It's one of those rare weeks in Washington where Congress deigns to actually do their job and vote on some stuff... before lapsing back into their default status, which is of course: "taking weeks and weeks off, on vacation."

Most of the attention was focused on two big issues this week: Authorizing fast-track trade authority and re-authorizing sections of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. As this is being written, neither one has actually passed the Senate, but it's looking like at least the fast-track bill will probably pass tonight.

In the midst of all this, Rand Paul got a little confused. He staged another "fauxlibuster," speaking for over ten hours in the Senate on his opposition to the N.S.A. metadata collection renewal, but (oddly enough) he spoke not while the Senate was debating the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act bill, but instead on the fast-track bill. Meaning the whole exercise was rather pointless. Except for the press coverage, which (of course) was actually the whole point. Rand Paul still looked kind of like a hapless student who gave a long-winded oral report on the wrong subject, though.

In other Republican campaign news, two major candidates have now announced they're skipping the Iowa straw poll. Both Jeb Bush and (now) Mike Huckabee will not attend. The only one who may have committed to attending, at this point, is Donald Trump -- if he runs, of course. The entire event is nothing more than a shakedown by the Iowa Republican Party, forcing candidates to spend a whopping amount of money on a meaningless vote, and both Bush and Huckabee smartly decided to say "No, thanks," to the whole idea.

Think "shakedown" is too strong a word? Well, the way the straw poll used to operate is that the Republican Party actually auctioned off choice tent locations to the various candidates -- best spot goes to the highest bidder! Tens of thousands of dollars paid to the party machine just to secure a choice spot for your tent. Candidates also had to pay for such things as electrical hookups and other extras. But the real scam was that a "ticket" to vote in the straw poll costs $30, which the candidates are free to buy and hand out to their supporters.

The party, stung by such criticism, has reformed the operation so that tent sites are randomly assigned and will cost nothing. Likewise, all the extra fees will be waived. However, they're still sticking with the whole 30-bucks-per-vote thing, because after all that's the American way. Or something. Call it the fairy tale of "spinning the straw (poll) into gold for our coffers," we suppose.

The moral of the story is that this is a pointless and stupid waste of time and resources for any candidate -- which Huckabee even pointed out in his announcement. After all, let's all reflect on how big a boost the straw poll gave to the last person who won it: Michele Bachmann. Nothing else really needs be said on the importance of the Iowa straw poll, really.

Moving right along, the frenzy over Jeb Bush's answer to whether he'd still have invaded Iraq knowing what he knows now seemed to die away this week. The media has plenty of other valid questions to be asking Republican (and Democratic, for that matter) candidates on the issue of foreign policy, but so far they haven't actually been asking any such questions (more on this later in the talking points segment of our program). In a related topic, the Washington Post ran an interesting graphic this week where you can see exactly how much of your own life has passed while America has been at war. It certainly puts things in perspective.

Barack Obama made a splash this week, when he opened an official "POTUS" Twitter account. Note that this account won't follow him when he leaves the White House, it will always be the official presidential account no matter who is in the Oval Office (much like the whitehouse.gov web page). He immediately set a record on Twitter for "fastest to 1,000,000 followers," which isn't all that surprising. Sadly, it was also not very surprising that he began receiving racist and hateful tweets. But the joke may be on the people sending those tweets, because since the account is an official White House one, it means that all tweets are archived as they come in. So, those nasty tweets may come back to haunt quite a few people in the future (say, when they're applying for a job).

The Republic of Ireland has just (as this is being written) finished voting on what could be a historic referendum on marriage equality. If the measure passes, it will be the first time any country on Earth has approved gay marriage at the ballot box (rather than through a legislature or the courts). The votes won't be counted until tomorrow, so we'll all have to wait to see how it did. Turnout was notably high, for whatever that's worth. I wrote about this earlier in the week, and how the arguments for the changing nature of marriage are a bit different in Ireland, where citizens weren't even allowed to get divorced until 1995. In any case, check the news tomorrow to see how Ireland voted.

What else? Marijuana was featured on the cover of the staid National Geographic magazine this week, which has to signify some sort of turning point.

 

We're going to be even-handed here, we've decided, and hand out two awards on the same issue.

First, it's now undeniable that President Barack Obama wants a trade deal. Whether you personally think the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a good deal or not, it's hard to dispute that Obama obviously really, really wants to see it enacted.

Obama won a crucial vote this week in the Senate, which moved a "fast-track" authority bill forward. This bill will only allow an up-or-down vote on trade deals in Congress, making it easier to pass the T.P.P. (and other trade deals). It means Congress won't be able to amend any trade negotiations, just vote on them as written.

Now, it's not even guaranteed that the House is going to pass the fast-track bill. The bill stumbled going through the Senate as well, but it appears it will make it in the end (they may have voted on it by the time you read this). Part of the reason for this success was Obama and the White House doing a full-court press on Congress, lobbying like mad. Several senators mentioned that this is the biggest lobbying effort they've ever seen out of this president.

Which is why we're giving Obama a *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* award. Not only did he overcome an initial vote that went against him, but he actively engaged with individuals in Congress -- a skill he's not exactly known for. Now, many Democrats are against the trade deal itself, so please allow us to split hairs on this award. We're giving it to Obama not for the content of the fast-track bill, but for the way he got it passed. We realize that six years in is rather late, but this is indeed the way bills are supposed to be championed by the White House. We sincerely hope Obama will expend this much energy on other (perhaps more palatable) deals with Congress. This is a fancy way of saying "better late than never," really.

But we did say we were going to be even-handed, so our second *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* award goes to Bernie Sanders, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president.

Sanders is against the T.P.P. deal. How do I know this? Because he wrote his position down and published it for all to see. He titles his essay "The T.P.P. Must Be Defeated," which is pretty clear and unequivocal.

Now, it is unfair to compare Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton on the issue, at the present time (Hillary finally said something about it, but it was basically that she's going to wait and see what's in the deal). The reason it's currently unfair to hold the two candidates to the same standard is that Sanders is still a sitting senator. Clinton is not. This means Sanders has access to the secret draft of the deal, and Clinton does not. So the only way to compare their stances on the deal is to wait until the text of the deal is public, when Clinton can read it and make her mind up whether she supports it or not.

