9 million yen to php
Police release new photos as they search for the gunman who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO
Facebook Twitter WhatsApp SMS Email Print Copy article link Save NEW 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. People are also reading... The real reason Corvallis' Pastega Lights moved to Linn County OSU football: Three takeaways from Oregon State's loss at Boise State City officials admit Corvallis' flag is 'bad.' Will it change? Prosecutor: Driver on laughing gas caused double fatal in Sweet Home UPDATED: GAPS teacher strike NOT off after talks over returning to the classroom break down Recently made-over park sees this change after Albany got an earful Corvallis chemical manufacturer eyes Albany for expansion OSU women's basketball: Marotte takes a more aggressive approach on offense Agreement reached (again), GAPS teachers get new contract Strike to end, GAPS reaches tentative deal with Albany teachers Corvallis decides layout for new civic campus — with a side of strife Philomath moves forward following July Nazi flag controversy Albany man pleads to numerous sex crimes Court dismisses jail-related Benton County whistleblower complaint A false start: GAPS strike continues after district, teachers announce deal 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. Healthcare history: How U.S. health coverage got this bad Healthcare history: How U.S. health coverage got this bad Key Points Health care in America has evolved in some ways, but in others, it continues to be a complex and arduous process for employees and employers alike. The Affordable Care Act, or ACA, made it a legal requirement for Americans to have a health insurance plan, regardless of employment status. ACA opened the door for health care expansion, including the marketplace, HRAs, and more. 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. History of U.S. Health Care 1930s: Great Depression and the birth of health plans that primarily covered the cost of hospital stays. 1942: Creation of employer-sponsored health care in the wake of wage freezes. 1965: Medicare and Medicaid debut. 1986: COBRA is signed, offering former employees the opportunity to stay on employer health care. 2010: Affordable Care Act signed into law. 2019: ICHRAs introduced. Past Is Prologue 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. The Start of Medicare and Medicaid 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. Nixoncare? 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 Birth of COBRA Coverage 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. The Clinton Debacle 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 : Everyone enrolls in a health coverage plan. Subsidies would be provided to those who can't afford it. Companies with 5,000 or more employees would have to provide such coverage. 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. The Birth of Obamacare 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. What Came Next 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. Introducing ICHRAs 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. How We Got Here, Where We're Headed—A Fairer, Kinder Health Care System 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.
Jason Whitlock claims Colorado players rented out a strip club TWICE before heavy Alamo Bowl defeat
Facing rising competition in the AI chip space, Nvidia is reportedly turning to robotics. The $3.3 trillion company, whose tech has helped drive the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), will launch the next version of compact computers for humanoid robots — dubbed Jetson Thor — in the first half of next year, the Financial Times (FT) reported Sunday (Dec. 29). According to the report, Nvidia is jockeying to become the top platform in what it argues is a coming robotics boom. “The ChatGPT moment for physical AI and robotics is around the corner,” Deepu Talla , Nvidia’s vice president of robotics, told the FT, adding that he believes the market is at a “tipping point.” The FT report noted that this effort comes as Nvidia is expecting more competition for its chips from rivals like AMD , as well as cloud computing titans like Google and Amazon. Now, the company is investing in the “physical AI” space to help the new robotics firms grow. For example, it joined Microsoft and OpenAI in a February funding round that valued humanoid robotics company Figure AI at $2.6 billion . While Nvidia does not break out figures for its robotics product sales, the FT report said that this part of its business represents a smaller share of its revenue. Data center revenue, for example, made up around 88% of the $35.1 billion in sales Nvidia reported in the third quarter . In other robotics/AI news, PYMNTS wrote recently about research at MIT that developed an AI system that could let warehouse robots deftly handle odd-shaped packages and navigate crowded spaces without putting human workers in danger. It’s a breakthrough happening at a moment when retailers and logistics companies are facing increasing pressure to automate amid surging eCommerce demand. Although robots excel at repetitive tasks such as moving pallets, MIT’s PRoC3S technology could finally solve the long-standing challenge of robots safely performing more complex warehouse jobs that usually require human dexterity and spatial awareness. “In theory, PRoC3S could reduce a robot’s error rate by vetting its initial LLM-based assumptions against more specific and accurate understandings of the warehouse environment,” Erik Nieves , CEO and co-founder at Plus One Robotics , told PYMNTS. “Think about it like this: A warehouse robot operating solely on LLM guidance has been described how to complete a task. The PRoC3S concept goes one step further by placing a digital robot in a simulated environment of that task. It’s essentially the difference between classroom instruction and a really good field trip.” As PYMNTS has reported, robotics and AI technologies are transforming traditional distribution yards via specialized autonomous vehicles outfitted with robotic arms that can handle complex tasks such as connecting brake lines and positioning trailers, operating alongside human workers.Timberwolves push back start time vs. Spurs because of issue with game court
