MobileDeliver.com Named Xamarin Premier Consulting Partner

January 9, 2014, 9:27 am

≫ Next: Survey: Most unaware subsidies available to help pay for health insurance

≪ Previous: Multi-lingual Insurance Agency Makes Personalized Services Their Mainstay

$

0

0

Today, we are proud to announce that MobileDeliver.com was added to the Xamarin Premier Consulting Partners Program, a new initiative that connects Xamarin customers with expert consultants who are available to assist with projects large and small. MobileDeliver.com has built successful apps for a wide range of organizations, including Financial/Brokerage/Hedge Fund, Health Insurance, Pharmaceutical, and Government.

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) January 09, 2014

Today, we are proud to announce that MobileDeliver.com was added to the Xamarin Premier Consulting Partners Program, a new initiative that connects Xamarin customers with expert consultants who are available to assist with projects large and small.

MobileDeliver.com has built successful apps for a wide range of organizations, including Financial/Brokerage/Hedge Fund, Health Insurance, Pharmaceutical, and Government.

Xamarin Premier Consulting Partners are hand-selected by Xamarin based on their consulting experience and proven Xamarin expertise as demonstrated by the quality and range of apps shipped on the platform.

"Xamarin’s mobile development environment allows mobile developers to produce reusable, fully native code across all three major platforms (iOS, Android and Windows) utilizing Microsoft C# .Net as a programming language, while Xamarin rewrites C# into native Objective C for iOS or Android Java.", said Leo Cono, Founder and CEO at MobileDeliver.com

MobileDeliver.com was founded in New York City in 2008 and is now head-quartered in San Diego, California. MobileDeliver.com provides agile full life-cycle mobile/tablet enterprise application development with sequential project phases including Envision, Plan, Build, Stabilize, and Deploy.

MobileDeliver.com enterprise-class mobile solutions are built on a strong collaboration between business and IT. MobileDeliver.com industry knowledge and partnerships provide guidance in making the most strategic device and platform choices.

Today's leading-edge technologies include:
Social Networking Platforms
Security
Predictive Analytics
Smartphones and Tablets
Cloud Computing

To keep up with today's information-based markets change is needed in an organization.

MOBILEDELIVER.COM OFFERS FIXED PRICE ENTERPRISE MOBILE APP DEVELOPMENT DELIVERED ON-TIME AND WITHIN BUDGET.

Simple Implementation
Mobile / Tablet App Development
$14,950 - $29,950

Medium Implementation
Mobile / Tablet App Development
$29,950 - $74,950

Complex Implementation
Mobile / Tablet App Development
$74,950 - $200,000+

The MobileDeliver.com Team will help you develop enterprise mobility strategies and implement innovative solutions across mobile platforms and devices helping you develop a new mobile channel in as short as a few weeks.

Please call MobileDeliver.com to begin creating your new Mobile Enterprise Strategy:
+1 855 MOB DLVR(+1 855 662 3587)

About Xamarin:
Xamarin is the new standard for enterprise mobile development. No other platform enables businesses to reach all major devices—iOS, Android, Mac and Windows—with 100% fully native apps from a single code base. With Xamarin, businesses standardize mobile app development in C#, share 75 percent of source code across platforms on average, and leverage existing skills, teams, tools and code to rapidly deliver great apps with broad reach. Xamarin is used by over 400,000 developers from more than 100 Fortune 500 companies and over 20,000 paying customers including Clear Channel, Schindler, McKesson, Halliburton, Cognizant, GitHub, Rdio and WebMD, to accelerate the creation of mission-critical consumer and enterprise apps.

About MobileDeliver.com:
MobileDeliver.com is a IT Mobile Consulting Firm that develops Cross-Platform Mobile Applications for the Apple iOS: iPad, Apple iOS: iPhone, Android Tablet, Android Phone, and Windows Phone using WCF Restful Web Services with JSON Serialization and SQL Server Database. Additionally, MobileDeliver.com developers are also seasoned experts with experience in .NET WCF, WPF, WinForms, ASP.Net, ASP.net MVC4, SQL Server, Oracle.· Together Evolving Your Mobile Enterprise. Reported by PRWeb 6 hours ago.

---

Survey: Most unaware subsidies available to help pay for health insurance

January 9, 2014, 10:22 am

≫ Next: Some find health insurers have no record of them

≪ Previous: MobileDeliver.com Named Xamarin Premier Consulting Partner

$

0

0

Americans are undeterred by computer glitches at HealthCare.gov, and a majority want to sign up for health insurance but don't know about government subsidies that could help them pay for it, according to a national survey announced Thursday. Reported by detnews.com 5 hours ago.

Some find health insurers have no record of them

January 9, 2014, 9:40 am

≫ Next: The GOP Won't Raise Your Taxes, Unless You're A Woman And You Want An Abortion

≪ Previous: Survey: Most unaware subsidies available to help pay for health insurance

$

0

0

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Record-keeping snags could complicate the start of insurance coverage this month as millions of people begin using policies they purchased under President Barack Obamas health care overhaul. Insurance companies are still trying to sort out cases of so-called health insurance orphans, customers for whom the government has a record that they enrolled, but the insurer does not. Reported by MyNorthwest.com 6 hours ago.

The GOP Won't Raise Your Taxes, Unless You're A Woman And You Want An Abortion

January 9, 2014, 9:47 am

≫ Next: San Antonio nursing professor to help shape health care policy

≪ Previous: Some find health insurers have no record of them

$

0

0

The House of Representatives held a hearing Thursday morning on a Republican-sponsored bill that would effectively raise taxes on women and small businesses who buy private health insurance plans that cover abortion.

The Affordable Care Act helps people afford private insurance plans by providing tax deductions and subsidies for people who purchase their plans through the state-based insurance exchanges. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), would eliminate those tax benefits for small businesses that want to provide their female employees with abortion coverage.

"Let's call this legislation exactly what it is: a tax increase on individuals, families or small employers who make a particular health care choice that some of my colleagues don't like," said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). "The overall impact of this bill is clear: It will discourage most insurers from including coverage for abortion services in health insurance plans, which will effectively eliminate coverage that families across America now have and now pay for with their own money."

More than 80 percent of private insurance plans currently cover abortion as a routine medical procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group.

"Up until recently, the private insurance market has seen abortion coverage as routine and non-controversial, and now we have Congress and politicians reaching into the private sector to try and get rid of abortion using this approach," Susan Wood, associate professor of health policy at George Washington University and the Democrats' sole witness at Thursday's hearing, told HuffPost.

