Congress set to ban surprise medical billing in year-end spending package

Congress set to ban surprise medical billing in year-end spending package

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/congress-set-to-ban-surprise-medical-billing-in-year-end-spending-package

Congress is poised to include a ban on “surprise” medical bills as part of its massive year-end spending package that lawmakers are expected to vote on Monday.

In a joint statement Sunday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer confirmed that “bipartisan, bicameral legislation that will end surprise billing for emergency and scheduled care” will be part of $1.4 trillion spending bill, which also includes an additional $900 billion in coronavirus relief money.

“We’re very proud that surprise billing is a part of this,” Pelosi said Sunday night.

The long sought-after legislation will protect insured patients from receiving expensive medical bills when they inadvertently receive out-of-network care. Americans of all stripes support the effort: A survey published Friday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 80% of adults support abolishing the practice.

Although lawmakers in both parties had been pushing for a plan to fix the issue for years — with the support President Trump, who had made it a key campaign priority — the effort drew fierce opposition from powerful lobbying groups representing the health care industry, who questioned how much the insurer would have to pay the doctor once the patient was removed from the equation.

A previously announced deal called for health insurers and providers to negotiate most billing disputes or bring their complaints to a mediator. The final legislation moves even further in favor of doctors and hospitals by preventing the arbiter from using the lower payment rates paid by Medicaid and Medicare programs, according to Politico, which obtained a copy of the bill summary.

Lawmakers also diluted a measure that would have required health insurers to disclose information to employers about their drug costs and rebates through their contracts with middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers. The legislation now calls for insurers to submit more general information on medical costs and prescription rug spending, according to Politico.

Rep. Richard Neal, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, called the proposal a “win for patients and their families that will improve America’s health care system.”

An earlier clash between Neal, who had previously blocked proposals to stop surprise medical billing, and three other committees — House Energy and Commerce, House Education and Labor and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions — threatened to derail the reform efforts. After securing changes that were friendlier to doctors and hospitals, however, Neal agreed to support the proposal.

 

Oregon State Advocates FIght to Reverse Opioid Guidelines That Hurt Chronic Pain Patients

Oregon State Advocates FIght to Reverse Opioid Guidelines That Hurt Chronic Pain Patients

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/oregon-state-advocates-fight-to-reverse-opioid-guidelines-that-hurt-chronic-pain-patients/ar-BB1c7zOj?li=BBnba9O

a close up of items on a table: Medicines pills scattered on a prescription pad with a pen © The Mighty Medicines pills scattered on a prescription pad with a pen

The climate allowed drastic policies and guidelines, which limited or eliminated chronic opioid therapy for legacy patients (intractable pain patients benefiting from long-term opioid therapy). Because of this, many were harmed and some lost their lives to suicide.

Untreated or under-treated pain has resulted in an increase in suicides. Rates among Veterans have shown a significant increase, with chronic pain being one of the main contributors. And in Oregon, doctor-assisted suicides have increased by 25% due to untreated pain. This is a far cry from the statement from 2007 stating that Oregon leads the nation in pain control for patients.

Well-respected experts, chronic pain patients and advocates objected to the drastic paradigm shift and the significant harms asserting the swing was not based on evidence nor was it aligned with the standard of care or best practices. In the past year, nationally, the pendulum has begun to swing back to a neutral position giving suffers hope.

Some changes that could benefit people with chronic pain include:

1. The CDC Clarified Its Guidelines

In April 2019, the CDC clarified its guidelines, stating that they had been misapplied resulting in forced opioid tapers and tapering too quickly, which both caused patient harms. Its guidelines, which were only meant to aid primary care doctors in initial doses of opioid pain analgesics for new opioid patients, were misapplied to limit doses pain specialists could prescribe and restrict dosages for legacy patients.

2. The FDA Acknowledges Harm of Forced Opioid Tapers

April 9, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement acknowledging harms (including suicide) from forced opioid tapers. The FDA only gives instruction for opioid tapering when the taper is mutually agreed upon between patient and doctor.

3. AMA Opioid Task Force Supports Chronic Pain Patients

April 24, 2019, Patrice Harris, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA) Opioid Task Force came out in support of legacy patients by releasing a statement applauding the CDC’s clarification of its guidelines stating they have been “widely” misapplied, preventing physicians from providing the best care to patients.

