P.S. ROGER

Adjunct to my previous message of 2/15/09 -
Bill Silverman                                                                                                                   02/16/09
 
Dear Mr. Lisi,
 
To follow up my previous e-mail regarding The Patient Bill of Rights:
 
The contract between Conseco SENIOR HEALTH and their policy holders contained no mention of the designation of a TRUST as the STEWARD of their HEALTH CARE PLAN. One might consider the validity of said contract seriously compromised. 
 
The Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner elected NOT hold a PUBLIC MEETING which would have afforded ALL policy holders a voice in the decision to put their CONSECO SENIOR HEALTH CARE POLICIES into a trust (Insurance Commissioners in THREE OTHER states, protecting the interests of their resident Conseco policy holders, urged the Pennsylvania Commissioner, during the comment period, to schedule a PUBLIC MEETING.)
 
No such meeting was scheduled.
 
This action has seriously put in question the validity of establishing a trust which is solely managed by five trustees with no TRANSPARENCY for policy holders who essentially were and remain OUT OF THE LOOP! (Denied a voice in the choice of a suitable HEALTH CARE PLAN, stipulated explicitly in their contract with CONSECO SENIOR HEALTH, the FORMER CONSECO POLICY HOLDERS have been consigned to rely on the decisions and capitalization of a STAND-ALONE entity not having the benefit of STATUTORY STATE REGULATIONS and the financial BACKUP of an INSURANCE COMPANY.  
 
It is my belief that a CLASS ACTION law suit should be initiated asking the court for DAMAGES to be paid to all former CONSECO SENIOR HEALTH (domiciled in Pennsylvania) policy holders. (The attorney firm and necessary policy holder data base remain to be determined and effected.)