Disaster Recovery & Backup Are Part of Cloud Storage, Not Stand-alone Apps

Andres Rodriguez Nasuni

Andres Rodriguez is the CEO and Co-Founder of Nasuni, a unified storage company that serves the needs of distributed enterprises. Previously he was a CTO at Hitachi Data Systems and CTO of the New York Times.

Backup and disaster recovery are currently two of the most popular uses of cloud software in the enterprise. Providers of such software have experienced boom times, with a few even going public. While they've enjoyed tremendous success over the past few years, they would be advised to branch into a wider array of services soon. A rising group of cloud-integrated storage vendors have integrated backup and disaster recovery into the very fabric of their complete storage offering, at no additional cost to the customer.

It's not surprising that backup and disaster recovery would be among the first applications for cloud storage – tape backup is difficult to manage and costly to maintain, and cloud backup/DR represented a low-risk way to experiment with cloud services. Every dollar saved on moving backup to the cloud represented a dollar IT could spend on innovative technologies and business transformation, a very appealing tradeoff for any CIO. Additionally, the time spent managing physical backup systems could be redeployed into more useful tasks.

But while cloud backup and DR has been an improvement over the tape-based status quo, it's not an unqualified success. Costs may be lower, but the cost of storing backups in the cloud is still too great an expense. Managing backups in the cloud is simpler than managing tape, but these systems are still too complex and unreliable, and if IT needs to recover a great deal of data from the cloud, downloading all that data will likely be a very slow process. Despite all the copies upon copies of data, despite all the spending both in time and money, most IT personnel, when surveyed, still have little confidence in their cloud backup or disaster recovery systems.

A New Model for Data Protection

It's time to give up on incrementally improving a broken backup system, and instead move forward toward a new model for data protection. The cloud holds much more potential than a cheap dumping ground for backup and archive data. In truth, it can provide the foundation for an integrated storage system that will revolutionize the data center. This storage system is made possible by the commodification of cloud storage – led by Amazon and Microsoft. The cloud is the next generation hard drive, forming the back-end of cloud-integrated storage controllers, which look and feel like the traditional storage controllers that IT already knows, but with incredible capabilities like unlimited capacity and access from anywhere made possible by the cloud. With cloud-integrated storage, IT can scale the system as large as they like, all without ever having to back it up. That last part sounds like a trick, but it's not. Through the use of snapshots and cloud mirroring, IT never has to run another backup.

In an integrated storage system, cloud storage forms the back end of an on-premises storage controller, which can be deployed in the form of a hardware appliance or a virtual machine. That storage controller has a local cache of the most frequently accessed data, with the gold copy of the fileshare stored in the cloud. At frequent intervals a snapshot – defined as a complete picture of an office's data at that moment – is taken. Any changes to files are then uploaded to the cloud after being encrypted and compressed, all behind the scenes without the involvement of IT, with updated data propagated throughout the system. The snapshots themselves can be stored forever, offering an unlimited history that can be restored from any point. This redundancy can be further augmented by the capabilities of cloud storage. Data stored in the cloud is replicated into as many as six copies around the world, and if that protection isn't enough, the entire data set can be mirrored to a sec ondary cloud, without any disruption of end user performance.

Supporting Disaster Recovery: Quickly and Easily

Both snapshots and the redundant nature of cloud storage create simple and attractive options for disaster recovery. Files, folders or entire directories from any point in the snapshot history can be restored in just a few mouse clicks through a process that is as simple to use as Apple's "Time Machine."

In the end, cloud backup and disaster recovery does not offer IT a great deal of value. No one likes buying life insurance, and no one likes paying for or managing backup. It's a budget item that CIOs would love to eliminate, and a huge annoyance for IT. Thankfully, for the same price as a distributed enterprise backup solution, an integrated cloud storage service provides not only backup and DR, but also block and file storage, file synchronization and access to the global fileshare from any location.

Organizations demanding more of their backup and disaster recovery systems need to look beyond the minor improvements and minimal cost savings offered by the latest generation of vendors. CIOs should start to reconsider what a storage system is and instead of fearing this future, they should embrace it and the opportunity to put a big red line through "backup" in their budget.

Industry Perspectives is a content channel at Data Center Knowledge highlighting thought leadership in the data center arena. See our guidelines and submission process for information on participating. View previously published Industry Perspectives in our Knowledge Library.

Read More

Looking for a new health insurance plan? - look within

(NaturalNews) Modern day health insurance policies are payment plans intended to cover high cost emergency medical procedures. Somewhere along the way, consumers started to believe that these payment plans protect their own health. These payment plans set the mind's sailon a courseof reliance on a medical industry that manages disease, instead of empowering individual quality of life. By paying into these insurance plans, blind trust is put into a medical system that is now fundamentally controlled by drug companies, time demands, and a cut, poison, burn approach to health. The practices taught at medical schools do not focus on prevention, but rely on medical label diagnostics.

Many high cost medical procedures can be completely thwarted, avoided altogether through alternative health philosophies. Nutrition education and the availability of pure water and whole foods could reduce unnecessary drugging and surgeries. While chemotherapy and radiation may be covered in part b y a modern insurance policy, these procedures cannot scientifically cure cancer.

To save the medical system, new health insurance philosophies must be implemented, practiced, and taught. Honing in on the epigenetic factors of disease and building the body's immune systemshould be top priority.Chopping off body parts in fear of cancer, as seen in hysterectomies and mastectomies surgeries, is not preventing cancer. Self mutilation is not the answer and neither is radiating and burning the body. These philosophies alone drive up the cost of medical care and insurance while perpetuating disease.

The more a person pays into an insurance payment policy, the more likely they will seek the services of the medical system unnecessarily, as they hope to receive a benefit. Sadly, there's rarely a benefit from the current setup - just more tests, drugs, and co-pays that bring more bills, side effects, and wasted time.

The sad part about today's "health insurance plans" is that they provide no true insurance from disease and cancer. A modern hospital does nothing to boost the innate power of the human immune system. Hospitals typically feed patients processed food with little nutritional value while injecting mercury, aluminum neurotoxic adjuvant virus strains right into a patient's blood stream, all in the name of preventing the flu.

There are some great surgeons available and there are plenty of well intentioned nurses and doctors ready to help, but they only know how to help patients in limited ways, using disease managementmethods that aretaught down to them. Very few ques tion the institution's ways.

Either way, doctors cannot follow a patient around and make sure they are drinking adequate clean water each day. They cannot force patients to spend time in the sun to welcome vitamin D inside their body for cellular health.

There's a whole other side to health and that begins with the individual and one's health philosophy, which starts in the mind. A new proactive perspective on health, rooted in nutrition utilization, can bring copious amounts of joy, energy, and quality of life. No doctor's checkups, tests, or prescriptions are needed.

The individual has a powerful mind, spirit, and immune system that can overcome illness. There's no need, no freedom in taking daily injections, or swallowing Drug Company pills, even if the insurance company pays for the nonsense. Most pharmacology is a false paradigm, rooted in science of lies. The heart and the vascular system can heal without high blood pressure medication, insurance bills, and doctor fees. The nervous system can heal without psychotropic medications. One can be confident in their digestive health without going to the doctor for a colonoscopy. No one needs a heavy metal laded flu shot to ward off illness.

In essence, modern day health insur ance policies are only enslaving people to one way of reliant-thinking. These plans siphon from ones bank account and perpetuate a philosophy that encourages people to forget about preventative health strategies. Patients are herded into a system of disease management ideology, which only promotes side effect-ridden, profit-driven pharmaceutical drugs.

