Connect with us

Trending

Leaked Document Shows American Doctors Were Financially Rewarded For Pushing Covid Jab

Published

on

An Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) Medicaid document that was leaked reveals how the health insurer established a “COVID-19 Vaccine Provider Incentive program” to pay physicians for pushing COVID vaccines to their patients.

Transcript:

“Getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is one of the best and safest ways people can protect themselves and their families against the virus. As a participating practice in the COVID-19 Provider Vaccine Incentive program, we recognize your hard work by offering incentives for helping patients make the choice to become vaccinated.

Eligibility

The COVID-19 Vaccine Provider Incentive program is open to you if you are a participating Kentucky primary care provider with an Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid (Anthem) panel size of 25 or more members. All Anthem members identified as receiving COVID-19 vaccination services are included in the methodology. Vaccine results will be determined by a COVID-19 vaccine claim or by confirmation from the Kentucky Vaccine Registry.

The results will be calculated for two time periods:

  • September 1, 2021 – Initial incentive payment
  • December 31, 2021 – Final incentive payment

How you can qualify for a bonus

If your practice meets the below thresholds for vaccination with at least one dose by September 1, 2021, you will receive the initial incentive payment based on the following rates:

  • 30% Anthem members vaccinated – $20 bonus per vaccinated member
  • 40% Anthem members vaccinated – $45 bonus per vaccinated member
  • 50% Anthem members vaccinated – $70 bonus per vaccinated member
  • 60% Anthem members vaccinated – $100 bonus per vaccinated member
  • 75% Anthem members vaccinated – $125 bonus per vaccinated member

The final incentive payment is calculated based on members who are newly vaccinated between

September 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021 (see the Appendix for calculation examples). If your practice meets the below thresholds for vaccination with at least one dose by December 1, 2021, you will receive the final incentive payment based on the following rates:

  • 30%Anthem members vaccinated – $100 bonus per newly vaccinated member
  • 40% Anthem members vaccinated – $150 bonus per newly vaccinated member
  • 50% Anthem members vaccinated – $175 bonus per newly vaccinated member
  • 60% Anthem members vaccinated – $200 bonus per newly vaccinated member
  • 75% Anthem members vaccinated – $250 bonus per newly vaccinated member”

6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. SyncroFR

    August 21, 2023 at 10:55 am

    “rewarded”, aka, barely compensated for their time for providing free vaccines that they couldn’t even bill office hours for.

    Nice twisting of the reality of such paltry sums.

    • GS

      August 21, 2023 at 3:21 pm

      They plainly call them “incentive payments”

  2. Brian Connors

    August 21, 2023 at 4:05 pm

    Were colleges and universities “financially rewarded for pushing Covid jab”? Me thinks so. Lawyers are going to smell blood and go on rampages against them in the future. This is especially against those institutions warned of the “vaccine” dangers before their mandates were put into effect. Thoughts?

  3. IRISH

    August 22, 2023 at 5:49 am

    “leaked”? is that supposed to validate the fact? all doctors get perks etc for pushing big pharma drugs. its hardly a secret.

    • bob_read@Comcast.net

      August 22, 2023 at 10:00 am

      Who pays those incentives? You’ll probably discover it’s us, the taxpayers. This isn’t how I want my money spent

  4. IRISH

    August 22, 2023 at 10:24 am

    Stop funding big pharma by going to doctors and getting useless medications.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Democrats Block SAVE Act in Senate, Allowing Potential for Illegal Immigrant Voting

Published

on

Senate Democrats have thwarted the passage of the SAVE Act, a pivotal bill aimed at bolstering the integrity of federal elections by mandating proof of citizenship for voting eligibility. This move follows the House’s approval of the bill with a narrow vote of 221-198, where almost all Democrats opposed the measure.

The SAVE Act seeks to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to enforce stricter voter registration standards. Specifically, it proposes that voters must furnish documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship to participate in federal elections, diverging from current regulations that only require such proof for state and local elections.

Senator Mike Lee, commending Representative Chip Roy for the bill’s passage, emphasized the necessity for Senate action, asserting, “Federal elections are only for U.S. citizens.”

However, despite efforts to expedite the bill in the Senate, Democrats raised objections, preventing its immediate passage. Senator Lee expressed frustration over the blockage, highlighting the potential consequences: “It’ll stop noncitizens from voting.”

In a statement on the Senate floor, Senator Lee voiced deep concerns, citing a recent study revealing significant opportunities for illegal voting by noncitizens. The study indicated that between 10% to 27% of noncitizens are registered to vote, with 5% to 13% actually participating in presidential elections.