Still, Bernie Sanders has to be applauded for strongly stating his own position. Candidates across the political spectrum should emulate such clarity, in fact. Rather than ducking the issue or using weasel words, Sanders wants the public to know precisely why he is against the deal. He has taken a stand.

For fulfilling what should be a basic requirement for anyone running for the highest office in the land -- clearly taking a position and defending it -- Bernie Sanders is indeed worthy of a *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* this week. He's showing the rest of the field (not just Hillary, but also all the Republicans) what true leadership looks like. Agree with him or not, it is crystal clear where Bernie stands. These days, that has to be seen as impressive.

(Congratulate President Barack Obama on the White House contact page, and Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.)

 

Our first inclination when considering who should be a candidate for the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* this week was to revisit the story of Joseph Morrissey, former Democratic state delegate in Virginia. He got sentenced earlier for having sex with an underage aide, and is now not only publicly claiming paternity for her baby, but actually posting a cringeworthy "period piece" photo of the new family (this is Virginia, after all).

But then we decided to take him at his word -- he was essentially kicked out of the Democratic Party and is now a political Independent. Which means he is ineligible for our prizes, for better or worse.

But the cringe-worthiness doesn't stop there. This week's *MDDOTW* goes out to Loretta Sanchez, current House member from California (who has announced she'll be competing with state attorney general Kamala Harris for the U.S. Senate seat Barbara Boxer is vacating). The Sanchez campaign, shall we say, is not off to a great start.

Last weekend, the Sacramento Bee posted a video online (which is sideways, for some reason) in which Sanchez tells what she clearly thinks is a delightful story about how she got a call from someone in the "Indian-American" community, but when she actually met with the man, he turned out to be not the type of Indian-American she was expecting. In her own words:

"I am going to his office, thinking that I am going to meet with a..." [at this point, she makes a "woo woo" noise with her mouth while patting it with her hand, the way ignorant schoolchildren do, to portray Native Americans] "Right? Because he said 'Indian-American'!"

As I said, she clearly thinks this is a funny story, both from her tone of voice and her big smile (she's even telling this to the Indian-American Caucus in a steakhouse). The word "cringeworthy" doesn't even really do it justice (if you don't believe me, watch the clip).

To say that Kamala Harris just got my vote is an understatement. I will never vote for a grown adult in 2015 who still thinks making "woo woo" noises is not an incredibly racist and offensive thing to do. Most of us left this sort of idiocy behind when we moved on from elementary school. Sanchez did apologize for the slur, I should mention.

But even apologizing isn't enough for Loretta Sanchez to avoid being awarded this week's *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week*. Racial stereotyping (especially egregiously offensive stereotyping) is simply not acceptable in the Democratic Party, in this day and age.

(Contact Representative Loretta Sanchez on her House contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.)

 

*Volume 347* (5/22/15)

Kind of a mixed bag this week. In the middle section, we have three questions I'd dearly love to hear some presidential candidates answer which deal with the past, present, and future of war-making by the United States, but there's no overall theme to all the talking points this week.

Let's just dive in and get on with it, shall we?

 *   Conservative hypocrisy (part 1)*It's always worth pointing out when conservatives break their own bedrock tenets.

"I always thought that conservative Republicans believed that 'local control is always best' when it comes to lawmaking. States making laws is always better than the federal government, by this reasoning, and local laws are even better than state laws. Except that recently some localities have been passing laws that are more liberal than the state governments. Texas, for instance, just passed a state law which forbids local towns and cities from enacting laws which ban fracking. So local control is only best when the localities in question are more conservative than the state, is that what conservatives now believe? Sounds an awful lot like blatant hypocrisy to me."

 *   Conservative hypocrisy (part 2)*Conservative hypocrisy isn't limited to the legislative branch, however.

"When President Obama acted with the power of the executive branch to change immigration policy, conservatives howled that he was 'breaking the law.' Remember that? Here's what Bobby Jindal had to say about it, at the time: 'If the president wants to make the case that the law should be changed, he should go make the case to Congress and our people. This is an arrogant, cynical political move by the president, and it's why so many Americans no longer trust this president to solve the problems we face.' Jindal also said: 'President Obama did this on his own because he knows the American people reject the idea and he couldn't pass it in Congress. Fortunately, the rule of law is something President Obama cannot sidestep.' Sure sounds like Bobby was against executive orders, doesn't it? Well then how does he explain the fact that when the Louisiana state legislature refused to pass a 'turn the gays away' law which would sanction discrimination, Jindal just went ahead and issued his own executive order instead? Jindal went to his statehouse and the people and made his case. They refused to change the law. So Jindal just went ahead and changed it on his own. This is nothing short of flaming hypocrisy, folks. Jindal is condemned by his own words on the subject, in fact."

 *   One person at a time*It's always good to see a mind being opened.

"When a South Carolina man faced economic doom over the fact that he didn't have health insurance, he initially blamed Obamacare for his plight. But when he got the actual facts, it turns out that he falls into the hole where he would have been covered if his state had expanded Medicaid, but because it didn't, he got screwed. Here's what he now has to say about his situation: 'Now that I'm looking at what each party represents, my wife and I are both saying -- hey, we're not Republicans! I put the blame on everyone, Republican and Democrat. But I do mainly blame Republicans for their pigheadedness. They're blocking policies that could help everyone. I'm in the situation I'm in because they chose not to expand Medicaid for political reasons. And I know I'm not the only one.' He's right -- he isn't the only one being screwed by a pigheaded Republican governor. Maybe this is why Republicans are so terrified of Obamacare in the first place -- because when people see how it helps them, they become Democrats!"

 *   Would you have let the inspectors finish?*These next three deal with the aftermath of Jeb Bush's floundering on the Iraq War question. These are important questions from the past, the present, and the future of American warmaking. The first comes from a great Huffington Post article by Paul Abrams.

"Republicans are complaining that the question of whether they would have invaded Iraq knowing what they know now is an impossible hypothetical question. OK, fair enough. So let's ask a question that is fair, instead. If you had been president at the time, and knowing only what you did at the time, would you have rushed to invade Iraq or would you have allowed the inspectors to finish their work before launching a war? There's a certain amount of selective amnesia over this issue, and many Americans falsely believe that 'Saddam kicked the inspectors out.' In fact, the inspectors had to leave because of the invasion. If the invasion had been delayed to allow the inspectors time to finish their work, then we might have known back then that there were no weapons of mass destruction. So, would you have allowed the inspectors to finish their work, or not?"

