These Five (5) Questions May Hold The Answer….
Going without coverage can be tempting and even seem necessary at times, especially when you are relatively young, relatively healthy and on a relatively tight budget. However, skipping major medical coverage can also be a potentially costly decision. You may wind up owing a tax penalty (yes, even now that the Trump Administration is in office), paying unexpected medical bills out of pocket, or both.
If you are asking yourself if you really need insurance, the answers to these five questions may help you decide.
1. Are you exempt from the ACA’s individual mandate?
The Obama ‘Affordable’ Care Act’s individual shared responsibility provision (aka, the individual mandate) requires most Americans to have a health plan that qualifies as minimum essential coverage. This may include, but is not limited to, job-based coverage, major medical plans purchased on and away from the state-based and federally facilitated health insurance exchanges, Medicaid and most types of TRICARE (veterans) coverage.
However, exemptions from the mandate are granted to individuals in certain circumstances, including those with coverage gaps of less than three consecutive months, those for whom coverage costs more than a certain percentage of their household income, those with incomes below the filing threshold and others facing general hardship, to name a few. 
If you are not exempt and do not obtain coverage as required by the law you could face a penalty known as the shared responsibility payment at tax time.
What could being uninsured could cost you if you’re not exempt?
You may owe a tax penalty known as the individual shared responsibility payment. Those who went without minimum essential coverage in 2016 could face penalties as high as follows: that penalty could be as high as :
- 2.5% of their annual household income above the tax filing threshold to a cap of the national bronze plan s premium, or
- $695 per adult and $347.50 per child under 18 to a maximum penalty of $2,085 per family.
For every month that you are uninsured and not exempt, you owe 1/12 of the annual shared responsibility payment.
In 2017 and beyond, the penalties remain the same, but will be adjusted for inflation.
2. How will you pay for healthcare if you need it?
While we know it can happen, we never really plan on becoming ill or getting injured, especially when our medical histories are relatively spotless. If you have no benefits to help with covered expenses when you do get sick or hurt and need medical care, you will have to pay 100% of the bills out of pocket. Whether your healthcare expenses are expected or not, do you have access to savings, credit or other funds to help pay for healthcare?
What could being uninsured cost you if you need healthcare?
Insurance status has a strong association with medical bill difficulties—more than half of uninsured individuals report problems paying household medical bills. On average, a trip to urgent care will cost $150 and a trip to the emergency room will cost over $1,000. Fixing a broken leg can cost up to $7,500 and the bill for a three-day hospital stay hovers around $30,000.
3. Do you plan on being uninsured for short time?
Accidents and illnesses can happen any time, not just when it is convenient. Even if you are about to start a new job with benefits that kick in a month or two down the road, it is wise to have a plan for how you will pay for healthcare in the meantime.
Short term health insurance plans provide temporary coverage for as few as 30 days. They offer a range of benefits to help with covered expenses, including office visits and emergency care, and they can be quickly obtained. Application and enrollment take only a few minutes, and coverage begins as early as the day after you enroll. You can buy short term coverage year-round.
What could a short term health plan cost you?
Typically, short term plan premiums are a fraction of major medical premiums. Keep in mind that short term plans are not the same as Obamacare plans (i.e., major medical insurance). They are not subject to the ‘Affordable’ Care Act, which means you may be denied coverage based on your health history and, if you are not exempt from the shared responsibility provision, having short term coverage will not prevent you from owing a tax penalty.
If you plan to be uninsured longer than three months and do not qualify for a special enrollment period, you may consider a hospital indemnity plan.
Learn about HIP (Hospital Indemnity Plans)
4. Will you qualify for an Obamacare subsidy?
If you buy a major medical plan from a state-based or federally facilitated health insurance exchange (the Obamacare plans) and meet certain income qualifications, you may be eligible for a subsidy. Obamacare subsidies include advanced premium tax credits that help lower your monthly premium payment.
Remember: You can only buy major medical plans during the annual open enrollment period or during a special enrollment period if you have a qualifying life event.
What could health insurance cost you with an Obamacare subsidy?
