Advertise here
Advertise here

single

now browsing by tag

 
 

How to combine multiple screenshots into a single image on iPhone

iOS 11 brought some nice improvements to screenshots, but one feature we didn’t get was the ability to take scrolling screenshots or an integrated way to stitch them together. Let’s take a look at an easy way to do so.


60f7d_airpods-top-features How to combine multiple screenshots into a single image on iPhone

AirPods

Tailor is a free download from the App Store and works with both iPhone and iPad. It’s also optimized for iPhone X and makes stitching multiple screenshots into one image painless. Grab the app and follow along for how to create

How to combine multiple screenshots on iPhone

  1. Take consecutive screenshots of the content you’d like to capture, leaving overlap between each on-screen portion
  2. Open Tailor
  3. The app will automatically recognize, analyze, and stitch together your latest string of consecutive screenshots
  4. Tap the share button () to save the image or share with others

The first time you open Tailor you’ll need to approve the app to access your photos.

Once open it will automatically pull up the most recent screenshots available to stitch together.

When grabbing screenshots, be sure to leave a little bit of overlap between the on-screen content you’re scrolling through and capturing.

Tailor combines images really quickly and is very accurate in my experience.

You can slide from right to left to see the different collections of screenshots that Tailor has found. Tailor will let you know if there isn’t enough overlap between screenshots to combine them.

Tailor is free, but does include ads and a small watermark at the bottom of stitched images. For those interested, you can turn off ads and remove the watermark for a one-time purchase of $2.99.

For more ways to get the most out of your Apple devices, check out our how to guide, as well as these articles:


Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:

Californians like single-payer health care — until they learn taxes must rise to pay for it

0c7b0_920x1240 Californians like single-payer health care — until they learn taxes must rise to pay for it

The single-payer system under consideration by the Legislature would
require the 18 million Californians who have employer-sponsored health
plans to give them up. The 4.5 million Golden State seniors on Medicare —
and 13 million people on Medi-Cal — would have to do the same.

The single-payer system under consideration by the Legislature…


Whether to establish a state-run, single-payer health-care system is shaping up to be one of the main differences among the candidates for governor in California in the run-up to the June primary election. The front-runner, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, says the only thing stopping single-payer in California is a lack of political leadership. The candidate running second in the pack, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, says he supports single-payer but has concerns about how to pay for it.


The cost is more than concerning, it’s catastrophic. Implementing a single-payer system would require tens of billions of dollars in new taxes — and thereby lead the Golden State into financial ruin.

The state Senate has admitted as much. The chamber passed Senate Bill 562 in June to create a system that provides “free” care to all California residents, including undocumented immigrants. The bill would eliminate co-pays, deductibles and all other forms of cost-sharing.

The price tag for the single-payer plan envisioned by SB562, per a Senate Appropriations Committee report, is $400 billion per year. Half of that figure would come from new taxes.

To put those figures in perspective, the state’s total expenditures next year are projected to be about $183 billion. So single-payer would effectively double the state budget.

Californians do not want to shoulder all these extra costs. According to a May survey from the Public Policy Institute of California, two-thirds of Californians backed a single-payer system earlier this year. But support plummeted by more than a third when respondents were told the plan would raise taxes.

Hefty new taxes aren’t the only reason why ordinary Californians are leery of single-payer.

Many voters don’t realize that single-payer means there would be only one health insurance plan statewide — a government-run one. Forty-seven percent of all Americans, and 52 percent of Democrats, mistakenly believe they’d be able to keep their current plans in a single-payer system, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study.

The single-payer system under consideration by the Legislature would require the 18 million Californians who have employer-sponsored health plans to give them up. The 4.5 million Golden State seniors on Medicare — and 13 million people on Medi-Cal — would have to do the same.

Many patients would lose access to their doctors. Some physicians would retire early to avoid the pay cuts and administrative headaches that a government-run system would no doubt bring. Others would move to other states, where their earning power would be greater. And the most talented medical graduates would think twice before coming to California, where the state could micromanage their practice of medicine — and would pay them less.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have balked at the plan. Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Democrat from Los Angeles County, shelved the bill this summer, calling it “woefully incomplete” on “financing, delivery of care, cost controls” and more.

“Free” health coverage that covers every service and procedure sounds wonderful. But the single-payer system that’s captivated so many progressives in California would be far from free. It’d impose tens of billions of dollars in new taxes, deprive millions of Californians of the health plans they have and like, and result in rationed care when demand outstrips what the state is willing and able to pay for.

Sally C. Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of “The Way Out of Obamacare” (Encounter 2016). Twitter: @sallypipes

Rockland, Westchester lawmakers push for New York Health Act’s single-payer bill

CLOSE

NY State of Health opens for enrollment Nov. 1. It has more than 4 million customers.
Joseph Spector, Albany Bureau

Rockland and Westchester lawmakers are backing universal health care movements in New York, despite Trump administration efforts to reduce government’s role in health care.

Rockland County’s Legislature voted recently to support state legislation seeking to provide universal government-run health care. It joined county legislatures in Westchester, Sullivan and Tompkins that previously voted to support the bill, according to New York State Nurses Association, a union representing 40,000 nurses statewide.

“The New York Health Act is a blueprint for the reorganization of health care in New York state,” said Rockland County Legislator Lon M. Hofstein, a Republican and minority leader. “The way care is delivered now is increasingly unsustainable, for individuals, families, businesses and government. We must act before the crisis worsens.”

While the number of counties supporting the bill has grown to four out of 62, it has historically failed to gain traction in Albany.

FED: What would Sen. Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare-for-All’ bill mean for you?

STATES: Single-payer plans reignited by Obamacare rollback push

STUDY: Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) far from ‘imploding’ in NY

The single-payer legislation, called the New York Health Act, had passed the Democrat-led Assembly three times before 2017. But it repeatedly stalled in the Republican-leaning Senate, which represents more rural upstate New York versus the urban New York City metro area.

The uncertainty surrounding federal lawmaker’s plans for health care, however, has helped sustain efforts by New York, California and other Democrat-majority states to push universal government-run health care legislation.

Further, the political climate in New York seems poised for drastic changes. Democrats have vowed to unify power in the state Senate in 2018, and the move could boost the chances for the New York Health Act being pushed by the nurses union and other powerful labor groups.

“Too many times I see patients having to fight insurance companies to get the care they absolutely need,” said Chinyere Omwumelo, a union nurse who lives in Rockland.

“With the New York Health Act, medical decisions will be made between the doctor, nurse and patient, not a bureaucrat who has no clinical training and has never even set eyes on the patient,” she said.

In addition to the four county legislatures, the health care bill has been supported by five town boards, two upstate city councils and other political groups, according to the nurses union.

Obamacare debate

Opponents of the New York Health Act, including hospital trade groups, have argued the issue should be addressed at the federal level.

They’ve cited concerns that states would face challenges in securing sufficient federal funding to subsidize health care programs, and pointed to cost concerns killing prior efforts to bring state-run health care to Vermont. 

Meanwhile, the politically charged debate over federal government’s role in health care is already addressing similar issues.

In the wake of failed GOP bids in Congress to overhaul the Affordable Care Act, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has built some momentum for federal legislation to create a single-payer, government-run health care system.

