primroseburrows: (whattheshit)
This is really, really scary.


IDEK, guys.
primroseburrows: (healthcare)
SPECIAL REPORT-Insurer targeted HIV patients to drop coverage

By Murray Waas

WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.

Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.

So he hired an attorney -- not because he wanted to sue anyone; on the contrary, the shy African-American teenager expected his insurance was canceled by mistake and would be reinstated once he set the company straight.

But Fortis, now known as Assurant Health, ignored his attorney's letters, as they had earlier inquiries from a case worker at a local clinic who was helping him. So Mitchell sued.

In 2004, a jury in Florence County, South Carolina, ordered Assurant Health, part of Assurant Inc., to pay Mitchell $15 million for wrongly revoking his heath insurance policy. In September 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the lower court's verdict, although the court reduced the amount to be paid him to $10 million.

By winning the verdict against Fortis, Mitchell not only obtained a measure of justice for himself; he also helped expose wrongdoing on the part of Fortis that could have repercussions for the entire health insurance industry.

Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.

The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his frantic push to rescue the administration's health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away with controversial and unpopular industry practices.

Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of "rescission," whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they've been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.

In his previously undisclosed court ruling, the judge in the Mitchell case also criticized what he said were the company's efforts to cover its tracks.

Assurant Health said that as a matter of policy it did not comment on individual customer claims.

"We disagree with certain of the court's characterizations of Assurant Health's policies and procedures in the Mitchell case," it said in a statement provided by spokesman Peter Duckler, adding: "The case continues to progress through the appellate process."

Source here.
primroseburrows: (flame)
This just in:

"Activists remain on the roof of Parliament's West Block after unfurling a banner which reads "Harper/Ignatieff: Climate inaction costs lives."

Um, hey guys? Just FYI: CLIMBING ONTO THE ROOF OF THE WEST BLOCK could cost lives, too. Like maybe YOURS.

primroseburrows: (colors don't run the world)
So. The 9/11 masterminds will get a criminal trial in a civilian court, but former child soldier Omar Khadr is still going to face a military tribunal. Apparently the reason is that certain evidence that would be prohibited in a civilian court (translation: evidence obtained under torture harsh interrogation techniques) will likely be accepted in a military court (surprise, surprise!).

This is all despite the fact that a. Khadr was fifteen years old at the time of his arrest, and b. evidence he might not even be guilty. And if that's not enough, let's add some insult to all this injury. Khad'rs own (minority) government is refusing to extradite him.

WTF, people? Since when are child soldiers treated like this? I thought there was supposed to be a law against that.

I'm completely unsurprised by Stephen Harper's actions, but I didn't expect Barack Obama to go along with Bush-era policies. Not, on, Mr. President. Not on at ALL.
primroseburrows: (DT: roland stagedance)
There really, really, REALLY are no words.

primroseburrows: (whattheshit)
From the UK Guardian:

Release Polanski, demands petition by film industry luminaries

Here's what the petition says:

We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski's arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians - everyone involved in international filmmaking - want him to know that he has their support and friendship.

On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

Wait, what? A case of morals? The guy DRUGGED, RAPED, AND SODOMIZED A 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL. Sure, he plea-bargained the charges down, but that just changes the sentence, not the facts. And so what if he's "a renown and international artist"? If he'd been a poor Mexican immigrant, would anyone protest his extradition? I'm thinking, um, lemme

I'll be pleasantly surprised if his "freedom" is taken away. His original sentence was FORTY-TWO DAYS, after all.
primroseburrows: (whattheshit)
This is one of the most ridiculous things in the history of, oh, EVER.

West High bans signs, face paint at games.

The "we can't see who you are under all that paint" is bad enough. But the kids have to wear name tags. NAME TAGS. To HIGH SCHOOL. Jeebus, do they have naptime after lunch, too?
primroseburrows: (whattheshit)
There's a PROMO VIDEO for the baby shooter.