For affordability to return to hospital care, consumers should question whether they need health insurance payment plans altogether and begin adopting a new outlook on life. As the payment plans disappear, suddenly the individual is empowered with new health philosophies and practices rooted in personal responsibility and assisting the body with proper nutrition. As more end their dependent cycle on the medical system, real emergency accident-based hospital care will become affordable and less people will see no need to have their lives consumed with "insurance payment plans," illness, and doctor's visits.

You can be your own doctor. Trust yourself, self educate,and look for the strength within.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/001891.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/rr-sunlight.html
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/031637_epigenetics_mind-body_medicine.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/025808_medicine_disease_body.html

About the author:
Inspired by powerful changes in he and his family's own health, Lance Johnson is excited about the future of cellular health and nutrition.

As an avid, everyday learner and researcher, Lance believes real health opportunities exist outside of the mainstream pharmaceutical industry. His research is displayed for free at: www.allnaturalfreespirit.com

Lance has also launched a natural products movement from the ground up, featuring a create your own soap option , allowing visitors to choose the natural ingredients they want in their soap.

Read More

Newborns Need Health Insurance Too

March 29, 2014 8:32 p.m. ET

Ryan Born, 31 years old, and his wife, Kristin Born, 30, of Onalaska, Wis., have separate health-insurance plans—each enrolls through work. So when the couple welcomed their first child, Harrison, in December, they needed to decide whose plan would best accommodate him. It was their first instinct to add him to Ms. Born's Blue Cross Blue Shield plan through her job as a Stewartville, Minn., public-school teacher, because that plan seemed the more comprehensive and economical of the two.

But they would have been better off actually crunching the numbers, Mr. Born says. "We should have done a lot more cost comparison."

Three months after Harrison was born, the couple realized that a Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance family plan through Identity Works, the marketing-and-technology firm at which Mr. Born is a partner, was the better option. They switched his coverage, which was something of a hassle, Mr. Born says.

Between picking out tiny clothes, setting up the crib and managing the in-laws, new parent s have plenty to think about. But they can't afford to neglect health insurance for Junior, says Doug Whiteman, insurance analyst at Bankrate.com.

First things first, Mr. Whiteman says: Make sure you sign up your infant for coverage within 30 days of birth. A federal rule requires insurance providers to cover children signed up within 30 days of birth retroactively to day one. Some plans may provide more flexibility.

If each spouse has his or her own insurance provider, calculate what premiums, deductibles and copays would look like for the respective family plans, he says—and it's best not to wait until the baby arrives. (Don't be surprised: Your premiums will almost certainly go up from your existing rate.)

Then promptly notify your provider of choice. You can typically do so outside of the open-enrollment window by declaring a life event for the birth of your child. If you fail to notify your insurer in a timely fashion, you could face an uninsured-child penalty under the Affordable Care Act of $47.50 or 1% of your income, whichever is higher, this year. Plus, making sure your child is insured right away is simply the smart thing to do.

"Health insurance for your kid is nonnegotiable," says Samantha Attwood, 23, of Arlington, Va. Ms. Attwood, who has a 15-month-old son, also named Harrison, says she is grateful for the Aetna AET +0.94% Aetna Inc. U.S.: NYSE ^$74.10 +0.69 +0.94% March 28, 2014 4:00 pm Volume (Delayed 15m) : 1.56M AFTER HOURS ^$74.10 0.00 0.00% March 28, 2014 4:27 pm Volume (Delayed 15m): 5,972 P/E Ratio 13.70 Market Cap $26.88 Billion Dividend Yield 1.21% Rev. per Employee $973,893 03/14/14 Aetna Terminates Agreement in ... 02/24/14 Health Law Already Has Impact ... 02/23/14 Palliative Care: Patients and ... More quote details and news » family coverage she has through her job at the Nature Conservancy. She had Harrison enrolled in the plan by the time he was 10 days old. Health care for herself and her son costs about $600 a month, she says, split about evenly between premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

New parents should know that, while preventative services like "well checkups" are traditionally covered in full under family plans, office "sick" visits typically aren't. So overly neurotic parents—or those with frequently ill infants—could quickly rack up a hefty out-of-pocket tab. If you think you'll be making many trips to the doctor, consider opting for a plan with lower copayments, Mr. Whiteman says.

Also, be prepared to pay for the visits upfront. Mr. Born notes that his son's pediatrician recently started requiring copayments at check-in, as opposed to sending a bill in the mail. And, depending on your plan, he says, some services, like immunizations, might not be covered.

If yo u're expecting a baby late in the year, pay attention to the plan's deductible. Amy and Mark Sandau, both 29, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, nearly learned this lesson the hard way a few years ago. Ms. Sandau, who is Mr. Born's sister, gave birth to a daughter, Madelyn, who was a "micropreemie," weighing only 1 pound, 15 ounces. Madelyn required an 11-week hospital stay that cost over $1,000 a day, Ms. Sandau says. "She was a million-dollar baby," she says.

Ms. Sandau says her family was lucky in that they were covered up to their deductible—about $7,500 to $10,000—by a state aid program aimed at helping premature infants. The program also covered Madelyn's after-insurance expenses. (You can research such programs via the website for your state's insurance commissioner, or ask at the hospital.)

Because Madelyn's hospitalization spanned Jan. 1, the family-plan deductible was reset to zero for the new year. If not for the state aid program, the couple would have had to pay the deductible out-of-pocket, twice—once for each calendar year—before their insurance kicked in.

The Sandaus did get stuck with an out-of-pocket cost: Ms. Sandau's emergency caesarean section, which cost between $2,000 and $3,000. "We had to pay for anything that had to do with me out-of-pocket," she says.

But thanks to the state program, the Sandaus never even saw most of their health-care bills—they went directly to the insurance company or the state agency. "Hardly any came to the house," Ms. Sandau says.

Read More

The Health Insurance Answer That Took 3 Months

Photo

Credit Christoph Hitz

Email haggler@nytimes.com. Keep it brief and family-friendly, include your hometown and go easy on the caps-lock key. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.

_____

In this episode, a rare collision of the Haggler and the news. Our letter comes from a couple who have been trying for months to sign up for health insurance through Healthcare.gov, also known as the Obamacare website. And Monday, March 31, is the enrollment deadline, though the administration recently announced exemptions for people who had trouble signing up.

In other words, this column is sort of timely. The Haggler would like some credit for this. He'd also like to note that it is unlikely to ever happen again.

Q. As a regular reader of your column, I know that you have successfully slain many corporate dragons. But do you have what it takes to take on the United States government? In particular, the health care exchange set up by the Affordable Care Act?

I signed up for health insurance for my wife and myself through the online marketplace last November. But in January, my wife, Mindy, was denied a benefit from the pharmacy and was told she was not listed on the policy. This is a disaster. My wife has survived cancer, and she needs health insurance.

Numerous calls to the Health Insurance Marketplace have ensued in which it has been established that Mindy's name was, in fact, on the application I submitted and that for some inexplicable reason her name was not communicated to our insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. We have been told on successive calls that there is no logical explanation for this, and that our complaint will be "elevated" and "expedited."

I write this in mid-March. Mindy has had no health coverage since Jan. 1.

I think it only fair to tell you that employees at my congressman's office have had no success in trying to rectify this situation. Is the Haggler ready for a big-time challenge? I hope so.