Major medical health insurance premiums vary depending on a number of factors, including where you live, what type of plan you choose (i.e., bronze, silver, gold, platinum), and your age. In 2016, the average premium for health insurance plans purchased through the federal Obamacare HealthCare. gov exchange was $408 per month.
However, 83% of people who purchased healthinsurance through HealthCare. gov received subsidies that helped lower their monthly premiums. The average advanced premium tax credit amount was $294 per month, which lowered the average monthly cost to $113 per month.
Consider “Gap” Insurance To Cover The Higher Obamacare Plan Deductibles & Out-Of-Pocket Limits
5. Are you eligible for Medicaid?
In 2014, Medicaid eligibility was expanded to include single adults earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Not all states decided to participate in this optional expansion. You can enroll in Medicaid year-round. To view your state’s eligibility criteria, click here to visit Medicaid.gov’s State Medicaid & CHIP Profiles page.
What could Medicaid coverage cost you?
If you qualify for Medicaid, you may be able to get low-cost or no-cost coverage.
The Obama ‘Affordable’ Care Act may require you to buy health insurance, and there may be financial risks in going without it. Ultimately, you must decide if you need health insurance. It is important to understand all of the benefits and risks associated with your decision. Work with a health insurance producer to determine the right coverage 
options for your health and financial situation.
You can call the number at the top of your screen to speak with a certified advisor (i.e., health insurance producer) who can assist you. You can also obtain quotes for supplemental products, short term coverage and off-exchange Obamacare plans at :
HealthInsurance4Everyone – www.hi4e.org
Read more
President Trump’s proposed budget has received criticism from Democratic and Republican lawmakers. The 2018 budget calls for an unprecedented $54 billion increase in military spending while slashing environmental, housing, diplomatic and educational programs. It also calls for a 31% cut to the Environmental Protection Agency and the elimination of 3,200 jobs. If approved, the EPA’s budget would become the smallest it’s been in 40 years.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and the Agriculture Department took the hardest hits. The State Department would see a 29% decrease in funding, eliminating climate-change prevention programs, reducing funding for U.N. peacekeeping, reducing funding for development banks and reducing most cultural-exchange programs.
The Agriculture Department would lose 4.7 billion (21%) of its funding, eliminating the $200 million McGovern-Dole International Food for Education program, eliminating the $500 million Water and Wastewater loan and grant program, reducing the budget for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition assistance from $6.4 billion to $6.2 billion and cuts $95 million from the Rural Business and Cooperative Services program.
The budget proposes cutting 6.2 billion in funding (13%) for the Department of Housing and Urban Development-eliminating the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program and eliminates the $35 million of funding for Section 4 Community Development and Affordable Housing. The cuts would also eliminate the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the Choice Neighborhoods program and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program.
The Department of Health and Human Services would lose 18% of its funding. The Education Department would see $9 billion (14%) cut from its funding, with a decrease of $3.7 billion in grants for teacher training, after-school and summer programs, and aid programs to first-generation and low-income students. While “school choice” programs would receive $1.4 billion more in funding, increasing the budget for charter schools and spending $1 billion to encourage districts to allow federal dollars meant for low-income students to follow those students to the public school of their choice.
The Department of Labor stands to lose 2.6 billion (21%) in funding which would eliminate the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which helps low-income seniors find work. The budget cuts would close poor-performing centers for Job Corps, a job-training program for disadvantaged youth and eliminate grants that help nonprofit groups and public agencies pay for safety and health training.
The proposal also eliminates funding for 19 agencies including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports public radio and TV stations nationwide; the National Endowment for the Humanities; the National Endowment for the Arts; and the Legal Services Corporation, which funds free legal aid nationwide.
These cuts are not set in stone just yet but they do show where President Trump’s priorities are. Congress will still have to draft a formal budget and Trump’s proposed budget is expected to face fierce opposition in Congress. Congress completely by-passed President Obama’s budget proposal last year while drafting the formal budget.
Read more
South Korea’s Constitutional Court removed President Park Geun-hye from office over charges of bribery and corruption. The unanimous ruling strips Park of immunity from prosecution, meaning she could face criminal charges. Ms. Park’s powers were suspended in December after a legislative impeachment vote.