Sixteen Democrats — including potential 2020 presidential candidates — have lined up behind his “Medicare-for-All” bill, which would eliminate the role of private insurers in basic health care coverage, USA TODAY reported.

More than 500,000 people across the country have signed a petition as “citizen co-sponsors” of his bill, which he introduced earlier this year in a packed Senate hearing room.

In the House, a record majority of Democrats — 117 — have signed onto similar legislation.

Android phones in 2018: Portrait pics on a single camera lens

The smartphone trend of two rear cameras for artistic portrait shots is so pervasive that even dirt-cheap budget phones sport dual lenses on the back. That could change next as early as next year as new chip technology from Qualcomm makes it possible to take a Bokeh portrait photo from a single camera lens.

It’s similar to the Google Pixel 2, which bucks the dual-camera standard now adopted by virtually every other high-end phone, though that device certainly gives us a model of what’s possible using software alone.

790d6_dslrvsiphonex-cnet Android phones in 2018: Portrait pics on a single camera lens

The technology comes down to AI algorithms processed within the Snapdragon 845 chip that Qualcomm announced this week at an annual summit. Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors are used in the majority of high-end smartphones, where their capabilities form the backbone of what phones like the next Samsung Galaxy, LG, Motorola and OnePlus phones can do. Qualcomm faces competition on the high-end from Apple, Huawei and to a certain degree Samsung, which rely on their own house-made chipsets (a portion of Samsung phones run on the Exynos processor, typically for Asian markets).

Being able to take portrait shots on a single camera lens can help phonemakers shed the cost of a second camera array. Alternatively, phones with a second camera lens that’s used for adding detail but not portrait blur — like a monochrome camera — can offer the feature on the dominant lens.

790d6_dslrvsiphonex-cnet Android phones in 2018: Portrait pics on a single camera lens

The bokeh or depth-of-field effect — which softly blurs the background while keeping the photo’s subject in focus — is a carryover from DSLR cameras that Apple popularized with the iPhone 7 Plus. 

“In a smartphone, you need to calculate a depth map,” said Tim Leland, Qualcomm’s vice president of product management. “That depth map then gets fed into another system, which then applies a manipulation or blurring of those pixels in a different way that mimics the bokeh effect.”

Smartphone makers typically achieve bokeh with two lenses, which create a kind of stereo effect to generate a sense of depth. Qualcomm’s approach with its feature, which it calls Deep Portrait, is to run the image through a computational neural network that applies artificial intelligence to determine the subject from the background.

“You don’t want to blur somebody’s face for example or accidentally blur somebody’s hair,” Leland said.

Qualcomm isn’t suggesting that phones should ditch a two-camera system, or that bokeh portraits taken with software rather than camera hardware are higher quality. In fact, Leland noted that the algorithms could improve the blurring accuracy of two camera lenses.

“AI is one of those things where you can’t necessarily do something without it,” he said. “But it makes it better.”

As the Google Pixel and Pixel 2 prove with their Lens Blur feature, you can take bokeh portraits using software alone. Traditional computer vision can already recognize diff types of objects by looking at specific patterns of contrasting pixels. Artificial intelligence recognizes objects in their entirety over time. For example, show an AI program thousands of photos of chairs and over time it will recognize what is and isn’t a chair. Artificial intelligence aims to speed up the process.

Read next: What Qualcomm’s new Snapdragon chip could mean for Galaxy S9

And also: 4 ways your phone’s next camera could get more awesome

Deep Freeze 8.5 Version Launched to Restore Windows 10 With Single Reboot

Looking to send a news release with PR Newswire?

Take advantage of the world’s leading distribution platform.

Sign up to get started

Request more information

Have an account? Log In

US Must Move To Single-Payer Health Care

People never really know when they are going to get sick, so why do we punish them when they do?

People want to know that when they get sick they will be able to see a doctor, and for the majority of Americans seeing a doctor regularly is part of their lives. Inability to do so causes immense stress and financial hardships. Moving to a single-payer health care system, in which the government handles payments to private providers, can eliminate these shortfalls. Adequate health care is a worldwide protected right.

In in the United States more than half of Americans live with at least one chronic illness according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet, the health care resources available for people are limited or drive up personal medical bills, plunging people into debt. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, an estimated 1 in 3 Americans report having difficulty paying their medical bills even with insurance. Evidently, the insurance in our society does not meet the average American’s needs.

The United States voted for the United Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 at the United Nations. Article 25 of the declaration states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

How exactly would single-payer health care work?

Whether you call it single payer or Medicare for all, the idea of a government-sponsored universal health care system, no matter how contentiously debated, continues to infiltrate the health care discussion.

The idea of universal health care reemerged during the 2016 presidential primary campaign as one of Bernie Sanders’ main platforms. In September, Sanders, I-Vermont, introduced a “Medicare for All” bill into the Senate with the full knowledge it would likely go nowhere — for now. In August, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, reintroduced an expanded and improved Medicare for All bill in the House.  

Both bills would convert the current many-payer system — insurance companies, states, the federal government — into a government-sponsored, tax-supported health care system. As in many other countries, every US citizen would receive health care, and it would essentially be paid for by one source, the government.

In addition to these national legislative moves, which may be more symbolic than realistic, at least three states have been working toward a single-payer system, and those efforts can also help consumers understand how such a plan would work.

The most recent effort toward that goal came from the Massachusetts Senate early in November. Already known for its progressive health care policies, the state approved a broad health care reform bill that seeks to lessen price disparities between hospitals, address rising drug costs and lower the number of patients readmitted for hospital care within 30 days of a discharge.

An important amendment to the bill called for a study of what it would cost Massachusetts to implement a government single-payer health care system. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Julian Cyr, a freshman Democrat, passed by a surprising 33 to 6 vote. “When you consider every other developed nation has single-payer health care, we’ve just got to look at this,” said Cyr. 

In addition, he pointed out that Massachusetts is a state that spends one of the highest amounts per capita on health care. Thus, it only makes sense to find out if that money could be spent more equitably and efficiently with a single-payer system.

Other states grappling with this issue haven’t been entirely successful. Back in 2011 Vermont was the first state to implement a universal health care system of its own, in which all citizens were insured under Green Mountain Care. But by 2014, the state abandoned its efforts, citing unmanageable higher taxes. 

Now Vermont is moving toward an alternative system that offers health care providers lump sum payments that are designed to reward doctors for keeping patients healthy instead of solely treating illness.

California, however, may have had the country’s most ambitious plan for single-payer health care. Such a plan passed the Senate in June but was then stalled in the summer because of the potential increase in taxes and the lack of analysis on how the bill would be funded. The debate continues.

When asked in a recent interview on NPR if state efforts are the shortest way to get to a single-payer system, Linda Blumberg, senior fellow in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said implementing single-payer health care state-by-state may be far more difficult than a federal system. “High-income states that have a lot of private health care spending … are most likely to be able to do something like this,” she said. But other states without resources can’t just shift costs from one side of the ledger to the other, she added.

In the meantime, pundits such as Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, have other warnings about a national single-payer system. Most people worry about the increase in taxes a single-payer system would cause, Altman has written. But also, most people don’t realize they would need to change providers under a single-payer system, something that has always been complicated and uncomfortable for consumers.