Democrats also noted that the bill's narrow exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother could cause a situation in which a woman had to prove to the IRS that she was raped or that she would have died without an abortion in order to get the procedure covered by her insurance.

Richard Doerflinger, one of the Republican witnesses from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said abortion coverage should not be included in health insurance plans because "abortion is not basic health care," and that the government is within its legal rights to treat it differently from other kinds of health care.

Republicans also argued that the public strongly supports prohibiting federal funds from subsidizing abortion care, and they brought a witness who said that more poor women actually oppose abortion rights. "Studies show that there is this disapproval -- particularly among poor women -- of abortion, and a desire that it not be normalized or encouraged," said Helen Alvaré, a law professor at George Mason University.

While the bill appears to be about the issue of taxpayer funding for a controversial medical procedure, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) acknowledged that its intention is to make it harder for women to afford abortions. "It's important for this committee to take the lead on legislation to further limit the number of abortions performed in this country," he said.

The legislation has no chance of moving forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.

San Antonio nursing professor to help shape health care policy

January 9, 2014, 9:47 am

≫ Next: CDPHP to Offer One-Stop Shopping for Health & Financial Well-being

≪ Previous: The GOP Won't Raise Your Taxes, Unless You're A Woman And You Want An Abortion

$

0

0

University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio nursing professor Norma Martinez Rogers has been appointed to a second three-year term as a commissioner for the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC). Rogers was an inaugural member of the MACPAC, which is a non-partisan, federal agency charged with providing policy and data analysis to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program). Rogers is one of 17 commissioners appointed by the U.S. Comptroller… Reported by bizjournals 5 hours ago.

CDPHP to Offer One-Stop Shopping for Health & Financial Well-being

January 9, 2014, 9:46 am

≫ Next: People Don't Work For Just One Company Anymore, And That's A Good Thing

≪ Previous: San Antonio nursing professor to help shape health care policy

$

0

0

CDPHP is collaborating with the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America to offer life, long-term disability, and specified disease insurance.

Albany, NY (PRWEB) January 09, 2014

CDPHP is working with The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (Guardian), one of the nation’s largest mutual life insurers and a leading provider of employee benefits, to provide employer groups with life, long-term disability and specified disease insurance. The move is a big win for members who will now have access to a wide range of products and services that protect against unforeseen financial hardships. These products will be made available to employer groups, alongside CDPHP’s portfolio of health benefits.

“The combined strength of CDPHP and Guardian will provide our members with a unique, one-stop shopping experience where they can select from a wide range of innovative products and services that will help to ensure their financial stability,” said Brian Morrissey, SVP, marketing, CDPHP.

“At Guardian, it’s a priority for us to make our products available to our customers when and how they need us,” said Bob Neil, National Practice Leader, Specialty Markets at Guardian. “We’re pleased to be teaming with CDPHP to offer its members additional resources to help make sure their families are financially protected with high quality products and exceptional service.”

With over 150 years in the insurance industry, Guardian is committed to delivering quality benefits – including life insurance, disability income insurance, dental insurance, and funding vehicles for 401(k) plans and annuities – to individuals, business owners and their employees. Guardian protects more than six million employees and their families at 115,000 companies.

Nationally recognized for its superb customer service and an unwavering commitment to quality, CDPHP is now the Capital Region’s leading health plan with more than 450,000 members. CDPHP members enjoy access to over 300 free wellness classes, the Life Points incentive program, nurse case managers, fitness and wellness mobile apps, as well as a robust network of hospitals and providers.

To learn more about the Guardian products being offered by CDPHP, click here.

About CDPHP
Established in 1984, CDPHP is a physician-founded, member-focused and community-based not-for-profit health plan that offers high-quality affordable health insurance plans to members in 24 counties throughout New York. CDPHP is also on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Pinterest.

About Guardian
A mutual insurer founded in 1860, The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America and its subsidiaries are committed to protecting individuals, business owners and their employees with life, disability income and dental insurance products, and offer funding vehicles for 401(k) plans, annuities and other financial products. Guardian operates one of the largest dental networks in the United States, and protects more than six million employees and their families at 115,000 companies. The company has approximately 5,000 employees in the United States and a network of over 3,000 financial representatives in more than 80 agencies nationwide. For more information about Guardian, please visit http://www.GuardianLife.com. Reported by PRWeb 5 hours ago.

People Don't Work For Just One Company Anymore, And That's A Good Thing

January 9, 2014, 11:03 am

≫ Next: How US Hospitals Rip Americans Off with Price Gouging, But Never Get Blamed

≪ Previous: CDPHP to Offer One-Stop Shopping for Health & Financial Well-being

$

0

0

In 1989, Scott Adams began publishing "Dilbert," a comic strip that first focused on the title character’s life at home but soon moved to the workplace. It was there that it found its groove and came to capture something essential about life in late 20th-century America.

With a light deadpan touch, Adams critiqued the inanity of a drone worker negotiating his way through a micromanaged corporate maze. Adams singled out the omnipresent office cubicle as a symbol of the disconnection and absurdity of contemporary corporate culture, and over the years, the titles of his collections have reflected that obsession: "Journey to Cubeville,""Another Day in Cubicle Paradise,""Dispatches from Cubicleland." 

His comics eventually became a common presence in the very cubicles they satirized and made several appearances on the cover of Forbes magazine. In 2001, the design company IDEO even collaborated with Adams on the creation of Dilbert’s Ultimate Cubicle.

Yet even as the comic strip was achieving its peak of popularity, the actual nature of work was undergoing the initial stages of a seismic shift that threatens to make Dilbert’s cubicle an outdated relic. Increasingly, a stable (if at times unsatisfying) career working for one company is being replaced by a more volatile and unpredictable reality: In 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the average time spent at a given job had dropped to less than four and a half years.

Even more to the point, a growing segment of the workplace is no longer tied to a single, full-time employer. As many as 30% of those in today’s job market are either self-employed or part-time, and the nation’s largest companies report that 30% of their procurement dollars are spent on contingent or “fractional” workers.

Understandably, these changes are being met with a certain degree of anxiety over legitimate concerns about job security and benefits such as health insurance. But in their new book, "The Rise of the Naked Economy: How to Benefit from the Changing Workplace," Ryan Coonerty and Jeremy Neuner make a spirited and compelling case that the new reality has a serious upside. If embraced and correctly harnessed, they argue, the forces reshaping the nature of work can result in “more productive, happier, and sustainable lives.”

