Answer: allowing a child to interpret in an emergency
Explanation:
Under the ACA Section 1557, we should note that there should not be any form of discrimination against anyone simply because such person cannot speak English.
Therefore, in a scenario whereby there is someone with limited English proficiency, the most likely to action to be allowed is to allow a child to interpret in the case of an emergency.
Answer: The physician is being sued. Insurance company should provide an attorney. If the doctor is negligent, insurance company should pay (that's why we have premiums). Dr. Z is sued, goes to agency, and notifies the agency. The agency doesn't notify Aetna in right amount of time, and also notifies the wrong company. Aetna doesn't have a liability because they were not notified in a timely manner. Larson is agent to Aetna. A principal's notice to agent=notice to principal. That's the same as notifying Aetna according to its claims procedure. This is not Dr.Z's problem. Aetna is wrong in denying coverage, and Dr.Z will succeed and not have to pay.
Congress attempted to grant this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.
<u>
Explanation:
</u>
The congress of the United States of America has granted certain powers to the president to nullify the part of the bill and that is called line item veto. This can also be termed as partial veto.
The line item veto will give powers to the president to cancel certain provision in the bill and namely budget appropriation bill without vetoing the entire legislative bill.
Supreme Court of America as ruled that it is unconstitutional and it stated that Line Item Veto Act of 1996 has violated the fundamental principle of the presidential clause of the constitution.
Answer:
society considered as a community of citizens linked by common interests and collective activity.