For the moment, how single-payer would work is anyone’s guess. It may take months or years to answer these questions. But the earlier consumers can be aware of the issues involved in a big change like this, the better. 

Owning a dog might be good for your health, especially if you’re single

A new study published Friday found dog owners generally had a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and death, compared to those who didn’t own a dog.
Video provided by Newsy
Newslook

Yes, this is The Single Dumbest Thing You Can Do With an iPhone X

Apple says the glass on the brand new iPhone X, which covers the front of back of the phone, is the “most durable glass ever in a smartphone.” This might be true. But it’s still glass.

Now that Apple’s most expensive and technologically advanced handset has made it into the real world, some people are already dropping their naked, case-less phones by accident — and the results are exactly what you would expect. Just see below:

Now, it’s unknown just how many people are dropping their unprotected phones, but it’s certainly happening and should underscore the simple point that your nearly all-glass iPhone X might be a gleaming, futuristic looking gadget, but that makes it more fragile than early versions of the iPhone. SquareTrade, a warranty company, filmed their drop and tumbling tests to show the iPhone X was the “most breakable” and “most expensive to repair iPhone” ever.

Accidental drops are not covered under Apple’s warranty program, so just a screen repair will cost a whopping $249. And if your phone should incur more damage from a fall, Apple is charging $549 — the cost of an iPhone 7.

But it’s not as if Apple has a scheme to produce intentionally more fragile phones to rake in more dough from repair costs. Its last three iPhones — the 7,8, and X — are all water and dust resistant (not waterproof, though). This water resistance rating, according to MacRumors, means the iPhone X can handle immersion in 3.3 feet of water for up to 30 minutes. 

Your iPhone might not survive every trip into a pool, but at least many accidental drops have a readily available solution: Cases. 

Okay, you might not be an absolute moron. Maybe you just like to take risks. Choose wisely.

WATCH: One of NYC’s Shake Shack restaurants no longer has cashiers

Mass. Senate bill aims to rein in health costs, study single-payer

BOSTON — A sweeping package of reforms supporters said aimed to fix broken elements of the state’s health care system while also saving consumers money passed the Senate on a 33-6 vote at midnight Thursday.

The bill sets a target for reducing hospital re-admissions, imposes new oversight on the pharmaceutical industry, and calls for a study of the costs of shifting to a single-payer system. It aims to cut down on unexpected consumer costs like out-of-network charges and facility fees, and to increase access to telemedicine and mobile integrated health, which involves paramedics performing non-emergency services.

“The bill is really about the consumers and doing everything we can to make health care affordable to consumers,” said Sen. James Welch, who led the working group that wrote the bill.

“Everyone deserves access to high quality health care at a fair price,” said state Sen. Adam Hinds, D-Pittsfield, in a prepared statement. “Massachusetts has always been a leader when it comes to health care, and this legislation is the next step in our efforts to protect and empower consumers, encourage innovative health care and ensure access and affordability.”

Hinds said, “Our goal is to achieve long-term cost savings for the state, without sacrificing our unwavering commitment to high quality coverage for all.”

While senators frequently tout their bipartisan work, Democrats were unable to attract any Republican votes for their bill, which passed on a party line vote with the chamber’s six Republicans dissenting and objecting to solutions they said rely on more bureaucracy.

Whether any provisions actually make their way into law depends on action in the House, where Rep. Peter Kocot, Welch’s co-chairman on the Health Care Financing Committee, said Thursday he hopes to have a bill ready for debate early next year after he wraps up his own meetings and analysis. The Senate bill was developed by a group of senators, outside the traditional joint committee process.

Gov. Charlie Baker on Thursday said the bill “doesn’t save the state any money” and the Senate was “not trying to chase reforms that are going to make” MassHealth more affordable, one of the goals that punctuated the health care debate earlier this year.

“What they’re doing are chasing a variety of initiatives they believe will make the system better,” Baker told reporters.

Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Karen Spilka, who has said the bill could yield $114 million in savings from MassHealth reforms and $475 million to $525 million from its commercial market reforms by 2020, said after the bill passed that she was “very surprised” and “dumbfounded” by Baker’s characterization.

“I understand the governor’s concerns,” Welch said. “He comes from the health care industry, comes from the insurance industry, and I’m sure obviously still has relationships in the health care industry that would make him concerned or that members of the health care industry might be concerned about. But I think the way we approached this bill is really to focus on the consumer.”

Debate began on Wednesday, and behind-the-scenes discussions both days involved negotiations around contentious measures proposing to automatically enroll MassHealth-eligible consumers participating in the home care program into Senior Care Options, a managed care program that covers services normally paid for through Medicare and MassHealth, with no co-pays. Senior advocacy groups opposed the plan.

During Thursday’s debate, Hinds led a bipartisan effort to secure language updating volunteer ambulance service staffing requirements in rural communities, according to the statement released by his office. Current law and regulations state that when transporting a patient receiving care at either the paramedic level of advanced life support or the non-paramedic level of basic life support an ambulance must be staffed with two emergency medical technicians.

Hinds’ amendment, based on pending legislation he has sponsored with Rep. Paul Mark, D- Peru, allows volunteer ambulance services in rural communities to transport a patient receiving care at the nonparamedic level of basic life support to staff the ambulance with one EMT and one first responder.

Updating this requirement to meet the needs and staffing realities of small rural volunteer ambulance departments is a major priority for many towns in Hinds’ Western Massachusetts district, which includes all of the Berkshires. The senator worked with many local stakeholders, including Rural Commonwealth, volunteer ambulance services, municipal officials, hospital administrators and the Department of Public Health to finalize the amendment language, which was passed unanimously.

 “This is a critical policy update for rural communities,” Hinds said. “It is also a glaring example of how state laws, often passed and implemented with the best intentions, do not always apply fairly across the state. Small, rural towns often have difficulty mobilizing two EMTs in time to help someone in dire need of medical attention. My amendment allows them to move more efficiently, respond to calls more effectively, and hopefully, when implemented, will save lives.”

“We remain fundamentally of a different mind that older people are smart enough to pick their own plans, but the Senate, I give them credit for working hard to come up with language that would protect older people from any kind of dislocation of service and to make sure that the people who arrange their care are not financially at risk,” Mass. Home Care executive director Al Norman told the News Service.

Some of the most heated moments in the two days of debate came as Republicans tried unsuccessfully to beat back an element of the bill they dubbed the “name and shame” list — an annual public report identifying the 50 Massachusetts employers with the highest number of employees “who receive medical assistance, medical benefits or assistance through the Health Safety Net Trust Fund.”

Tarr said the amendment was an attempt to shame people into changing their behavior, while Sen. John Keenan of Quincy said it was a way to gather data to understand how many people with access to employer-sponsored insurance are enrolling in MassHealth, and which employers are not providing coverage that’s accessible to their workers.

In a back-and-forth with Keenan, Tarr said the bill tries to “somehow avoid directly the problem” of increased enrollment and subsequent higher costs at MassHealth. He called the bill “incredibly cumbersome” and repeatedly said it defaults to bureaucracy instead of direct action to try to control costs.