*No More Gold Watches*

The gold watch presented to the worker of an earlier generation upon his retirement came to symbolize a social contract that defined working life for many in the 20th century. In return for job security and a defined set of benefits, employees declared loyalty and ceded considerable control to a corporate employer. A brand of welfare capitalism had been forged out of the strife that characterized the early years of the Industrial Revolution as a kind of peace treaty between capital and labor.

The concessions on both sides were substantial. Corporations made accommodations with unions and government regulations, while the workforce gave up the Jeffersonian ideal of the independent yeoman farmer. The unit of organization at the center of this social contract was no longer the independent shop or the family farm, but The Company.



We can no longer afford to think of the term “entrepreneur” as belonging to an elite few.



Well before Dilbert was launched, however, the foundations for that contract were slowly but surely coming undone, for a number of reasons that includes technological change, global competition and the emergence of a knowledge-based economy. Except at the very top of the income scale, American wages have been flat since the late 1970s.

Companies looking to cut costs and gain an edge in the brave new world of the global economy replaced the “defined benefit” (DB) pensions of an earlier generation with “defined contribution” (DC) retirement plans that essentially transferred risk from the company to the worker. From 1980 to 2008 the percentage of workers participating in DB plans fell from 38% to 20%, while that of those in DC plans rose from 8% to 31%.

The 2008 Wall Street crash further eroded corporate America’s commitment to a traditional benefits package. A key way to avoid paying benefits has been a growing dependence on temporary workers: Between 2009 and 2012 alone, the number of temporary employees shot up 29%. Overseas outsourcing has become an inescapable reality. In 2011, President Obama asked Steve Jobs if Apple’s products could somehow be manufactured in the United States. His reply: “Those jobs aren’t coming back.”

Though the demise of the 20th century social contract might seem like the unraveling of a long-established way of life, Coonerty and Neuner offer a needed reminder that “the trappings (and the traps) of modern work have been with us for less than 100 years — a mere blip in human history.”

They contend that we can no longer afford to think of the term “entrepreneur” as belonging to an elite few, and that the idea of workers acting as independent agents is, in a sense, a return to the old Jeffersonian ideal. “Right before our eyes, Jefferson’s yeoman farmer is reasserting himself, except not as a farmer. The fields we will till, under new social contracts, are virtual, global, and democratic.

The authors go on to insist that we shouldn’t linger to mourn the old contract, which had its merits but also its shortcomings. The established way of business didn’t factor in environmental costs or the depletion of natural resources. Consumerism and undue corporate influence have at times adversely affected our culture and politics. Corporate America has consistently undervalued the work of women.

And, as the sense of alienation so effectively captured by Dilbert has increasingly taken hold, the old model has simply resulted in an underutilization of potential talent and initiative. Coonerty and Neuner cite a recent Gallup poll finding that 53% of the American workforce is not engaged in their work — while 19% are “actively disengaged.”

Yet even while the terms of the old social contract are being redefined or jettisoned altogether, it continues to define our social, political and cultural infrastructure. “How we work, where we live, what we eat, how we educate our children, how we spend our free time, and how we measure the health and success of our economy have all been tailored to serve the interests and metrics of the mythical company of our grandparents,” the authors note.

Despite the very real sense of dislocation and uncertainty brought on by recent changes, the authors see an abundance of opportunity in the new economy, and a good deal of their optimism springs from what they see as a fundamental shift in attitudes toward work, particularly on the part of the new generation known as “millennials” (or Generation Y).

In response both to the new economic realities and to a markedly different upbringing defined by social media, among other things, millennials bring a new set of expectations to the workplace. They are less likely to settle for working in a cubicle 40 hours a week, and more likely to place fulfillment and flexibility over job security. They argue that many so-called baby boomers have also come to the same conclusions after years of going about things the old way.

*From Cubicles to Coworking*

In his 2001 book "Free Agent Nation," Daniel Pink predicted that the emerging economy would be organized around project-based teams rather than fixed workplaces. A good example, he wrote, was the way movies are created. An ad hoc team of actors, directors and dozens or even hundreds of specialists quickly assembles, shoots the film over a number of months and then breaks up, each moving on to the next project.

Similarly, Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson uses the analogy of a pick-up basketball game to define what she calls “teaming”: bringing together a team of professionals for a specific task. What is essentially happening here, Coonerty and Neuner argue, is a reprogramming of what it means to be a company.

The old cubicle-based, static company is increasingly being replaced by a more fluid and mobile model: “the constant assembly, disassembly, and reassembly of people, talent, and ideas around a range of challenges and opportunities.” The traditional office building is ill-equipped to host this new breed of company.

And though more and more workers, especially freelancers, are operating from home, the authors believe strongly in the value of face-to-face interaction. Therefore, the new economy and its “seminomadic workforce” will require “new places to gather, work, live, and interact.”

In 2008, Coonerty was the mayor of Santa Cruz, Calif., and Neuner was the economic development manager. Looking for innovative ways to stimulate the local economy, they were struck by the number of entrepreneurs and freelancers working at coffee shops in the area, and they decided to create a workspace that would offer those same advantages in a more structured way. Their joint enterprise, NextSpace, became their first venture into what they call “coworking,” or the creation of “shared collaborative workspaces.”

The basic idea was to “flip our economic model on its outdated head: Instead of attracting one 200-person company to Santa Cruz, we would create a space for 200 one-person companies.” The central mission of NextSpace is to provide members with a flexible infrastructure that allows them to work individually and as teams, and also nurtures what the authors call “managed serendipity” — ad hoc collaboration between people with diverging but complementary skills. For example, an early NextSpace success was the creation of a new smartphone app called Fuel4Humans, a joint effort of a nutritionist, a computer scientist and a graphic designer.



The new economy and its “seminomadic workforce” will require “new places to gather, work, live, and interact.”



Though still accounting for only a small slice of the economy, coworking is clearly on the rise. A survey conducted by Deskmag, an online magazine devoted to the new model, found that the number of coworking spaces worldwide has shot up from 30 in 2006 to 1,130 in 2011 (and was projected to be double that in 2012). Meanwhile, because modern technology has allowed workers to become increasingly mobile, they are bucking the constraints of the traditional workspace: One survey has found that the typical office space is empty for two-thirds of the average workday.

Forward-thinking companies are recognizing this reality and responding accordingly. The consumer electronics company Plantronics, for example, knowing that on any given day 40% of its workforce will be working elsewhere, designed its corporate campus to only 60% capacity. And, in contrast to the old cubicle model, its workspaces are designed on a flexible, on-demand and as-needed basis.