 *   Where's your ISIS bill?*Congress has left this question unanswered for almost a year now.

"Democratic Senator Tim Kaine has raised an interesting question. After pointing out that Congress has done absolutely nothing about declaring war on the Islamic State, Kaine states bluntly: 'We [in Congress] really haven't earned the right to be critics as long as we stand back and don't do the one thing that Congress is supposed to do.' So to every critic of Obama's war effort against the Islamic State who is a sitting member of Congress -- especially those who are also currently running for president -- here's a simple question: Where's your ISIS war bill? Where is your bill that lays out exactly what America should be doing against the Islamic State, right now? If you disagree with Obama's war strategy, then where is your own? You've had almost a year to come up with one, after all."

 *   How many more wars?*I wrote a rant on this subject earlier this week, if anyone wants to read the long version. There's also an article over at Salon which raises similar questions about the Republicans' confusion on the subject.

"If you are elected president, what would it take for you to commit American military forces to combat in any given situation? There are plenty of situations right now that some might argue necessitate America waging war. Would you send troops in to Syria, to Iraq, to Iran, to Yemen, to Libya, to sub-Saharan Africa? Should these be ground troops on the front lines, bombing raids by American pilots or American drones, or something else? Where in the world would you send the troops if you were in office at this very moment? If you are running for the job of commander in chief, don't you think the American people deserve an answer to the question of how many more wars we can expect during your term?"

 *   The straw that broke the Iowa poll's back*This one is pure snark, I freely admit.

"To anyone who argues that the Iowa straw poll is anything more than a meaningless shakedown by the Iowa Republican Party, I have three words in response. These three words show the pointlessness of the Iowa straw poll more than anything else possibly could. Because last time around the winner proved what a joke the entire process truly is. My three words? President Michele Bachmann. We all remember how Bachmann vaulted from winning the Iowa straw poll right into the Oval Office, don't we? Oh, wait -- that didn't actually happen, did it?"

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

Columnist Jo Craven McGinty explores a methodological overhaul that has improved data on the number of Americans without health insurance, at a cost. Reported by Wall Street Journal 3 hours ago.

*How to keep your health care insurance costs down*

Co-pays and deductibles can gobble up a lot of cash every year. Even with good insurance, you’re probably paying more for medical bills than you’d like. And we all know that health care in the U.S. costs more than anywhere else in the world. So how can you save money in our maddeningly complicated system? These seven tips can save you big bucks.-1. Don’t go out of network if you don’t have to. -

That dermatologist your friend raved about? Yeah, it’s tempting to make an appointment and be done with it. But it’s probably not worth it if she’s not in your insurance plan’s network. If you have a health-maintenance organization, it won’t pay a cent. Even if you have a preferred provider-organization (PPO) plan that allows you to go out of network, it’s probably not going to pay as much as you think—and you’ll be on the hook for the rest. Every plan has to have a full range of qualified specialists, so you should always try to find a doctor in your network. Your plan’s website should have a searchable list of local providers.

A few tips for finding the right one for you: Look for someone who is board-certified in her specialty. Ask the office staff and the doctor about things such as wait time and weekend coverage. If you are looking for a primary care doctor, try to find one who practices within a patient-centered medical home. They are more likely to have helpful features, such as online medical records you can access from home, evening and weekend hours, and staffers to help you coordinate your care.

-2. Avoid ERs for routine problems.-

Emergency rooms are attached to hospitals, the most expensive possible place to get medical care. Insurance plans don’t want you to go to the ER for routine problems such as a fever, a stomach bug, or an ear infection. That’s why so many insurers charge so much for ER visits.

A popular Anthem Blue Cross PPO for government employees, for instance, charges a $125 co-pay, and one plan sold on the California Health Insurance Marketplace comes with a whopping $250 ER co-pay!

Of course, for a true emergency—chest pain, serious bleeding, trouble breathing, sudden one-sided weakness, and the like—you should absolutely go to the ER. But for other medical concerns, choose a doctor’s office with extended hours, an urgent-care clinic, or a drugstore walk-in clinic, where you’ll pay a smaller co-pay. Just make sure the one you select is in your insurance plan’s network.

-3. Pay cash for generic drugs.-

Co-pays for a 30-day supply of many prescription drugs—even generics—have crept up to $10 and beyond. But for certain drugs, there’s an easy way to pay less: Don’t use your insurance. At chain stores including CVS, Rite Aid, Target, Walgreens, and Walmart, you can buy many popular generics for as little as $4 for a month’s supply or $10 for 90 days’ worth. Ask at the pharmacy for a list of those drugs before you fill your next script. And if yours isn’t on it, ask your doctor whether you might be able to swap your current medication for a cheaper one.

-4. Price-shop for tests and procedures.-

Not so long ago that would have been impossible because there was no way to find out prices of medical care in advance. But many insurance companies have started to put some pricing info online.

If you register on your insurer’s website, you’ll probably be able to see and compare in-network prices in your area for routine things such as MRIs, colonoscopies, and hernia repair. Prepare to be shocked at the range of prices.

In Chicago, the in-network price of an MRI of the lower back ranges from $606 to $3,382, depending on where you go. That’s according to an analysis of employer health-plan claims by Castlight Health, a consulting firm. In Indianapolis, a test for blood lipids can cost anywhere from $15 to $202. In San Diego, a CT scan of the head can range from $271 to $1,699.

Picking a less costly provider could save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars every time.

*Share your surprise medical bill stories with us, and get rankings of health insurance plans.*

-5. Skip care you don’t need.-

Doctors sometimes prescribe tests and treatments on autopilot, but that doesn’t mean you need everything they suggest. For example, you rarely need antibiotics for bronchitis, sinusitis, or an upper respiratory infection, because those are almost always caused by viruses, which aren’t cured by antibiotics.

You usually don’t need imaging tests for headaches or back pain, and unless you have symptoms of heart disease, you can skip getting an electrocardiogram or stress test. A project called Choosing Wisely has assembled a list of unnecessary procedures based on research and the advice of medical experts. Learn more at ConsumerReports.org/cro/choosingwisely.