4. Human Rights Watch Advocates Against Forced Opioid Tapers

Humans Rights Watch (HRW), an international organization that reports on human rights violations, became involved with the opioid epidemic in response to the huge outcry of harm. After investigating, the HRW released a report supporting legacy patients and asserted there is an obligation to respond to this health need and to “refrain” from forced (non-consensual) opioid tapers. Furthermore, HRW stated, “Under the ICESCR’s right to health framework, state parties have an obligation to ‘respect, protect, and fulfill the right of chronic non-cancer pain patients to appropriate pain management.”

5. Washington State Clarifies Opioid Prescribing Guidelines

Oregon’s geographical neighbor, Washington state, has been doing damage control this past year from its previously released rules for opioids. It issued statements and released documents stating that under-treating or refuse to treat pain is just as bad as over-treating. Sept. 20, 2019 it released a letter as its latest attempt at reversing the damage.

In spite of all this, in Oregon, policymakers forge forward forcing many chronic pain patients to question their safety in the midst of known harms from dangerous opioid tapers.

For over a year, advocates have vigilantly voiced concerns at chronic pain task force meetings and now taper task force meetings, through communication with Oregon’s governor, and the state’s senior health policy advisor, testifying at the task force meetings, meeting with the chief medical officer of the Oregon Health Authority, and written comments from experts and patients. There has been one major request­, for evidence-based individual medical care based on each patient’s unique needs, separating those with substance use issues from chronic pain patients and applying different remedies as is appropriate.

Here are just some of the efforts to curb Oregon’s anti-opioid stance, which may be applicable in your own state:

The Human Rights Watch was specifically concerned about harmful policies, proposals and guidelines in Oregon so they wrote a personal letter to the governor of Oregon, along with others, to object to the actions taken against legacy patients. Oregon Medical Association and American Medical Association issued a letter opposing a proposal to force taper some patients off of their opioids. Doctors and experts wrote a letter to the Oregon governor, and others, opposing a proposal that included some forced tapers and to request an evidence-based approach to pain care in Oregon.

However, these requests have fallen on deaf ears. They continue to lump those with substance use issues and chronic pain patients and offer a single remedy, or list of remedies. For example, this was evident, once again, in Taper Task Force meeting material. Not only is there only one taper protocol, the decision to taper or “when to consider tapering” is the same irrespective of whether a person is utilizing opioid medications for pain or if they are struggling with addiction. There is no allowance to return a patient to their previously stable dose of pain analgesics.

The task force also attempted to broaden the inclusion of pain patients into the category of an addiction diagnosis by selectively using DSM5 diagnosis criteria for opioid use disorder (OUD). The task force left out the critical qualifier repeatedly asserted in the DSM5 that states, those using opioids “under appropriate medical supervision.” This means compliant chronic pain patients cannot be diagnosed with OUD.

In addition, the guidelines seem to enlarge an addiction category to include many non-addicted legacy patients by the guideline’s criteria for complex persistent opioid dependence (CPOD). The difference between OUD and CPOD are startling. To be diagnosed with CPOD one only has to have the desire to take opioids for pain, without opioid cravings, no compulsive use, and no harmful use, the patient takes opioids “exactly” as prescribed, and has no social disruption other than from experiencing pain. This is an incredible description and includes all model chronic pain patients.

Amid pressure from advocates and patients, Oregon’s Taper Task Force added a clarifying statement to its updated materials, stating not all patients need to be tapered. But then the rest of the guideline goes on to recommend providers consider a taper for those who meet certain criteria, easily met by the majority of legacy patients. These criteria include:

The patient is on a daily opioid dose of 50–90 MED or higher. The patient has medical risk factors that can increase risk of adverse outcomes, including overdose (e.g., lung disease, sleep apnea, liver disease, renal disease, fall risk, medical frailty). The patient is taking other medications that increase the risk of drug-drug interactions or the risk of overdose, such as benzodiazepines or other sedating medications (e.g., Benadryl, gabapentin). The patient’s history indicates an increased risk for substance use disorder (SUD) (e.g., past diagnosis of SUD, SUD-related behaviors, family history of SUD).

