[O]verstaffing is a serious problem in government, and the best evidence is a simple empirical fact: Government employees don't work as much as private employees. If public-sector employees just worked as many hours as their private counterparts, governments at all levels could save more than $100 billion in annual labor costs*** What we found was that during a typical workweek, private-sector employees work about 41.4 hours. Federal workers, by contrast, put in 38.7 hours, and state and local government employees work 38.1 hours. In a calendar year, private-sector employees work the equivalent of 3.8 more 40-hour workweeks than federal employees and 4.7 more weeks than state and local government workers. Put another way, private employees spend around an extra month working each year compared with public employees. If the public sector worked that additional month, governments could theoretically save around $130 billion in annual labor costs without reducing services.*** But could public-private differences in work time be due to other occupational differences between the sectors? Large differences in work hours actually persist even when comparing workers with similar jobs and similar skills in each sector.
8 Aralık 2012 Cumartesi
Government Employees Work Fewer Hours Than Private Sector Employees
To contact us Click HERE
From The Wall Street Journal, "Biggs and Richwine: The Underworked Public Employee: The cliché is true: Government workers do tend to take it easier than their private counterparts." by Andrew G Biggs and Jason Richwine:
Rich Reinvest More: Taxing The Rich Lowers The Amount Of Funds Available For Economic Growth: A Small Decrease In Economic Growth Has a Big Difference On Future US Standard of Living: Our Children And Grandchildren Will Feel The Brunt Of Today's Higher Taxes On The Rich
To contact us Click HERE
The rich save and invest a very large portion (40 percent or more) of their income. The middle income and poor spend all or almost all of their income and save very little, if any, of their income.
Economic growth comes from:
Additionally, higher capital gains and dividend taxes creates a "lock-in effect." Investors delay selling investments with poor growth prospects that have historical gains to avoid paying the capital gains tax. The natural tendency to defer paying capital gains taxes, delays the freeing of funds that could be used to finance new business opportunities. Slowing the pace of new investments will slow the growth of the US economy.
Higher taxes will not eliminate all private investment, but over time, a slight difference in private investment and per capita GDP growth rates will have a big difference on the average US family's standard of living.
If per capita GDP grows by 1 percent, after 70 years, a lifetime, the average family's standard of living, their per capita GDP, will be twice as high as now. If per capita GDP grows by 2 percent instead of 1 percent, after 70 years, the average family's standard of living will be four times as high as now. Three percent would lead to a eight times as high standard of living as now. Of course, if there is no economic growth, as is possible with higher taxes in our current slow growth economy, there will be no improvement in the standard of living.
Taxing the rich today, slows the improvement in the standard of living of our children and grandchildren. Inequality matters. It is necessity for a growing economy. Inequality is a necessity for a country that wants to help its underprivileged because the rich reinvest more and enable the standard of living of everyone in the US to improve.
From Bloomberg, "Warren Buffett Is Wrong About Taxes" by Edward Conard:
Economic growth comes from:
- investing in new businesses,
- funding expansions of profitable and growing businesses, and
- investing in new equipment, technology and other processes to increase productivity, reduce the cost of production, and lower the selling price.
Additionally, higher capital gains and dividend taxes creates a "lock-in effect." Investors delay selling investments with poor growth prospects that have historical gains to avoid paying the capital gains tax. The natural tendency to defer paying capital gains taxes, delays the freeing of funds that could be used to finance new business opportunities. Slowing the pace of new investments will slow the growth of the US economy.
Higher taxes will not eliminate all private investment, but over time, a slight difference in private investment and per capita GDP growth rates will have a big difference on the average US family's standard of living.
If per capita GDP grows by 1 percent, after 70 years, a lifetime, the average family's standard of living, their per capita GDP, will be twice as high as now. If per capita GDP grows by 2 percent instead of 1 percent, after 70 years, the average family's standard of living will be four times as high as now. Three percent would lead to a eight times as high standard of living as now. Of course, if there is no economic growth, as is possible with higher taxes in our current slow growth economy, there will be no improvement in the standard of living.
Taxing the rich today, slows the improvement in the standard of living of our children and grandchildren. Inequality matters. It is necessity for a growing economy. Inequality is a necessity for a country that wants to help its underprivileged because the rich reinvest more and enable the standard of living of everyone in the US to improve.
From Bloomberg, "Warren Buffett Is Wrong About Taxes" by Edward Conard:
Federal Reserve surveys show the top 5 percent of households save and invest 40 percent of their income. Median- income households save very little, whereas the Buffett household probably invests 99 percent of its income.
If we tax, redistribute and consume income that otherwise would have been invested, the investable pool of savings declines.