*Super Specialists and Smart Generalists*

Early on in their NextSpace experiment, Coonerty and Neuner found that the most productive collaborations tended to pair highly specialized experts with big-picture thinkers. It has long been a truism that the knowledge-based economy favors increasing specialization, and the authors agree with that, up to a point.

Specialization has grown even more narrow, more defined, producing what two MIT management professors term “The Age of Hyperspecialization.” This has produced a new market dynamic in which the headhunter of yesteryear has been replaced by “talent brokers” who connect highly specialized talent with companies on a project-by-project basis.

Firms like Business Talent Group (which, though founded in 2007 already has offices in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Austin) have found the new model a win-win for everyone. Clients get the specialized help they need at a cost below that of a full-time employee or traditional consulting firm, and specialists are well compensated and rewarded with flexible schedules and a greater degree of choice about which projects to take.

On the other hand, Coonerty and Neuner themselves are proud generalists and firm believers that generalists (and the traditional liberal arts education that produces them) tend to be undervalued. It’s easier to measure the results of specialists, but someone needs to keep an eye on the big picture, to “connect the dots.”

Citing the work of a number of thinkers and researchers, the authors argue that the need for smart generalists is only growing. As computers have taken over many rote tasks — and as the “individual, linear, procedural” work the cubicle model was built for is increasingly outsourced — the work that remains is “largely creative and conceptual” and team-oriented, all strengths of the smart generalist.

The Naked Economy isn’t just about ad hoc project-based teams, freelancers and specialized consultants. Progressive, forward-thinking companies will incorporate the new ethos into a fresh way of doing business, and the authors cite several companies that are at the forefront of this effort.

One is Automattic, a San Francisco-based company best known for developing the open-source blogging platform WordPress. On the one hand, the company embraces what the authors call the “disaggregated workforce model.” Its founder, Matthew Mullenweg, doesn’t have much faith in traditional office buildings or corporate campuses: “I would argue that most offices are full of people not working.” Accordingly, Automattic’s workforce is far-flung: two-thirds of its employees are in various U.S. locations, while the remainder lives in 90 cities in 24 countries.

On the other hand, Mullenweg is a big believer in face-to-face collaboration and brainstorming, and flies his teams all over the globe to do so. He also set up an informal workspace in San Francisco called the Lounge. Located in a former restaurant, the Lounge is basically just a bunch of couches and tables, no computers. “Thus,” the authors note wryly, “Automattic might be the first tech company to have a techless headquarters.”

An early NextSpace success was a new smartphone app called Fuel4Humans, a joint effort of a nutritionist, a computer scientist and a graphic designer.

The craft-beer company New Belgium Brewing, best known for its flagship product Fat Tire Amber Ale, is another example. New Belgium has in other ways absorbed the more fluid and collaborative spirit of the new economy. In addition to a set of generous and unusual perks, the company practices “open-book management” — providing all employees with access to its finances.

From the start, the Brewery had incorporated a number of environmentally green practices. In 1998, the company’s cofounder presented the employees with a plan to convert entirely to wind power. Though there would be numerous long-term benefits, the employees would have to sacrifice their bonuses for several years in order to finance the conversion. The vote was a unanimous thumbs-up. At the beginning of 2013, New Belgium implemented an Employee Stock Option Plan and is now 100% employee-owned.

*Not a Seamless Transition*

Coonerty and Neuner are unapologetic champions of the promise of the new economy taking shape before our eyes, but they acknowledge there will be winners and losers, as well as considerable dislocation along the way. They also concede that not everyone will be committed to creating sustainable, connected lives for workers, and that in the face of intense global competition, we must guard against what one study calls “digital sweatshops.” Social networking tools alone will not make us feel more connected, and in some cases may do the opposite.

Moreover, they point to several public policy challenges that will have to be tackled in coming years. These include a health care system that to date has largely been predicated on employer-based health insurance coverage. The coming implementation of Obamacare will expand the range of options, but the challenge for freelancers and independent contractors will remain. Additionally, a 2010 Kauffman-Rand study worried that employer-based health insurance, by discouraging risk-taking, will be an ongoing drag on entrepreneurship.

The authors also raise the problem of payroll taxes for freelancers — which, unlike in the case of employees working a so-called “real job,” are not shared with an employer. Finally, according to a survey by the Freelancers Union, up to 44% of independent workers encounter difficulty getting paid fully for their work.

Yet Coonerty and Neuner remain optimistic that the Naked Economy — by stripping work bare of all the “trappings, tools, and technologies that we’ve clothed it in” — presents us as a society, and as individual workers, with a unique opportunity to align economic and human development in a new way, creating “the possibility of making a living while also making a life.”

Join the conversation about this story »

 
 
 
  Reported by Business Insider 4 hours ago.

How US Hospitals Rip Americans Off with Price Gouging, But Never Get Blamed

January 9, 2014, 12:53 pm

≫ Next: Humana insurance extends payment deadline

≪ Previous: People Don't Work For Just One Company Anymore, And That's A Good Thing

$

0

0

How US Hospitals Rip Americans Off with Price Gouging, But Never Get Blamed
Business
Companies
Health
Nation
Politics
World
Hospitals Profits

For months, Obamacare has been blamed for every hike in health care costs and has provided the ideal whipping boy for the actions of the health insurance and medical industries.

However, it's impossible to blame Obamacare (again) for skyrocketing costs and the enormous profits of US hospitals.

According to a recent study by National Nurses United, prices for hospital services have been shooting up since the 1990s, long before Barack Obama ever sought any political office.

Americans are often told by Republicans and corporate America that the free markets will magically bring down prices via competition, but that's clearly not true, according to this study published on Monday.

Mother Jones notes that the study found that many US hospitals are price-gouging Americans by charging them for procedures and products at 10 times the actual cost.

The 100 most expensive American hospitals actually charged a whopping $765 for every $100 of actual costs in 2011.

In that same year, US hospitals earned $53 billion in profits compared to 2009's $34 billion.

"The skyrocketing prices make premiums, co-pays and deductibles go up," Charles Idelson, a spokesman for National Nurses Unite, told Mother Jones. "Lets be clear, this is price gouging and the hospitals are doing it because they want to increase their profits."

This price gouging has resulted in many Americans not getting medical treatment.

"Our nurses all the time see patients skipping medical care that is necessary for them because they can't afford the high cost of what they’re being charged" added Idelson.