To put this in other words, the majority of legacy patients are on 50 MED or higher of opioids, so that one criterion alone encompasses a huge percentage of patients. In addition, the rest of the criteria includes advanced age (medical fragility — the term they use to describe older people), people who have allergies (take Benadryl) people who have anxiety disorders or need awake oral surgery or any other twilight surgery (benzodiazepine), those who have nerve pain (gabapentin), and those who don’t have SUD, but who have a family member who has it (have an uncle who has SUD, even though you don’t). After including all these, there will be few chronic pain patients who won’t fall within the recommendation to consider tapering.

Why is the narrative the same in Oregon when other states and nationally there’s been some movement?

The task force membership includes a large percentage of addiction specialist who are allowed to make policy for chronic pain patients even though they do not have specific knowledge on this population. The task forces membership doesn’t include chronic pain patient representatives without a substance use disorder The task force recycles many of the same members or representatives from the same organization over and over Those with substance use disorder and chronic pain patients are lumped together and given the same guidelines The public commenting process is often confusing and not transparent There’s been no collection of data on patient harms for current forced taper policies but claim success based solely on the fact that the patients were tapered. Despite agreeing to revisit the guideline this fall, we have yet to see a plan to do so

Despite the evidence and efforts to the contrary, Oregon doesn’t seem to be curbing their anti-opioid sentiment even with the knowledge that it will cause patient harms.

The taper task force guidelines will be enforced for all Oregonians regardless of insurance (Medicaid, private or self-pay). Oregon is a scary place for legacy patients.

 

What are the ingredients of Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine?

What are the ingredients of Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine?

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/09/1013538/what-are-the-ingredients-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine/

Facebook said on December 3 that it would remove posts with false claims or conspiracy theories about what’s in the covid-19 vaccines that everyone’s counting on.

In the face of rumors suggesting that Bill Gates has installed tracking microchips in the shots, or that the inoculations contain luciferase, a glowing chemical from fireflies whose name makes some people think of the devil, the company suggested it would be policing such claims by making reference to the “official vaccine ingredient list.”

What’s actually on the official ingredient list? This week an elderly UK woman became the first person outside of a trial to get the newly approved vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, and the US could greenlight the same inoculation as soon as Thursday, December 10. Along with the regulatory actions over the last week have come the most detailed disclosures yet of the new vaccine’s makeup.

Here, for instance, is what the US Food and Drug Administration says is in Pfizer’s vaccine:

  • Active Ingredient
    • nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2
  • Lipids
    • (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis (ALC-3015)
    • (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide (ALC-0159)
    • 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine (DPSC)
    • cholesterol
  • Salts
    • potassium chloride
    • monobasic potassium phosphate
    • sodium chloride
    • basic sodium phosphate dihydrate 
  • Other
    • sucrose

Reading the ingredient list is like looking at the side of a cereal box, except that you need a degree in organic chemistry to understand it. We got help from various scientists and biotech entrepreneurs to understand what each of the ingredients does and make some educated guesses about others.

The mRNA

Pfizer’s vaccine is the first on the market that consists of actual genetic information from a virus in the form of messenger RNA, or mRNA, a type of molecule whose usual job is to transport copies of genetic instructions around a cell to guide the assembly of proteins. This information can be understood better if you visit Shenandoah Biotech and understand the technical terms and the science behind protein recombination. Imagine an mRNA as a long ticker tape carrying instructions. It’s fairly delicate stuff, and that’s why Pfizer’s vaccine needs to be kept at around -100 °F (-73 °C) until it’s used.

The new vaccine, delivered as a shot in the arm muscle, contains an RNA sequence taken from the virus itself; it causes cells to manufacture the big “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which the pathogen uses to glom onto a person’s cells and gain entry. On its own, without the rest of the virus, the spike is pretty harmless. But your body still reacts to it. This is what leaves you immunized and ready to repel the real virus if it turns up.

The mRNA in the vaccine, to be sure, isn’t quite the same as the stuff in your body. That’s good, because a cell is full of defenses ready to chop up RNA, especially any that doesn’t belong there. To avoid that, what’s known as “modified nucleosides” have been substituted for some of the mRNA building blocks.

But Pfizer is holding back a little. The spike gene sequence can be tweaked in small ways for better performance, by means that include swapping letters. We don’t think Pfizer has said exactly what sequence it is using, or what modified nucleosides. That means the content of the shot may not be 100% public.

The lipids

The Pfizer vaccine, like one from Moderna, uses lipid nanoparticles to encase the RNA. The nanoparticles are, basically, tiny greasy spheres that protect the mRNA and help it slide inside cells.