-6. Spend pretax dollars.-

If you have access to a flexible spending account or a health-savings account, put money in it if you can. Not sure what these are? Both are funded by paycheck deductions with pretax dollars.

You can get an FSA only if your employer offers it, but it works with any kind of health plan. HSAs can be set up only in conjunction with certain high-deductible insurance plans. Your employer may offer one and may contribute to yours, or you can buy one on most state health-insurance exchanges. With either type of account, you use the money for co-pays, deductibles, and care that your plan doesn’t cover, such as glasses, hearing aids, and orthodontia.

Warning: Don’t put more into an FSA than you can spend in a year, or you’ll lose it. By contrast, unspent HSA money is yours to keep, even if you switch jobs or insurance plans.

-7. Don’t overpay your medical bills.-

Medical billing involves all kinds of complicated codes, rules, and handoffs from the doctor’s office to the insurance company and back again. Mistakes can happen at any step of the way. To avoid paying for services that your insurance should have covered, never pay a doctor or hospital bill until you receive an explanation-of-benefits notice from your insurance
company.

The EOB will tell you what the bill was, what the insurance paid, and what (if anything) you owe. If the doctor’s bill doesn’t match the information on the EOB—or if you think your insurance company should have paid but didn’t—call your insurance company’s customer-service number to find out what went wrong. Often it’s something as simple as an incorrect billing code or a typo in your name, birth date, or policy number.

And remember: If a doctor or hospital is in your health plan’s network, they have signed a contract that says they can’t bill you extra beyond what your insurer allows. If they try to overbill you, send the provider a copy of your EOB to remind them of that fact.

Avoid the health insurance gap!

There are lots of ways to lose your insurance and reasons to have to change it. The rules surrounding those transitions can be complicated and obscure, and there’s a good chance no one will tell you about them. But if you mess up, you could end up stuck for months without any insurance. Here’s what you need to know:

*If you leave a job* You can get a plan through your state health-insurance marketplace right away instead of waiting for fall open enrollment. But that option expires after 60 days; after that you really will have to wait. The same applies if you turn 26 and get kicked off your parents’ plan. Either way, go to healthcare.gov for more info.

*If you turn 65: *If you are 65 or older, you have to sign up for Medicare as soon as you (or your spouse, if that’s how you get your insurance) quits working. If you don’t realize that (and a lot of people don’t), you may find yourself without full coverage for your medical bills. If you are about to reach the age of Medicare, download the “Medicare & You” booklet from medicare.gov. If you still have questions, get answers from the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP). Find your state’s SHIIP contact info.

*If your kid turns 19: *If she is on the Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP), her coverage will end at 19. Before your child’s birthday arrives, check with your state’s social services agency. (That’s your go-to resource for Medicaid info, too.) Whatever your situation, you really should force yourself to sit down and read the literature that came with your plan, as well as any notices you receive. In pre-health-reform days, you often needed to be a detective to find key info. Now, every plan (except for Medicare) has to come with a summary of benefits and coverage that lays out all of the details. If you get your health insurance through an employer, ask your human-resources department for a copy. If you get your insurance through a state health-insurance marketplace, you can find a copy online.

A version of this article appeared in the January 2015 issue of ShopSmart magazine.

*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.*

*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences Reported by Consumer Reports 23 hours ago.

Prompted to beef up security after the cyber attack on Anthem Inc. made headlines earlier this year, CareFirst discovered this week that attackers had gained access to a database which exposed data on 1.1 million of its customers. GDF’s founder talks about the lessons to be taken from this example and highlights some of the services offered by Global Digital Forensics which can help business uncover their own hidden breaches.

New York, NY (PRWEB) May 23, 2015

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015,CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield (CareFirst) announced that, “the company has been the target of a sophisticated cyberattack,” and that it, ”was discovered as a part of the company’s ongoing Information Technology (IT) security efforts in the wake of recent cyberattacks on health insurers.”

The most notable attack on health insurers was reported in February of this year when Anthem Inc., the nation’s second largest health insurer, revealed that they had suffered a data breach of historic proportions, having data on almost 80 million customers and employees exposed.

Joe Caruso, founder and CEO/CTO of Global Digital Forensics (GDF), a premier national provider of cyber security solutions headquartered in New York City, sees stories like this unfold in the real world every day, and hopes more businesses take CareFirst’s example to heart. “The Anthem hack was a huge story in the healthcare and health insurance industries, and if there is one good thing that can come from that kind of headline making cyber attack, it’s that sometimes it can spark the right action by the right people, in this case CareFirst, who decided to beef up their cyber security posture as a result,” he says. “That led to professional testing, and lo and behold, it led to uncovering an attack that occurred as early as June of last year and flew under the radar ever since. It also shows there is absolutely no substitute for having professional vulnerability assessments, deep scanning and penetration testing done regularly, even if there wasn’t an “event” detected. In today’s digital world, every business has to understand this, because we all know it’s not just the healthcare industry that is being targeted by hackers, everyone is at risk, and we also know that failure on the cyber front can lead to disastrous consequences, no matter how large or small or tech savvy an organization may be.”

But there are steps cyber security professionals like Global Digital Forensics can help businesses take to fortify their delicate cyber-ecosystems, without crushing budgets. Some of these include:

1) Identifying threat vectors and cyber policy shortcomings - Because every organization is unique, a one size fits all approach is very rarely successful. In one situation laptops and insiders may be the highest threat vector, in another it may be outsiders or removable media. GDF will use a proven variety of methods to expose the most likely threat vectors and weaknesses in internal cyber policies. With this valuable information, detailed reports with remediation recommendations will be generated.

2) Data Flow Mapping – Many organizations have certain system areas containing confidential ESI locked down like Ft. Knox, but there are many paths and forms data can take in its lifespan. Cyber security can inherently not exist if an organization doesn’t know where every bit of data has traveled and who has accessed it, from conception to disposal. GDF’s detailed Data Flow Mapping will uncover the vulnerable points and offer recommendations to fortify those vulnerabilities.

