alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 11,2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department ofHealth and Human Services 

Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Mfordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group HealthYlansJlI).d_Health 

Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a -Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). 

rbelieve that every effort should be made'to increase the nu~ber ofindividuals covered by 

PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1, 2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance 

Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc) come into play. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of "benefits." Consumers view their health plan 

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 

It is my opinionthaHhe Rule may still resul~ in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

application. For example, jf an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 

area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 

does that mean a loss ofgrandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 

employee. 

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 

remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 

difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded 

individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. 

The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether 

a group health plan is "in or out." The decisions the federal government makes today will 

determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their support. 

unity to comment on this regulation. 

Erin E. Ducat DC
Hillsborough,

June, 1896.

#### Hunt, *Receiver, v.*Laconia & Lakeport Street Railway.

Dividends upon stock pledged as collateral security are the property of the pledgee.

Assumpsit, for dividends declared by the defendants on thirty shares of their stock. Facts agreed. The plaintiff brings the action as receiver of the People’s Fire Insurance Company. He holds, and has held since its issue, a certificate for thirty shares of the defendants’ stock, which reads on its face : “ To People’s Fire Insurance Company as collateral for Cora L. Brookhouse, note of $2,500, dated Nov. 20, 1892.” The defendants’ stock ledger has the following record in relation to thirty shares of stock:

*562

The plaintiff holds the certificate as collateral security for a note of Brookhouse for $2,500. The par value of the stock is $50 a share, and the market value does not exceed that sum. The dividends sued for were declared during the time the plaintiff' held the certificate, and the defendants paid them to Brook-house, believing she was entitled to receive them, but without the order or consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never gave any instructions respecting the payment of dividends, and did not demand payment of dividends until after the payment to Brookhouse.

*David Ch'oss,*for the plaintiff.

*Charles F.*Stone, for the defendants.

Blodgett, J.

The pledge of the stock was a pledge of the dividends accruing on it during the continuance of the pledge, and gave the pledgee the legal title to both alike. *Savings Bank*v. *Marshall, ante, ¶.*417, and authorities cited.

Upon the facts appearing in the case, the payment of the dividends to the pledgor was without legal justification, and-affords no bar to the plaintiff’s recovery.

*Judgment for the plaintiff.*

All concurred.
Page 1 of 1

AL PROCESSING Divi nS BF
LEBLICATION & REGULATIO 1 ;

AUG 2 7 x
ON OH 200 y

[As of: August 26, 2010

PUBLIC Status Posted

Posted: August ae, oe
SUBMISSION ommesee Duct August 26, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0482
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: HRSA

General Comment

Please don't take away the benefits I currently have.

Attachments

IRS-2010-0010-0482.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=..._ 8/26/2010


August 10, 2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC

P.O. Box 8016

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to
Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on
the interim final rule regarding health plans and “grandfather” status (Document ID IRS-2010-
0010-0001).

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally
important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort
should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would
extend these protections to consumers under currently existing “grandfathered” plans should not
be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments
offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these
regulations.

Dana Levering
§ 633.27 Implementation of a project management plan. ( a ) Upon approval of a project management plan by the Administrator the recipient shall begin implementing the plan.
( b ) Generally, a project management plan must be modified if the project is at a new phase or if there have been significant changes identified. If a recipient must modify an approved project management plan, the recipient shall submit the proposed changes to the Administrator along with an explanation of the need for the changes.
( c ) A recipient shall submit periodic updates of the project management plan to the Administrator. Such updates shall include, but not be limited to: ( 1 ) Project budget;
( 2 ) Project schedule;
( 3 ) Financing, both capital and operating;
( 4 ) Ridership estimates, including operating plan; and
( 5 ) Where applicable, the status of local efforts to enhance ridership when estimates are contingent, in part, upon the success of such efforts.
( d ) A recipient shall submit current data on a major capital project's budget and schedule to the Administrator on a quarterly basis for the purpose of reviewing compliance with the project management plan, except that the Administrator may require submission more frequently than on a quarterly basis if the recipient fails to meet the requirements of the project management plan and the project is at risk of materially exceeding its budget or falling behind schedule. Budget and schedule changes will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, but FTA generally will consider any cost increase or schedule delay exceeding five percent as a material change. Oversight of projects monitored more frequently than quarterly will revert to quarterly oversight once the recipient has demonstrated compliance with the project management plan and the project is no longer at risk of materially exceeding its budget or falling behind schedule.
831.5431
# Oct. 24: Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Oct. 24, 2014

October 24, 2014

Release #20141028FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla., Oct. 24, 2014 -** U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Thursday and today using bomber aircraft to conduct six airstrikes.  Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces conducted twelve airstrikes Thursday and today using bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists in Iraq.