However, government-run hospitals, which are often demonized by the GOP as "evil socialism," don't gouge consumers as much.

"Public oversight and regulation seems to help constrain excessive pricing," says the National Nurses United study.

According to a 2013 study by the Commonwealth Fund, America is in far worse shape when it comes to medical care and cost than other industrialized nations:

A survey conducted in 11 countries finds that U.S. adults are significantly more likely than their counterparts to forgo health care because of the cost, to have difficulty paying for care even when they have insurance , and to deal with time consuming insurance issues.

In 2013, more than one - third (37%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when they were sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs, compared with as few as 4 percent to 6 percent in the United Kingdom and Sweden.

Sources: National Nurses United, Mother Jones, Commonwealth Fund

1 Reported by Opposing Views 2 hours ago.

---

Humana insurance extends payment deadline

January 9, 2014, 12:05 pm

≫ Next: What Obamacare Really Is All About

≪ Previous: How US Hospitals Rip Americans Off with Price Gouging, But Never Get Blamed

$

0

0

Another health insurance company has extended its payment deadline for people who signed up for coverage last month. Reported by ajc.com 3 hours ago.

What Obamacare Really Is All About

January 9, 2014, 12:20 pm

≫ Next: Survey: Most Uninsured Americans 'In Dark' About Obamacare

≪ Previous: Humana insurance extends payment deadline

$

0

0

One of the more frustrating elements of the debate about Obamacare is that the right wing has dictated the terms of that debate.

Resolved: Does American Want Socialized Medicine?

While the Obamacare legislation was being legislated, the debate was about "socialized medicine." As if. Obamacare is no more a government takeover of health care than air traffic control is a government takeover of the skies. Or traffic lights are a government takeover of the roads. (Although the Post Office is, in fact, a government takeover of the mail. Cue to Tea Partiers blowing up their own mailboxes.)

Resolved: Is Obamacare Unconstitutional?

Then there was that interminable debate about whether Obamacare is constitutional. Let me get this straight: Are you telling me that it is constitutional for the government to draft your rear end and ship you to Vietnam to serve as cannon fodder, but somehow it isn't constitutional for the government to make you pay for your own emergency-room care? Oh, come on! If it's constitutional for the government to put you in prison if you fail to buy car insurance, then surely it's constitutional for the government to make you pay a fee if you fail to buy health insurance.

Resolved: Isn't the Obamacare Website Absolutely Sucktastic?

And now the Tea Partiers are shedding crocodile tears over the Obamacare website. The website that they tried to repeal, on 40+ different occasions. The website that went live on the very day that they shut down the federal government. Because, you know, they get really upset if there is any delay in people obtaining Obamacare coverage, since they don't want anyone ever to have it.

Why? Why did the right wing go to such lengths to dictate the Obamacare debate? Because if you're obsessing over government takeovers, and constitutionality, and a website, then you aren't ever talking about:

· closing the "donut hole" in prescription drug coverage for seniors;· extending coverage and care to 40 million people with preexisting conditions;· prohibiting insurance companies from literally pulling the plug on patients whose care becomes too expensive;· allowing young adults up to the age of 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance policies;· eliminating deductibles and copayments for ordinary care for seniors;· mandating refunds for seniors who are overcharged under the Medicare Advantage program;· eliminating useless and predatory "junk" coverage;· prohibiting overcharging on the basis of gender;· preventing employers who don't offer insurance coverage from making employers who do offer coverage feel like suckers and fools;· extending Medicaid to the working poor; and· paying over one-third of the cost of small businesses providing employee healthcare.
Funny, but I don't remember the Republicans ever arguing for the repeal of any of those specific provisions, just the "Obamacare" bogeyman.

Regardless, the autumn Tea Party blitzkrieg to repeal Obamacare really came down to an element of Obamacare that has received little or no mention, except when I mentioned it: the "affordability credits." The government-mandated discounts on health insurance, which generally see to it that you don't have to pay more than 11 percent of your income for health insurance. The discounts that the Kaiser Foundation says will save families who buy their own insurance an average of $2,700 each year. (Actually, to be specific, Kaiser found that 48 percent who purchase their own insurance will qualify for the affordability credits, and for them, the discounts will save a stunning $5,500 each year.)

That's what I'm talking about.

Tea Party Republicans were determined -- no, engrossed; no, bent; no, obsessed; no, consumed; no, possessed by demons -- with the urgent compulsion to prevent the affordability credits from ever going into effect. Because then, you know, people could afford insurance, which means that they would get the health care that they need to stay healthy and alive.

You don't have to take my word for it. A right-wing columnist in a right-wing newspaper (Byron York of the Washington Examiner) wrote this very revealing statement last July, just before the Tea Party repeal efforts went nuclear: "The White House knows that once those payments begin, repealing Obamacare will no longer be an abstract question of removing legislation not yet in effect. Instead, it will be a very real matter of taking money away from people. It's very, very hard to do that."

So if you were wondering why the Tea Party went so far as to shut down the government, and threaten default on the national debt, just to prevent one single aspect of one single government program from being implemented, now you know why.

Look, if you ask people who don't have health insurance why they don't have it, 90 percent say that it's because they can't afford it. Which leaves two options:

2. Make it affordable.4. Tell them to go to hell.
Obamacare represents the first option. Maniacal efforts to repeal Obamacare represent the second option.

And now, as of January 1, 2014, America is going with the first option. That's America's New Year's resolution: "Heal the sick."

I feel good about that.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

Survey: Most Uninsured Americans 'In Dark' About Obamacare

January 9, 2014, 2:15 pm

≫ Next: Most uninsured Americans lack knowledge about Obamacare: survey

≪ Previous: What Obamacare Really Is All About

$

0

0

Most uninsured adult Americans lack basic knowledge about President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law and haven't visited their online insurance marketplace because they think health insurance is unaffordable, according to a survey released on Thursday. The survey from... Reported by Newsmax 59 minutes ago.

Most uninsured Americans lack knowledge about Obamacare: survey

January 9, 2014, 1:50 pm

≫ Next: New Clinic Provides Immunization Information to Sacramento Area Parents

≪ Previous: Survey: Most Uninsured Americans 'In Dark' About Obamacare

$

0

0

MIAMI (Reuters) - Most uninsured adult Americans lack basic knowledge about President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law and haven't visited their online insurance marketplace because they think health insurance is unaffordable, according to a survey released on Thursday. Reported by Reuters 1 hour ago.