RICHARD AGLER, TAVERNIER, FLA.

A. The Haggler does enjoy a bit of goading. So, he contacted Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees Healthcare.gov.

It would be fun to turn what follows into a lengthy tale, one in which the Haggler's swashbuckling tactics, cunning and perseverance triumph over an intransigent bureaucracy. But the truth is duller. A day or two after an email to Mr. Albright, Mr. Agler wrote, "I think we have good news."

A Blue Cross rep had contacted Mr. Agler, telling him that his wife's name had been added to the policy. Well, the Haggler is condensing a bit. It ultimately took a conference call involving the Aglers, Florida Blue Cross and C.M.S. (For some reason, those are the initials used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Maybe C.M.M.S. seemed too obvious.)

Within a few days of that "we have good news" email, Mr. Agler said that someone from the federal Department of Health and Human Services called, apologized for the problems and smoothed the way for the purchase of a policy.

"He said that he had spoken to Florida Blue and C.M.S.," Mr. Agler wrote. "He assured me that he will be 'tracking it closely' and gave me his office and cell numbers to call if I needed him."

On Wednesday, a rep from Florida Blue Cross called and confirmed that Ms. Agler is now covered.

Great. Case closed.

But what happened? Why was the simple matter of adding Ms. Agler's name to an insurance policy a three-month ordeal?

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Here is where our yarn takes a turn for the inane. When asked for a reckoning, Mr. Albright of C.M.S. said that he could not discuss the matter because doing so would compromise the Aglers' privacy rights.

Fine. Mr. Agler promptly wrote an email to C.M.S. waiving those rights.

So. One more time. What happened?

"Unfortunately, I can't discuss individual cases," Mr. Albright wrote in an email.

Hmm.

"Here's a question that perhaps you can answer," the Haggler wrote back. "Why can't you discuss the Aglers' case?"

"We do not discuss individual cases," Mr. Albright responded.

"You mentioned that," quoth the Haggler. "My question is, why can't you discuss individual cases?"

"It's our office policy not to discuss individual cases," came the reply.

"I get that," the Haggler wrote, warming to the game. "Your office has a policy. My question is, what is the reason for this policy? If you don't want to answer that question, then just say you don't want to answer that question. But please, don't keep repeating 'Our office has a policy.' "

There was silence for a few days. When the Haggler tried one final nudge, Mr. Albright took to his keyboard again.

"We don't comment on individual cases," he wrote.

Perhaps Mr. Albright has since stepped back into the Franz Kafka short story from which he came. Or perhaps he's a real person, and a dedicated public servant, constrained by a policy that forbids employees from explaining the point of a policy.

Or maybe the C.M.S. is just badly in need of better public relations. It is hardly a secret that Healthcare.gov had a difficult start. People want to know that the government has learned from mistakes. Being willing to discuss those mistakes would suggest that it has. Deflecting questions about why it is deflecting questions leaves the opposite impression.

Read More

Repercussions and Reprieves at Health Insurance Enrollment Deadline

Photo

In a campaign run by Colorado HealthOP, a nonprofit, Lauren Farnsworth, left, and April Buell urged people to get insurance. Credit Brennan Linsley/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — America's health insurance marketplace closes on Monday night, the deadline for most people to obtain coverage or face a penalty.

The confusion and uncertainty of the last six months appear likely to continue as consumers, including some who have never had insurance, begin using new policies for the first time. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions.

Q. What happens if a consumer does not sign up for insurance by the Monday deadline?

A. The consumer may be subject to financial penalties, to be paid with federal income taxes next year. However, the federal government has said it will stretch the sign-up deadline for people who started an application and could not finish it for one reason or another.

To preserve their rights, consumers can call the federal insurance marketplace (1-800-318-2596) and request a "special enrollment period."

Officials running the federal marketplace, which serves 36 states, will provide an unspecified amount of extra time to people who are "in line as of March 31," and some states running their own exchanges have adopted similar policies.

In addition, the White House says, consumers may be able to obtain more time if they attest that they have had difficulty signing up — if, for example, they encountered error messages or "other system errors." Officials will not generally investigate such claims, but they note that the application for health coverage is submitted under penalty of perjury.

Q. What is the penalty for going without insurance?

A. The penalty is either a fixed dollar amount or a percentage of household income, whichever is greater.

The flat dollar amount this year is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, up to a maximum of $285 for a family.

Many people will be subject to a higher penalty: 1 percent of household income above the "filing threshold." The threshold this year is $10,150 for individuals and $20,300 for married couples filing joint returns. People with gross income below these thresholds are generally not required to file tax returns, and they can obtain exemptions from the penalties.

For a single person with income of $40,000 this year, the penalty would be $298.50. The first step in calculating the penalty is to subtract the filing threshold ($10,150) from household income ($40,000). The result is $29,850. One percent of that is $298.50.

For a married couple with two childre n and household income of $70,000, the penalty would be $497. That is 1 percent of household income above the threshold.

The penalty will increase in future years. In 2016, it will be $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of household income over the threshold, whichever is greater.

It is unclear how aggressive the government will be in enforcing the requirement to have insurance and in collecting the penalty. If a consumer fails to pay the penalty at tax time, the Internal Revenue Service can deduct it from any refund owed to the taxpayer, but it cannot impose a lien on property or garnish wages. Under the health care law, the consumer "shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution" for the failure.

Q. Who is exempt?

A. The health care law authorizes many kinds of exemptions, and the Obama administration has added a few.

Under the law, no penalties can be imposed on people who would have to pay more than 8 percent of their household income for the lowest-priced insurance available to them.

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

The requirement for people to have coverage does not apply to members of certain religious sects who are "conscientiously opposed to acceptance" of health insurance benefits. Nor does it apply to members of organizations known as health care sharing ministries, which provide a faith-based alternative to traditional insurance.

Prisoners and illegal immigrants are also exempt, and no penalties can be imposed on members of federally recognized Indian tribes.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has authorized "hardship exemptions" for people in more than a dozen categories. These include people who are homeless or facing eviction or foreclosure; victims of domestic violence; and victims of fires, floods and other disasters.

In addition, people are entitled to exemptions if they were found ineligible for Medicaid solely because they live in a state that decided not to expand the program. Congress tried to require states to expand Medicaid, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that states could opt out, and about half have done so.

Exemptions are also available to people who face the cancellation of individual health insurance policies and consider the alternatives unaffordable.

Finally, the administration has created an open-ended category of exemption for people who experience other, unspecified hardships in obtaining insurance.

Some exemptions can be obtained only from an insurance exchange, and others only from the I.R.S.

Q. What should people do if they applied for insurance but never received an insurance card?

A. They should call the insurance company or the toll-free number for the federal insurance marketplace. The government has caseworkers to help consumers, but it could take weeks or months to solve some problems.

Q. What changes or delays might be expected in the coming year?

A. The experience of the last four years strongly suggests that there will be more surprises. Federal officials will almost surely make changes to rules and policy as they discover problems and respond to political pressure and pleas from consumers in this election year. The government and insurers could be dealing with a substantial backlog of work because of the last-minute surge in applications.

Officials have said they may allow special enrollment periods for other reasons. With all the exceptions and adjustments, an insurance executive said, "open enrollment could go on for the rest of the year."

As midterm election campaigns heat up, the administration may look for ways to address or deflect Republican criticism of the law. It could, for example, relax or delay requirements for medium-size employers to offer insurance to employees. Officials will also look for ways to prevent big premium increases next year. The law already allows the government to provide a financial backstop to insurers that sign up disproportionate numbers of sick people.

