larger COBRA law, the legal framework of Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements was tucked away in a corner of the Cures Act. QSEHRAs, offered only by companies with fewer than 50 full-time employees, allow firms to let their employees pick their insurance coverage off the Obamacare exchanges. The firms pay the employees back for some or all of the cost of those premiums. The employees then become ineligible for the premium tax credit provided by the ACA, but a well-constructed QSEHRA will meet or exceed the value of that subsidy. That brings this timeline to one last innovation, which expands QSEHRA-like treatment to companies with more than 50 employees or aspiring to have them. Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements , or ICHRAs, were established by a 2019 IRS rule . ICHRAs allow firms of any size to offer employees tax-free contributions to cover up to 100% of their individual health insurance premiums as well as other eligible medical expenses. Instead of offering insurance policies directly, companies advise employees to shop on a government-sponsored exchange and select the best plan that suits their needs. Employer reimbursement rather than an advance premium tax credit reduces premiums. And because these plans are already ACA-compliant, there's no risk to the employer that they won't meet coverage or affordability standards. The U.S. is never going back to the mid-20th century model of lifetime employment at one company. Now, with remote employees and gig workers characterizing the workforce, the portability of an ICHRA provides some consistency for those who expect to be independent contractors for their entire careers. Simultaneously, allows bootstrap-phase startups to offer the dignity of health coverage to their Day One associates. The U.S. health care system can feel clunky and confusing to navigate. It is also regressive and penalizes startups and small businesses. For a country founded by entrepreneurs, it's sad that corporations like Google pay less for health care per employee than a small coffee shop in Florida. In many ways, ICHRA democratizes procuring health care coverage. In the same way that large employers enjoy the benefits of better rates, ICHRA plan quality and prices improve as the ICHRA risk pool grows. Moving away from the traditional employer model will change the incentive structure of the healthcare industry. Insurers will be able to compete and differentiate on the merits of their product. They will be incentivized to build products for people, not one-size-fits-all solutions for employers. This story was produced by Thatch and reviewed and distributed by Stacker Media. Get the latest in local public safety news with this weekly email.
Social media users have been left horrified after a young influencer shared a “disturbing” video of herself dancing next to her much older boyfriend, who was lying in a hospital bed. In the video, Bronwin Aurora, 22, boasts about being included in the 80-year-old’s will. Ms Aurora, who has 1.5 million followers, showed off her relationship — which has a 58-year age gap — by kissing her boyfriend’s forehead before breaking into a trending TikTok dance. She danced around the bed, which was surrounded by medical equipment, to the song Keep Up by Odetari. The lyrics include, “Keep up, I’m too fast, I’m too fast, push my foot up on that pedal, then I’m gone, G-g-g-gone, gone, gone.” She captioned the clip, “Guys, I got on the will, should I pull the plug?” Her frail partner watched on and seemed either unbothered or unaware of the message she was sending to her audience. The unsettling clip has left commenters shaken, with many sharing concerns about the relationship. This video, which some think might be satirical, has amassed nearly half a million views. One commenter quipped, “Love your care for humanity.” “Is that something to joke about?” asked someone else. A third commenter stated, “I’m going to cry. I hope he gives everything to his kids.” “A prelude to an episode of Law and Order ,” replied someone else. Meanwhile, others called the clip, “sickening”, “outrageous” and “a new low”. Some even suggested it appeared to be “elder abuse”, a term used when a trusted person mistreats an elderly person in a physical, social, psychological, sexual, or financial manner. “I have no words,” admitted another TikToker. Although Ms Aurora did not disclose her boyfriend’s medical condition, it appears he was out of the hospital by mid-November, as she posted another video of herself dancing near him in a jewellery store with the caption, “How should I repay him for spending $20K on Cartier for me?” This time, her boyfriend, who always remains silent in the clips, joined in, performing a slow boogie as she danced next to him. However in her most recent post, he can be seen in a wheelchair while the pair are out to dinner. The star doesn’t shy away from sharing the details of her relationship online, telling fans in one post that she “loves” him and “takes him to pound town” in exchange for lavish gifts.None
Three fires converged in 2020, destroying over 1,500 structures in the Santiam Canyon, which included massive destruction to the city of Detroit, shown here. (Oregon State University) After more than five years of waiting in some cases, wildfire survivors across the West will be relieved of paying federal income taxes on their recovery settlements and lawyers fees. The Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2023 passed the Senate on Wednesday night, about six months after it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives nearly unanimously. It had been stalled for months, tucked into opposing tax packages from Senate Republicans and Democrats. The bill, which is likely to be signed by President Joe Biden, would exempt people who have survived a wildfire between 2016 and 2026 from paying federal income taxes on disaster recovery settlements and fees paid to lawyers that were received or paid between 2020 and 2026. Victims elsewhere are also likely to benefit. The bill applies to the survivors of the East Palestine train derailment that occurred in Ohio in 2023, though they’ve largely been exempted from federal income tax on payments from Norfolk Southern due to intervention from the Internal Revenue Service. The disaster act would also provide relief for natural disaster survivors since 2020 in the form of a casualty loss deduction. That means that those who only received partial payments from insurers on home damage and other residential property damage could deduct those uncovered losses on their federal income taxes without itemization. Passage of the bill, introduced last year by a Florida Republican Rep. W. Gregory Steube, follows a public plea last month by a political action committee. American Disaster Survivors sponsored billboards asking for help in Idaho and Oregon to grab the attention of the two leaders of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee where the bill sat. Oregon’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Ron Wyden, chairs the committee, and Idaho’s U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo is its ranking Republican member. The disaster PAC was founded by survivors of fires that burned towns in California during 2017 and 2018 and which are still only partially rebuilt. The bill would sunset in 2026, according to Wyden spokesperson Hank Stern, because federal tax codes are coming up for negotiation in 2025 and there is not a lot of political will to do long-term tax policy in the lame duck session before a new Congress and administration comes to power in January. Wyden said in a speech following the bill’s passage that it was necessary and long overdue. “Their homes and their businesses are burned, their possessions and livelihoods gone, and finally, the federal government is showing some common sense,” he said. He and California House and Senate Democrats and Republicans who championed the bill said despite working in a bipartisan way to get it passed in the Republican-controlled House, Senate Republicans stalled progress. “We’re going to be able to say to Westerners who’ve been hit by these big fires that they’re going to be able to go to bed tonight in the Western United States with a little relief that the federal government has finally come to its senses and made sure that they’re not going to have this additional tax burden,” Wyden said in his speech. Spokespersons for the American Disaster Relief PAC said it would impact survivors of wildfire in many states. “This has given a much needed glimmer of hope to millions of Americans across California, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington and Idaho who have been devastated by tragedy.” The federal bill is similar to a state bill that unanimously passed the Oregon Legislature in the spring of 2024 that ended state income taxation on settlements and lawyer fees for wildfire victims. That bill, Senate Bill 1520 , was championed by survivors of the 2020 Labor Day Fires, including Sam Drevo, who survived the Santiam Canyon fire that burned down much of the city of Gates in the heart of the Santiam State Forest. “On behalf of fire survivors everywhere, I am deeply grateful that this passed. I’m not super thrilled about the sunset, but it’s a huge step forward for fire survivors,” Drevo said. He and his mom are still sorting out how much she was taxed on the settlement she received to help her rebuild her home in Gates that was completely wiped out by the fires. “I know it’s going to be helpful, and to other people it’s going to be helpful. In general, it’s a huge thing to have this type of tax relief, especially in a situation where you lose everything,” he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOXTulsa fires coach Kevin Wilson a day after blowout loss to South Florida