Eight justices of the Constitutional Court unanimously decided to unseat Ms. Park for committing “acts that violated the Constitution and laws” throughout her time in office, Acting Chief Justice Lee Jung-mi said in a ruling that was nationally broadcast that Ms. Park’s acts “betrayed the trust of the people and were of the kind that cannot be tolerated for the sake of protecting the Constitution.”
Ms. Park, 65, now faces prosecutors seeking to charge her with bribery, extortion and abuse of power in connection with allegations of conspiring with her childhood friend, Choi Soon-sil, to collect tens of millions of dollars in bribes from companies like Samsung.
Samsung Group scion Lee Jae-yong was arrested on bribery charges in February. He is accused of paying $36 million in bribes to President Park Geun-hye’s confidante, Choi Soon-sil, in return for political favors. Those are alleged to include government support for a merger of two Samsung affiliates in 2015 that helped Mr. Lee, 48, inherit corporate control from his incapacitated father, Lee Kun-hee, the chairman.
Park’s removal capped months of turmoil, as hundreds of thousands of South Koreans took to the streets, week after week, to protest the sprawling corruption scandal and demands for her arrest. Acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn: “In order to stop internal conflicts from intensifying, we should manage the social order and keep a stable government, so that national anxiety and the international society’s concern can be settled.”
Park Geun-hye was the nation’s first female president and the daughter of the Cold War military dictator Park Chung-hee. She had been an icon of the conservative establishment that joined Washington in pressing for a hard line against North Korea’s nuclear provocations.
After December’s impeachment vote, she continued to live in the presidential Blue House while awaiting the decision by the Constitutional Court. The house had been her childhood home since the age of 9. She left nearly two decades later after her mother and father were assassinated in separate incidents.
Park is now South Korea’s first democratically elected leader to be forced from office. Her removal comes amid rising tension with North Korea and China. A new election will be held in 60 days.
The upheaval comes days after North Korea test-fired several ballistic missiles and as the Trump administration began deploying a missile defense system to South Korea. Chinese officials warn the U.S. is escalating a regional arms race. Park’s conservative party losing power could mean South Korea’s next leader will take a more conciliatory approach toward North Korea.
Read more
Three separate shootings have raised worries among Indians and other communities about possible violence against foreign workers in the United States. The senseless shooting of two technology workers from India and another man at a bar in Olathe, Kansas made national headlines. The victims, Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Alok Madasani, both engineers employed by Garmin were at Austins Bar & Grill in Olathe.
A witness says Adam Purinton, 51, became agitated by the presence of the two men and was asked to leave by regular patron Ian Grillot. Purinton left but returned a short time later and approached Kuchibhotla and Madasani. He opened fire, yelling “Get out of my country!” Kuchibhotla was killed and Madasani was wounded. Grillot, who was shot in the hand and chest, was praised as a hero for attempting to intervene and subdue the suspect during the shooting.
Purinton was arrested hours later at an Applebee’s restaurant in Clinton, Missouri, about 70 miles away from Olathe. Applebee’s employees called 911 and an Applebee’s bartender told police that a man had admitted to shooting two “Iranian” people in Olathe and was looking for a place to hide. Purinton faces one first degree murder charge and two charges of attempted first degree murder.
Another shooting occurred in Lancaster, South Carolina when 43 year old Harnish Patel was shot and killed in front of his home. Patel was killed after returning home from working at the Speedee Mart convenience store, which he owned. Patel had lived in the United States for 14 years. He was married and had one child in elementary school. He was originally from the Indian state of Gujarat. Police are still looking for the shooter.
Police are investigating a third shooting that occurred in Kent, Washington. The shooting of Deep Rai, a 39-year-old Sikh man, was shot while cleaning his car in his driveway. The victim’s family said a man approached and began calling him names, telling him, “Go home to your country!” The shooter then pushed him to the ground and shot him in the arm.
The victim lost consciousness and only realized he’d been shot when he regained consciousness in the hospital. He was released the next day and is expected to make a full recovery. Rai is a U.S. citizen originally from Punjab, India. Rai became the fourth Indian man to be shot within the last few weeks in the United States. All of the shootings are being investigated as possible hate crimes.
