Friday, February 28, 2014

SHAME!!! Perzel Paroled After ONLY Less Than 2 Years!

SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!  Are you kidding me.  This guy is sentenced to 2 1/2 to 5 years in prison and he's released after only LESS than 2 years!!:



EX-SPEAKER PERZEL PAROLED FROM PRISON
-AP
Somerset, pa.:  Former Pennsylvania House Speaker John M. Perzel was paroled Thursday morning after serving nearly 2 years in prison on a corruption conviction.
The Philadelphia Republican was released from Laurel Highlands Prison in Western Pennsylvania, Corrections Department officials said.
Perzel, 64, pleaded guilty in 2011 to conspiracy, conflict of interest, and theft charges as part of a plea deal that required him to cooperate with the prosecution of his former codefendants.  He also was ordered to pay $1 million in restitution and will remain on parole, subject to restrictions and monitoring, through the end of his maximum prison term in April 2017.


From the York, PA daily morning newspaper The York Daily News:


Print   Email  

Our take: Perzel deserved more jail time

UPDATED:   03/26/2012 08:02:23 AM EDT

John Perzel
John Perzel (File)
In this plea bargain, the kingpin rolled over on the pawns. รป
Assorted thoughts on legislative corruption:
Not enough time: We understand how the criminal justice system works.
If you plead guilty and cooperate with investigators, you often get a reduced sentence.
We can't really fault that practice. It saves taxpayers' money and makes it easier for authorities to put other criminals behind bars.
And yet, in the case of former state House Speaker John Perzel, this practice just feels wrong.
Last week he was sentenced to 2½ to 5 years in prison for his role in the scheme to use tax dollars to help Republicans win election - using publicly funded technology and state employees. He'd pleaded guilty to multiple counts of theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest.
And so it is off to jail for yet another high-ranking member of Pennsylvania's corrupt Legislature.
Good.
He deserves the time in prison for making a mockery of the public trust he and other legislative "leaders" held in their greedy hands.
In fact, he deserves more than a minimum of 2½ years.
That's on the low end of the sentences imposed on other elected officials snared in the investigations into legislative abuse of taxpayer resources to run election operations. Former GOP Rep. Brett Feese was convicted last fall and sentenced to at least four years in prison. Former Democratic Whip Mike Veon is serving at least six years in prison on his 2010 conviction and was recently convicted in a second corruption trial.
Usually in the let's-make-a-deal/cop-a-plea scenario, authorities go after the pawns to roll over on the kingpin.
In the Perzel case, it seems to have worked the other way around.
He was the top Republican dog in the Legislature when these shenanigans were going on.
But he gets a sentence of just 2½ years.
Well, we can only hope he ends up serving more than his minimum sentence - like, maybe the full five years.
Where's the reform talk? This sad spectacle of former legislative lions now caged in penitentiaries reminds us that it is an election year for all seats in the state House and many state Senate seats.
You'd think, after the embarrassment and outrage of Bonusgate and other investigations by the state Attorney General's Office, that candidates would be talking a lot about reform measures in their campaigns this year.
But not so much.
Most incumbents in the York County legislative delegation - which at one time included Rep. Steve Stetler, D-York, who will go to trial later this year on Bonusgate charges - have not really been leaders on legislative reform issues.
Term limits, reapportionment reform, a constitutional convention to reform or maybe shrink our large and very expensive Legislature: These are issues we'd like to see incumbents and challengers embracing and debating in this campaign season.
How about it? 

1874 "JonBenet"Case of its Time=1st Kidnapping for Ransom in America Which Received Nationwide Media Attention

Philadelphia Inquirer, Friday, February 28, 2014, Front Page, Page A1:



'JonBenet' case of its time - in 1874- at Germantown exhibit

Documents will be featured in the Charley Ross exhibition at Historic Germantown, in Philadelphia, on Thursday, February 27, 2014. ( COURTNEY MARABELLA / Staff Photographer)
Documents will be featured in the Charley Ross exhibition at Historic Germantown, in Philadelphia, on Thursday, February 27, 2014. ( COURTNEY MARABELLA / Staff Photographer)
Documents will be featured in the Charley Ross exhibition at Historic Germantown, in Philadelphia, on Thursday, February 27, 2014. ( COURTNEY MARABELLA / Staff Photographer)GALLERY: 'JonBenet' case of its time - in 1874- at Germantown exhibit