The administration will also try to protect employees whose hours might be cut by employers eager to avoid the cost of providing health benefits. Officials have already indicated that they want to address complaints about high deductibles and "narrow networks" of doctors and hospitals in some health plans.

Read More

Gay Couples' Health Insurance Access Is Uneven Across The Country

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Nearly every day for three months, Carl Bechdel had to make calls or send emails to try to get family insurance coverage for his husband and himself under President Barack Obama's landmark health law.

The Harrisburg, Pa., couple had sent an insurer their application and a month's premium in early December but heard nothing. Weeks later, they were told their application was not processed because Pennsylvania doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. So Bechdel pushed back, repeatedly explaining their predicament in phone calls and emails. Finally, they got a call and apology from the president of the insurance company last month, plus a family plan that started in March.

"It was never a matter of price. It was a matter of respect," said Bechdel, a 60-year-old retired attorney who married Dan Miller in 2012 in Washington, D.C.

For gay couples, access to family insurance plans under the law is not guaranteed this year, and their options ru n the gamut, mirroring in part the patchwork of state laws governing same-sex marriage that have changed rapidly in recent years.S

In Iowa, where gay marriage is legal, insurers selling plans in the marketplace created under the law offer policies to gay couples and families. But the major company in Tennessee's marketplace does not offer coverage at all to same-sex couples. Policies vary by insurer in Florida. And in Ohio, a couple sued for access to family insurance plans.

The federal government has belatedly sought to solve the inconsistencies, telling insurers this month that if they offer spousal coverage to heterosexual couples, they must provide that benefit to legally married, same-sex couples. But that doesn't become a requirement until next year, and doesn't address coverage for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships.

In the meantime, the administration has encouraged companies to comply with the new policy voluntarily. Federal regulations do n ot require insurers to offer any family policies. And when companies do, they have some flexibility in how they define family members.

In Aberdeen, N.C., Thomas Hafke, 30, went online in December and bought a family plan for his husband and himself from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

But the Chapel Hill-based company then canceled family coverage it sold to Hafke and about 20 other same-sex couples through the marketplace because of contract phrasing that defined "spouse" as "opposite sex."

"It felt like legalized discrimination," said Hafke, a server, who married 32-year-old Chad Higby in Washington, D.C., last fall.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield reversed course in January, saying it would offer the coverage to same-sex married couples and domestic partners.

"It was very important for these people to be able to purchase family coverage," said Michelle Douglas, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield spokeswoman. "In recognition of that, the company ma de the decision to make that coverage available."

Knowing that a partner can get coverage is one of the more effective messages in getting those in the LGBT community to enroll in a plan under the law, said Katie Keith, a researcher at Trimpa Group, a consulting firm that works with gay rights advocates.

"Even though it's not a requirement for 2014, it makes it more of a possibility for people," Keith said.

While it will be months before insurers are obligated to offer such coverage, gay rights groups have praised the administration's move, saying it brings some clarity to the issue and will ease access for gay couples when the requirement takes effect next year.

"Many same-sex married couples and their families are hurting right now because they've been refused access to more affordable family health insurance plans," Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said in a statement.

Bechdel and his husband sought coverage f rom one of Pennsylvania's biggest insurers, Pittsburgh-based Highmark Inc. The insurer is now reworking its policies there and in West Virginia to let same-sex couples and domestic partners purchase family coverage, a spokesman said. In the meantime, the company has worked with about 15 couples in the two states to get them family policies.

"Originally, the products were developed following the guidelines of recognized marriage of state laws," said Aaron Billger, a Highmark spokesman.

In Delaware, where Highmark also offers plans and same-sex marriage is legal, the insurer already provides such coverage for gay couples.

The company expects to offer family coverage in the early spring in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Other gay couples have found uneven access to family plans.

Al Cowger Jr. and Tony Wesley Jr. of suburban Cleveland sued the state of Ohio and U.S. government after hours-long phone calls and months of trying to get family coverage through the federal insurance marketplace.

The couple, who have been together for 28 years, married in 2012 in upstate New York and have a 7-year-old adopted daughter. They say that because of Ohio's gay marriage ban, they have been denied a family plan under Obama's law in violation of their constitutional rights.

In their lawsuit, Cowger said he talked to help-desk personnel with healthcare.gov who told him that he and Wesley had been approved for family coverage in the marketplace. But a problem surfaced when the representative tried to purchase the policy and couldn't.

Cowger said he was then told he couldn't get family coverage because Ohio does not recognize his marriage. But the insurance company, Medical Mutual of Ohio, says it offers family coverage to same-sex couples both on and off the exchange.

"After 28 years," Cowger said recently, "we're just so sick of having to jump through hoops and get around all these restrictions, all the stuff that comes with these prohibitions, to be treated like a family."

___

Associated Press writers Kelli Kennedy in Miami; Amanda Lee Myers in Cincinnati; Catherine Lucey in Des Moines, Iowa; Brady McCombs in Salt Lake City; and Erik Schelzig in Nashville, Tenn.; contributed to this report.

Read More

5 keys to surviving a police lawsuit

You survived that fast-moving incident from last shift. Perhaps it involved a car chase. Maybe you had to use force to gain a subject's compliance. Maybe you were in an officer-involved shooting. It might have been some other high-risk aspect of the law enforcer's existence.

Whatever it was, now that you're safe, the question you might now be mulling is how you'll survive the inevitable lawsuit.

Many lawyers and "expert witnesses" know fully what you should do, so it's in your interests to know as well. Here are some reminders to help you to get through the process without legal injury or, better yet, avoid getting sued to begin with.

In addition to stopping or impeding civil tort claims, these same tips will also help you in court with your criminal case prosecutions.

1.) Collect your current and documented training information. Be sure that your training and certifications are properly documented and current. Don't depend on your training section to keep up on this – have your own notebook as a repository of your training and education records. It should have clear sleeves that each college degree/transcript, basic academy certificate, advanced and in-service certificates, and other relevant material is kept and updated on a continual basis. An excel spreadsheet at the front of the notebook is a terrific way to keep track of the total hours and track the training.

2.) Have excellent written documentation. This is important for all law enforcement officers and encompasses every aspect of the job. As I have taught thousands of criminal justice degree and police academy students over the years,  police officers, deputy sheriffs, and state troopers are the world's biggest record keepers. The ability to think critically and communicate clearly is vitally important (that's one reason college courses help) and could stop a lawsuit from gathering any steam.

Reports come in many forms and many agencies have several different ones that must be filled out depending on the severity of the incident and the presence of force factors. Remember your basic training and do your reports in a complete manner. It should be chronological, factual and non-emotional or judgmental, as well as attribute the source or sources for any information mentioned.

If information changes or becomes known to you at a later point in time, then do a supplemental report and add that to the case file — even if it contradicts what you wrote earlier. Your credibility will not be destroyed. On the contrary, you will come across to any plaintiff's lawyer (as well as criminal defense lawyer) as appearing professional and credible to the court.

And be sure to include any additional paperwork in the case file, including complete witness statements, use of force reports, TASER download logs, and the like. It is wiser to have all the documentation in place at the time then to try to reconstruct it months or even years after the fact.

Be aware, however, that if you refer to or reference any notes, they may be subject to legal discovery – including other possibly embarrassing items in that journal or notebook.