The Sikh Coalition said members of its community are at heightened risk of hate-crime attacks -partially because their faith requires the wearing of turbans and beards. In a statement, spokesman Rajdeep Singh said it’s important the Kent shooting be investigated as a hate crime. “While we appreciate the efforts of state and local officials to respond to attacks like this, we need our national leaders to make hate crime prevention a top priority,” he said. “Tone matters in our political discourse, because this is a matter of life or death for millions of Americans who are worried about losing loved ones to hate.”
“The Sikh community is shaken and very frustrated at the hate and rhetoric that is being spread today about anyone that looks different, who looks like an immigrant.”
Read more
In January, President Trump said he wanted to empower local law enforcement to act as immigration officers and help with the “investigation, apprehension, or detention” of immigrants in the country illegally. Traditionally, local police departments are not involved in immigration enforcement and those duties are carried out by federal authorities.
Police chiefs from cities across the U.S. are resisting the move by the administration to enlist local police officers to help deport undocumented immigrants. In a joint letter sent to Congress, 61 sheriffs and police chiefs wrote, “We can best serve our communities by leaving the enforcement of immigration laws to the federal government. Threatening the removal of valuable grant funding from jurisdictions that choose not to spend limited resources enforcing federal immigration law is extremely problematic.” The White House plan would also withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Some of the cities that have vowed not to participate in the involvement of immigration laws include Los Angeles, Newark, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Seattle, Providence and Denver. Many expressed concerns that immigrants already wary of reporting crimes or being interviewed as witnesses will retreat further into the shadows.
Trump’s plan is not a new idea but is not regularly practiced throughout the country. A 1996 federal law opened up the possibility for local agencies to participate in immigration enforcement on the streets and do citizenship checks of people in local jails. Immigration and Customs Enforcement trained and certified roughly 1,600 officers to carry out these checks from 2006 to 2015.
The Obama administration phased out all the arrest power agreements in 2013, but still let agencies check whether people jailed in their jurisdiction were citizens. If an inmate is found to be in the country illegally, the department typically notifies federal authorities or hands them over to immigration officers. Today, more than 30 local agencies participate in the jail program.
Experts said Trump’s outreach to local law enforcement will create an even bigger split between sanctuary cities that keep police out of immigration enforcement and those eager to help the new president bolster deportations.
During the election, Trump found support among some law enforcement officers who viewed him as more pro-police than his Democratic opponent. But even officers who privately said they had voted for him- are not eager to help with his immigration agenda. Many officers feel that they have enough on their plate. They are too busy answering 911 calls, arresting robbers, stopping erratic drivers and solving homicides to add federal immigration enforcement to their to-do lists.
Read more
On February 9th, a federal appeals court in San Francisco unanimously upheld a suspension of President Trump’s executive order barring all refugees from entering the U.S. and restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. In the unanimous decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled courts have the authority to review constitutional challenges to executive actions.
Last week, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program. After the ban was put on hold, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports around the country.
Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.
The panel declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. The judges rejected the administration’s argument that courts did not have the authority to review the president’s immigration and national security decisions. They also said the administration failed to show that the order met constitutional requirements to provide notice or a hearing before restricting travel and presented no evidence that any foreigner from the seven countries cited by the travel ban had committed terrorism in the U.S.
This controversial court battle has just begun. Now, the lower court must debate the merits of the ban, and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely. When that happens, it could put the decision in the hands of a divided court that has a vacancy. A potential 4-4 tie would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place.
The appeals court only sided with the administration on one issue: the argument that the lower court’s temporary restraining order could not be appealed. While under 9th Circuit precedent such orders are not typically reviewable, the panel ruled that due to the intense public interest at stake and the uncertainty of how long it would take to obtain a further ruling from the lower court, it was appropriate to consider the federal government’s appeal.
Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, could not be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban. President Trump responded to the ruling on Twitter, tweeting “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the Supreme Court would review the issue.