3) Penetration Testing – Compared to IT security personnel, hackers have it easy. While those tasked with protecting data have to plug a million holes, a hacker only needs to find one. A penetration test conducted by GDF serves to expose the weaknesses a real-world hacker may find by attempting to hack through an organization’s security using the same exploits, techniques and strategies an outside hacker would use to gain unauthorized access to data. Detailed reports and remediation recommendations will then be generated so the vulnerabilities can be corrected.

4) Emergency Intrusion Incident Response Teams - In the ever evolving cyber landscape, there is unfortunately no such thing as perfect security, so even the most advanced cyber security measures may eventually be compromised. GDF has a network of emergency responders strategically located, both nationally and globally, to respond to an intrusion in a matter of hours. By setting up a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with GDF in advance, the response procedures and policy will already be laid out, and the time-critical task of mitigating damage and loss due to a data breach will be substantially improved. Having GDF signed on as emergency incident responders also helps satisfy certain regulatory compliance issues.

It is proven time again that how an organization responds to a data breach will greatly affect client trust and the public perception of an organization’s integrity, so don’t wait until it’s too late; the right time to take control of data security is right now.

*Global Digital Forensics is a recognized industry leader in the fields of computer forensics, cyber security and emergency incident response, with years of experience assisting clients in the government, banking, healthcare, education and corporate arenas. For a free consultation with a Global Digital Forensics specialist, call 1-800-868-8189 about tailoring a cost-effective plan which will meet your unique needs, without wasting resources on solutions you simply don’t need. Emergency responders are also standing by 24/7 to handle intrusion and data breach emergencies whenever and wherever they arise. Time is critical if a cyber incident has occurred, so don’t hesitate to get help. For more information, visit http://www.evestigate.com. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

There's growing concern that the value of a health insurance card is being eaten away by rising deductibles, the amount of actual medical costs that patients pay each year before coverage kicks in. Since virtually all U.S. residents are now required to have health insurance by President Barack Obama's health care law, McDermott said Democrats have a responsibility to make sure coverage translates to meaningful benefits. —A study by the advocacy group Families USA found that one-quarter of the people with individual health insurance policies went without care in 2014 because they could not afford the out-of-pocket costs. Deductibles can be a legitimate tool for employers and insurers to steer patients to doctors and hospitals providing high-quality care at a reasonable cost. The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that aims to improve the health care system, defines underinsurance as out-of-pocket costs that add up to 10 percent or more of household income, in most cases, or a deductible that amounts to 5 percent of income or higher. Democrats need an election-year health care narrative about how to improve Obama's law, said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Reported by SeattlePI.com 18 hours ago.

Premiums in the the Affordable Care Act’s new marketplaces rose more slowly in 2014 and 2015 than initial projections had suggested they would.

Don't bet on the same thing happening in 2016.

Insurers have already filed official proposals for next year's premiums and, in states where those filings are public, some large insurers are calling for substantial, double-digit increases over what they are charging this year.

These preliminary filings can be wildly misleading, not least because they represent a fraction of the states. Similar filings generated some hysterical headlines right about this time last year. Months later, with data from all the states available, researchers realized that, while premiums had gone up for some insurers in some states, they had gone down in others. The overall trend was actually much better than it had been historically. In the aggregate, that translated into an extra break for consumers, who pay the premiums, and for the federal government, which subsidizes less affluent consumers by offering them tax credits.

But, so far, the requests for increases this year appear bigger than last year’s. More importantly, the insurers' rationale may reveal something about how Obamacare is playing out in the states where information is available. According to the insurers, the people who signed up for their policies in 2014 are running up higher medical bills than the insurers had anticipated. While that could be the product of temporary factors, it could also mean healthy people aren’t lining up for coverage in the numbers that either the industry or outside analysts had hoped.

If that’s the case and if the trend continues, then insurers are going to have to start raising rates more quickly in the future, since carriers need premiums from healthy customers to offset the high costs of people with serious medical conditions. That will translate into higher costs for the government, as well as some consumers.

“So far, the health law pretty much matched or exceeded expectations, with millions of people covered and costs lower than projected,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, told The Huffington Post. “Whether that continues hinges crucially on insuring more people, particularly those who are currently healthy.”

Reports of these large increases have appeared in several publications, including Investor’s Business Daily, The Washington Examiner and The Wall Street Journal, which conducted a comprehensive survey of rate proposals from a dozen states. Among the larger figures reported was a proposal from Tennessee’s BlueCross BlueShield, which is seeking increases in its plans that average 36.3 percent. In New Mexico, the average increase that Health Care Service Corporation has requested for its plans is 51.6 percent.

Those are some very large numbers, although they come with some very important asterisks. For one thing, in many states, officials who must review these rates are likely to reject them. In Maryland, for example, CareFirst, the state’s largest carrier, sought increases of between 23 and 30 percent for its plans last year. But the state's insurance regulators said no way, forcing the carrier to accept increases of just 9.8 to 16.2 percent.

This year’s requests from CareFirst look bigger than last year’s. By the time Maryland regulators are finished, however, the increases will likely be much smaller than what the company has officially sought. (It depends, in part, on whether Maryland's newly appointed insurance commissioner, a Republican and former insurance broker, is as aggressive as his predecessor was.) Meanwhile, Maryland consumers, like their counterparts around the country, also have choices. Cigna, Kaiser Permanente, and United all requested much lower increases than CareFirst did -- and Cigna is actually seeking a reduction.

As health care blogger Charles Gaba wrote at HealthInsurance.org this week, “When you see a shockingly high 2016 rate hike splashed across a headline, take it with a huge grain of salt. It may be accurate, or it may turn out to be much ado about nothing.”

The same variety that exists within states exists across them: Virginia’s largest carrier, Anthem, is seeking average increases of just 13.2 percent, according to the Journal. By contrast, the largest plans in Indiana and Connecticut have requested increases of just 3.8 and 2 percent, respectively. And even within specific markets, premiums will vary enormously from consumer to consumer, since most people who buy through the new Obamacare marketplaces are eligible for financial assistance. The amount of that assistance depends on two factors: the income of the person or family buying the coverage, and the prices of different plans relative to one another.