In Syria, six airstrikes near Kobani struck three ISIL units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.  In Iraq, three airstrikes southeast and west of the Mosul Dam destroyed two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL mortar position.  Three airstrikes south of the Bayji Oil Refinery struck two small units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.  Two strikes near Bayji struck an ISIL training camp.  Three airstrikes near Fallujah struck two small ISIL units and destroyed three ISIL vehicles.  Finally, one airstrike near Zumar destroyed five ISIL buildings.  All aircraft departed the strike areas safely.  Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports.

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community.  The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project power and conduct operations.  Among the coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq are the U.S., France, United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain.
From: Moss, Marci G [mailto:Marci.G.Moss@morganstanley.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:57 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32 Conflict of Interest 

Dear Sir or Madam

Please withdraw your support for the above proposal.

The rule would unnecessarily punish clients and severely restrict the level of service that we can 

provide. A large pool of investors would be left without quality counsel.

Thank you

Marci G. Moss CFP®

Registered Associate

Morgan Stanley Wealth Management

2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1800 | Houston, TX 77056

Phone: +1 713 965-5000

Direct: +1 713 993-2702

Fax: +1 281 966-1899

marci.g.moss@morganstanley.com

Click the icon to learn more

E-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Do not use e-mail to send confidential information such 

as credit card numbers, changes of address, PIN numbers, passwords or other important information. 

Do not email orders to buy or sell securities, transfer funds or send time sensitive instructions. We will 

not accept such orders or instructions. This email is subject to review by the Firm, its officers, agents and 

employees.

Important Notice to Recipients:

Please do not use e-mail to request, authorize or effect the purchase or sale of any security or 

commodity. Unfortunately, we cannot execute such instructions provided in e-mail. Thank you.

The sender of this e-mail is an employee of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC ("Morgan Stanley"). If you 

have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the 

sender immediately. Erroneous transmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan 

Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic 

communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: 

http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers/mssbemail.html. If you cannot access this link, please notify 

us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you 

consent to the foregoing.
Exhibit 24.13



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Ronald Rubin do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and Randall E. Mehrberg, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my
behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2005 of Exelon Corporation, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all
things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.



/s/ Ronald RubinRonald Rubin






DATE: February 10, 2006
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULES

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Comcast Corporation
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  following  Registration
Statements of Comcast  Corporation and its subsidiaries  (the "Company") on Form
S-3 and S-8 of our report  dated  February  24,  2000,  appearing  in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Comcast  Corporation  and its  subsidiaries  for the year
ended December 31, 1999.


Registration Statements on Form S-8:



Title of Securities Registered                  Registration Statement Number

The Comcast Corporation Retirement Investment Plan          33-41440

The Comcast Corporation Retirement Investment Plan          33-63223

Storer Communications Retirement Savings Plan               33-54365

Stock Option Plans                                          33-56903

The 1996 Comcast Corporation Stock Option Plan              333-08577

The 1996 Comcast Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan     333-18715

Comcast-Spectacor 401(k) Plan                               333-69709


Registration Statements on Form S-3:

Title of Securities Registered
------------------------------

Senior Debt Securities; Subordinated Debt Securities;
Warrants; Purchase Contracts; Units; Guaranteed
Trust Preferred Securities; Guaranteed Trust Preferred
Securities Guarantees; Preferred Stock, without par
value; Depository Shares; Class A Common Stock,
$1.00 par value and Class A Special Common Stock,
$1.00 par value                                             333-81391

Our audits of the financial statements referred to in our aforementioned  report
also included the financial statement  schedules of the Company,  listed in Item
14(b)(i).  These financial  statement  schedules are the  responsibility  of the
Company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion,  such financial statement schedules,  when considered in
relation to the basic financial  statements taken as a whole,  present fairly in
all material respects the information set forth therein.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 24, 2000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Financial Data Schedule for 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          9,216
<SECURITIES>                                    2,382
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                       88
<INVENTORY>                                     4,211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,055
<PP&E>                                         10,915
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,610
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       20,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,699
<SALES>                                         8,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23,066
<CGS>                                           6,630
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,645)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 6,528
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,479
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             4,049
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    4,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .26
        


</TABLE>
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1253.html[7/22/2015 9:24:15 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-6608

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1253

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Adam Brandon Chief Executive Officer, from Freedom Works Wrote me and told me that:

Obama wants to make it hard for me to retire! The Department of Labor is starting to enact regulations that

 would restrict how I use my own money for retirement. Obama and his cronies believe I'm not smart enough to

 plan for retirement. This is the epitome of the progressive nanny state mentality. 

