In one of the best pieces of news yet in the quest for relief from the criminal tyranny of insurers, The Supreme Court of the United States of America has unanamously agreed that the RICO laws supersede McCarren-Fergusson, and that insurers may indeed be sued for Racketeering under the RICO, without frustrating the State's Regulatory Powers.

The Justices use reasonable precedent, a dictionary, and a simple reductio ad absurdum argument.

In their unanimous decision, the justices make it clear that their decision is, by declaring the validity of a body of federal law to be applicable to insurance companies, not to be construed as an invitation to federal meddling. While this may seem not desireable by those who seek federal intervention, I, for one, do not seek federal intervention any further than the court has allowed.

What I do seek is an exact, clear and appropriate way of bringing these subhuman marauding racketeers to task for their crimes against humanity, in the manner of the Nuerenberg trials. "I was just following orders" is as good an excuse as "I didn't know that it was illegal to murder people." Even when people are murdered in war, as a matter of circumstance, which oddly makes it acceptable, it is still murder; and this is a war. Make no mistake about this. The insurance cartel has declared war on the people the world and has not even had the courtesy of admitting it. Let every one involved be treated as the war criminals that they are, and sentenced accordingly for every one of the cold, deliberate and calculated murders that they have committed.

In many insurance cases, HMOs are also involved. These have used the originally "consumer protective" Federal ERISA, 29 USC 1001, laws as defense against malpractice. This defense is also crumbling; see the report of a ruling by the PA State Sup. Ct.

               -- Bill Hammel

   ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   Also From Jim and Paula at
   http://www.insurancejustice.com/

   MORE ON RICO -- SUE YOUR FRIENDLY INSURER FOR   FEDERAL RACKETEERING

   Although most of the huge law firms are working for those demonic entities
   called "insurance companies," one large firm that is working for the human
   beings is Anderson, Kill and Olick.  For an excellent article on the
   Humana/Forsythe decision which overrides the cosy protection from wrongdoing
   the insurance industry has enjoyed under McCarran-Ferguson, go here:

   http://www.andersonkill.com/policyholder/

   This is the March '99 issue, under which date it will be archived if you
   look for it next month.

   ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

      January 20, 1999
      
                     Court OKs Suits Against Insurers
       ______________________________________________________________
     
     Filed at 11:42 a.m. EST
     
      By The Associated Press
      
     WASHINGTON (AP) -- People sometimes may use a federal
     anti-racketeering law to sue their health insurer for alleged
     fraud, the Supreme Court said today.
     
     The court's unanimous ruling let customers of Humana Health
     Insurance of Nevada pursue a class-action lawsuit that claims the
     insurance company got secret discounts it did not share with them.
     
     The lawsuit was filed under the federal Racketeering Influenced and
     Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, which allows private
     lawsuits to collect triple damages for fraud.
     
     Humana sought dismissal of the lawsuit, citing another federal law
     that seeks to preserve states' primary role in regulating insurance
     companies. The McCarran-Ferguson Act says federal laws cannot be
     used to ``impair or supersede'' a state insurance law unless the
     federal law specifically involves insurance.
     
     Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said suing under
     RICO would not impair Nevada's own insurance laws but appeared to
     complement the remedies available under state law.
     
     ``We see no frustration of state policy in the RICO litigation at
     issue here,'' Ginsburg wrote.
     
     The 1989 lawsuit involving about 84,000 Humana insurance customers
     says the company in 1985 started shifting costs to customers who
     bought insurance policies in which Humana paid 80 percent of a
     patient's expenses and the patient paid the rest.
     
     The lawsuit says Humana negotiated secret discounts with Humana
     Hospital Sunrise in Las Vegas, in which the entire discount was
     applied to the insurance company's share of the bill. The customers
     said they wound up paying much more than 20 percent of the actual
     cost.
     
     Humana no longer owns the hospitals, which were acquired by
     Columbia-HCA.
     
     A federal trial judge ruled that the customers could not sue under
     RICO because that law did not specifically involve insurance.
     Allowing customers to seek RICO's higher penalties would impair
     Nevada law, the judge said.
     
     The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying the
     differing penalties did not create a conflict between the federal
     and state laws.
     
     The Supreme Court upheld the 9th Circuit court.
     
     Ginsburg cautioned that today's ruling does not provide ``a green
     light for federal regulation whenever the federal law does not
     collide head on with state regulation.''
     
     Instead, she said a federal law can be applied when it does not
     directly conflict with state insurance regulations and when relying
     on the federal law would not frustrate any state insurance policy.
     
     The case is Humana Inc. vs. Forsyth, 97-303.

       ______________________________________________________________

     Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
   
     The information contained in this AP Online news report
     may not be republished or redistributed
     without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.