Still, the requests from insurers certainly matter -- partly because the more they end up charging, the more the federal government has to pay in order to subsidize the price for consumers who qualify for financial assistance. (Under the Affordable Care Act, tax credits for health insurance are available to households with annual incomes below four times the poverty line, which, this year, amounts to $97,000 for a family of four.)

So why might insurers be seeking bigger increases this year? One reason could be the normal and predictable competition among insurance plans jostling for market share, with larger plans more willing to shed customers and smaller plans eager to attract new ones. Len Nichols, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics at George Mason University, thinks these market dynamics are an important part of the story -- particularly since, overall, the trend in health care costs has been toward relatively moderate growth.

“Note how the largest proposed increases are from insurers with the largest market shares," Nichols said. "I can believe costs were higher than expected, but not thirty-plus percent higher. Health services cost trends are too low, and actuaries would have been fired over that big a miss. This could reflect dominant firms losing their fear of new competition, or making their peace with smaller market share but with higher margins.”

Another factor driving higher premiums could be anxiety over King v. Burwell, the lawsuit challenging the federal government’s authority to distribute health insurance tax credits in two-thirds of the states. The Supreme Court is likely to rule on the case around the end of June. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, thereby cutting off financial assistance in those states, millions will drop their coverage because they will no longer be able to afford it. That will wreak havoc with insurance markets, and not all states have signaled that they will let carriers modify the rate filings for next year.

But the big question, and the one that will worry even staunch Obamacare defenders, is about the mix of customers -- whether insurers are attracting enough customers in relatively good health. It’s particularly salient right now because insurers are spooked by a new specialty drug, Sovaldi, that can treat hepatitis C, a disease that affects millions -- but costs $1,000 per pill and $84,000 per treatment. It also doesn’t help that some of the Affordable Care Act’s “shock absorbers,” designed to help insurers offset the cost of higher-than-expected medical expenses, will expire after next year.

Clare Krusing, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, told the Journal that “This year, health plans have a full year of claims data to understand the health needs of the [health insurance] exchange population, and these enrollees are generally older and often managing multiple chronic conditions. Premiums reflect the rising cost of providing care to individuals and families, and the explosion in prescription and specialty drug prices is a significant factor.”

For now, nobody can really know what’s going on -- or, more importantly, what will happen in the future. Demand for medical services could taper off as newly insured people finish getting the exams and treatments they’d been postponing, which would suggest that the current surge in demand is a temporary phenomenon. Similarly, healthier people could come to the plans in greater numbers, as the system becomes more familiar and the penalty for remaining uninsured becomes more onerous. Or premiums could naturally settle at an affordable equilibrium -- perhaps with an assist from regulators, who sometimes, but not always, use the authority they have. (Insurers are making very good profits, so regulators would seem to have a case for challenging high rates.)

Or none of these things could happen, enrollment growth in the marketplaces could stall and premiums could end up higher than expected. The only sure thing right now is that the story about premiums will play out differently in different states, as well as over a long period of time.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 18 hours ago.

Regular health insurance may not cover services outside of the United States. That's where travel insurance comes in. Reported by CBS 2 3 hours ago.

Since California's health insurance program for the poor was expanded under the Affordable Care Act last year, enrollment has exploded, with more than 3.5 million people signing up for the first time. Almost 1 in 3 Californians — a total of 12.2 million people — now receive coverage through Medi-Cal. Reported by L.A. Times 7 hours ago.

LE MARS, Iowa (AP) — Rick Perry's early, hands-on approach in Iowa contrasts with the 2016 presidential prospect's failed bid four years ago, when he entered the race relatively late and stumbled in the debates.

The former Texas governor says he has more policy knowledge now and more time for the early states.

"Nobody came to Iowa more in 2014 than I did," Perry said after speaking to about 20 people at a Pizza Ranch in Sioux Center this past week. "And I will suggest to you that will probably be the case in 2015. If somebody is going to spend more time in Iowa than I am, they better bring their lunch."

Perry is working his way through small-town Iowa one handshake, bear hug and backslap at a time.

Although politicking in diners and pizza places is hardly new in the leadoff caucus state, Perry has been notably active in some of Iowa's more out-of-the-way places, which get less frequent traffic from presidential hopefuls. Since 2014, he has made more than a dozen visits to Iowa.

"I think it's a good strategy," said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, noting that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum employed a similar tactic in 2012 and narrowly won the caucuses. "It's not a bad strategy to be kind of under the radar and just kind of build."

Perry, 65, has also been spending time in other early voting states, such as New Hampshire and South Carolina. He says he will announce on June 4 whether he's running for president again.

Perry launched his 2012 presidential bid with fanfare and high expectations, but quickly went from being a front-runner to an also-ran because of gaffes and poor debate performances. This time, Perry is hoping his energetic pursuit of each vote will help people forget his "oops" moment, when he was unable to recall the third of three federal agencies he said he would close if elected president.

Perry's aides have said he wasn't prepared when he entered the last presidential race and have blamed his debate problems on a busy schedule and pain medication he was taking after back surgery. After finishing fifth in the Iowa caucuses and sixth in New Hampshire's primary, Perry quit the race.

"I hadn't spent the time and the preparations that I should have," he says now.Former Texas Governor Rick Perry speaks to guests gathered for the Republican Party of Iowa's Lincoln Dinner at the Iowa Events Center on May 16, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
During stops in conservative northwestern Iowa, Perry boasted about his record as the longest-serving governor in Texas history, citing his state's low taxes, limited regulation and caps on civil lawsuit damages. An animated speaker, Perry gestures dramatically as he talks about his farm upbringing, military record and experience in office.

"I don't just talk about 'here's what I would do,' but I say 'here's what I've done,'" he said. "This is going to be a show-me, don't-tell-me election. Executive experience has been what's been missing out of the White House."

Texas has a booming population and posted solid job growth during much of Perry's three terms as governor, from December 2000 to January of this year. But it has the nation's highest rate of residents without health insurance and the economy has been hurt in recent months by falling oil prices.

One shadow hanging over him this time: Perry is facing a criminal abuse-of-power indictment in Austin for threatening in 2013 to veto state funding for public corruption prosecutors, then doing so.

If he runs, Perry will enter a race packed with contenders, some of them also former or current governors.

Still, former Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn saw opportunity for Perry in the state.