Before passing the bill, senators agreed to modify the way it attempts to shrink the gap between rates paid to the most expensive, larger hospitals and lower-paid community hospitals.

“We view that this is a market failure, and we’re asking the market to correct itself, and if it is unable to do so, then and only then would you turn to government regulation,” Senate President Stanley Rosenberg said.

The bill would raise rates for lower-paid hospitals to 90 percent of the statewide average for the previous year, and set a target rate of growth for total hospital spending.

While senators stopped short of imposing a rate cap at the upper level, they adopted a Sen. Jamie Eldridge amendment specifying that efforts to meet the target “do not directly contribute to increased consumer health care costs.”

The Senate overwhelmingly endorsed studying how the costs of a single-payer health care model would compare to the state’s current health care spending, which the Center for Health Information and Analysis tallied at $59 billion in 2016.

On a 35-3 vote, the Senate adopted an amendment calling for state officials to measure health spending against the estimated costs of providing health care to all residents through a single-payer system. If the single-payer projections prove to be less costly, the Health Policy Commission would need to submit “a proposed single payer health care implementation plan” to the Legislature for potential action.

Sen. Julian Cyr, of Truro, the amendment’s sponsor, compared the current health care system to “one of those rubber band balls you get at Staples,” pointing to interconnected pieces that would be difficult to unwind without an extensive plan. He stressed the amendment would not commit the state to pursuing single-payer but said it would “keep all doors open.”

Tarr voiced concerns about the possible cost of a single-payer system, saying by some estimates it could double the state’s health expenditures, but ultimately voted for the amendment. Republican Sens. Vinny deMacedo, Ryan Fattman and Donald Humason voted against, and Sen. Richard Ross, a Wrentham Republican, voted present.

In 2012, a similar single-payer benchmark proposal failed 15-22 in the Senate.

EPA Rollback of Glider Truck Rule Puts Health, Lives at Risk for a Single Company’s Gain


GENERAL MEDIA INQUIRIES

202-331-5420


For specific issues, contact the appropriate press contact below.
 

ABBY FIGUEROA

Communications Officer, 510-809-1564, afigueroa@ucsusa.org
Energy, CA and Western States, Vehicles

SETH MICHAELS

Communications Officer, 202-331-5662, smichaels@ucsusa.org
Center for Science Democracy, Vehicles

ELLIOTT NEGIN

Senior Writer, 202-331-5439, enegin@ucsusa.org
Global Security, Nuclear Power

LISA NURNBERGER

Media Team Manager, 202-331-6959, lnurnberger@ucsusa.org
Nuclear Weapons

ASHLEY SIEFERT

Communications Officer, 202-331-5666, asiefert@ucsusa.org
Climate, International Climate Negotiations

JA-REI WANG

Communications Officer, 202-331-6943, jwang@ucsusa.org
Food Agriculture, Fossil Fuel Company Accountability

ASHANTI WASHINGTON

Communications Officer, 202-331-5660, awashington@ucsusa.org
Energy

The Ugly Consequences of Single-Payer Health Care

The late, great Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman said it best: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Friedman’s pithy proverb reminds us that there is also no “free health care.” It’s a timely reminder, as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is making a public push for his “Medicare for All” bill.

While liberals have long advocated “single-payer” systems for health care, what’s new this time is that they are coalescing around a plan. Sixteen Senate Democrats are co-sponsoring Sanders’ bill, and 120 Democrats in the House have signed on to a similar approach.

Free Care?

This latest push for “single-payer” features the provision of “free health care” at the point of service from doctors, hospitals, and all other medical institutions.

The Sanders bill provides a comprehensive set of medical benefits and services, combined with “first dollar” coverage and outlaws all patient “cost-sharing,” meaning no deductibles, no co-insurance, no copayments of any kind. Zero.

Sounds great, right? Well, P.J. O’Rourke, a prominent political humorist, improves on Friedman: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

Make no mistake: If Americans were ever foolish enough to take Sanders’ “single-payer” prescription, they would suffer a fiscal fever the likes of which they have never even imagined.

Read the full Heritage Foundation analysis of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bill.

Last year, two separate analyses—one from the Urban Institute and another from professor Kenneth Thorpe at Emory University—outlined in dreadful detail the fiscal consequences of Sanders’ 2016 proposal.

Though the analysts differed on their assumptions and calculated conclusions based on different models, they both came to the same conclusion: The Sanders “single-payer” bill is going to cost the American people far more than the senator and his academic and congressional allies claim, and the taxes to finance this massive enterprise are going to be huge.

Last year, Sanders estimated that over 10 years (2017 to 2026), new federal spending for his “Medicare for All” proposal would amount to $13.8 trillion.

By getting rid of all private insurance, including the unnecessary marketing and administrative costs and simplifying the system by junking today’s public-private mélange of payment and delivery, ordinary Americans would see big savings compared to their current health care spending.

Well, not quite. Thorpe, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, projected that the full, 10-year cost of the plan would be $24.7 trillion.

Scholars at the Urban Institute, a prominent liberal think tank, estimated a stunning 10-year cost of $32 trillion. According to the Urban analysts, the Sanders plan would come up $16.6 trillion short of the revenues necessary to fully pay for it. Socialism is expensive.

‘Feeling the Bern?’

While the Urban analysts did not model the tax impact of Sanders’ 2016 proposal, Thorpe did. He concluded that the senator’s 6.2 percent payroll tax, plus a 2.2 percent income-based premium tax, plus a whole series of special taxes on investments, dividends, “wealth,” and the hated “rich,” would not be sufficient pay for the program.

There are just not enough rich people to pay for socialized medicine.

Taxes would have to be higher—much higher. So Thorpe concluded that to fully finance Sanders’ plan, as the senator outlined it in 2016, would require a combination of higher payroll and income-based premium taxes, amounting to a 20 percent tax on income.

As for the promised savings for ordinary Americans? Forget it. Taxes on working families would be substantial.

To fully fund Sanders’ single-payer plan, Thorpe estimated, 71 percent of working families would end up paying more than what they pay now under current law.

Loss of Freedom

There are other costs beyond the dollars and cents. As we have noted in a recent Heritage Foundation analysis of Sanders’ updated version of his bill, Americans would lose big chunks of their personal and economic freedom.

Recall that when former President Barack Obama was campaigning relentlessly for Obamacare, he promised—falsely—that, “If you like you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan.”

In fact, under Obamacare, you never really had the freedom to keep what you liked. In 2013, on the eve of the very first year of Obamacare’s full implementation, 4.7 million health insurance policies were cancelled across 30 states, whether enrollees liked them or not.

Over the last three years, Obamacare’s health insurance costs exploded while personal choice and market competition collapsed. By 2016, Americans in 70 percent of U.S. counties were left with only one or two options.

Sanders and his 16 Senate Democratic colleagues deserve applause for their refreshing honesty. They make no pretense whatsoever that you can keep your health plan, regardless of your personal wants, needs, or preferences. You don’t count.

Under the Sanders bill, almost all private health insurance would be outlawed, including your employment-based health coverage. Today, nearly 60 percent of working-age Americans get their health insurance through private, employer-based plans.