These particles are probably around 100 nanometers across. Curiously, that’s about the same size as the coronavirus itself.

Pfizer says it uses four different lipids in a “defined ratio.” The lipid ALC-0315 is the primary ingredient in the formulation. That’s because it’s ionizable—it can be given a positive charge, and since the RNA has a negative one, they stick together. It’s also a component that can cause side-effects or allergic reactions. The other lipids, one of which is the familiar molecule cholesterol, are “helpers” that give structural integrity to the nanoparticles or stop them from clumping. During manufacturing, the RNA and the lipids are stirred into a bubbly mix to form what the FDA describes as a “white to off-white” frozen liquid.

Salts

The Pfizer vaccine contains four salts, one of which is ordinary table salt. Together, these salts are better known as phosphate-buffered saline, or PBS, a very common ingredient that keeps the pH, or acidity, of the vaccine close to that of a person’s body. You’ll understand how important that is if you’ve ever squeezed lemon juice on a cut. Substances with the wrong acidity can injure cells or get quickly degraded.

Sugar

The vaccine includes plain old sugar, also called sucrose. It’s acting here as a cryoprotectant to safeguard the nanoparticles when they’re frozen and stop them from sticking together.

Saline solution

Before injection, the vaccine is mixed with water containing sodium chloride, or ordinary salt, just as many intravenously delivered drugs are. Again, the idea is that the injection should more or less match the salt content of the blood.

No preservatives

Pfizer makes a point of saying its mixture of lipid nanoparticles and mRNA is “preservative-free.” That’s because a preservative that’s been used in other vaccines, thimerosal (which contains mercury and is there to kill any bacteria that might contaminate a vial), has been at the center of worries around over whether vaccines cause autism. The US Centers for Disease Control says thimerosal is safe; despite that, its use is being phased out. There is no thimerosal—or any other preservative—in the Pfizer vaccine. No microchips, either.

The vaccine is still known by the code name BNT162b, but once it’s authorized, expect Pfizer to give it a new, commercial name that conveys something about what’s in it and what it promises for the world.

Michigan Libertarian rep introduces bill to end civil asset forfeiture

Michigan Libertarian rep introduces bill to end civil asset forfeiture

https://www.foxnews.com/us/amash-bill-end-civil-asset-forfeiture

A Michigan congressman introduced a bill Thursday to end civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize a person’s property on the suspicion that it was used in a crime. 

“Civil asset forfeiture is a due process violation, and it always has been,” Rep. Justin Amash, L-Mich., said Thursday. “Its history is riddled with injustices not because it’s a valid practice that gets misused, but because its central premise—denying people their procedural rights—is inherently flawed.”

Police counter that they need civil asset forfeiture to fight criminal organizations, but often the people who have their property seized are never charged with a crime. 

DESPITE PROMISES TO CUT BACK, FED AND STATE GOVERNMENT PRESS ASSET FORFEITURES

The Greenville News examined civil asset forfeiture cases in South Carolina and found that a fifth of the 4,000 people who had property seized never were charged with a crime, and another fifth were charged but never convicted. 

Nationwide, $68.8 billion was seized from Americans over the last 20 years, according to an Institute for Justice report released this month. 

Large criminal enterprises and drug kingpins typically are not targeted in these cases; the institute found that the average currency forfeiture is just $1,276. 

Since hiring an attorney to contest the forfeiture can be expensive, people who had property seized only sought its return in 22% of cases. 

SEN. PAUL, SCOTT BULLOCK: CIVIL FORFEITURE HAS RUINED COUNTLESS LIVES

In one 2016 case, the tour manager for a Burmese Christian musical act had $53,000 of concert proceeds seized during a routine traffic stop in Oklahoma. The money was for Christian refugees and Thai orphans. Muskogee County District Attorney Orvil Loge told the Washington Post that he dropped the case after negative press coverage and calls from “a lot of citizens” who were upset about the case. 

In 2017, Tennessee police officers seized a disabled Vietnam veteran’s BMW because his son was accused of driving the car to the site of drug deals. The American Civil Liberties Union took up his defense and eventually got the property back. 

“I took an oath to defend our Constitution when I served in the military,” the veteran told ACLU. “I have the highest respect for law enforcement, but the Fourth Amendment has to mean something. Police officers can’t just take people’s property for no reason.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Civil asset forfeiture is illegal in three states, and 11 more require a criminal conviction to seize a person’s property, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Amash said he hopes to make the practice illegal nationwide. 