3.) Get video. When I was a police chief, we had dash-mounted video cameras. As the concept was still relatively new at the time, many officers were wary of the technology. I said that most officers would be exonerated from any allegations of wrongdoing by the presence of video and I was correct.

Any video – even one taken on a cell phone camera by a bystander, as long as they are not physically interfering in close proximity with your duties – should actually be welcomed, as the majority of officers do what they are supposed to do and thus will be cleared by the video from any allegations of wrongdoing.

If your dash mounted or body cam does not automatically activate, then you should do so manually as often as you can in accordance with your agency's policy and applicable laws in your state.

Simply put, in our digital technology age, you should act as if you were being recorded all the time, and should a lawsuit or complaint come up, have access to that video.

4.) Be truthful and factual. Whether writing your report or testifying in a deposition or court, be truthful and factual in all of your statements and answers. There is no shame in saying you don't know or don't recall if that's in fact the case. Lawyers are used to allowing witnesses to refer to reports to refresh their memory.

5.) Communicate only with your lawyers. Many times, I have had to caution an officer to keep their cool and avoid the temptation to contact the plaintiff once they get served. The same is true if the person filed an internal affairs or professional standards complaint. Stay calm and do not contact the initiator of the lawsuit against you.

Communications between the opposing parties is the job of the lawyers. You should only do so when and in the manner advised by legal counsel.

While you maintain silence with the plaintiff, talk and communicate with your team. You need to be sure that your interests are represented by the legal team as they may have been hired by your employer and thus are primarily looking to protect city or county possibly at your legal peril.

Hopefully, you won't need to employ these lawsuit survival tips as a result of your work serving the community. The best plan, of course, is to avoid the lawsuit scenario altogether by being a true professional and reflecting well on the law enforcement profession. 

Read More

U.S. Announces Further Exemptions for Insurance Enrollment Deadline

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday expanded the list of people who could sign up for health insurance after the deadline, announcing "special enrollment periods" for legal immigrants, victims of domestic violence and tens of thousands of people who experienced various problems trying to complete their applications for coverage.

Administration officials said that the expected surge in applications ahead of next week's deadline to sign up for coverage had led to high traffic on the federal insurance website, which "could potentially keep consumers from completing the enrollment process despite their efforts to meet the deadline" at 11:59 p.m. Monday.

"Any consumer who comes in after April 1 will have to attest to the fact that they were in line and eligible to continue their enrollment," said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is running the federal insurance exchange. "We are not going to shut the door on those people who want coverage and have come in and tried to get it."

Continue reading the main story

The Times would like to hear from Americans who have signed up for health care under the Affordable Care Act.

The White House outlined the new policy in informal guidance that appears to give federal officials and caseworkers vast discretion to grant or deny requests for special enrollment periods.

On Tuesday, Ms. Bataille said, there were more than 1.2 million visits to HealthCare.gov and more than 390,000 telephone calls to the federal insurance marketplace.

In guidance sent to insurance companies Wednesday, the administration said that "C.M.S. will provide consumers who tried to enroll during the open enrollment period, but did not complete the process by March 31, a limited amount of additional time to finish the application and enrollment process."

In most cases, if consumers are granted a special enrollment period, they will have 60 days to select a health plan, officials said. Those who finish their applications by April 15 and pay their initial premiums will be eligible for coverage starting May 1.

In a separate bulletin, the administration listed 10 types of special enrollment periods for people with "complex cases." These will be available to people who were "enrolled in the wrong plan against their wishes"; victims of domestic abuse; indigent legal immigrants who were improperly denied coverage or subsidies; families with twins who were not allowed to sign up together; and people whose applications for Medicaid were not properly transferred between federal and sta te agencies.

People whose federal file "contains defective or missing data which makes the insurance company unable to enroll the consumer" will be offered extra time to sign up, as will people whose enrollment was hindered by unspecified computer system errors, something of a catchall.

Administration officials said they did not know how many consumers would qualify for the extra time. About 20,000 people requested this kind of relief when it was authorized in late December, for people seeking coverage on Jan. 1 of this year, they said.

Robert E. Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, praised the administra tion's latest effort to maximize the number of people signing up for coverage. But he added: "The new special open enrollment period needs to be limited to a defined period of time with a clear end date. This helps ensure that there is an incentive for people to enroll."

Moreover, Mr. Zirkelbach said, a firm deadline is needed "so that health plans know who is covered as they develop and submit premiums for next year."

Continue reading the main story

OPEN Graphic

Graphic: Health Exchange Enrollment Remains at 75 Percent of Target

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Reaction split on Wednesday along predictable partisan lines.

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, a member of the House Republican leadership, said, "The administration has, yet again, unilaterally decided not to enforce its own law," and she asked, "When does this get ridiculous?"

But Sena tor Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said the administration was right to stretch the deadline for people who had begun to sign up and not completed their applications. "The whole point is to get as many people as we legally can," Mr. Brown said.

In a related move, the White House said on Wednesday that it would allow victims of domestic abuse to obtain tax subsidies for health insurance without having to file joint tax returns with their spouses.

"Individuals who are legally married are generally required to file a joint income tax return to claim the premium tax credit," said Mark J. Mazur, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy. But he said, "For victims of domestic abuse, getting in contact with a spouse for purposes of filing a joint ret urn may be traumatic, dangerous or prohibited by a restraining order."

Accordingly, the Treasury announced a new policy, "A married individual who is living apart from his or her spouse, and who is unable to file a joint return as a result of domestic abuse, will be permitted to claim a premium tax credit for 2014" while filing a separate tax return.

The White House says that more than five million people have selected private health plans in the federal and state exchanges, but federal officials say they do not know how many have completed the enrollment process by paying premiums.

Republicans challenged that assertion and said that insurers w ere submitting monthly reports to the government showing how many people had "effectuated enrollment" by paying their first month's premiums.

Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, confirmed that the agency had received payment information from insurers, but said it was "neither final nor complete."

"When we have accurate and reliable data regarding premium payments," she said, "we will make that information available."

Read More

Relative value health insurance, consumer directed health care, and pay-for-performance

This is the last of four posts on the idea of "relative value health insurance" that I've been promoting.  (For my other posts on this issue, see here, here, and here).  To recap, the idea behind RVHI is for a government-sponsored organization to rate medical treatments on a scale of 1-10, based on their relative cost effectiveness.  This would enable private insurers to offer, and consumers to purchase, health insurance that would cover only medical interventions that satisfy a particular cost-benefit standard.  Currently, unless a particular treatment is explicitly excluded by contract, private health insurance generally covers all treatments with an expected medical benefit, without regard to how costly the treatment or how substantial the expected benefit.  This ensures that health care costs will continue to rise as new technology is developed, whether or not the benefits of technological advances justify the costs.

In this post, I want to compare RVHI to the two most common types of proposals for fighting heath care cost inflation: consumer directed health care ("CDHC"), and pay-for-performance.

The idea behind CDCH proposals, long a darling of the political right, is to substantially increase the cost- sharing requirements of health insurance.  The Health Savings Account ("HSA") program, instituted as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, is based on CDHC principles.  The program permits individuals who purchase health insurance policies with high deductibles to established tax-advantaged savings accounts that can be used to pay the out-of-pocket costs.  The idea behind the HSA program, and CDHC approaches more generally, is that consumers will have a greater incentive to balance the costs and benefits of interventions if they are directly responsible for a larger portion of the cost.