The kidnappers wouldn't stop writing.
They didn't send just one ransom note. Or two. Or 10. They sent 23, a veritable War and Peace of demands.
But no money was paid. And the little boy they took was never seen again.
The case described as America's first recorded kidnapping for ransom took place in Philadelphia - the daylight abduction of 4-year-old Charley Ross from the front yard of his Germantown home in 1874. The quiet, shy boy was lured into the clutches of strangers by an offer of sweets, his fate believed to have given rise to the warning, "Never take candy from strangers."
MORE COVERAGE

  • Monticello slavery focus of NCC exhibit
  • Graceland exhibit gives glimpse into young Elvis
  • Friday night, a reception at the Germantown Historical Society opens a two-month-long exhibit on the case, tied to the recent surprising discovery of the ransom notes in the basement of a Mount Airy home.
    The exhibit includes photos of the main actors, newspaper stories of the day, a missing-child poster, and more to fuel theories on the nature of a dark crime.
    "It was the JonBenet Ramsey case of its time," said Barbara Hogue, executive director of Historic Germantown, an alliance of area museums.
    And not just because it went unsolved.
    News coverage of the kidnapping was sensational and national, torment to a city government preparing to host the Centennial International Exhibition of 1876 and urging people to open spare rooms to visitors.
    The criminals struck upon a simple idea: Don't take people's property, take people. And get their families to pay for their return. It proved an enduring and replicable crime.
    Kidnappers took and killed the infant son of aviator Charles Lindbergh in 1932, a case that journalist H.L. Mencken called "the biggest story since the Resurrection." Frank Sinatra Jr. was kidnapped from Harrah's Lake Tahoe in 1963, released when his father paid $240,000. John Paul Getty III was snatched in 1973 by kidnappers who demanded $17 million - and sent his severed ear to a newspaper when the family was slow to pay.
    The Ramsey saga began the day after Christmas 1996, when mother Patsy found a ransom note on a staircase of the family home. The body of the 6-year-old beauty queen was discovered hours later in the basement.
    As for the Charley Ross case, it began July 1, 1874, as the boy and his nearly 6-year-old brother, Walter, played outside.
    A horse-drawn carriage pulled up, and two men inside offered to buy candy and fireworks if the boys would go for a ride. All four traveled to a store in Kensington, where Walter was given money and sent inside. The carriage then left without him.
    Three days later, a letter demanding $20,000 reached the boys' father, a dry goods merchant, Christian Ross. That sum was a fortune at the time, the equivalent of more than $400,000 today.
    "Mr Ros, be not uneasy, you son charley bruster be all writ we is got him and no powers on earth can deliver out of our hand," the kidnappers wrote.
    On that July 4, as news of the crime spread, Mayor William Strumberg Stokley laid the cornerstone of the new City Hall in what was then Center Square, and officially broke ground for the centennial celebration in Fairmount Park. The Philadelphia Zoo had opened for the first time only three days earlier.
    Detective work was relatively new. The Philadelphia Police Department was less than 40 years old, and the Pinkerton Detective Agency, which became involved in the search for the boy, had been formed less than 25 years earlier.
    All during July, a frightened public demanded answers. The mayor offered a city reward of $20,000 - the same amount sought by the kidnappers. The Inquirer offered a reward, too. Children sent coins to help save the lost Charley.
    The early ransom notes gave instructions for how Christian Ross should reply in the personal ads of local newspapers. Later, the kidnappers discussed the news coverage, attempting to justify their actions in increasingly desperate tones.
    "I really do think they intended to give the child back once they got the money," said Carrie Hagen, author of We Is Got Him: The Kidnapping That Changed America and a speaker at Friday night's reception. "I don't think they had any clue this would blow up like it did."
    Police told Christian Ross not to pay the ransom, because they feared a wave of copycat crimes. Ross took the advice. He never saw his child again.
    The letters stopped in November, after a series of arranged meetings fell through.
    Authorities identified two suspects, career criminals Bill Mosher and Joe Douglas. In December the two were met by armed neighbors when they tried to rob a Brooklyn, N.Y., home. Mosher was killed in the shoot-out, but Douglas lingered for an hour, during which witnesses said he confessed, telling them, "I helped to steal Charley Ross. . . ."
    The next year a suspected accomplice, a friend of Mosher's and a former Philadelphia police officer named William Westervelt, went on trial for kidnapping. Convicted of the lesser offense of conspiracy, he served seven years, then disappeared from history.
    Charley's body was never found. One explanation? Maybe he wasn't killed, but placed in a different family, where he grew up unaware of his true identity. At the time, scores of "Orphan Trains" were headed west, taking neglected children in New York to new homes elsewhere. A child could easily have been slipped aboard.
    "It's a sad story," Hagen said, "but one of the things about it, a positive outcome, was, a lot of children who were taken were found. You had people coming forward saying, 'My neighbor has a kid, and I don't know where the kid came from.'"
    For decades after the crime, people stepped forward, hundreds of them, claiming to be Charley Ross. In the 1930s, a carpenter in his 60s named Gustave Blair persuaded an Arizona court that he was Charley Ross, successfully changing his name to that of the child. The Ross family dismissed his claims.
    Today the case is largely forgotten, and the ransom notes thought lost - until March, when a Germantown Academy librarian found them in the basement of her Mount Airy home.
    Bridget Flynn and a daughter were searching through boxes of family photos and letters, looking for a drawing that could appear on a bridal-shower invitation. As they rummaged, Flynn found a stack of small envelopes tied with a black shoelace.
    "I thought they were love letters between my grandmother and my grandfather," Flynn said.
    They weren't. But how the letters came to her home is a mystery. While her family has been in Philadelphia since the 1600s, there's no obvious connection to the Ross family or the case, Flynn said.
    In November the notes were bought at auction by an anonymous benefactor, who then loaned them to Historic Germantown. The sale price was $20,000, the same as the ransom.
    Texts of the letters have been available from newspapers and books of the era, but the exhibit marks the first time all 23 can be seen in public.
    "There's still a lot of questions," Hogue said. "It's still not solved."