“By ending [civil asset forfeiture], my bill helps fulfill Congress’ obligation to stop rights violations at both the state and federal level, and it ends a practice that contributes to the frayed relationship between law enforcement and the public,” Amash said Thursday. 

HHS proposes important changes to key aspects of HIPAA Privacy Rule

HHS proposes important changes to key aspects of HIPAA Privacy Rule

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the agency that enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), is the latest federal agency to jump on the HHS rulemaking bandwagon issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on December 10, 2020, that proposes pivotal changes to key standards, definitions, and patient rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which are geared toward promoting care coordination and value-based care, and empowering patients with greater access to their health information.

As we recently flagged, even amidst the chaos of a global pandemic, multiple HHS agencies, including the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and most recently, CMS and OIG, have focused their attention in 2020 on facilitating and enforcing patients’ rights to access their health information, encouraging interoperability among health information technology (IT) systems, prohibiting information blocking by key health industry stakeholders such as health care providers and health IT developers, and promoting value-based care. OCR’s NPRM is no different.

Most notably, the NPRM –

  • Shortens response time for patient health record requests from 30 days to 15 days (with a 15 day extension under limited circumstances).
  • Reduces identity verification burdens on patients (or their personal representatives) exercising a right under the Privacy Rule.
  • Amends the definition of health care operations to permit disclosure of patient information for care coordination and case management activities, whether population-based or focused on particular individuals.
  • Clarifies the minimum necessary standard with respect to care coordination and case management activities.
  • Removes antiquated elements of Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) requirements.
  • Amends the permissible fee structure for responding to patient health record requests and requires covered entities to post estimated fees on their website for access and for disclosures with a patient’s authorization.
  • Clarifies and facilitates family and caregiver involvement in the care of individuals experiencing emergencies or health crises.

If finalized, these proposals will require HIPAA-regulated entities to update their policies and procedures that impact daily business operations, train workforce members on updated processes, revise their Notice of Privacy Practices, renegotiate business associate agreements (BAAs) to comply with the new requirements, and coordinate compliance with the conglomerate of overlapping privacy, interoperability, information blocking, patient access, and value-based regulatory frameworks – each of which is actively transforming the way in which the health care industry shares patient information.

Further Reed Smith analysis on the NPRM is forthcoming, particularly with respect to the implications of the proposed changes on the value-based rulemakings and the new interoperability, information blocking, and patient access rules.

Michigan Vote Fraud WITNESS assassination attempt

https://www.bitchute.com/video/XS0iMDsylnML/

Key witnesses are being taken out.

Fourth one this morning. MSM hiding everything.

Will dig up the others and publish, if possible. We only got this because of doorbell cam. Police seizing all videos.

Stay tuned. There will be updates.

———–
found the location

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5604825,-83.081205,3a,75y,206.58h,76.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbeWIPq68zAMu4pUxi1RlfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Released: Antrim Michigan Forensics Report On Dominion Voting System

I made the above post yesterday – which TWITTER was automatically BLOCKING the hyperlink to the published report and now this TODAY and it appears to be an attempted ASSIGNATION of a key witness in the VOTER FRAUD in MICHIGAN…

Maybe it is just me… but… sort of reminds one of films/pictures that have been shown representing what went on during our alcohol prohibition period and “turf wars” involving “mafia types” defending their “turf” ?

Twitter is automatically BLOCKING this HYPERLINK to this story

Released: Antrim Michigan Forensics Report On Dominion Voting System

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/released-antrim-michigan-forensics-report-dominion-voting-system

The results of the forensic audit – ordered by Michigan Circuit Judge Elsenheimer – of Dominion Voting Systems machines and other election-related software showed that they were designed to create fraudulent election results, according to the data firm, Allied Security Operations Group. Russell Ramsland Jr, the co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group, wrote in the redacted report released to the public, “We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”

The 22-page report showed that the allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines only allows a .0008% error rate or 1 error for every 250,000 ballots. The data firm uncovered an error rate of 68.05%, which “demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.”

Ramsland wrote that “the system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred to adjudication. The internal errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail.”