Likewise, persons enrolled in existing government health programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program—would be absorbed into the new government health plan.

The Sanders bill not only abolishes private plans in the Obamacare exchanges, but kills off the popular and successful Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which provides benefits to over 8 million current and former federal employees. For military dependents, Tricare would also be gone.

Curiously, the scandal-ridden Veterans Administration program and the troubled Indian Health Services would remain. Of course, both are ideologically correct: They are “single-payer” systems.

The Sanders bill would concentrate enormous power in the health and human services secretary, far beyond the already expansive administrative discretion that the secretary exercises today under Obamacare.

The secretary’s power would extend to the establishment of a national health care budget for all health care spending, provider payment, standards for provider participation, and the quality of care delivery.

Taxpayer funding of abortion, among other things, would be compulsory, and, at least from the language of the text, it appears that there would be no traditional conscience protections for doctors and patients opposed to unethical or immoral medical procedures.

The bill would allow for very limited private contracting between doctors and patients for medical care outside of the government system.

If a doctor and a patient wanted to contract privately for medical services, the doctor would have to give up treating all other patients enrolled in the government health plan and receiving reimbursement from the government for one full year.

Curiously, such an absurd restriction on personal freedom does not even exist in Britain’s National Health Service, the granddaddy of socialized medicine, where doctors freely practice in both the government program and the private sector.

Sanders and his colleagues have outlined a clear direction for America’s health policy: a government monopoly with centralized power over American health care financing and delivery; a massive increase in federal spending combined with promised savings that will not materialize; enormous tax increases that will reach deep down into the working class; new restrictions on personal and economic freedom; and, for patients who want or need something new and better, virtually no avenue of escape.

Sanders and his colleagues have put their vision—profoundly authoritarian—into legislative form. It is touted in the media and elsewhere as a viable alternative only in the wake of the Senate Republicans’ monumental failure to come together and enact an alternative to Obamacare.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., recently asked the Congressional Budget Office to score the cost of the latest version of Sanders’ plan.

Meanwhile, the president and the Congress should explain to the American people how a patient-centered, market-based set of reforms will reduce health insurance costs, improve access to quality care, and expand their personal freedom.

In short, they should outline their vision—and fight for it.

How Democratic Socialists Convinced a Congressman to Sign Onto Single-Payer Health Care Bill

Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers has been introducing his single-payer health care bill for decades. But in the explosion of activism following the Bernie Sanders campaign and the pushback against GOP efforts to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act, his bill HR 676 has suddenly become much more popular. It now has the support of the majority of the House Democratic caucus.

Last month, a group of activists with the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America turned its sights to Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, one of the Democrats who had yet to sign onto HR 676.

They started their lobbying by calling Beyer’s office, said James McCormack, an activist with the Northern Virginia chapter of the Metro DC DSA.

“It was never something like ‘we don’t like the bill.’ It was always just, ‘We are looking into it. We’re studying it further,’” McCormack told The Intercept about the response from the congressman’s office.

When that didn’t work, they came up with a plan to directly confront Beyer. Numerous DSA members attended a September 17 town hall Beyer held, sharing their health care horror stories and asking the representative to sponsor the Conyers bill that would establish a universal health care system.

At first, Beyer was hesitant, telling the activists that there are “many problems with the legislation.” But after five activists took turns at the microphone asking Beyer to sponsor the legislation, he relented and announced his intention to sign on. On September 26, he was officially added as a co-sponsor to HR 676.

Beyer has “long supported universal healthcare and the idea of a single payer system,” said Press Secretary Aaron Fritschner, but he has also had some concerns about the Conyers bill, “including the need for greater specificity on how we pay for an expansion of Medicare, the timeline for the transition period, and how much decision-making we leave in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”

Still, after hearing “the strong and heartfelt requests from his constituents,” Beyer agreed to cosponsor the bill since he supports its broad objectives, Fritschner told The Intercept, adding that the congressman supports other legislation that expand health care coverage, including the bipartisan Murray-Alexander bill.

The success was a real teaching moment for the DSA.

“It was our first real campaign as a branch together,” McCormack said in an interview. “This is a win for us, unequivocally”

Watch this short documentary about how DSA won Beyer’s support:

Top photo: Nurses and other health care activists rally for the passage of HR 676, single-payer/universal healthcare, in 2009 in Los Angeles.

NH rep proposes statewide single-payer health care

A proposal to create a single-payer health care system in New Hampshire drew mixed reactions in the House on Monday, with some denouncing it as a wayward fantasy and others heralding an opportunity for a conversation on broader reform.

The legislative service request, sponsored by Rep. Peter Schmidt, D-Dover, is titled “establishing a New Hampshire single payor (sic) health care system.”

A single-payer system is a taxpayer-funded health care model through which a government provides health care to its citizens in lieu of private plans. In recent years, the idea of implementing it nationwide has gained sway among the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, while turning away others. New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, endorsed it in September, breaking from Sen. Maggie Hassan, her Democratic junior colleague.

But Schmidt said New Hampshire is ready to try taking action on its own.

“The health care situation is very much in flux, nationally and here in New Hampshire,” he said Monday. “And the bottom line is it’s just utterly irresponsible for the New Hampshire Legislature not to engage in this situation.”

It is unclear exactly how the proposed Granite State single-payer system would work; Schmidt was unable to immediately provide a copy of his draft legislation to the Monitor. But the mere mention of the idea drew a polarized political response.

In an unprompted statement, House Majority Leader Dick Hinch, R-Merrimack, blasted the LSR, pointing to another state’s attempt to do the same: Vermont.

In 2011, the Green Mountain State’s Legislature passed a bill authorizing the creation of a single-payer health care system, giving then-Gov. Peter Shumlin a mandate to devise a plan by 2013. But by 2014, Shumlin, a longtime champion of the effort, backed away over cost concerns.

Following through on the effort would have required a 9.5 percent increase in state income taxes and an 11.5 percent hike to the payroll tax; one analysis estimated a $4.3 billion annual price tag within an annual budget of $4.6 billion. The plan was never set into action.

Hinch said the example should be a sobering one for New Hampshire.

“New Hampshire Democrats just need to look next door to Vermont to realize that single-payer health care is not feasible,” he said. “The fact that we’re seeing legislation to even study the issue baffles me. Vermont studied it, and rejected it because it would have bankrupted their state.”

But Schmidt dismissed the critique.

“That’s like saying that your cousin broke his leg skiing because he doesn’t know what he’s doing so you shouldn’t try skiing, even though you’ve been on the college ski team and you’ve been skiing all your life,” he said. “You can’t go down that hill because he can’t.”

He argued that New Hampshire, with more than twice Vermont’s 624,000 population, is better situated to take on single-payer. And he pointed to a second LSR of his, which would create a commission to study a New England-wide single health care system to pool costs, an approach he called more viable.

Schmidt, 89, was previously involved in the creation of the N.H. Healthy Kids program in 1994, a health care service that eventually transitioned into the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) in 1997. A beneficiary of Medicare himself, Schmidt said the present model for both low-income children and seniors can be scaled up for all residents of the state.