CDHC is undoubtedly a good way to encourage greater price competition in the healthcare marketplace, but it is unlikely to solve the problem of consumers demanding expensive new technologies even when the costs do not justify the benefits.  CDHC has two problems in this regard.

First, the theory of CDHC assumes that consumers are hyper-rational actors who can make optimal cost-benefit trade-offs at the point of purchase of medical treatments, when they are often ill, scared and facing extremely complex alternatives.  The vast literature in the field of behavioral decision-making suggest this is exactly the type of situation in which individuals would have the most difficulty making efficient choices.  Empirical research on health care decision-making suggests that greater cost-sharing causes consumers to cut back on medical care usage, but that consumers are not very good at determining which interventions are cost effective and which are not.  Better to encourage patients to choose generally how to allocate resources between health care and other goods and services ex ante, through their insurance purchase decision, as RVHI would do.  This lets individuals make global resource allocation decisions consistent with their preferences, but leaves the ve ry difficult determination of the whether any particular treatment satisfies a particular cost-effectiveness standard to the expert panels that provide the relative value ratings.

Second, health care costs are notably bi-polar, with five percent of the population accounting for about half of all costs in any given year.   This means that, even with very high deductible levels, most heavy users of medical care in any given year will exceed their out-of-pocket maximums, or know that they inevitably will before the year is up, and thus have no more incentive to equate costs and benefits of care than do individuals with first dollar insurance coverage.  The RVHI approach avoids this problem as well by pushing the critical choice of how much in the way of resources to allocate to medical care back to the insurance purchasing decision rather than to the specific treatment decision.

A second popular theory about how to control the rising cost of health care is to reform the way physicians and other providers are compensated, moving from a system of payment for services (which creates its own moral hazard problem), to a system of "pay-for-performance," or pay based on the health outcomes the physician obtains.  Assuming providers would be paid based on the health outcomes of their patients net of treatment costs incurred, this approach would seem to  incentivize cost-effective care while discincentivizing interventions with little benefit compared to its cost.

The problem with pay-for-performance is that it would create a conflict of interest between physicians and their patients.  Patients who pay for insurance that promises to cover all "medically necessary" care rightly expect their physician to recommend treatments with a positive expected medical benefit, regardless of cost.  In this situation, providers who refuse to recommend, or to provide, treatments with an expected benefit because they are not cost effective would breach their moral, and possibly their legal, obligations to their patients.  Furthermore, patients would seek out the physicians with a reputation for recommended all medically effective care and avoid those with a reputation for recommending only cost-effective care.

In a world of RVHI, this conflict of interest would not exist.  Physicians could recommend to their patients any treatments they believe would have a medical benefit, regardless of cost.  Such physician recommendations would then be mediated by patient preferences concerning the allocation of resources between medical care and other goods and services.  Whether a particular patient would follow the physician's recommendation would depend, at least in part, on how "deep" and expensive the health insurance policy purchased.  If a physician believed that the best treatment option, for a purely medical perspective, is one that has a very high cost and relatively modest expected benefit, a patient who paid more for a deep insurance policy might well find that treatment option is fully covered, while a patient who chose to pay much for a shallower insurance policy might find that the treatment option is not covered, or requires a substantially higher copayment.

Again, for a more thorough development and analysis of the RVHI concept, see my articles on the subject in the Michigan Law Review (here) or the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law (here).

Read More

Farmers Insurance Eyes Texas for Additional Growth in Coming Year; Seeks to Add More Than 200 Agency Owners in Lone Star State

AUSTIN, Texas, March 26, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Farmers Insurance, one of the largest property and casualty multiline insurers in Texas, is looking to add to its talent and grow its presence in the state with a concerted effort to add 244 Agency Owners throughout the state.  The insurer is uniquely offering special incentives to military veterans, reservists and bilingual candidates who can tap the state's increasing ly multicultural consumer markets.

View photo

.

"Farmers Insurance continues to see great opportunities for growth in Texas and we are actively seeking strong leaders and self-starters to join us as Agency Owners in the state," said Jim Swope, Head of the Texas Territory for Farmers Insurance.  "Especially with the proud heritage of Texans serving in the various branches of the military, we want to call special attention to our new program that can help qualified military veterans and reservists make the transition from the military to a Farmers Agency Owner."

Some of the prospective Agency Owner incentives available to qualified military veterans, reservists and qualified bilingual candidates include eligibility for additional funds for marketing, new office opening support and supplemental training incentives.

"Farmers knows that those who have served in the military are uniquely qualified to be successful as Farmers Agency Owners – they perform very well in intense environments and they are able and willing to take on increasing levels of responsibility…that's why we want them," said David Van Noy, district manager for Farmers Insurance in Round Rock.   "Interested candidates will find that Farmers can provide them with award-winning training and ongoing professional development.  Especially for prospective Agency Owners, having access to the tools and resources that can aid their long term success is a major benefit."

Farmers Insurance offers a number of ways for entrepreneurs, self-starters and leaders in various stages of their careers to become Agency Owners. "Some candidates come with a record of previous sales success, others with experience in the financial sector but little sales experience and others who have recently entered into their professional careers are invited to explore the opportunities to become your own boss," said Swope.

"Becoming a Farmers Agency Owner was one of the best decisions I've ever made.  It has given me the opportunity to be my own boss and see the fruits of my hard work," said Keith Wagner, a Farmers Agency Owner in The Woodlands, Texas and member of the elite Farmers Presidents Council.  "As a small business owner, I also decide who to hire and some of the best choices I've made have been to hire from the ranks of our military veterans and reservists who know what it takes to succeed."

Those interested in obtaining additional details about the Farmers Agency Owner opportunity should contact Farmers at www.beafarmersagent.com.  At the web site, potential candidates can also get in contact with a local district manager in their area who can walk them through what the next steps will be.

Farmers Insurance Group of Companies is a leading U.S. insurer group of automobiles, homes and small businesses and also provides a wide range of other insurance and financial services products. Farmers Insurance is proud to serve more than 10 million households with more than 20 million individual policies across all 50 states through the efforts of over 50,000 exclusive and independent agents and nearly 24,000 employees.

The Farmers Exchanges are three reciprocal insurers (Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange), including their subsidiaries and affiliates, owned by their policyholders. Farmers Group, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, manages the non-claims insurance operations of the Farmers Exchanges. Farmers Group, Inc. is wholly owned by the Zurich Insurance Group. For more information about Farmers, visit its Web site at www.farmers.com or at www.Facebook.com/FarmersInsurance.

Contact:		Luis Sahagun
		323-932-4753
		luis.sahagun@farmers.com

Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130731/LA56061LOGO

• Professional Services
• Business
• Farmers Insurance
• Texas

Read More

Rule Of Law And Instant Justice In Ghana

The Rule Of Law And Instant Justice In Ghana:

A Lamentation

BY: Daniel Korang

Ghana School of Law, Accra

Introduction

After our return to constitutional democracy in 1992, it was thought that acts of violence, lawlessness, impudence and civil brutalities were effectively censured by the 1992 Constitution. Unfortunately, however, the Forth Republic has been invariably ruined by a culture of lawlessness and other constitutionally aberrant manifestations which characterised bygone undemocratic eras. Instant justice, otherwise known as mob action, is so commonplace in Ghana that our incipient democracy and the rule of law suffocate under its intense pressure. This sordid act takes many forms and shapes: flogging suspected robbers to death; slashing suspected criminals; stripping suspects naked and beating them with blocks, sticks and iron rods till they die; subjecting suspects to humiliating and degrading treatments and sometimes setting them ablaze. Mob action is gradually assuming a posture of an unquestioned culture of executing instant 'justice' without recourse to the court. Mob action is s teadily developing into an ugly tumour on the near immaculate face of our present 1992 Constitution.