Simply, the data firm was able to identify code in the machine that forces a high number of ballots being flagged that are then sent to the controversial “adjudication” process. This process came under the microscope this election after 100s of Republican poll workers, and ballot watchers were forced out of the adjudication process. If Republicans were kept out of the adjudication process, there was “no oversight and no transparency.”

Ramsland continued that “this leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should no be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.”

The report shows that the Antrim County vote tabulation final number has changed every time the vote was re-tabulated even though the number of registered voters stays consistent. The total number of registered voters for all three tabulations was 22,082.

On November third, the Dominion voting machines’ first tabulation showed 12,423 total votes cast for president, with Joseph Biden receiving 7,769 votes to Donald Trump’s 4,509 votes.

On the November 5th tabulation, the total number of votes cast for president increased to 17,327 with Joseph Biden receiving 7,289 votes to Donald Trump’s 9,783 votes. The second tabulation shows President Trump now winning the county.

The third tabulation again showed a different number for all three major areas. On November 21st tabulation the total number of votes cast for president DECREASED to 15,949 total votes but still doesn’t match the Nov. 3rd or Nov. 5th tabulation. Joseph Biden received 5,960 of the total presidential vote with Donald Trump receiving 9,748 votes. President Trump officially winning the county.

The report shows that “the tabulation log for the forensic examination of the server for Antrim County from December 6, 2020 consists of 15,676 individual events, of which 10,667 or 68.05% of the events were recorded errors. These errors resulted in overall tabulation errors or ballots being sent to adjudication.”

Ramsland said that “this high error rate proves the Dominion Voting System is flawed and does not meet state or federal election laws.” Ramsland explained that “a staggering number of votes required adjudication.” He said that this was a “2020 issue, not seen in previous election cycles.”

The data firm’s “examination of the server logs indicates that this high error rate was incongruent with patterns from previous years.” Ramsland states that “the statement attributing these issues to human error is not consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors.” He continued, “the systemic errors are intentionally designed to create errors in order to push a high volume of ballots to bulk adjudication.”

The staggering results of the forensic audit highlighted that “the computer system shows vote adjudication logs for prior years; but all adjudication log entries for the 2020 election cycle are missing.” The log for adjudication for the highly contested 2020 election is lost.

The 2020 adjudication process is under fire by Republicans claiming there was no room for proper oversight, transparency, and audit trail. The report states that “the adjudication process is the simplest way to manually manipulate votes. The lack of records prevents any form of audit accountability, and their conspicuous absence is extremely suspicious since the files exist for previous years using the same software. Removal of these files violates state law and prevents a meaningful audit, even if the Secretary wanted to conduct an audit. We must conclude that the 2020 election cycle records have been manually removed.”

68.05% of the ballots were sent to adjudication. Adjudication logs are lost. We cannot audit 68.05% of the vote for Antrim County.

The assistant attorney general, representing the Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Erik Grill, told the judge this morning that the audit results should be released to the public, but that the public should know that the report was “inaccurate, incomplete and misleading.”

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Unanimously You May Sue Government Agents for Damages When They Violate Your Individual Rights

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Unanimously You May Sue Government Agents for Damages When They Violate Your Individual Rights

https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-unanimously-you-may-sue-government-agents-for-damages-when-they-violate-your-individual-rights/

Arlington, Va.—In a unanimous opinion issued today by the U.S. Supreme Court, and authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled in Tanzin v. Tanvir that individuals may seek damages as a remedy when federal officers violate their rights. The opinion closely tracks an amicus brief submitted by the Institute for Justice.

The case involved FBI agents who retaliated against Muslim-Americans and green-card holders who followed the dictates of their faith and refused to cooperate with the FBI by spying on their own communities. As a result of their refusal to cooperate, these individuals were placed on the No Fly List, which caused significant hardship, such as the inability to travel to visit family or for work. Luckily, Congress provided a statutory authorization to sue for violations of religious rights, allowing a plaintiff to receive “appropriate relief against the government.”

Not surprisingly, in the lawsuit against the FBI agents, the government argued that the words “appropriate relief” do not include damages. According to the government, damages might be an appropriate remedy against private actors, but damages should not be allowed if the person who violated your rights happens to work for the government.

The Institute for Justice filed an amicus brief arguing against this radical notion. IJ’s brief outlined how suits for damages against government officials are the historical cornerstone of government accountability, how damages are often the only way to vindicate constitutional rights, and how none of the government’s policy justifications against damages have a basis in reality. IJ further explained that matters of policy should be left to Congress, not courts.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court agreed.