“So maybe some of my fellow Democrats will say ‘Oh well, that’s too radical; we can’t do this, we can’t do that,’ ” he said. “And I say: Why not? Because it works just fine for people over 65, and it works just fine in the rest of the world.”

Others on the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee are more reserved. Many, including Chairman Frank Kotowski, R-Hooksett, declined to directly comment on Schmidt’s proposal without seeing the drafted bill first.

Committee member William Marsh, R-Wolfeboro said the same. But speaking on the idea generally, Marsh argued the idea would never work.

To start, he said, the volume of health care services the state of New Hampshire currently outsources to Boston is too vast for the state to pay for or substitute itself. And while Marsh conceded that teaming up with other New England states might be more workable overall, he said the costs would still be prohibitive for the Live Free or Die State.

Meanwhile, Walpole Democrat Lucy Weber, who sits on the committee, said that, while she can’t comment directly on the LSR, she supports the idea of single-payer as a way eliminate wasted money and inefficiencies in the present system.

However, Weber said she doesn’t see it as a feasible approach in the New Hampshire Legislature.

“I tend to look at what’s in the art of the possible,” she said. “With the current makeup of the House and the Senate, I think it’s highly unlikely that we are going anywhere near a single-payer (system).”

But to Schmidt, who said he’d make his draft available later this week, the long political odds are worth it for the discussion the bill would spark.

In that respect, he has one major supporter. House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff, D-Penacook, said he also can’t comment on a draft bill he hasn’t seen. But he added that whatever its prospects – or ultimate suitability – the attention the bill would draw to policy reform would justify its submission.

“It’s good to put it on the table because people are talking about it,” he said Monday. “When they’re talking about single-payer, they’re talking about health care.”

(Ethan DeWitt can be reached at edewitt@cmonitor.com, or on Twitter at @edewittNH.)

Comment: How the iPhone 8 & iPhone X pave the way for a fully enclosed, single piece of glass design

I’ve been using the iPhone 8 Plus for about a month now, and while it’s largely a holdover until the more exciting iPhone X next month, the iPhone 8 is a great phone in and of itself. The improvements are subtle yet contribute nicely to a notable improvement over its predecessors.

More than anything, however, the iPhone 8 – as well as the iPhone X –  represent the beginning of what is likely the future of iPhone design: a single, port-free, fully enclosed slab of glass…


f19ac_spigen-teka-on-airpods Comment: How the iPhone 8 & iPhone X pave the way for a fully enclosed, single piece of glass design

Spigen TEKA RA200 Airpods Earhooks Cover

It was reported last year that Jony Ive has long had the desire to design an iPhone that “appears like a single sheet of glass.” The iPhone X is of course the first step in this direction, and Ive has acknowledged that. He remarked in an interview at Apple’s event last month that the iPhone X is “a new chapter and the beginning of its development.”

He also talked about the goal of moving away from the idea of individual components, rather focusing on integrating a variety of different parts:

Before this, there was a feeling that individual components called enclosure (housing) and display existed. What we always wanted to do is tackle the essence of integrating what we considered different parts. Looking at the iPhone X from that perspective, I think that it took many years and finally we were able to achieve it.

Dissecting Ive’s comments isn’t hard. Take one look at the iPhone X, or even the iPhone 8, and you can see Apple’s work here. Apple wants to make the iPhone one single piece of hardware with no moving parts and no external ports or connectivity. It wants a fully enclosed design that completely revolutionizes smartphone design – just like it did 10 years ago with the original iPhone. The iPhone X, and iPhone 8 to a lesser extent, are the first steps in this direction.

For starters, there’s wireless charging. Both the iPhone X and iPhone 8 are the first iPhones to feature wireless charging, and while Apple has downplayed the importance of Qi inductive charging in the past, it’s an important move for both user education and technology.

Wireless charging, whether long-range or in its current form, would mean there’s seemingly no need for a Lightning connector. While Apple may be clinging to the Lightning connector with its Lightning EarPods, you have to imagine that’s just a temporary way to help ease the headphone jack transition. The end goal is obviously AirPods – or any other wireless headphones.

Apple also has its upcoming AirPower charging mat accessory that will let you charge your iPhone, Apple Watch, and AirPods all from a single charger. Yet another way for Apple to drop the Lightning connector.

The move away from Lightning would wreak havoc on the accessory market, but don’t act like Apple is above doing that – because it isn’t.

While many have called on Apple to adopt USB-C on the iPhone, I personally don’t think that’s in the pipeline. I think we’re stuck with Lightning for the next few years, and then nothing. We’ll have a port-free iPhone.

In its current form, you can easily use the iPhone 8 without ever needing the Lightning jack. In fact, I could probably count on one hand the amount of times I’ve plugged in my iPhone. I use AirPods as my headphones and have two Mophie wireless – one on my desk and one on the bedside table. I could easily live without a Lightning jack, just like I live without a headphone jack.

There are also the volume buttons and power buttons. One has to imagine that when we get a fully enclosed iPhone, we’ll also lose these. Losing the power button isn’t all that hard to imagine – even though it becomes more useful with the iPhone X. Raise to wake is a perfectly viable alternative and the rest can be accomplished with software gestures and buttons.

Of course, you can argue that Apple’s goal was clear last year with the removal of the headphone jack. One less port, one step closer to enclosure. The new Taptic Home button was also a minor step in this direction – representing one less moving part. This is year is largely a continuation of those efforts.

It’s hard to guesstimate when the port-free, fully enclosed iPhone will actually be a thing. Right now it seems more interesting to point to all of the evidence than to try to predict when it will happen, as there are clearly a lot of signs hinting at this move. Seth Weintraub asked his Twitter followers their opinion, and the majority predicted that we’ll se the first enclosed smartphone within “the next few years,” though Seth didn’t ask specifically about the iPhone.

It’s clear this is Jony Ive’s goal. An iPhone that is nothing aside from screen and a backside. No buttons, no ports, nothing getting in the way of design. Ive remarked in an interview earlier his month that he “detests most things” as they aren’t built for people – and you have to imagine he detests the idea of ports and buttons:

“You look at things and you can see most things are built either in an opportunistic way; they’re built to a cost, they’re built to a schedule and very often they’re not built for people.”

To Ive, there’s technological hurdles that must be overcome, but the future of the iPhone is an enclosed, port-free, gorgeous slab of glass. It’s that design that will help Apple revolutionize the smartphone market again, just like it did 10 years ago.

Image credit


Subscribe to 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:

State Dems say we need single-payer health care

As they make their case for shifting to single-payer health care, two Democrats hoping to seize the Corner Office next year are pointing to soaring premium increases for individuals who purchase insurance through the Massachusetts Health Connector.

After President Donald Trump last week announced he would end subsidies the federal government pays monthly to insurers to defray the costs of some plans — known as cost-sharing reduction payments — the Health Connector on Thursday said it would raise its rates for next year more than originally anticipated, to cover the lost funds.

The decision means some 80,000 people are facing premium increases of about 26 percent.

Jay Gonzalez and Setti Warren, Democrats vying for their party’s gubernatorial nomination in 2018, each said the move highlights affordability problems in the state’s health care system and called for a single-payer model instead.

“Too many people in Massachusetts are already struggling with health insurance they can’t afford to use,” Warren, the mayor of Newton, said in a statement to the News Service. “The political games being playing [sic] in Washington will only make it worse until we recognize that the only way to ensure health care as a basic right is to implement a single-payer system right now. Across the Commonwealth, I’ve talked to too many people who already have to decide between filling a prescription or buying food or between scheduling a doctor’s appointment and making a mortgage payment. That’s wrong. If Health Connector rates shoot up next year, even more Massachusetts families will be left behind.”

A report released last month by the Center for Health Information and Analysis found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts increased by an average 2.6 percent in 2016, to $464 per member per month, while average regional income increased by 2.9 percent and inflation was 1.5 percent. Health insurance cost-sharing climbed 4.4 percent to $49 per member per month, or $587 annually.

Gonzalez, who was CEO of the health insurer CeltiCare, called Trump’s decision to end the subsidies “terrible” for Massachusetts and the country.

“It’s going to put a real burden on a lot of people, thousands of people in Massachusetts, and possibly make their health insurance unaffordable for them, and that’s a bad outcome,” Gonzalez said. “So we should be doing, and our governor should be doing, everything he possibly can to prevent this from happening in Washington, and advocating as much as we can for Congress to overturn this decision and meanwhile, actually have a plan for how to deal with it here.”

Gov. Baker wrote a letter to the state’s Congressional delegation Thursday, informing them of the higher Connector rates and asking them to “work with your colleagues and with states to make health care reforms that will preserve and expand gains in coverage, while controlling costs for consumers.” In the letter, he said his administration “is committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the stability of the health insurance market for 2017” after Trump ended the cost-sharing subsidies.

Rate shock underscores need for single-payer health care


be4f0_20171020__BREAKINGNEWSShock~p1_200 Rate shock underscores need for single-payer health care

No Published Caption

Sun staff photos can be ordered by visiting our SmugMug site.

By Katie Lannan

STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

BOSTON — As they make their case for shifting to single-payer health care, two Democrats hoping to seize the Corner Office next year are pointing to soaring premium increases for individuals who purchase insurance through the Massachusetts Health Connector.

After President Donald Trump last week announced he would end subsidies the federal government pays monthly to insurers to defray the costs of some plans — known as cost-sharing reduction payments — the Health Connector on Thursday said it would raise its rates for next year more than originally anticipated, to cover the lost funds.

The decision means some 80,000 people are facing premium increases of about 26 percent.

Jay Gonzalez and Setti Warren, Democrats vying for their party’s gubernatorial nomination in 2018, each said the move highlights affordability problems in the state’s health care system and called for a single-payer model instead.

“Too many people in Massachusetts are already struggling with health insurance they can’t afford to use,” Warren, the mayor of Newton, said in a statement to the News Service. “The political games being playing [sic] in Washington will only make it worse until we recognize that the only way to ensure health care as a basic right is to implement a single-payer system right now. Across the Commonwealth, I’ve talked to too many people who already have to decide between filling a prescription or buying food or between scheduling a doctor’s appointment and making a mortgage payment.

That’s wrong. If Health Connector rates shoot up next year, even more Massachusetts families will be left behind.”

A report released last month by the Center for Health Information and Analysis found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts increased by an average 2.6 percent in 2016, to $464 per member per month, while average regional income increased by 2.9 percent and inflation was 1.5 percent. Health insurance cost-sharing climbed 4.4 percent to $49 per member per month, or $587 annually.

Gonzalez, who was CEO of the health insurer CeltiCare, called Trump’s decision to end the subsidies “terrible” for Massachusetts and the country.

“It’s going to put a real burden on a lot of people, thousands of people in Massachusetts, and possibly make their health insurance unaffordable for them, and that’s a bad outcome,” Gonzalez said. “So we should be doing, and our governor should be doing, everything he possibly can to prevent this from happening in Washington, and advocating as much as we can for Congress to overturn this decision and meanwhile, actually have a plan for how to deal with it here.”

Baker wrote a letter to the state’s Congressional delegation Thursday, informing them of the higher Connector rates and asking them to “work with your colleagues and with states to make health care reforms that will preserve and expand gains in coverage, while controlling costs for consumers.” In the letter, he said his administration “is committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the stability of the health insurance market for 2017” after Trump ended the cost-sharing subsidies.

Baker on Wednesday joined nine other governors on a letter to Congressional leaders, urging them to fund the payments through 2019.

Last month, the Baker administration submitted a waiver request to the federal government, seeking to establish a “premium stabilization fund” in lieu of the cost-sharing reduction payments.

The Swampscott Republican also proposed MassHealth and commercial market reforms this summer, the bulk of which were rejected by lawmakers who said they wanted to develop their own plans. The Legislature did agree to impose new employer assessments to help cover the cost of workers who opt for MassHealth coverage instead of insurance through their employers, and a group of senators this week released a health care bill they hope to debate in November. 

Gonzalez, of Needham, said he wants the state to “implement a single-payer system that actually achieves better outcomes for people, is simpler for people to navigate and is financially sustainable over time,” and that Baker “keeps putting Band-Aids on a system that has gaping wounds.”

“The system we have today is not working for people, and it’s not financially sustainable,” said Gonzalez, who served as Gov. Deval Patrick’s budget chief. “It’s crushing state government in terms of its costs, it’s crushing businesses, and we need leadership on this issue. We need a governor who’s actually going to try to aim higher, try to be proactive about taking us to a place where we reform our system in a way that’s going to work better for people and be sustainable, and that’s what my focus would be as governor.”

While the state Democratic Party includes single-payer health care in its platform, Democrats who have run the Legislature for years have not embraced the idea and changing that dynamic would be a big lift for any governor.

Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Denise Garlick have filed bills to set up a state-run, “Medicare for all” single-payer system in Massachusetts. Garlick’s bill (H 2987) has 43 cosponsors, and Eldridge’s (S 619) has 37. There are currently 196 people in the Legislature.

WinSystems’ New PPM-C412 Single Board Computer Advances Performance, Extends Functionality and Longevity of …

“Current PPM-LX800 SBC users will appreciate the PPM-C412’s superior performance thanks to its Vortex DX3 System on Chip (SOC), which offers a 32-bit X 86 architecture with dual-core microprocessor,” said Technical Sales Director George Hilliard. “An impressive amount of functionality and communications connectivity is packed into its small footprint, all engineered and tested to withstand harsh industrial temperatures and high levels of vibration and shock.”  

AMPLE FEATURES FOR COMMUNICATION AND CONTROL
The PPM-C412 incorporates dual Ethernet ports coupled with four serial ports, four USB channels and an LPT port for myriad communications options. It also includes dual simultaneous display outputs – one LVDS and one VGA – for Human Machine Interface (HMI) displays. Further, It provides 24 GPIO for monitoring and control, resulting in an I/O-rich, rugged SBC occupying minimal space. The PPM-C412 can be used on its own or in combination with the PC/104-PLUS bus to expand functionality and capitalize on its full ISA compatibility, averting the need to re-engineer system architectures.