    jgammage@phillynews.com 215-854-4906
    @JeffGammage

    Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140228_Ransom_notes_from_nation_s_first_ransom_kidnapping_on_exhibit_in_Germantown.html#jcbjPmGvboRzhg6Q.99

    Thursday, February 27, 2014

    Palliative Care: For Terminally Ill Better Care, Lower Costs



    JOURNAL REPORTS: HEALTH CARE

    Palliative Care Gains Favor as It Lowers Costs

    Patients and Families See Another Benefit: Better Care

    Updated Feb. 23, 2014 5:03 p.m. ET
    Paula Gibson Massey, once an avid hiker, initially resisted signing up for palliative care while fighting lymphoma. Massey Family
    Insurers are establishing programs that give the sickest patients the chance to receive extra care for their pain, suffering and emotional needs, in a move that turns out to cut spending substantially.
    Such palliative-care programs aim to provide assistance to patients with chronic or terminal illnesses, and go beyond the drug prescriptions and surgeries such patients typically receive. Under the programs, doctors are often called in to prescribe drugs treating pain, anxiety and depression, while home-care aides visit residences to give baths and change sheets. Social workers may try to resolve conflicts between estranged siblings.
    The programs have their critics, who say the insurers' real goal is to bolster profits by pushing patients to forgo costly treatments that could prolong their lives. But supporters counter that the lowered costs are simply a fortunate side effect, and that fulfilling patients' wishes and needs is the main goal.
    "By improving quality of care for that group, it can also reduce the number of repeat hospitalizations and other emergency interventions, which is extremely expensive for payers," says Emily Warner, a senior policy analyst at the Center to Advance Palliative Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
    More to Come
    In recent years, insurers including UnitedHealth Group's Optum unit and Highmark Inc. have created such programs—a trend that is likely to continue as the population ages and efforts are made to both cut costs and improve care for patients at the end of their lives.
    Studies show that treatment of the most complex patients during their final months accounts for a disproportionate amount of health-care spending. About 25% of Medicare costs cover the last year of patients' lives, while 80% of the government health program's spending during the last month is for hospitalization. A visit to an intensive-care unit alone can cost more than $4,000 a day.
    Evidence suggests that the palliative-care programs can make a major dent in those costs. Studies by Kaiser Permanente, for instance, found that such programs can save $5,000 to $7,000 a patient by preventing costly trips to emergency rooms and avoidable readmissions to hospitals. AetnaInc. says it saved $55 million in 2012 among its Medicare Advantage patients.
    "If there is an opportunity to impact at the intersection of quality and cost, this is the mother lode," says Randall Krakauer, Aetna's director of medical strategy, who helped establish his company's program.
    Typical candidates for palliative care include patients suffering from congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and dementia. Many participants have cancer, typically at an advanced stage. Dedicated teams of doctors, nurses, chaplains and social workers step in to interview the patients to assess their needs and develop a plan for their extra care.
    Team Effort
    Often team members sit in on meetings between patients and their doctors, help explain medical conditions, and help the patients and families reach decisions about the course of treatment. A palliative-care team might also help coordinate a patient's treatment among different doctors.
    Many programs offer help drawing up wills and do-not-resuscitate orders. Such orders let doctors and nurses know the patient wants to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation, being put on a ventilator and other measures if there is a low chance for recovery. Sometimes, the patients get care in hospices or from visiting hospice nurses for their pain, suffering and emotional needs but give up aggressive medical treatment.