I'm appalled, insulted, amused, embarrassed, and disgusted. ALL AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.
primroseburrows: (birthsecret by)
I think you can drive this down the street and SHOOT BABIES AT PEOPLE..

Also, this? Needs to become an icon somewhere around immediately:

primroseburrows: (SA: against their own succession)
Anyone want to speculate why the publisher of Lawrence Hill's The Book of Negroes decided that the title needed to be changed to Someone Knows My Name for its US publication?

I'm so very sick and tired of publishers thinking that Americans don't have brains. It's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone all over again.

oh, dear.

Apr. 7th, 2009 09:38 pm
primroseburrows: (parliament hill)

What is wrong with the Hill Cam? *angsts*

ETA: It's fixed! The world is again officially safe for beaurocracy democracy.
primroseburrows: (whattheshit)
Apparently some of the Bush-era asshats stayed around after their Leader left the scene, as evidenced by

Exhibit A (for asshat):

and Exhibit B (for, I dunno, something horribly, terribly insulting that begins with B):

There isn't a word for how furious both of these asshats make me. Because holy shit. These guys make Ann Coulter seem tame (I couldn't even finish watching the second one. I mean, I'm nauseated enough today).

If this is supposed to be comedy, it's not even close to being funny. It's disrespectful and hurtful and just plain MEAN.

(links from [ profile] maggiesox and [ profile] mcollinknight)


Mar. 10th, 2009 05:35 pm
primroseburrows: (wtf?)
And ooookay, apparently this has been verified by Whizbang.

Someone needs to 'splain, Lucy.
primroseburrows: (dS: DNF Vecchio)
Please, please, someone, tell me this didn't happen.

Also this.

[ profile] meresy? [ profile] dragonflymuse? [ profile] topaz7? Can I come live with one of you guys? At least until November January?

*hides head in utter embarrassment*
primroseburrows: (wtf?)
Fandom Superlatives is huge and fun and everyone should go there and vote/nominate their favourite characters for something.

One of the categories is Best Old Person. I voted for Dead!Bob, because, well, he's awesome.

There's also a nomination in the same category for Rupert Giles, which made me want to get out an ear trumpet and yell, "What's that, dearie? I can't hear ye!" before shuffling off to the nursing home with my walker and orthopaedic shoes. WTF, since when is Giles OLD?
primroseburrows: (pride)
A lot of you may have seen this video, but for those who haven't, I'm posting it here. This is one of the leaders of my government speaking. Holy hell.

Any Oklahomans out there who could get this person out of office?
primroseburrows: (Default)
I've been having really weird dreams lately, wtf? I just woke up from a dream where I was trying to play my old LP of Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, and it wouldn't play because something that looked like old varnish was bubbled and peeling from it, and it was warped. This was probably the worst dream of all recently, because I love that album!

Before that I dreamed I was (erm, how do I put this?) in a situation that would have made an interesting slashfic, only I'm not a guy and therefore am not, erm equipped? Also, the other person in question is someone with whom I'd never even consider being in such a situation (Yeah, yeah, the only thing I dream about ever that resembles sex and it's direct from Bizarro!World and isn't sexy in the least). I fail at dream!sex.

Somewhere in the mix last night I dreamt that Oldest Daughter was pregnant. I was mostly concerned with buying her a Hotsling and making sure she never entered the Baby Factory.

A couple of days ago I dreamt that Stephen Harper was one of my patients (which if true, would have explained a few things), which would have been weird enough if he actually looked like himself. But I wasn't even afforded that tiny bit of realism; no, he had to go and look like the Well-Manicured Man from the X-Files. At least I can console myself that he wasn't the person in Dream #2.

The conclusions might be:

1. Nostalgia is so thirty years ago, so get over it.

2. Fried ice cream might not have been such a good dessert. Also reading lots of con reports in a row.

3. I like Hotslings?

4. I am a giant giant dork even in my dreams.


primroseburrows: (Default)

October 2014



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags