■ Item #1:
"Medtronic recalls MiniMed insulin pumps as FDA warns about hacking risk"
This is a major issue with the whole Internet of Things phenom. The danger, of course, is not just the threat of ransomware 'per se,' but that actual lives could be put at risk.
#ScaryTech
This is a major issue with the whole Internet of Things phenom. The danger, of course, is not just the threat of ransomware 'per se,' but that actual lives could be put at risk.
#ScaryTech
■ Item #2:
We haven't heard from our friends at the MVNHS© lately, let's correct that, shall we:
"NHS beds crisis 'critical' as more sick Brits left stranded in hospital corridors last month than at the height of winter"
Which is even more alarming, in that the stated goal is to have no more than 85% of available beds occupied.
#GoodLuckWithThat
"NHS beds crisis 'critical' as more sick Brits left stranded in hospital corridors last month than at the height of winter"
Which is even more alarming, in that the stated goal is to have no more than 85% of available beds occupied.
#GoodLuckWithThat
■ Item #3:
So-called "balance billing" (aka "surprise billing") is nothing new to regular readers:
"These hidden providers are like gunslingers in the wild west. They are not beholding to any rules and are free to charge whatever they want. If you don't pay they can ruin your credit and there is little you can do about it other than pay up."
The problem has only gotten worse over time, and there are all kinds of ideas being proposed to try to rein it in (including forcing out-of-network providers to accept in-network pricing). Some folks even think t should be illegal to engage in the practice.
But what about the other side of the coin?
Former Solicitor General Paul Clement makes the legal case for balance billing:
"The ability to refuse to accept an insurance plan is what gives doctors leverage when negotiating their rates ... [which] would likely violate the First Amendment's guaranteed freedom to assemble, as well as the Fifth Amendment's protection against government "takings"
"These hidden providers are like gunslingers in the wild west. They are not beholding to any rules and are free to charge whatever they want. If you don't pay they can ruin your credit and there is little you can do about it other than pay up."
The problem has only gotten worse over time, and there are all kinds of ideas being proposed to try to rein it in (including forcing out-of-network providers to accept in-network pricing). Some folks even think t should be illegal to engage in the practice.
But what about the other side of the coin?
Former Solicitor General Paul Clement makes the legal case for balance billing:
"The ability to refuse to accept an insurance plan is what gives doctors leverage when negotiating their rates ... [which] would likely violate the First Amendment's guaranteed freedom to assemble, as well as the Fifth Amendment's protection against government "takings"
#13A
Posts
