Wednesday, August 22, 2012

International Travel Health Insurance Tips - the Springhill Group

When you are traveling around the world these days there is a lot you need to be concerned with. International travel health Insurance is one of them. When you travel internationally you never know what can happen to you, but you need to prepare for the unexpected. 

If your health insurance does cover international care, then it may have a time limit. Thirty days is a common limit on care for international travel health insurance. Again, you want to make sure on this because if you get special insurance for international travel, you don’t want to get duplicate insurance. 

If for some reason you become very ill and need to stay in a hospital for an extended period the current health insurance you have may not cover you for a longer period.

If you are a senior citizen, it’s important to note that Medicare doesn’t cover you abroad.

According to the U.S. Center For Disease Control and Prevention half of U.S. travelers abroad will have some sort of health problem.

There are many types of international travel insurance plans. There are short term international travel health insurance plans, there are long term travel health insurance plans and there are plans that deal with non medical issues. These issues may be non medical to begin with but they can make you feel sick later. An example of non medical travel insurance is trip cancelation for international travel.  read complete article

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Springhill Group Medical Fraud Seoul Korea: Obama And Health Care: White House Turns To Scott Brown For Relief - Tagza

WASHINGTON -- With the debate over the Affordable Care Act law morphing from a constitutional matter before the Supreme Court to an implementation matter before state houses, President Barack Obama and allied Democrats are refiguring their sales pitch.

In response to criticisms that the law hamstrings governors, defenders of the president's health care law will be championing a states-rights amendment that already enjoys Republican support.

Under current law, states are allowed to opt out of various requirements of the Affordable Care Act by 2017, provided that they meet minimal standards for coverage. The Empowering States to Innovate Act would move that date to 2014.

For the Obama White House, the amendment has a number of politically appealing aspects. The most obvious is that it provides an avenue to the type of federalist approach that the Republican Party, and its standard-bearer Mitt Romney, has argued should have been adopted in the first place. More bluntly, the co-sponsor of the amendment, along with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is Sen. Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican who happens to share a senior adviser with Romney.

When top Obama administration officials were asked how they would go about selling the law in the immediate aftermath of the court's ruling, one of the three provisions they cited was the opt-out amendment. It was equally telling that the president made a point of emphasizing the idea in his post-SCOTUS remarks.

"Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too," Obama said. "And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one."

Perhaps the most obvious signal that the White House sees the amendment as a campaign instrument came in February 2011, when the president declared -- in a bit of prescience with respect to the GOP primary -- that he "agree[d] with Mitt Romney" that states should be given "the power to determine their own health care solutions."

But as the Obama administration moves to embrace the Empowering States to Innovate Act, Republicans have gone silent. The Huffington Post reached out on multiple occasions to both Brown's Senate office and his re-election campaign to confirm that he still supports the amendment; to the Romney campaign to ask if the candidate backed the provision; and to the office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), asking if he supported it. None of the requests for comment were returned.

The silence may be owed to political caution more than anything else. Even after the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the de-facto position of the GOP has been to act as if the law will never come to be. Romney has pledged to repeal it upon taking office. And several Republican governors have said, in recent days, that they won't implement several of its components.

Under less charged circumstances, these governors and Romney may be more inclined to embrace the Wyden-Brown amendment. But to do so would be an implicit recognition that the Affordable Care Act will exist in the foreseeable future.

"I think it is very powerful," Wyden said of his proposal. "I think you start with a few propositions. It is a big and diverse country. There will be differences of opinions with respect to health care reform. This gives all side the opportunity to show their approach is attractive for their region to the country. But there is a bar, and that is you have to meet the coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act."

"The White House has already endorsed it," Wyden added. "There are plenty of others, including conservative folks who would like to go with some of their ideas. The concept is baked into the law."

So far, the most notable example of a state gearing up to take advantage of the opt-out amendment is Vermont, which is set to adopt a single-payer, state-wide health care system. Other states may soon follow. But under the Wyden-Brown amendment, they would have to meet certain criteria.

A state must first pass a law to provide health insurance to its citizens. The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury must then review the legislation and determine whether it provides individuals with coverage as comprehensive and affordable as the Affordable Care Act does. They also must make sure it wouldn't increase the federal deficit.

Should they meet that criteria, the Affordable Care Act provisions states can avoid include the individual mandate, the health insurance exchanges and certain coverage rules. According to Wydens' office, a state could still collect federal money under the ACA for, among other things, "the subsidies for premiums, the subsidies for co-pays, and the tax credits for small businesses," even after opting out for their own distinct reforms.

The money earmarked for Medicaid expansion -- which the Supreme Court ruled states could decline and which several Republican governors have signaled they will reject -- is unrelated to the amendment.

Democrats allied with the White House see the Wyden-Brown amendment as a helpful way to disarm criticisms that the Affordable Care Act is overly burdensome on those very same Republican governors. But the expectation remains that they will end up implementing the law rather than opting out. As The Huffington Post's Jeff Young reported, the lobbying pressure for them to do so will be severe. The political realities will also change over time, as some reforms are implemented, public opinions shift and elections take place.