MGPI Investors Have Opportunity to Lead MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Fraud LawsuitLVMH's Luxury Ventures Fund Acquires Stake In Scandinavian Luggage Brand DbMan accused in burning death of a woman on New York subway appears in court
The Week 17 NFL schedule has a lot in store. Among those contests is the Tennessee Titans squaring off against the Jacksonville Jaguars. In terms of live coverage, we have everything you need to know regarding Week 17 of the NFL here. Check out the piece below. Don’t miss a touchdown this NFL season. Catch every score with NFL RedZone on Fubo. What is Fubo? Fubo is a streaming service that gives you access to your favorite live sports and shows on demand. Sign up today and watch seven hours of commercial-free football from every NFL game every Sunday. Rep your favorite NFL players with officially licensed gear. Head to Fanatics to find jerseys, shirts, hats, and much more.High Point defeats Pfeiffer 81-50
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The Minnesota Timberwolves delayed their game against the San Antonio Spurs by one hour on Sunday night due to an issue with the court at Target Center. The Timberwolves announced the decision about three hours before the originally scheduled tipoff time. The Spurs discovered the problem during their morning shootaround, Timberwolves spokesman Patrick Rees said. The team decided to delay the game so arena staff had enough time to install the replacement court that had to be delivered from elsewhere. The Timberwolves have played at Target Center since 1990. AP NBA: https://apnews.com/hub/NBA
Obie Okoye: The Tech Visionary Championing Community-Centric Solutions In Nigeria”None
New AI App Mighty Doodle Teaches Reading and Writing
OTTAWA—Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown said he received pushback from Indian government officials for his use of the term “Sikh nation” during the 2022 Conservative leadership campaign, but generally believes that foreign interference did not alter the outcome of the race. Brown was called to testify before the House of Commons public safety committee on Thursday evening. The committee is studying the Indian government’s involvement in political interference and violence in Canada. Brown initially declined an invitation to appear, but was formally summoned. He said he didn’t want to be part of any political wrangling. “I don’t have an interest in revisiting partisan debates.” A Radio-Canada story earlier this week reported that insiders on Brown’s Conservative leadership campaign felt the Indian government was interfering, trying to undermine his campaign. This included disinviting him from events in the community and encouraging volunteers not to support him. The story also alleged that Calgary MP Michelle Rempel Garner was encouraged by Indian consular officials to drop her support for Brown. Brown said on a campaign call he was told the Indian government rejected the term “Sikh nation,” which he had used in public remarks. “The concern that was raised was that I had used the term, on a number of occasions, Sikh nation, and the consul general had expressed directly to MP Rempel Garner that was something that obviously they didn’t agree with,” he said. Some members of the Sikh community in Canada favour the creation of a separate state in India called Khalistan that would be a homeland for their community, but the Indian government firmly rejects that idea. Brown said he used a different term than “Sikh nation” after the Indian government complained, and downplayed the importance of the wording change, but Liberal MP Jennifer O’Connell said she saw it as a clear example of interference. “I think that constitutes foreign interference, pretty clearly. With foreign interference it doesn’t matter the outcome. It’s the intention to have the foreign government influence the actions in Canadian elections.” Brown also said, in contrast to the Radio-Canada reporting, Rempel-Garner never indicated she was leaving because of any foreign pressure. “At no point when we talked about her departing the campaign did she say it was because of pressure from the consul general,” he said. At the end of the meeting, O’Connell moved to have Rempel Garner and several members of the Brown campaign called to testify. O’Connell’s motion will be voted on at a later meeting. Brown said when he was a provincial party leader he supported motions recognizing a 1984 attack on Sikh communities as a genocide and spoke out about some of the actions of the Indian government. He said Indian diplomats aren’t quiet about their opinions. “I think it’s fair to say that the government of India states their opinions and I think there’s a number of issues that I took a position on that certainly the Government of India wasn’t a fan of,” he said. Brown was disqualified from the Conservative leadership over allegations he had breached the party’s campaign finance rules. Brown said he had no direct knowledge of foreign interference in his campaign. He said he was aware of one community event where he was disinvited, but said he has no doubt the outcome of the race would have been the same. “I believe that Pierre Poilievre was successful in that race because he signed 300,000 plus memberships. And, I don’t believe acts of foreign intervention affected that result.” Brown’s community has a significant Sikh population and he said there is a lot of ongoing concern about India and other countries interfering in Canada. The committee has also heard testimony from the RCMP and other security agencies about the Indian government’s involvement in a campaign of violence in Canada. This has included the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, B.C., which Brown said is a major concern for the community. He said he believes — to start with — the federal government needs to clearly outline the rules to foreign diplomats who are crossing the lines. “A starting point is a clear education on those who are serving as diplomatic representatives in Canada of what is appropriate behaviour and behaviour that is inappropriate with the laws we have in Canada, clearly there are diplomats that need that education,” he said.
Anjali Damania says she prophesied Chhagan Bhujbal’s ‘political moves’ 11 months agoFalcons visit Vikings as a struggling Cousins returns to old home to find a thriving Darnold