The PPM-C412 extends WinSystems’ track record as a leading provider of PC/104 single board computers. It is specifically built for rugged industrial environments, with low power requirements, up to 2 GB RAM and an operating temperature range of -40ºC to +85ºC. With a 10-year availability, this new SBC also extends the product life of systems using commercial off the shelf (COTS) and proprietary PC/104 expansion modules.

EMBEDDED SOLUTIONS BACKED BY INGENUITY AND SERVICE
WinSystems has engineered success in embedded computer system design and production for more than 35 years. Renowned product reliability is backed by the expertise and responsiveness of seasoned engineers who provide technical support for the life of the product. WinSystems solutions are known for exceptional performance, greater uptime, life cycles up to 10 years and faster delivery, shortening customers’ time to market. Proven product roadmaps, world-class customer and technical support, and a genuine commitment to addressing their needs contribute value over the long term.

ABOUT WINSYSTEMS
Founded in 1982, WinSystems, Inc. designs and manufactures industrial single board computers (SBCs), I/O modules, and panel PCs that operate over extended temperatures. Product lines include rugged, compact standards such as 3.5-inch SBCs; PC/104, PC/104-Plus, EPIC and EBX form factors; COM Express carrier boards; and STD Bus products. These components are engineered for harsh, rugged environments, which include industrial IoT, automation/control, transportation management, energy management, Mil-COTS, medical and communications applications.

For more information, contact Technical Sales Director George Hilliard at sales@winsystems.com or 817-274-7553, ext. 125. www.WinSystems.com

 

View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/winsystems-new-ppm-c412-single-board-computer-advances-performance-extends-functionality-and-longevity-of-pc104-plus-form-factor-systems-300540068.html

SOURCE WinSystems, Inc.

Related Links

http://www.winsystems.com

WinSystems’ New PPM-C412 Single Board Computer Advances Performance, Extends Functionality and Longevity of …

ARLINGTON, Texas, Oct. 19, 2017 /PRNewswire/ – WinSystems, an acclaimed provider of industrial embedded computer solutions for 35 years, today debuted the feature-rich evolution of its popular PC/104-Plus-compatible single board computers. Its new PPM-C412 series for demanding environments and applications offers a broad spectrum of I/O features and the ability to expand functionality in a densely populated, standalone SBC solution. It delivers greater performance and a clear upgrade path for current PPM-LX800 users while providing full ISA-compatible PC/104-Plus expansion.  

003fa_WinSystems_PPM_C412 WinSystems' New PPM-C412 Single Board Computer Advances Performance, Extends Functionality and Longevity of ...

“Current PPM-LX800 SBC users will appreciate the PPM-C412’s superior performance thanks to its Vortex DX3 System on Chip (SOC), which offers a 32-bit X 86 architecture with dual-core microprocessor,” said Technical Sales Director George Hilliard. “An impressive amount of functionality and communications connectivity is packed into its small footprint, all engineered and tested to withstand harsh industrial temperatures and high levels of vibration and shock.”  

AMPLE FEATURES FOR COMMUNICATION AND CONTROL
The PPM-C412 incorporates dual Ethernet ports coupled with four serial ports, four USB channels and an LPT port for myriad communications options. It also includes dual simultaneous display outputs – one LVDS and one VGA – for Human Machine Interface (HMI) displays. Further, It provides 24 GPIO for monitoring and control, resulting in an I/O-rich, rugged SBC occupying minimal space. The PPM-C412 can be used on its own or in combination with the PC/104-PLUS bus to expand functionality and capitalize on its full ISA compatibility, averting the need to re-engineer system architectures.

The PPM-C412 extends WinSystems’ track record as a leading provider of PC/104 single board computers. It is specifically built for rugged industrial environments, with low power requirements, up to 2 GB RAM and an operating temperature range of -40ºC to +85ºC. With a 10-year availability, this new SBC also extends the product life of systems using commercial off the shelf (COTS) and proprietary PC/104 expansion modules.

EMBEDDED SOLUTIONS BACKED BY INGENUITY AND SERVICE
WinSystems has engineered success in embedded computer system design and production for more than 35 years. Renowned product reliability is backed by the expertise and responsiveness of seasoned engineers who provide technical support for the life of the product. WinSystems solutions are known for exceptional performance, greater uptime, life cycles up to 10 years and faster delivery, shortening customers’ time to market. Proven product roadmaps, world-class customer and technical support, and a genuine commitment to addressing their needs contribute value over the long term.

ABOUT WINSYSTEMS
Founded in 1982, WinSystems, Inc. designs and manufactures industrial single board computers (SBCs), I/O modules, and panel PCs that operate over extended temperatures. Product lines include rugged, compact standards such as 3.5-inch SBCs; PC/104, PC/104-Plus, EPIC and EBX form factors; COM Express carrier boards; and STD Bus products. These components are engineered for harsh, rugged environments, which include industrial IoT, automation/control, transportation management, energy management, Mil-COTS, medical and communications applications.

For more information, contact Technical Sales Director George Hilliard at rel=”nofollow”sales@winsystems.com or 817-274-7553, ext. 125. www.WinSystems.com

 

003fa_WinSystems_PPM_C412 WinSystems' New PPM-C412 Single Board Computer Advances Performance, Extends Functionality and Longevity of ...

View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/winsystems-new-ppm-c412-single-board-computer-advances-performance-extends-functionality-and-longevity-of-pc104-plus-form-factor-systems-300540068.html

SOURCE WinSystems, Inc.

Single-payer would drastically change American health care; here’s how it works

As Republican efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act continue in the background, some Democrats are starting to eye a new health policy goal: implementing a single-payer system. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a single-payer bill in mid-September with 16 Democratic co-sponsors — 16 more than he got when he introduced the bill two years earlier. But how is the health care system funded now, and how would “single-payer” change that?

How health care systems are funded

There are three major components to every health care system, single-payer or not: a patient, a payer (typically an insurance company or the government) and a provider. Here’s how money moves between them:

How multipayer systems work

Congressional Budget Office. That would be partially offset by people no longer needing to pay premiums to private insurers, however, and the government’s monopoly could allow it to implement cost-saving measures.

Medicare (as opposed to Medicare Advantage) operates in the United States. The government pays for a large portion of medical services, but it’s common for people to buy complementary Medigap plans from the private insurance market. And it’s common for people to buy supplementary Medicare Part D plans from private insurers to cover prescription drugs, which are not covered by traditional Medicare.

Countries with universal coverage sit on a spectrum from the least pure to the most pure single-payer — that is, governments that offer the least comprehensive care, where complementary or supplementary insurance is more necessary, to those that offer the most comprehensive health care coverage, with little need for private insurance. (Where one draws the line for “single-payer” vs. merely “universal coverage” is debatable, and largely a semantic problem.)

Some countries, such as Norway, are closer to the “pure” end. They offer such comprehensive coverage that complementary or supplementary private insurance makes up just a small piece of the system. In Canada, by contrast, 29 percent of health care spending comes from the private sector, and about two-thirds of Canadians hold some sort of private supplementary insurance, according to a report from the Commonwealth Fund.

It’s yet to be seen whether Democrats will coalesce around a single-payer plan, and if so, where it will fall on this spectrum.

Icons by The Washington Post’s Aaron Steckelberg.




Advertise here