New Clinic Provides Immunization Information to Sacramento Area Parents

January 9, 2014, 1:50 pm

≫ Next: Affordable Care Act glitch leaves Utah children uninsured

≪ Previous: Most uninsured Americans lack knowledge about Obamacare: survey

$

0

0

UC Davis Children’s Hospital will open a new clinic this month to provide information and counseling to parents who are considering choosing not to immunize their children.

Sacramento, Calif. (PRWEB) January 09, 2014

UC Davis Children’s Hospital will open a new clinic this month to provide information and counseling to parents who are considering choosing not to immunize their children.

The Immunization Information Clinic will start Jan. 14 and will be open Tuesday mornings in the Glassrock Building, 2521 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento.

The clinic was created in response to the new state law, effective Jan. 1, 2014, which requires parents to get a medical practitioner’s signature to enroll their children in school without immunizing them.

Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis, started the clinic to assist parents without a primary care provider or those with a health provider who refuses to sign the form.

“Parents are making an important decision for their loved ones, and we want to offer them resources and let them know about the risks and benefits,” said Blumberg, who will be staffing the clinic along with pediatric nurse practitioner Lisa Ashley. “Having this dialogue with parents is valuable, even if the parent still opts to not immunize.”

According to the California Department of Public Health, the number of kindergarten students in the state who are not vaccinated due to a personal belief exemption has increased annually over the past decade.

To make an appointment, contact 916-734-3112. Appointments must be scheduled in advance. The cost of a visit will be $25 per child, and health insurance will not be billed.

UC Davis Children's Hospital is the Sacramento region's only nationally ranked, comprehensive hospital for children, serving infants, children, adolescents and young adults with primary, subspecialty and critical care. It includes the Central Valley's only pediatric emergency department and Level I pediatric trauma center, which offers the highest level of care for critically ill children. The 129-bed children's hospital includes the state-of-the-art 49-bed neonatal and 24-bed pediatric intensive care and pediatric cardiac intensive care units. With more than 120 physicians in 33 subspecialties, UC Davis Children's Hospital has more than 74,000 clinic and hospital visits and 13,000 emergency department visits each year. For more information, visit http://children.ucdavis.edu. Reported by PRWeb 1 hour ago.

Affordable Care Act glitch leaves Utah children uninsured

January 9, 2014, 2:22 pm

≫ Next: Contraceptives and Religious Freedom

≪ Previous: New Clinic Provides Immunization Information to Sacramento Area Parents

$

0

0

SALT LAKE CITY, (ABC 4 Utah) – Utah families are learning the hard way about another unintended consequence of signing up for insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

They are signing up for a plan, only to find out later their children are not covered.

The problem is a communication break down between the federal marketplace, healthcare.gov and state programs.

Concerned Utahans have been warning about the glitch for weeks and now that Obamacare plans are taking effect we are seeing the consequences play out.

Kenneth Hunt is dealing with it first hand.

As a self employed professional, he has turned to the private insurance market to cover his family for about 20 years.

"Recently with the new changes I was actually excited to go in and have the opportunity to be part of a group plan and hopefully get some better benefits," said Hunt.

That excitement turned into a major headache.

Hunt thought he found the perfect plan for his family on healthcare.gov.

He paid the premium, canceled his old plan and then found out his daughters were left out, because they may qualify for CHIP.

He says it was never disclosed during or after the application process.

"I wouldn't have even canceled my insurance until I knew I had coverage," said Hunt.

He is now evaluating what he says are two less than ideal options.

An appeal with healthcare.gov or apply for CHIP, both could take months to resolve.

He is likely not alone, his and other Utah children are falling through the cracks, because healthcare.gov and state Medicaid and CHIP programs are not communicating the way they should.

Lincoln Nehring, with Voices of Utah Children and others saw this coming.

It was a reoccurring theme at the Health Care Reform Task Force meeting at the Capitol last month.

"It was foreseeable that this was going to be an issue, it's still not clear how many people are impacted by this," said Nehring.

He believes the glitch will be fixed, but not before open enrollment closes March 31, 2014.

He says at this point it doesn't seem to be a priority with the federal government.

"There is no secret there were many, many issues and most of them have been worked out at this point, but some remain and this is one of those," said Nehring.

It is a priority to Utah families being put at risk.

"I've been paying for health insurance for 20 years and all of the sudden they are not covered. I could be left on the hook for thousands of dollars if there was an accident," said Hunt.

Families below 200% of the federal poverty level can qualify for CHIP.

Nehring suggests applying for CHIP certification before going to the federal marketplace to pick a plan.

He also recommends using a certified navigator or broker, neither will cost any additional money and can help you avoid pitfalls like this.

Even if you are in Hunts situation and have gone through the process, they may be able to expedite a solution. Reported by abc4 51 minutes ago.

Contraceptives and Religious Freedom

January 9, 2014, 2:27 pm

≫ Next: GOP says Udall pressured state on health figures

≪ Previous: Affordable Care Act glitch leaves Utah children uninsured

$

0

0

Legal challenges to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) raise important questions about religious freedom -- but not the ones the plaintiffs emphasize.

There are two separate issues. The first is how broadly we define "houses of worship" when we decide which religious nonprofits get an exemption from the mandate. The second is whether we think for-profit corporations have religious rights like individuals do. And if so, whether those rights outweigh the right of employees to make moral decisions about their own health care.

The First Amendment protects religious freedom in two ways. It prevents Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's "free exercise" that's at stake here.

The plaintiffs say that requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives violates the free exercise rights of employers who morally object to some or all contraceptives.

They argue, citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), that the mandate unconstitutionally infringes their right not to fund or promote medical procedures they consider immoral. RFRA recognizes that government may enact policies that have the unintended effect of infringing religious freedom -- child welfare laws, for example, prevent some religious schools from beating children with a rod though some verses in Proverbs advise it. In such cases, according to RFRA, the government must demonstrate a compelling government interest and show that it's met in the least restrictive way -- easy in the case of child welfare, much less clear in the case of contraceptive coverage.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requires health insurance plans to cover contraceptives at no cost because the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an independent nonprofit organization that gives medical advice to the government, recommended that contraceptive care be included in the list of basic preventive services covered at no cost by insurance policies under ACA.

The compelling government interest is straightforward.

Women have a constitutional right to decide whether and when to bear children. They have the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health, including whether to use contraceptives. The Supreme Court decided that almost 50 years ago in its landmark ruling, Griswold v Connecticut. By providing free coverage, ACA expands the ability of women, whatever their economic circumstances, to exercise this fundamental constitutional right. But there are other issues.