Instances of voter fraud, including noncitizens illegally registered to vote, have been documented across the country. Reports have surfaced of unsolicited voter registration forms sent to noncitizens and inadequate checks during driver’s license issuance, contributing to vulnerabilities in the electoral system.

A video shared by Mike Howell, Executive Director of the Heritage Oversight Project, in collaboration with Muckraker.com, further underscored concerns. The video exposed instances of illegal aliens admitting to voter registration in North Carolina, emphasizing the need to safeguard American elections from foreign influence.

The SAVE Act’s blockade in the Senate has ignited a contentious debate over electoral integrity and the role of citizenship in voting rights. As the legislative battle continues, the future of federal voting regulations remains uncertain, with implications for the upcoming 2024 elections.

Continue Reading

2024 Race

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reinstates Unstaffed Drop Boxes Ahead of 2024 Election

Published

on

In a significant ruling on July 5, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided to reinstate the use of unstaffed drop boxes for absentee ballots, reversing the prohibition that had been in effect since 2022. The court’s 4–3 decision marks a pivotal change in Wisconsin’s election procedures ahead of the 2024 elections.

In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that state law did not allow for absentee drop boxes to be placed anywhere other than in election clerk offices. This decision effectively banned the use of unmanned drop boxes, which had been widely utilized in previous elections to facilitate absentee voting.

The reversal of the 2022 ruling was influenced by a change in the court’s composition. A new justice was elected in 2023, which led to a re-evaluation of the previous decision. During the arguments in May, Justice Jill Karofsky questioned the validity of the 2022 ruling, suggesting that it may have been a mistake. “What if we just got it wrong? What if we made a mistake? Are we now supposed to just perpetuate that mistake into the future?” Karofsky asked during the proceedings.

The court heard arguments three months before the August 13 primary and six months ahead of the November presidential election. Attorneys representing Republican backers of the 2022 ruling contended that there had been no changes in the facts or the law to justify overturning a decision that was less than two years old. Misha Tseytlin, at torney for the Republican-controlled Legislature, argued that overturning the ruling could lead to future instability, as the court might have to revisit the issue whenever its composition changes.

However, Justice Karofsky countered this by pointing out the potential flaws in the 2022 decision, questioning whether the court should continue to uphold a ruling that was “egregiously wrong from the start” with “exceptionally weak” reasoning and damaging consequences.

Democrats and voting rights advocates argued that the 2022 ruling misinterpreted the law by concluding that absentee ballots could only be returned to a clerk’s office and not to a drop box controlled by the clerk. David Fox, attorney for the groups challenging the prohibition, described the current law as unworkable and unclear about where ballots can be returned.

Several justices expressed concerns about revisiting the previous ruling, with Justice Rebecca Bradley cautioning against the court acting as a “super Legislature” and giving municipal clerks excessive discretion in conducting elections.

The case was brought by voter mobilization group Priorities USA and the Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Voters. Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which oversees the state’s elections, supported the use of drop boxes. Election officials from four counties, including the state’s two largest, also filed briefs in support of overturning the prohibition, arguing that drop boxes had been used securely for decades.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys highlighted the practical impact of the 2022 ruling, noting that over 1,600 absentee ballots arrived late and were not counted in the 2022 election when drop boxes were not in use. By contrast, in the 2020 election, when drop boxes were available, only 689 ballots arrived after Election Day, despite a significantly higher number of absentee voters.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate unstaffed drop boxes is a crucial development in the state’s election laws, potentially increasing accessibility and convenience for absentee voters. As the 2024 elections approach, this ruling may have significant implications for voter turnout and the administration of elections in Wisconsin.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending

Elon Musk Backs Voter Bill Aimed at Providing Proof of U.S. Citizenship to Vote, Labels Opponents as “Traitors”

Published

on

Elon Musk recently voiced strong support for the SAVE Act, a bill proposed by House Speaker Mike Johnson aimed at ensuring only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act seeks to amend the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by mandating documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration in federal elections.

The bill outlines several key measures:

  • State election officials must verify citizenship before providing voter registration forms.
  • Individuals must provide proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.
  • States can accept various documents to make it easier for citizens to register.
  • States will have access to federal agency databases to remove non-citizens from voter rolls.
  • The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is directed to determine whether to initiate removal proceedings if a non-citizen is identified as registered to vote.
  • DHS must notify state election officials when individuals are naturalized to ensure they can exercise their voting rights.

Supporters, including Musk, argue that these measures are necessary to protect the integrity of U.S. elections by preventing non-citizens from voting. Critics of the bill claim it could disenfranchise eligible voters by imposing additional hurdles to the registration process.

Continue Reading

Trending