"The good news is, Iowans are going to give Gov. Perry a second chance, and he's doing all the right things," Strawn said. "The bad news is, it's a stronger field of options than four years ago."

As Perry packs in appearances in early voting states, he's also quietly expanding his national network, with an advisory board of donors and Republican officials. Many are prominent GOP names from Texas, but the board also has people from financial centers around the country.

Several Iowa Republicans said they were impressed by Perry, though not ready to commit.

"He's got a great personality," said Leann Bohlken, 56, of Le Mars, who chatted with Perry in an ice cream parlor. "He didn't have to share a personal story with me, but he did."

__

Peoples reported from Washington.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 17 hours ago.

WARWICK, R.I., May 25, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- A surprising number of Americans are unclear whether their health insurance works outside the US, according to a new InsureMyTrip survey. Over twenty-five percent polled were not sure whether their domestic health insurance plan would... Reported by PR Newswire 20 hours ago.

WASHINGTON—A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Barack Obama’s health care law. But it’s Republicans — not White House officials — who have been talking about … Reported by Epoch Times 16 hours ago.

If you don't want to pay more for health insurance, look away now! Here are five reasons why you should be prepared to pay more per month for your health insurance plan in 2016. Reported by Motley Fool 17 hours ago.

A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Obama's health care law. But it's Republicans -- not White House officials -- who have been talking about damage control. Reported by FOXNews.com 17 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Barack Obama's health care law. But it's Republicans — not White House officials — who have been talking about damage control.

A likely reason: Twenty-six of the 34 states that would be most affected by the ruling have Republican governors, and 22 of the 24 GOP Senate seats up in 2016 are in those states.

Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people without access to it on the job. In the court case, opponents of the law argue that its literal wording allows the federal government to subsidize coverage only in states that set up their own health insurance markets.

Most states have not done so, because of the intense partisanship over "Obamacare" and in some cases because of technical problems. Instead, they rely on the federal HealthCare.gov website.

If the court invalidates the subsidies in those states, an estimated 8 million people could lose coverage. The results would be "ugly," said Sandy Praeger, a former Kansas insurance commissioner.

"People who are reasonably healthy would just drop coverage," she said. "Only the unhealthy would keep buying health care. It would really exacerbate the problem of the cost of health insurance."

Praeger, a Republican who retired this year, called it "a classic death spiral," using a term for market collapse.

Oral arguments on March 4 revealed a divided court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy seemingly are key to the outcome, which won't be known until late June.

If the subsidies survive, the Affordable Care Act will look like settled law to all but its most passionate opponents. But if they are overturned, the shock could carry into next year's elections. Some potential consequences:

___

BAD TIMING

Around the time when the court announces its decision, insurers will be working to finalize premiums and plans for the coming year. Contracts with the government for 2016 health law coverage have to be signed by early fall. If the subsidies are overturned, insurers would have to tear up their projections about markets in more than half the states.

Populous states such as Texas, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia and Pennsylvania would be among those affected.

State lawmakers could mitigate the impact by setting up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. But that can't be done overnight.

States might try authorizing an exchange, and then contracting with the federal government to run it. But that sort of end run might prompt lawsuits from opponents of the law.

In any case, most state legislatures will be out of session by the summer.

During arguments, Justice Samuel Alito raised the possibility that the court might be able to delay the effective date of its decision. Even a delay through the end of this year wouldn't buy much time. Enrollment for 2016 health law plans is scheduled to start Nov. 1.

___

HOUSE OF CARDS

The health law was designed as a balancing act. Insurers can't turn people away because of health problems, but most healthy people are required to contribute to the insurance pool, and the government subsidizes most of the premium for low- to middle-income households.

Take away subsidies, and the other two parts become unstable.

The law's requirement to carry insurance, never popular, would probably become the biggest target for repeal.

"My guess is there would be overwhelming political support for the elimination of the individual mandate if people can't afford the premiums," said former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who was an influential Obama adviser on health care.

Insurers would demand relief from provisions of the law intended to limit premium increases, or they might drop out of the insurance exchanges.

___

STICKER SHOCK FOR SELF-PAY CUSTOMERS

Many people still buy individual health care policies directly from an insurance company, bypassing the law's markets and paying the full cost. They tend to be small-business owners, self-employed professionals and early retirees.

But even they would not escape the tumult in states losing subsidies.

The health law created one big insurance pool in each state, combining customers who purchase their policies directly with those who buy through the government market. If healthy people exit the insurance exchanges in droves, premiums for those buying directly would go up. Some may be unable to afford the higher cost.

"It would set off cascading events," said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "The individual market would empty out as premiums rise significantly."

___

REPUBLICANS TO THE RESCUE?

Leading congressional Republicans have been walking a fine line, opposing the law in the Supreme Court case while pledging to protect consumers if their side wins.

If the subsidies are overturned, Republicans will first try blaming Obama and the Democrats for writing flawed legislation and then trying to paper over problems with regulations. Then they'll move ahead with a patch to appease angry constituents.

A bill introduced by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., would continue the subsidies for existing customers only on the federal exchange until Sept. 2017. That would open a window for states to act, but it would ultimately leave the problem for the next president and Congress. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is a co-sponsor.

Johnson's bill would repeal the requirements for individuals to have insurance and for larger employers to offer coverage to workers.

Obama is unlikely to accept any of those changes.

"The president is likely to veto whatever we would propose, because we don't have a willing partner," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., leader of a GOP working group on health care.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.

Last week's settlement between the Justice Department and five giant banks reveals the appalling weakness of modern antitrust.The banks had engaged in the biggest price-fixing conspiracy in modern history. Their self-described "cartel" used an exclusive electronic chat room and coded language to manipulate the $5.3 trillion-a-day currency exchange market. It was a "brazen display of collusion" that went on for years, said Attorney General Loretta Lynch.But there will be no trial, no executive will go to jail, the banks can continue to gamble in the same currency markets, and the fines - although large - are a fraction of the banks' potential gains and will be treated by the banks as costs of doing business.