In our society women usually bear the bulk of responsibility for birth control, though women, men, and their children all benefit from family planning. That means the economic burden of this general social good falls disproportionately on women. ACA seeks to correct this inequity by spreading the cost of contraceptives -- and pregnancy care and childbirth -- across the entire insurance pool, putting an end to the higher price women pay for basic health care, either out-of-pocket or through higher premiums. It's an issue of fairness, but it also promotes the physical and economic health and well-being of women and their families.

Some of the medications and procedures that are effective for birth control also have other positive health benefits for women and the children they bear.

Finally, by lowering the number of unplanned pregnancies, contraceptives reduce the number of abortions, a result that is good for the health of women and for the overall cost of health care, aside from the moral issues involved.

For all these reasons, HHS followed the advice of IOM and required insurance plans to provide free contraceptive coverage.

They met a clear and compelling government interest. But did they do it in the least restrictive way?

If you think "free exercise" rights are for individuals, the answer clearly is yes. Each person is free to choose according to his or her own conscience whether to use this form of medical care. Roman Catholics of child-bearing age who follow the teaching of the Magisterium have the religious freedom to refuse this care, and others -- like my family -- who have no moral objection can take advantage of this basic preventive care when appropriate, whatever their economic circumstances.

This is the beauty of the First Amendment. Moral choices and religious convictions are left to the individual.

But the issue is complicated by an American health insurance system that relies heavily on employer-provided private insurance.

What do you do when an employer's moral convictions differ from those of her employees? Whose conscience carries greater weight under the First Amendment?

There's considerable legal precedent exempting churches and other "houses of worship" from laws that are generally beneficial but may violate core religious teachings. You can sue your boss for refusing to promote you because of your gender, but you can't sue your church for not ordaining women if that's their teaching.

HHS realized the contraceptive mandate would pose a moral problem for some churches, so it created an exemption for "houses of worship." Initially, HHS said that religious nonprofits like hospitals, universities, and charities weren't exempt. Catholic bishops and church-related universities and hospitals objected. A group of religious leaders worked behind the scenes with the White House to craft a compromise. Under the new rule, religious nonprofits who object to contraceptives don't have to pay for or arrange contraceptive coverage for their employees. They simply inform their insurer of their religious objection and the insurer, not the employer, notifies employees (or students) that it will offer contraceptive coverage in a separate policy at no cost. The religious freedoms of employer and employee are protected.

I thought the compromise was Solomonic. The U.S. conference of Roman Catholic bishops disagreed.

Perhaps they agree with the Little Sisters of the Poor in Colorado that the very act of claiming the exemption violates their religious freedom. I'm not sure. But I don't get it.

The Hobby Lobby case raises a much more fundamental issue, with a much more troubling possible outcome.

Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business, not a "house of worship" or a religiously-affiliated nonprofit. Business owners can believe whatever they want to believe, but in their business activities they must obey the law even if they disagree with it. A restauranteur, for example, has the right to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong and to preach that gay and lesbian people need to be rescued from their sin; but in his restaurant, he can't refuse to serve people he thinks are lesbian or gay. The owners of Hobby Lobby have a right to believe that certain contraceptives are morally wrong. But as a for-profit business, Hobby Lobby does not have the right to make that moral determination for their employees.

The HHS rule was made for sound medical reasons to serve a compelling government interest. It leaves moral decisions about using contraceptives to individual citizens, exactly as it should. The owners of Hobby Lobby should not make those basic moral and religious decisions for their employees. They have religious rights as individuals, but their rights as employers do not trump the religious rights of their employees. In America, we don't give up our right to make our own moral choices when we take a job. This is a basic American principle that goes to the heart of our national identity.

From the time the first Christian state church was established in Armenia in 301 to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that ended the religious wars of Europe following the Protestant Reformation, the conventional view was that the religious convictions of kings, emperors, and princes rightly determined the religious beliefs and practices of their subjects.

Early Americans disagreed. They followed the example of Baptist theologian Roger Williams who founded the colony of Rhode Island on a principle of unlimited religious freedom. Inspired by the writings of the English philosopher John Locke and their own Thomas Jefferson, early Americans followed Williams' example and lodged the right to moral conscience and religious freedom squarely in the individual citizen. This American view was incorporated into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If the court rules for Hobby Lobby, it will undermine religious freedom as Americans have understood it from the beginning of our nation. It will shift free exercise protections from the individual to the heads of the corporations that employ us. It will set a very dangerous precedent that will have bad consequences for the free exercise of religion, granting power to our employers that once was held by princes, kings, and emperors and infringing our First Amendment right to make our own moral decisions.

Where will it stop? If Hobby Lobby can ban contraceptives the bosses find morally objectionable, will other employers have the right to exclude blood transfusions or hospital care because their faith traditions say such things are wrong?

We fought a revolution in part to give individuals the right to make their own moral and religious decisions. I pray we don't go backwards on religious freedom. Reported by Huffington Post 46 minutes ago.

---

GOP says Udall pressured state on health figures

January 9, 2014, 2:39 pm

≫ Next: Truven Health Analytics to Present at the 32nd Annual J. P. Morgan Healthcare Conference

≪ Previous: Contraceptives and Religious Freedom

$

0

0

Republicans are accusing Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado of trying to pressure state health officials to change the number of people reported as having their health insurance policies canceled during the debate over the national health care overhaul. Reported by ajc.com 34 minutes ago.

Truven Health Analytics to Present at the 32nd Annual J. P. Morgan Healthcare Conference

January 10, 2014, 7:31 am

≫ Next: CardioWise™ Completes Small Business Innovation and Research Grant from the National Science Foundation

≪ Previous: GOP says Udall pressured state on health figures

$

0

0

ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Truven Health Analytics™, a leading provider of healthcare data and analytics solutions and services, will present at the 32nd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. Mike Boswood, president and CEO of Truven Health Analytics, will discuss the growing demand for the company’s Big Data healthcare analytics in the fields of population health, hospital performance, payment integrity, health insurance reform and clinical and pharmaceutical research. Boswood’s pr Reported by Business Wire 8 hours ago.