According to the Court, “in the context of suits against Government officials, damages have long been awarded as appropriate relief.” And that has been true not only for state and local officials, but also federal officials, like those employed by the FBI. Moreover, the Court highlighted that damages are important because they are often the only remedy available. For example, for one of the plaintiffs, Muhammad Tanvir, who lost his job because of his placement on the No Fly List, it is damages or nothing. Finally, in response to the government’s argument that policy favors denying a damages remedy against government officials, Justice Thomas, just like Justice Story two centuries before him, emphasized that it is the job of Congress to engage in policy making: “[T]here are no constitutional reasons why we must do so in its stead.”

“The Court today has provided its full-throated endorsement of damages as a necessary and historic mechanism for constitutional accountability,” said Scott Bullock, IJ’s president and general counsel. “In doing so, the Court also reiterated its support for the foundational principles of this country, such as that damages can be awarded to check the government’s power and that it is Congress’ job to engage in policy making. The Court’s job is to interpret the law, not to do policy.”

IJ’s support for the individuals who sued the government in this case is part of its Project on Immunity and Accountability, which is devoted to the simple idea that government officials are not above the law; if citizens must follow the law, then the government must follow the Constitution. IJ’s recent U.S. Supreme Court case Brownback v. King is also a part of this Project. It similarly asks the Court to stay true to this nation’s original promise by allowing James King—an innocent college student who was brutally beaten by police—his day in court, to hold accountable the government workers who violated his constitutional rights and to seek damages for the harm they caused him.

 

Mail Order RX is not for everyone

Carmen Balber sits down with Consumer Watchdog Attorney Ben Powell to discuss a win this week at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in a case enforcing protections under the Affordable Care Act. People with HIV can pursue a discrimination claim against CVS Caremark for requiring them to obtain their HIV medications by mail.

The House I Live In (2012) HD – War on Drugs in the United States

https://youtu.be/QlPNRaXj2OQ

From Executive Producers Danny Glover, John Legend, BRAD PITT & Russell Simmon. This film won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance 2012 for Documentary. http://www.thehouseilivein.org/ “2012′s BEST DOCUMENTARY! THE MOST IMPORTANT DRUG WAR FILM YOU’LL EVER SEE.” – Mark Hughes, Forbes /// As America remains embroiled in conflict overseas, a less visible war is taking place at home, costing countless lives, destroying families, and inflicting untold damage on future generations of Americans. Over forty years, the War on Drugs has accounted for more than 45 million arrests, made America the world’s largest jailer, and damaged poor communities at home and abroad. Yet for all that, drugs are cheaper, purer, and more available today than ever before. Filmed in more than twenty states, The House I Live In captures heart-wrenching stories from individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the grieving mother, the narcotics officer to the senator, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s longest war, offering a definitive portrait and revealing its profound human rights implications. While recognizing the seriousness of drug abuse as a matter of public health, the film investigates the tragic errors and shortcomings that have meant it is more often treated as a matter for law enforcement, creating a vast machine that feeds largely on America’s poor, and especially on minority communities. Beyond simple misguided policy, The House I Live In examines how political and economic corruption have fueled the war for forty years, despite persistent evidence of its moral, economic, and practical failures. **FAIR USE NOTICE** These Videos May Contain Copyrighted (© ) Material. The Use of Which Has Not Always Been Specifically Authorized by The Copyright Owner. Such Material is Made Available to Advance Understanding of Ecological, Political, Human Rights, Economic, Democracy, Scientific, Moral, Ethical, Social Justice Issues, Teaching, and Research. It is believed that this Constitutes a ”Fair Use” of Any Such Copyrighted Material as Provided For in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In Accordance With Title – 17 U.S.C. Section 107, This Material is Distributed Without PROFIT to Those Who Have Expressed a Prior General Interest in Receiving Similar Information For Research and Educational Purposes. For More Information: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode /// – Directed by Eugene Jarecki – Produced by Eugene Jarecki & Melinda Shopsin – Written by Eugene Jarecki – Starring Nannie Jeter & David Simon – Music by Robert Miller – Cinematography: Sam Cullman & Derek Hallquist – Release dates: October 5, 2012 – Running time: 108 minutes – Country: United States – Language: English