    During the 2009-10 health-care-overhaul debate, a proposal to pay doctors for providing counseling about end-of-life services drew fire from some Republicans about "death panels" determining care.
    But Thomas Smith, director of the Johns Hopkins Palliative Care Program, points to studies that show patients in such programs do better on quality measures like hospital readmission rates than people who don't elect palliative care. Patient satisfaction levels improve as well. Dr. Smith also cites studies showing members who receive these benefits live as long as or longer than those who aren't participants.
    Aetna, which first tried palliative care in 2004, now offers it to anyone with medical coverage in both its commercial and Medicare plans.
    In 2012, the company saved an average of $12,600 for each patient who chose to participate, while improving the quality of and satisfaction with their care, Dr. Krakauer says. Aetna bases its data on hospital admissions, survival rates and other data about medical treatment, as well as surveys of patients and their families.
    About 90% of eligible members choose to participate, Dr. Krakauer says. And members don't have to give up aggressive treatment in order to participate, though Dr. Krakauer says some ultimately do so. Medicare requires it for patients electing to receive hospice care.
    "We will not steer them toward a decision," adds Dr. Krakauer. "If they want the maximum aggressive therapy to the last, we will support them."
    To identify members who might be candidates, Aetna uses algorithms to sift through billing and other records. Doctors and nurses also make referrals.
    Tough Decisions
    Then case managers like Margaret Warnock call the patients. Case managers ask questions to see what the patient's wishes and needs are and whether they might be eligible. They explain what participation would mean.
    The decision can be difficult for members like Paula Gibson Massey, an avid hiker and yoga student from Sylvania, Ohio, who died at age 51 after battling cancer.
    Mrs. Massey was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2007, and chemotherapy and other treatments progressively lost effectiveness, recalls her husband, Stan Massey. By early 2013, the cancer had spread to Mrs. Massey's spine, causing fractures in her lower back. She was prescribed narcotics for the pain and physical assistance to help her move.
    Mrs. Warnock says she spoke with Mrs. Massey about this time, explained the benefits available under her plan and concluded she would be a good candidate for Aetna's palliative-care program. Mrs. Warnock says she explained that Mrs. Massey could receive the program's benefits while continuing with treatment aiming to cure her. But Mrs. Massey didn't want to go on the program.
    "She felt it meant admitting she was dying," recalls Mr. Massey, 56, who works in marketing public relations in the Toledo, Ohio, area, including representing hospices and health-care systems.
    Mr. Massey says at first he ignored Aetna's calls. The idea appealed to him that his wife could stick with aggressive treatment of her cancer and receive regular visits from hospice nurses who would adjust her medicines, manage her pain and provide other care. Still, he respected his wife's wishes.
    Mrs. Warnock stayed in touch. Then, last March, Mrs. Massey's cancer doctor said she probably wouldn't live another 12 months. Later that month, Mrs. Massey signed up for Aetna's program and agreed to start receiving palliative care in her home, Mr. Massey says.
    A day later, she suffered a pulmonary embolism. Although she was taken to an emergency room, she had indicated through Aetna's program that she wanted to forgo treatment if her condition was hopeless, and she confirmed her choice with an emergency doctor at the hospital, her husband recalls.
    After 90 minutes at the hospital, Mrs. Massey was taken to a hospice center, where she passed away about 36 hours later.
    Mr. Rockoff is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in New York. He can be reached at jonathan.rockoff@wsj.com.