CardioWise™ Completes Small Business Innovation and Research Grant from the National Science Foundation

January 10, 2014, 7:36 am

≫ Next: Obama Administration Opposes Obamacare Transparency Bill

≪ Previous: Truven Health Analytics to Present at the 32nd Annual J. P. Morgan Healthcare Conference

$

0

0

Stage Set for Final Product Development of Analysis Software That Produces Four-Dimensional Quantitative Views of the Heart

Fayetteville, AK (PRWEB) January 10, 2014

CardioWise, Inc. has completed National Science Foundation (NSF) Phase I and IB Small Business Innovation and Research (SBIR) grants that continued the development and commercialization of a non-invasive analysis method for detection of heart disease. The final report submitted to the NSF in December detailed the research and development milestones that were achieved during the 2013 award period including:·     Development and testing of cloud-based software as a service (SaaS) solution that supports upload of magnetic resonance images (MRI) to CardioWise for analysis, and download of CardioWise analysis to any browser-based device in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Certified Electronic Health Record Technology (CEHRT). This allows the analysis to be sent to any mobile device so that providers, doctors and patients can see and understand the diagnosis and actively participate in decisions about treatment.

·     Automation and testing of software components of the MRI analysis currently being done by hand reducing total analysis time from 6 hours to less than 30 minutes, allowing the entire image acquisition and analysis to be completed in a single office visit.

·     Clinical validation testing of the CardioWise analysis software on separate MRI scans acquired on the same patient on the same MRI, as well as scans acquired on the same patient but on different MRI systems. This validation is important for regulatory submission and clearance and also to insure patient safety.

The CardioWise analysis software is uniquely capable of analyzing the three-dimensional motion of the heart that is acquired from cardiac MRI images and then comparing the analysis at 15,300 points to the motion of a normal heart model. The analysis detects portions of the heart that are moving abnormally and demonstrates to what degree the heart muscle has been affected. Since MRI uses no ionizing radiation or contrast, it is completely non-invasive and poses no risk to the patient. This diagnostic analysis method may aid doctors to determine what intervention, such as surgery, stent insertion, or drug is most appropriate for the patient who presents with cardiovascular disease symptoms.

CardioWise analysis software is a platform technology that can analyze heart contractile motion from other imaging modalities just as well as images acquired from MRI systems. In cardiac ultrasound (echocardiogram) and computerized tomographic (CT) images wall motion, recognizable patterns and easily identifiable cardiac anatomy may be tracked to produce input to CardioWise for analysis. The company’s long-term strategy is to address all of these available markets with its platform analysis product.

The NSF Phase I and IB SBIR awards are intended to incentivize and support small and early stage businesses to undertake research and development with high technical risk and high commercial reward. To qualify for the award, there must be significant societal impact and significant market opportunity from the technology developed.

CardioWise™ is commercializing patent-pending, non-invasive Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (cMRI) analysis software that produces a quantified 4D image model of the human heart, called Multiparametric Strain (MPS™) heart analysis. CardioWise heart analysis software combined with cardiac MRI is a single diagnostic test that is able to provide quantitative analysis of the myocardium, arteries and valves with an unprecedented level of detail. It has the opportunity to become the new gold standard of care for heart health analysis. CardioWise™ is a VIC Technology Venture Development™ portfolio company. Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.

Obama Administration Opposes Obamacare Transparency Bill

January 10, 2014, 9:05 am

≫ Next: ObamaCare Effect?: Healthcare Jobs Slashed In December

≪ Previous: CardioWise™ Completes Small Business Innovation and Research Grant from the National Science Foundation

$

0

0

On Thursday, the Obama administration came out in strong opposition to a proposed House bill that would require weekly updates on Obamacare enrollments and technical problems. The administration opposed the transparency requirements:

The Administration opposes House passage of HR 3811 because it would create unrealistic and costly paperwork requirements that do not improve the safety or security of personally-identifiable information in the Health Insurance Marketplaces.

The Obama administration labeled the reporting requirements “administratively burdensome” and added in a statement that Obamacare “gives people greater control over their own health care and has already improved many aspects of the Nation’s health care system.”

The federal government, the White House claimed, “has already put in place an effective and efficient system for securing personally-identifiable information…[Americans] can trust that the information that they are providing is protected by stringent security standards.”

Obamacare has been plagued by significant security breaches, on both the state and federal levels. On Thursday, Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) called Obamacare’s health exchange website a “hacker’s dream.” And as Watchdog.org has observed, “there is no law requiring notification when databases run by the federal government are breached, and even though the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was asked to include a notification provision in the rules being drawn up for the new federal exchange, it declined to do so.”

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

 
 
 
  Reported by Breitbart 7 hours ago.

ObamaCare Effect?: Healthcare Jobs Slashed In December

January 10, 2014, 9:53 am

≫ Next: Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Announces Premium Payment Extension for Members Who Have Enrolled for Coverage Beginning January 1, 2014

≪ Previous: Obama Administration Opposes Obamacare Transparency Bill

$

0

0

Our objective, unbiased, not-at-all liberal media asked every expert they could get their hands on Friday if the disastrous December jobs report could be blamed on Republicans. In other words, can we blame the sequester or government shutdown? The consensus is no. But one question our media doesn't want to ask is if ObamaCare has become a drag on job creation.

Conspicuously missing from today's media coverage is the fact that thousands of jobs in the field of health care were slashed last month:

Healthcare, which had seen a rise in November, lost 6,000 jobs in December. Largest losses occurred in ambulatory healthcare services (-4,100) and home healthcare services (-3,700). Only outpatient care centers and nursing and residential care facilities had gains (3,600 and 500, respectively).

Over the course of the year, healthcare averaged 17,000 job gains per month, down from a monthly average of 27,000 in 2012.

It isn't just the loss of health care jobs that would have a legitimate media wondering if ObamaCare was hurting job creation. Millions lost their health insurance. Millions were forced into ObamaCare plans that are much more expensive than what they were previously paying. Business is bracing itself for the punishing employer mandate that goes into effect in less than a year.

All this worry, insecurity, lost income, and fear of the unknown could have something to do with December's collapse in hiring. Consumer spending has a lot to do with economic growth and therefore job creation, so isn't it possible that all those millions of Americans forced to spend more on their ObamaCare insurance premiums could have hurt job growth?

I stress could. But it is a fair question. And yet, the media won't even float the question for fear it will hurt Obama and ObamaCare.

But as we have seen throughout the Obama Administration, any questions about ObamaCare hurting job creation is always met with swift blowback from the very same media that never stops speculating that  blunting the size and scope of the federal government (sequester, shutdown) will hurt job creation.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC  

 
 
 
  Reported by Breitbart 6 hours ago.