"We have heard from a number of states that once the Supreme Court rules they would start moving to implement the bill," said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, in an interview after the decision came down.

"They face a stark choice: if they don’t implement the exchanges, they face a federal exchange," she said. "So I think the effect of the litigation was to call into question the whole apparatus of the law, to make people confused by it. I think you will see some more moderate Republican governors start to implement the law now."
see more

Springhill Group Medical Fraud Seoul Korea: Health Care Law Repeal Efforts By House GOP Cost Nearly $50 Million: CBS Report - Tagza

While Republicans lambast the cost of implementing health care reform, a new report shows that their efforts to repeal the law have come at a major cost to taxpayers -- to the tune of nearly $50 million.

The House of Representatives again voted to repeal President Obama's signature health care law on Wednesday, marking the 33rd time Republicans have attempted to take down the legislation. The 32 previous repeal efforts faltered at the hands of the Democrat-controlled Senate; the latest attempt is unlikely to break that pattern.

According to a report by CBS News, these efforts, widely viewed as symbolic political maneuvers, come with a high price tag.

CBS' Nancy Cordes reported Wednesday that Republicans' many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million.

The AP relays background on the GOP's repeal efforts:

There was never any doubt that Republicans had the votes to pass the repeal in the House on Wednesday – or that it would die in the Senate, where Democrats possessed more than enough strength to block it.

That's what happened in January 2011, when the newly installed Republican majority first voted to repeal the law a few days after taking office.

In the months since, the GOP has taken repeated further swipes at the law, including votes to deny salaries to any government officials who enforce it, to abolish a board of officials charged with holding down Medicare costs in the future and to repeal a tax on medical devices.

With the exception of a few relatively modest changes accepted by the White House, all the rest have died in the Senate.

Although Republicans have remained vocal on repeal since the Supreme Court upheld the law, party leaders have yet to agree upon and propose a concrete alternative to the Affordable Care Act.

Speaking before the House vote on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the vote would give "the Senate another chance to heed the will of the American people."

"Most Americans not only oppose this health care law -– they support fully repealing it," he reiterated after the measure's passage.

While most polls have shown that more Americans continue to oppose Obamacare than support it, a recent survey showing equal amounts of support and opposition for the law suggested the gap might be closing.

Democrats have also seized on a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll that showed 56 percent of Americans wanting the law's detractors to move on to other issues.

see more 

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Springhill Group: springhill group south korea Learn what a CFE can do for you

In today’s economic climate, who will help you protect your company and your clients from the devastating impact of fraud?

Fraud can creep into your business in a number of ways.
You may find you need an objective expert to deter potential problems, investigate allegations or provide resolution.
A Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) offers anti-fraud knowledge and skills you need to:

• Investigate allegations against one of your employees
• Recommend strong anti-fraud internal controls
• Conduct interviews related to sensitive issues
• Provide assistance with financial dispute resolution
• Resolve irregularities discovered during your company’s audit
• Provide expert testimony on financial and investigative matters

A Unique Set of Skills
Fraud Examiners have a unique set of skills that are not found in any other discipline; they combine knowledge of complex financial transactions with an understanding of law, criminology, investigation and how to resolve allegations of fraud.

CFEs work in a variety of disciplines including accounting, auditing, fraudinvestigation and security, as well as in different industry segments including government, healthcare, financial services, manufacturing and retail distribution.

CFEs are knowledgeable in four areas critical to the fight against fraud:

• Fraudulent Financial Transactions
• Criminology & Ethics
• Legal Elements of Fraud
• Fraud Investigation

Reduce Fraud Risks and Costs
Heightened fraud awareness, combined with new laws and regulations, has increased the already growing demand in the workforce for professionals who are highly skilled at deterring, detecting and investigating fraud.

CFEs have the ability to:

• Identify and reduce opportunities for fraud
• Implement effective anti-fraud controls
• Continuously improve anti-fraud measures based on new risks and technologies
• Educate employees to deter fraud and report wrongdoing
• Resolve allegations or suspicions of fraud
• Assist in the recovery of fraud losses

Springhill Group News Korea Bulletin, Health Services

Springhill Group has been providing solutions that improve health and quality of life for those in need. Springhill is focused on patients and dedicated to delivering quality patient care and service. We provide patients with the care they need and the comfort and independence they deserve. 

Clinical Service Delivery: Responding to the unique needs of patients and their families by offering skilled nursing care, and home safety evaluations. 

Patient-Centered Care: Springhill’s patient-centered care is customized to meet the requirements of each patient and allows them to remain in the comfort of their homes. 

Quality Improvement: Routine review of policies, processes and procedures enables Springhill Group’s to continuously improve its standard of care delivery. 