America used to have antitrust laws that permanently stopped corporations from monopolizing markets, and often broke up the biggest culprits.No longer. Now, giant corporations are taking over the economy - and they're busily weakening antitrust enforcement.The result has been higher prices for the many, and higher profits for the few. It's a hidden upward redistribution from the majority of Americans to corporate executives and wealthy shareholders.Wall Street's five largest banks now account for 44 percent of America's banking assets - up from about 25 percent before the crash of 2008 and 10 percent in 1990. That means higher fees and interest rates on loans, as well as a greater risk of another "too-big-to-fail" bailout.

But politicians don't dare bust them up because Wall Street pays part of their campaign expenses.Similar upward distributions are occurring elsewhere in the economy.

Americans spend far more on medications per person than do citizens in any other developed country, even though the typical American takes fewer prescription drugs. A big reason is the power of pharmaceutical companies to keep their patents going way beyond the twenty years they're supposed to run.Drug companies pay the makers of generic drugs to delay cheaper versions. Such "pay-for-delay" agreements are illegal in other advanced economies, but antitrust enforcement hasn't laid a finger on them in America. They cost you and me an estimated $3.5 billion a year.Or consider health insurance. Decades ago health insurers wangled from Congress an exemption to the antitrust laws that allowed them to fix prices, allocate markets, and collude over the terms of coverage, on the assumption they'd be regulated by state insurance commissioners.

But America's giant insurers outgrew state regulation. Consolidating into a few large national firms and operating across many different states, they've gained considerable economic and political power.

Why does the United States have the highest broadband prices among advanced nations and the slowest speeds?

Because more than 80 percent of Americans have no choice but to rely on their local cable company for high capacity wired data connections to the Internet - usually Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, or Time-Warner. And these corporations are among the most politically potent in America (although, thankfully, not powerful enough to grease the merger of Comcast with Time-Warner).Have you wondered why your airline ticket prices have remained so high even though the cost of jet fuel has plummeted 40 percent?Because U.S. airlines have consolidated into a handful of giant carriers that divide up routes and collude on fares. In 2005 the U.S. had nine major airlines. Now we have just four. And all are politically well-connected.Why does food cost so much? Because the four largest food companies control 82 percent of beef packing, 85 percent of soybean processing, 63 percent of pork packing, and 53 percent of chicken processing.Monsanto alone owns the key genetic traits to more than 90 percent of the soybeans planted by farmers in the United States, and 80 percent of the corn.Big Agribusiness wants to keep it this way.Google's search engine is so dominant "google" has become a verb. Three years ago the staff of the Federal Trade Commission recommended suing Google for "conduct [that] has resulted - and will result - in real harm to consumers and to innovation."The commissioners decided against the lawsuit, perhaps because Google is also the biggest lobbyist in Washington.The list goes on, industry after industry, across the economy.

Antitrust has been ambushed by the giant companies it was designed to contain.Congress has squeezed the budgets of the antitrust division of the Justice Department and the bureau of competition of the Federal Trade Commission. Politically-powerful interests have squelched major investigations and lawsuits. Right-wing judges have stopped or shrunk the few cases that get through.

We're now in a new gilded age of wealth and power similar to the first gilded age when the nation's antitrust laws were enacted. But unlike then, today's biggest corporations have enough political clout to neuter antitrust.Conservatives rhapsodize about the "free market" and condemn government intrusion. Yet the market is rigged. And unless government unrigs it through bold antitrust action to restore competition, the upward distributions hidden inside the "free market" will become even larger.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.

An abortion battle in the Texas legislature nearly turned into a fistfight on Sunday night after several Republican women changed their mind about a bill that would ban health insurance from covering abortions. According to the Houston Chronicle, House sergeants had to stop Republican state Rep. Jon... Reported by Raw Story 12 hours ago.

A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law. But it's Republicans - not White House officials - who have been talking about damage control. Reported by Newsmax 10 hours ago.

Christian Ministry: Denying Birth Control Coverage Is 'Freedom To Be Pro-Life' (Video)
Christian Ministry: Denying Birth Control Coverage Is 'Freedom To Be Pro-Life' (Video)
Religion
StuartShepard
Has Been Optimized

CitizenLink, the political arm of the Christian ministry Focus on the Family, claimed last week that a court case centered around denying female employees birth control coverage via Obamacare preserved people's "freedom to be pro-life."

CitizenLink host Stuart Shepard introduced the segment (video below) by claiming, "The Supreme Court upheld your freedom to be pro-life in part because of this man's family."

Shepard showed a picture of Anthony Hahn, whose company Conestoga Wood Specialties joined Hobby Lobby in a lawsuit against the contraception mandate in Obamacare, and was successful in denying birth control coverage for women as part of the landmark health care law.

Shepard added, "Obamacare ran right over the rights of Christian business owners. It required them to include drugs in their healthcare plans that are completely unacceptable to anyone who is pro-life."

The drugs in question are Plan B, a morning after pill, and ella, a week-after pill, which do not cause abortions, but are taken to prevent pregnancy, noted NPR in 2013.

Shepard interviewed Hahn and his lawyer Randy Wenger, and later closed by saying, "Remember to pray for the Hahn family. Thank God for their bold stand in favor of life."

In their lawsuit against Obamacare, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cited an out-of-date FDA label on Plan B that said: "It may also prevent fertilization … or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation)," reported The Daily Beast.

Diana Blithe, of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told The Daily Beast: "Those labels were developed back in the 1960s, listing all the possible ways birth control pills would work. In subsequent years, we’ve learned a lot more about how birth control works."

The New York Times reported in 2012, "The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does."

Mother Jones reported in 2014 that Hobby Lobby's multimillion-dollar employee retirement plan invested in drug companies that manufacture generic versions of Plan B and ella, as well as companies that produce actual abortion pills, which were not part of Obamacare's contraceptive health insurance plan.

Sources: CitizenLink, NPR, Mother Jones, New York Times, The Daily Beast
Image Credit: CitizenLink Screenshot

1
Comments: 
Likes: 
Shares: 
Combined FB: 
Video Piece: 
Video Piece (This piece contains embedded video content)
OV in Depth:  Reported by Opposing Views 3 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Barack Obama’s health care law. But it’s Republicans — not White House officials — who have been talking about damage control. A likely reason: Twenty-six of the 34 states that would […] Reported by Seattle Times 2 hours ago.

On April 16, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS") issued a two-part informal guidance regarding the application of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Reported by Mondaq 23 hours ago.