Mob action, put bluntly, is an embarrassment to our democracy. It casts an ugly slur on our national identity. It represents imprints of visible tokens of incivility and brutishness. It is a criminal method of punishing suspected criminals. Instance justice is sordid and repulsive; its frequency represents a reversal of our democratic laurels. It is a flagrant departure from the rule of law; it is a major democratic defect; it is an evidence of the breakdown of law and order, and reveals the inadequacies of our system of justice. It is a major onslaught to our criminal justice system, and an embarrassment to the country. The country is likely to drift deeper into the quagmire of lawlessness if the problem of instant justice is not checked immediately.

Almost invariably, no month ends without a suspected criminal being lynched by an angry mob. The dangers of mob action on our country are too numerous to name. One inherent danger of this sordid act is the real likelihood of victimising innocent persons who are mistaken for criminals. An innocent person fleeing from a crime scene is likely to be mistaken and lynched.

Technically, instant justice flouts the system of punishment for criminal offences. Under our law, penalties for criminal offences are statutorily prescribed and they vary with the gravity of the offence. Thus article 19 (6) of the 1992 Constitution cautions that "[n]o penalty shall be imposed for a criminal offence that is severer in degree or description than the maximum penalty that could have been imposed for that offence at the time when it was committed." For instance, it is unconstitutional for a person suspected of stealing – which is only a second degree felony- to be lynched. In any case, the power to punish criminals is the sole preserve of the judiciary and not an angry mob (vide article 125 of the Constitution). Mob action is therefore an unwarranted usurpation of judicial power.

Lynching of suspected criminals also hampers the efforts of the police to stem the tide of crime in Ghana. Most criminal activities in Ghana are complicated and syndicated. They are planned and executed by ganged criminals. The arrest and trial of a few of them may lead to the arrest of other participants of the criminal enterprise. Lynching therefore breaks the chain of police investigation and stultifies the efforts of the security agencies.

 

The 1992 Constitution and Mob Action

Mob action has the potential of burgeoning into an intractable evil which, if not checked, would ultimately undermine the1992 Constitution, and toll the knell of our fourth brave democratic effort. Chapter 5 of the Constitution contains a catalogue of fundamental human rights. Article 13 of the constitution guarantees the right to life. Clause 1 of article 13 provides that: "No person shall be deprived of his life intentionally except in the exercise of the execution of a sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the laws of Ghana of which he has been convicted." The words of the provision are clear and unambiguous. It is only the court that has the power to order that the life of a person convicted of a criminal offence punishable by death should be taken. Lynching of suspected criminals is an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law itself.

Mob action also violates the right of persons to dignity. Article 15 (1) provides that "[t]he dignity of all persons shall be inviolable." Clause 2 states that "[n]o person shall, whether or not he is arrested, restricted or detained, be subjected to – (a) torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) any other condition that detracts or is likely to detract from his dignity and worth as a human being." It is only convicted persons who may lawfully be executed or subjected to torture. Article 15 (3) of the Constitution provides that "[a] person who has not been convicted of a criminal offence shall not be treated as a convicted person and shall be kept separately from convicted persons." Mob action is unconstitutional and unacceptable in our constitutional democracy.

The reprehensibility of mob action becomes more apparent when the act is considered in the light of the hackneyed legal principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in the 1992 Constitution. Article 19 (2) (c) provides that, a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty. The presumption of innocence implies that a person suspected of having committed a crime is deemed to be innocent until he has been properly arraigned before a court of competent jurisdiction and has been convicted of a crime. It is submitted that the venue and modus operandi of mob action are wrong, illegal and unacceptable. Lynching of suspected criminals is a patent indictment of fair trial which is the bastion of all truly free and civilised societies. More importantly, lynching is a monstrous breach of natural justice. A key principle of natural justice is that a person cannot be condemned without being given the opportunity to be heard. Lynching deprives a suspect of the right, time and facilities for the preparation of their defence contrary to article 19(2) (e) of the Constitution.

It should be remarked that instant justice qualifies as a criminal offence under our Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Insofar as the harm caused in mob action is unlawful, the act may qualify as murder under section 46 of Act 29 where it leads to death, or where death does not occur, the mob action may constitute criminal assault and battery under sections 84 and 86 or causing unlawful harm under sections 69 and 76 of Act 29.

Causes of Instant Justice

In our part of the world, the causes of mob action are too numerous that one may readily, and justifiably so, endorse the act. The foremost motivating factor is inordinate delay in justice delivery in Ghana. Excessive delay in disposal of simple criminal cases gives rise to mob action and self-help. A notorious reason for delay in justice delivery is unnecessary adjournments. The Court of Appeal in Deegbe v. Nsiah And Another [1984-86] 1 GLR 545-552, expressed a firm judicial abhorrence to delays in justice delivery, per Edusei J.A.:

"This simple, straightforward case has lasted almost eight years now, from 10 August 1977 to 25 July 1985. This is an abuse of the court's process. It may conjure up in the minds of the public a sort of judicial phantasy, and this is not good enough for the administration of justice.  We hope that lawyers will help to achieve speedy justice for it is said that "justice is sweet if it is swift.""

In the magistrate courts the delays are in some cases very disturbing, and a careful observation has shown that the greater part of the blame should be put on the police. It is true that in complicated criminal cases, the police need time to do thorough investigation, but in simple criminal cases there is no justification for prolonged investigation. The unwillingness of people to act as witnesses in criminal cases also accounts for the delay. The judicial process in Ghana leaves much to be desired. If we desire to stem the tide of mob action, then we need to spruce up our judicial system.

Another reason for mob action is the perceived public dissatisfaction with the system of criminal punishment. Even though the limits and extents of punishments for offences are statutorily prescribed and defined, they are very largely subject to the discretion of the court. When judges exercise their discretion to impose minimal sentences in hideous offences, people become dissatisfied and appalled.  With this dissatisfaction, mob action becomes the best alternative to inflict punishment commensurable to the particular offence. However, it is hard to believe that instant justice deters criminals.

In the recent case of Frimpong alias Iboman v Republic (2012) SCGLR 297, the Supreme Court observed that, "[t]he greatest deterrence to our mind is the swift but unlawful mob action that society unleashes upon those suspected of committing crimes especially, stealing, robbery and ritual murders. If what happens to suspects in robbery cases is anything to go by, there would have been no robbery or stealing cases by now." Mob action serves no useful purpose.

Judicial and police corruption in Ghana is another disturbing contributory factor to mob action. Bribery, corruption, and the unprofessional conduct of some policemen and judicial officers coupled with ineffective police investigation excite mob action. The Ghanaian populace has little confidence and trust in the Ghana police, the judiciary and other security agencies. Most policemen are criminal accomplices. Why should a suspected criminal be delivered to the police only for them to enrich themselves by taking bribe and releasing him without trial or for the Attorney-General to enter nolle prosequi on the basis of lack of evidence? It may, I think, be proper to suggest, albeit halfheartedly, that mob action is appropriate in Ghana where some policemen form alliance with armed robbers and other criminals to unleash untold atrocities on society. Sadly, some armed robbers undertake their operations not only in police and military uniforms, but also with weapons specially meant for u se by the security agencies in Ghana. To put it more bluntly, if policemen and members of other security agencies are known to assist criminals, and sometimes openly form gangs to commit criminal acts with brazen effrontery, then there is no point in reporting alleged criminals to the police. After all, some of the men in uniform are equally criminals. The police must live up to expectation so as to deserve the confidence of Ghanaians.