Healthcare Technology: Investment in healthcare technology allows Springhill to further improve services and to greatly enhance communication as well as invest more in the quality of patient care through increased efficiency.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

group of south korea springhill: Why Washington’s Iran Policy Could Lead to Global Disaster

By Juan Cole, TomDispatch
This piece originally appeared atTomDispatch.
It’s a policy fierce enough to cause great suffering among Iranians—and possibly in the long run among Americans, too.  It might, in the end, even deeply harm the global economy and yet, history tells us, it will fail on its own.  Economic war led by Washington (and encouraged by Israel) will not take down the Iranian government or bring it to the bargaining table on its knees ready to surrender its nuclear program.  It might, however, lead to actual armed conflict with incalculable consequences. 
The United States is already effectively embroiled in an economic war against Iran.  The Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to the most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s.  And worse is on the horizon.  A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as a way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program.
Historical memory has never been an American strong point and so few today remember that a global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States.  The tactic is just as dangerous today.
Iran’s supreme theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly condemned the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of all sorts as tools of the devil, weaponry that cannot be used without killing massive numbers of civilian noncombatants.  In the most emphatic terms, he has, in fact, pronounced them forbidden according to Islamic law.  Based on the latest U.S. intelligence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta hasaffirmed that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear warhead.  In contrast, hawks in Israel and the United States insist that Tehran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program is aimed ultimately at making a bomb, that the Iranians are pursuing such a path in a determined fashion, and that they must be stopped now—by military means if necessary.
Putting the Squeeze on Iran
At the moment, the Obama administration and the Congress seem intent on making it impossible for Iran to sell its petroleum at all on the world market.  As 2011 ended, Congress passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that mandates sanctions on firms and countries that deal with Iran’s Central Bank or buy Iranian petroleum (though hardship cases can apply to the U.S. government for exemptions).  This escalation from sanctions to something like a full-scale financial blockade holds extreme dangers of spiraling into military confrontation.  The Islamic Republic tried to make this point, indicating that it would not allow itself to be strangled without response, by conducting naval exercises at the mouth of the Persian Gulf this winter.  The threat involved was clear enough: about one-fifth of the world’s petroleum flows through the Gulf, and even a temporary and partial cut-off might prove catastrophic for the world economy.
In part, President Obama is clearly attempting by his sanctions-cum-blockade policy to dissuade the government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  He argues that severe economic measures will be enough to bring Iran to the negotiating table ready to bargain, or even simply give in.
In part, Obama is attempting to please America’s other Middle East ally, Saudi Arabia, which also wants Iran’s nuclear program mothballed.  In the process, the U.S. government and its allies have even had Iran’s banks kicked off international exchange networks, making it difficult for that country’s major energy customers like South Korea and India to pay for the Iranian petroleum they import.  And don’t forget the administration’s most powerful weapon: most governments and corporations do not want to be cut off from the U.S. economy with a GDP of more than $15 trillion—still the largest and most dynamic in the world.
Typically, the European Union, fearing Congressional sanctions, has agreed to ceasetaking new contracts on Iranian oil by July 1st, a decision that has placed special burdens on struggling countries in its southern tier like Greece and Italy.  With European buyers boycotting, Iran will depend for customers on Asian countries, which jointly purchase some 64% of its petroleum, and those of the global South.  Of these, China and India have declined to join the boycott.  South Korea, which buys $14 billion worth of Iranian petroleum a year, accounting for some 10% of its oil imports, has pleaded with Washington for an exemption, as has Japan which got 8.8% of its petroleum imports from Iran last year, more than 300,000 barrels a day—and more in absolute terms than South Korea.  Japan, which is planning to cut its Iranian imports by 12% this year, has already won an exemption.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Springhill Group: Medicare Dupery Bill Re-brought In

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, has reintroduced legislation that would double the amount of fines and incarceration for people in prison for Medicare fraud/scam. It also creates a new criminal offense punishable with a 10 year minimum sentence for those who intentionally sell or distribute the ID numbers of Medicare beneficiaries.
According to the Springhill Group, the legislation also bars those who have been part of Medicare dupery in the past from billing Medicare if they switch companies. It also facilitates real-time information sharing among law enforcement agencies to aid in uncovering and dismantling Medicare scams.
“South Florida has been known as the epicenter of Medicare dupery for years,” she said. “It is time we took the fight to those who seek to defraud Medicare and prey on our most vulnerable citizens. This bill not only raises the penalties for those who engage in Medicare fraud, but also sets up a pro-active paradigm that will help stem the tide of abuse in South Florida and across the nation.”The bill takes particular aim at Medicare theft in Miami-Dade County, widely regarded as the nation’s capital of healthcare dupery. Medicare dupery in South Florida costs taxpayers between $3 billion and $4 billion every year, according to law enforcement and healthcare officials. Nationwide, Medicare and other healthcare fraud is estimated to cost $68 billion each in very year.
“Niche Site Builder Software” Discover how you can easily create Niche Websites promoting products from Amazon and Clickbank Fast! Just fill in the required fields and any content you want to add and the software will create a complete, monetized Niche Affiliate Site. You can build as many sites as you want! Not only will you get the software to use for yourself but for a limited time you will receive complete PLR Rights and a Completely Brandable Copy of the software. This means you can put your name on the software and sell it and keep 100% of the profits! Just enter your Name and Good Email below and you will have immediate access to your copy of the software.