Obama and the progressives want to control what I eat, how much I make, my health care, and NOW my

 retirement. 

Well i'm here to tell you that "Im smart enough to plan for my own retirement!"

Thank you

Tony M.
Form S-3
    
    No. 33-44159
    
    $200,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Companys Debt SecuritiesNo. 333-89149
    
    Registration of securities not to exceed an initial public offering price of $1,200,000,000No. 333-161870
    

Registration of 1,527,778 shares of the Companys common stockForm S-8
    
    No. 2-58577
    
    Thrift and Profit Sharing PlanNo. 33-35071
    
    Texarkana Pre-Tax Savings PlanNo. 33-47980
    
    1991 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee DirectorsNo. 33-47981
    
    Pre-Tax Savings Plan at the Findlay PlantNo. 333-09619
    
    1996 Stock Option PlanNo. 333-83311
    
    Pre-Tax Savings Plan (Clarksdale)No. 333-83309
    
    1998 Employee Stock Option Plan1998 Incentive Compensation PlanNo. 333-83589
    
    1998 Non-Employee Directors Compensation Deferral PlanNo. 333-84815
    
    Thrift & Profit Sharing PlanNo. 333-84813
    
    Texarkana Pre-Tax Savings PlanNo. 333-84811
    
    Pre-Tax Savings Plan at the Findlay PlantNo. 333-103007
    
    2001 Incentive Compensation PlanNo. 333-113315
    
    Pre-Tax Savings Plan at the Auburn 
Plant, Pre-Tax Savings Plan (Bowling Green  Hose), Pre-Tax Savings 
Plan (Bowling Green  Sealing), Pre-Tax Savings Plan (Clarksdale), 
Pre-Tax Savings Plan at the El Dorado Plant, Pre-Tax Savings Plan at 
the Findlay Plant, Texarkana Pre-Tax Savings PlanNo. 333-138811
    
    Pre-Tax Savings Plan (Findlay) and Pre-Tax Savings Plan (Texarkana)No. 333-142136
    
    2006 Incentive Compensation PlanNo. 333-157778
    
    Spectrum Investment Plan, Pre-Tax
Savings Plan (Findlay) and Pre-Tax Savings Plan (Texarkana)
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLPERNST & YOUNG LLP 
 - 1 -
Re: RIN 1210-AB39

I am writing to comment on the Proposed Regulations issued by the Department of Labor, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration on November 18, 2015. As someone who has been disabled by a 

serious chronic illness and relies upon my employer sponsored disability plan for income, I can attest 

to the difficulty disabled persons go through to obtain benefits they are entitled to and how costly and 

unfair the process can be. I commend the Department of Labor for trying to strengthen protections 

for disability claimants.

Specifically, I feel that employees of disability providers should not be hired, compensated, 

terminated or promoted based on the likelihood of their denying disability benefits or supporting the 

denial of such benefits. Furthermore medical experts used by such providers should also not be 

hired based on their reputation for outcomes in contested cases rather than based on their 

expertise.

Furthermore, in the event that an application for disability benefits is denied, I feel that the notice of 

claim denial must include a discussion of the decision, including the basis of disagreement with a 

disability determination by the persons own treating doctor(s) or Social Security Administration. 

Specifically, the notice of claim denial must include internal rules, guidelines, protocols, standards or 

similar criteria of the plan that were used to deny the claim. The statement should clearly outline, 

and the provider should supply, any evidence that was used to deny the claim so that the disabled 

person can evualuate the fairness of the decision. This information should be made easily available 

at any point during the decision process, in a timely manner, and at no cost to the claimant so that 

the claimant can prepare an appropriately informed appeal using all pertinent evidence as is their 

right.

In the event that a LTD provider has not adhered to all rules in evaluating said claim, a claimant 

should be able to proceed to court without a lengthy administrative process. If such an event should 

occur, the court should be able to use its own judgment based on the administrative record to 

evaluate the claim.

A retroactive rescission (cancellation or discontinuance) of coverage should constitute a so-called 

adverse-benefits determination regardless of whether the beneficiary/participant is currently 

receiving benefits permitting the claimant to invoke the ERISA claims-procedure requirements. 

I prefer my comment to remain anonymous. Thank your for your time.