Conclusion

Instant justice is a democratic deficit and a bane of our criminal justice system. When the judicial process is bogged down by factors such as delay and corruption, then we should expect that people are likely to take the law into their own hands and administer 'justice' in the manner they deem fit. The problem of instant justice needs to be tackled concertedly. The media should educate people to refrain from the unlawful act of mob action and report alleged criminals to the police. The courts should also ensure expeditious trial of cases so as to whip up public confidence in the judiciary. In this regard, there is the need for active co-operation of the Bench, Bar, Police and witnesses. We also need to have a critical look at the Criminal Procedure Code with the view to dispensing with archaic procedures which hamper speedy trial. Individual should also learn to respect the law and co-operate with the police and court.

In conclusion, it is, I think, generally accepted that no system of democracy deserves its name if people are free to take the law into their own hands and execute instant 'justice' without recourse to the court. In our constitutional arrangement, instant justice is abject injustice. The rule of law must prevail.

Daniel Korang

Ghana School of Law, Accra

dkorang1986@yahoo.com

0208759342

Do you have a story or an article to publish? Please email us at spyghana79@gmail.com.

Read More

Why Employers Will Stop Offering Health Insurance

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times Ezekiel J. Emanuel: The exchanges have to work.

Here's a prediction: By 2025, "fewer than 20 percent of workers in the private sector will receive traditional employer-sponsored health insurance." The source of this claim? Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, in his just-published book, "Reinventing American Health Care."

Dr. Emanuel is an accomplished oncologist, medical ethicist and academic (and contributing opinion writer to The New York Times). And, of course, he's no stranger to politics: He helped craft the Affordable Care Act as a health policy adviser to the Obama administration, when his brother, Rahm, now the mayor of Chicago, was chief of staff. The book is a full-throated defense of the law (its subtitle: "How the Affordable Care Act Will Improve Our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System").

In it, Mr. Emanuel argues that in the next two or three years, "a few big, blue-chip companies will announce their intention to stop providing health insurance. Instead, they will raise salaries substantially or offer large, defined contributions to their workers. Then the floodgates will open." He says that few small businesses will join the SHOP exchanges set up for them and that most of those that offer coverage are even more likely than big companies to drop it, since those who employ fewer than 50 workers face no mandate to offer it in the first place, which Mr. Emanuel thinks is fine.

Mr. Emanuel acknowledges that the fact that worker's don't pay taxes on the premium benefit from their employers is a big obstacle to this vision — the tax break is the second-biggest deduction in the tax code, and employees won't be eager to give it up. But, he argues, the so-called Cadillac tax on especially generous health plans, set to take effect in 2018, will help pave the way by discouraging companies from offering those plans.

In two conversations that have been condensed and edited, Mr. Emanuel walked us through his prediction and talked about other aspects of the health law's impact on businesses small and large — and then conceded that he could well turn out to be wrong.

Q.

You say that employers will stop offering insurance by 2025. Why do you think that's a good thing?

A.

I have a different view than many people. I think that if you have good options in the exchange, and a lot of competition to keep prices down, I think a good marketplace could work well. But a lot of people like their employer giving it to them, and I think a lot of people are uncertain about what the new world will offer.

Q.

What will causes employers to stop offering insurance?

A.

Why does an employer do it now, when there's no mandate, no requirement? Because it needs to attract workers, and workers have no real other options. The individual market is not enough of an alternative. The first and most important, essential, requirement is that the exchanges work well, become a positively branded experience, and give people a lot of choice — choice that they like.

Q.

Do you think that's going to happen — especially given the way the rollout took place?

A.

I'm driving back from having visited the Connecticut exchange — yeah, I think it can happen. The Connecticut exchange has arguably been the best exchange, but nothing they do is rocket science. It's like running an e-commerce site focused relentlessly on a better customer experience and making sure things go well. They want to get down to 30-minute shopping. And I think if you've got exchanges that are working in that frame of mind, I think, yes, it's possible.

Q.

So an alternative is in place. What then makes employers conclude they don't want to provide insurance?

A.

Some of them will continue. They'll say, "A good employer provides insurance, takes care of its workers, cares about its workers, and this is one way we communicate it." Others will say, "It's better for my employees to drop coverage. They have freedom to decide how much they want to spend on health care. They have more choices than I can offer, and I would prefer not to spend the money, resources, time doing the insurance – I can give them the defined contribution, I'll know what the costs are year to year – it's very predictable." And the exchange is a good place. People actually like it. It's not looked at as, "Wow, they're abandoning me."

Q.

Won't losing the tax break on the coverage be painful for middle-class employees who make too much to qualify for subsidies?

A.

Well, there may be ways of their employer not providing them insurance but providing them a way to get insurance that allows them to keep the tax exclusion. You have to go into the innards of what it means for the employer to sponsor the insurance. But I'm sure they've got a lot of lawyers working on it.

Q.

There has been a perception that the rollout of the Affordable Care Act has been more difficult for small businesses than it was supposed to be — even businesses that aren't subject to the mandate worry their costs will go up.

A.

One of the problems we have here is that human beings have short memories. It was not an easy market for most people before the A.C.A. Rates were very volatile – if you're a small business and one person gets sick, your rates the following year are really subject to increases. I don't think people were by and large happy with it. And so to complain about the A.C.A. seems to me to be not fair.

Q.

Do you think that the Obama administration wanted to get companies away from coverage?

A.

No! I didn't actually think this through. I don't think anyone thought it through. Look, we relied on Massachusetts, where there was crowd-in — more employers began offering coverage. So that was the thinking: More people will offer coverage.

Q.

You say in your book that Massachusetts hasn't been able to set up a vibrant SHOP exchange. What's the problem with the SHOP exchanges?

A.

I've always been a bit perplexed by the idea of setting up a SHOP exchange, since I don't understand why it's just not better if you're a small business to say, all right, everyone, I'm just going to give you X amount of dollars and let you shop in the individual market. That seems to me to be a way to go – why should a small business set up a lot of machinery around it? Why should exchanges set up a lot of machinery? And it would be better for exchanges to have these workers in the individual exchange.

Q.

Doesn't it come down to that basic comfort level that people have — they are used to getting their insurance from their small-business employer.

A.

Right. We're creatures of habit, and once we've gotten the habit, it may be that people will prefer that habit. Look, the best argument against me, and against my prediction, is Massachusetts. Lots of big in-state employers have continued to offer insurance, and as a matter of fact what has happened in Massachusetts is more employers have offered insurance because their workers say, "Look, there's a mandate, you've got to give it to me."

That's the danger of making predictions. The best example we have says that Emanuel is wrong on all counts when it comes to this, and I don't have a counterargument. I have my predictions, but there's no evidence for mine that's as strong as the Massachusetts evidence.

Q.

Should there be any employer mandate to provide insurance? Some people argue that it's a marginal policy at best.

A.

I think that the mandate or a penalty for larger businesses is the right thing to do. They should pay their fair share.

Q.

But it makes it harder for them to exit.

A.

Exactly. That's another argument against me, which is $2,000 an employee is not so easy to do. That's real money to them, but obviously if they exit and they put people into the exchange, and many of those people get subsidies, someone's going to have to pay for it.

Read More