Read more
Immediately after swearing in Sessions as attorney general, President Trump signed three new executive orders addressing crime and immigration. One executive order seeks to increase penalties on those found guilty of assaulting police officers. A second order directs law enforcement agencies to increase intelligence sharing while going after drug cartels. A third order directs Attorney General Sessions to prioritize fighting “illegal immigration” alongside drug trafficking and violent crime.
President Trump also green-lighted construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, a proposal he repeatedly mentioned while campaigning. The wall is just one component of sweeping action Trump took to clamp down on immigration to the U.S. “Building this barrier is more than just a campaign promise, it is a common-sense first step to securing our border. This will stem the flow of drugs, crime, and illegal immigration into the United States. And yes, one way or another, as the President has said, Mexico will pay for it,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer said.
Other actions recently taken by President Trump include:
- Ending federal grant funding to sanctuary cities and states, which opt out of reporting undocumented immigrants.
- Ordering the Department of Homeland Security to allocate funds or establish contracts for the construction or operation of detention facilities.
- Ending the policy known as “catch and release,” under which some immigrants are released from detention while they await a hearing with an immigration judge.
- Prioritizing the deportation of immigrants who have committed crimes.
During the White House press briefing on Wednesday, Spicer reiterated earlier statements that the President’s priority would be on criminals. “His priorities, first and foremost, are the people in this country that seek to do us harm,” he said.
Reactions to the immigration actions were swift from eight immigration and refugee-rights groups who joined a conference call to denounce the new orders. They argue that the orders make the U.S. less safe and tear apart families and communities across the country. Advocates said the executive orders are “anti-immigrant, anti-refugee and anti-religious freedom”. None of the advocacy organizations that were on the call had been briefed or received any guidance from the Trump Administration on the orders and future immigration plans.
Advocacy groups are preparing to take legal action and provide lawyers to protect people who are concerned about pending visa applications, hate crimes and continued confusion at the U.S. border. Many mayors of U.S. cities who have adopted sanctuary policies have said they are ready and willing to push back on Trump’s funding plans.
Read more
Police have arrested a gunman charged with opening fire at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City during evening prayers. Canadian university student Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, has been charged with 6 counts of murder and five counts of attempted murder in the shooting that left six people dead and 19 wounded.
Witnesses described a gunman dressed in black, opening fire indiscriminately with semi-automatic weapons. More than 50 people were at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre when the shooting began. All the shooting victims were men and those killed ranged in age from 39 to 60. Of the four victims who remained hospitalized, two were in critical condition, authorities said.
Among the six men killed were a butcher, a university professor, a pharmacist and an accountant, according to police. The government of Guinea said in a statement that two of its citizens were among those killed in the mosque attack.
The suspect was arrested in his car on a bridge near d’Orleans, after he called 911 to say he wanted to cooperate with police. Authorities initially named two suspects, but later said the other man taken into custody was a witness to the attack and was released. Officials said they did not believe there were others involved. Police did not give a motive for the attack.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard both characterized the attack as an act of terrorism, which came amid strong criticism around the world over Trump’s temporary travel ban for people from seven Muslim countries. Shortly after Trump’s executive order was issued, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that Canada would welcome refugees banned from entering the United States.
Federal Safety Minister Ralph Goodale told reporters in Ottawa there was no change to “the national terrorism threat level” from medium because “there is no information known to the government of Canada that would lead to a change at this time.”
According to media outlets, Bissonnette was known for far-right, nationalist views and his support of the French rightist party led by Marine Le Pen. The suspect has expressed support for Le Pen and U.S. President Donald Trump on his Facebook page. He was known to those who monitor extremist groups in Quebec, said François Deschamps, an official with a refugee advocacy group.
Bissonnette made a brief appearance in court under tight security wearing a white prison garment. Prosecutors said they do not have all the evidence yet. Bissonnette is set to appear again on Feb. 21. No charge was read in court and Bissonnette did not enter a plea.
The attack was a shock to the community of Quebec City, a city of just over 500,000 which reported just two murders in all of 2015. Incidents of Islamophobia have increased in Quebec in recent years. The face-covering, or niqab, became an issue in the 2015 Canadian federal election, especially in Quebec, where the majority of the population supported a ban on it at citizenship ceremonies.
Read more
New York City taxpayers will pay $75 million to settle a class action lawsuit against the New York Police Department over its issuing of nearly 1 million legally baseless criminal summonses over several years because they were under pressure to meet quotas. The summonses were later dismissed for lack of evidence. The settlement must be approved by U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet.
The suit was filed in a federal court in 2010 on behalf of people who were hit with 900,000 court summonses that were later dismissed because of legal deficiencies. The settlement would allow people issued court summonses for offenses such as trespassing, disorderly conduct and urinating in public to receive a maximum of $150 per person per incident for their trouble.
The lawsuit argued police were routinely ordered to issue summonses “regardless of whether any crime or violation” had occurred to meet quotas. It cited claims by two whistleblower officers who said they were forced into quotas by precinct superiors. The quota allegations were denied in the settlement agreement.
Under the agreement, the city said the NYPD must update and expand training and guidance reiterating to officers and their superiors that quotas are not allowed, and officers must not be mandated to make a particular number of summonses, street stops or arrests.
A total of $56.6 million would be set aside, and individual payments could end up lower if more claims are made. Any funds not paid go back to the city, which is also paying $18.5 million in legal fees. Possible class members would be notified through social media and other advertisements.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs called it the largest false-arrest class-action lawsuit in city history. The 2010 lawsuit includes summonses filed from 2007 through at least 2015. About one-quarter of the summonses issued during that time frame were dismissed for legal insufficiency, according to data in the lawsuit. Legal insufficiency is not necessarily a lack of evidence but may be that an officer wasn’t clear enough in explaining why someone was ticketed.
The class action suit came amid a growing outcry over the NYPD’s encounters with minorities. The lead plaintiff in the case, Sharif Stinson, said he was stopped twice outside his aunt’s Bronx building in 2010 when he was 19 and was given disorderly conduct summonses by officers who said he used obscene language. The officers didn’t specify what the language or behavior was, and the tickets were dismissed.
Read more
Lawmakers quietly closed the investigation into the lead poisoning of the water system in Flint, Michigan in December 2016. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s findings blamed state officials, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the EPA.
The Flint water crisis began when the city’s unelected emergency manager, appointed by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, switched the source of Flint’s drinking water from the Detroit system to the corrosive Flint River to save money. The water corroded Flint’s aging pipes, causing poisonous levels of lead to leach into the drinking water. The impoverished city was under state control at the time.
Between 6,000 and 12,000 children were been exposed to drinking water with high levels of lead and they may experience a range of serious health problems.
The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, issued two separate letters announcing that the investigation was finished and that Snyder was without guilt because it was the Environmental Protection Agency’s fault Flint’s water source was shifted to a contaminated source. After the April 25, 2014 switch to Flint River water from back-up to temporary primary source, city residents began complaining about their water’s color, taste, and odor.
Thirteen people have been charged in the Flint Water Crisis and its cover-up. Former MDEQ employees Michael Prysby and Stephen Busch were charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, tampering with evidence, a treatment violation of the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act, and a monitoring violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Former city water plant operator Michael Glasgow was charged with willful neglect of office, a misdemeanor, and felony tampering with evidence. Glasgow accepted a plea deal with prosecutors, admitting to filing false information about lead in Flint water and agreeing to cooperate in other prosecutions.
Liane Shekter-Smith was charged with misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty; Adam Rosenthal was charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, tampering with evidence, and neglect; Adam Cook was charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to engage in misconduct in office, and neglect of duty. From the MDHHS, Nancy Peeler, Corinne Miller, and Robert Scott were charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to commit misconduct in office, and willful neglect of duty.
On December 20, 2016, false pretenses, conspiracy to commit false pretenses, willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office charges against former Emergency Managers Darnell Earley and Jerry Ambrose; and false pretenses and conspiracy to commit false pretenses charges were filed against former Flint Utilities Administrator Daugherty Johnson and former Flint Department of Public Works director Howard Croft. Many residents are outraged that Governor Rick Snyder has survived the investigation unscathed since some of the officials charged reported directly to him.
The closing of the investigation came as Flint Mayor Karen Weaver told residents they should still not drink the water. The city’s lead pipes have not yet been replaced.
Read more