Share Of Income Taxes Paid By Top 10 Percent And Bottom 50 Percent: 2001-2010 Chart
To contact us Click HERE
From The American, "The Left’s Flip-Flop on the Bush Tax Cuts" by Steve Conover:
Figure 1.
Source: The American Enterprise Institute
Presumably we want the rich to shoulder more of the tax burden. The Clinton-era top rate of 39.6 percent applied to income taxes; the Bush policy lowered this rate to 35 percent. But Figure 1 shows that, even though the top income tax rate went down, the top 10 percent of taxpayers ended up paying a higher share of income taxes after the Bush "tax cuts."*** First: is it wise to assume that a feel-good increase in the top tax rate will really extract a higher share of the total taxes from the top earners? If so, by all means, let’s proceed — but we should at least understand that recent history doesn’t necessarily support our case. Second: just what is a “fair share”? The top 10 percent of income tax payers paid 64 percent of the burden when Clinton left office, and they are paying significantly more of the burden today — so if they’re not paying their "fair share" yet, they were even further away from paying their "fair share" under Clinton.
US Would Have 15 Million More Jobs If It Had Recovered To Historical Job Trends
To contact us Click HERE
From AEIdeas, "The Jobs Gap | Missing: 15 million jobs from the private sector" by James Pethokoukis:
Source: AEIdeas
Not only do we need another 4 million private sector jobs to get back to the pre-Great Recession level, but we need a lot more to get private sector jobs back to the pre-Great Recession trend (as the above chart reflects).
A whole lot more. If the US economy had been generating jobs at its usual pace since 2007 until the present, the US would have roughly 15 million more private sector jobs right now. (Other folks calculate it a bit differently, but basically the range is between 13 million and 16 million.)
The Labor Force Continues To Decline
To contact us Click HERE
From The Wall Street Journal, "The Case of the Missing Workers" in Opinion:
Yet even as payrolls are rising, albeit slowly, the overall labor participation rate has continued to fall. In November, the share of the available labor force that is working fell to 63.6%, which is down from 65.7% when the recession ended in June 2009.Possible causes are early retirement of baby boomers and/or increased government benefits for not working, such as extended unemployment insurance and higher income eligibility levels for food stamps.
Mull that one over: Three years into an economic expansion, the labor participation rate has fallen two full percentage points and three times this year (including November) it has reached the lowest level since 1981. This means that about three million more workers were working or looking for work in 2009 than in November. In the last year alone, the number of working age nonworkers grew to 89.2 million from 86.8 million.
7 Aralık 2012 Cuma
Antiseptic Products Not Always Produced in Sterile Environments
To contact us Click HERE
From HealthDay News. We're talking alcohol wipes, Bandaids, individual packets of antiseptic creams, and all that other topical health & hygiene stuff that comes sealed until you open it.
"Antiseptics are meant to keep bacteria and other pathogens from entering the body through breaks in the skin, but sometimes these products can be contaminated with the very organisms they're supposed to guard against, new research shows.
In the Dec. 6 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration detail recent outbreaks that have occurred in products such as single-use alcohol swabs and pre-surgery antiseptics.
"It is important that health care providers be aware that topical antiseptic products, if contaminated, pose a risk of infection and that particular microbes isolated from clinical specimens have been traced to the contamination of such products," the FDA experts wrote in the report.
How can products that are supposed to kill germs contain germs?
"Nothing is 100 percent. Bacteria are really diverse and they're adapted to living in different environments," said Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. However, Hirsch added that he believes the FDA "should require sterilized manufacturing whenever possible."
Currently, companies that produce antiseptic products aren't required to manufacture these products in sterile environments.
The regulations surrounding the production of antiseptic products were designed in the 1970s. At the time, it was assumed that antiseptic products didn't need to be produced in a sterile environment, because experts believed that any pathogens present would be killed by the antiseptic.
But, according to the FDA researchers, a number of outbreaks associated with these products have been reported in medical journals and to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors also noted that there are probably more outbreaks related to these products than have been reported, because this method of contamination is quite difficult to detect.
"Sometimes it's really tricky to trace where an organism came from," explained Dr. Mohamed Fakih, medical director of infection prevention and control at St. John Hospital and Medical Center in Detroit. He said that most hospitals use one product to clean the skin before surgery, but even if that product is contaminated, not everyone will get sick from it. And, because everyone -- both the sick and healthy -- had the same product used on their skin, it's difficult to isolate the antiseptic as the cause of the infection.
In the case of single-use products, such as an alcohol swab, by the time someone has reported an infection, the packaging is gone and can't be tested for contamination, Fakih added.
Contamination of these products can occur during manufacturing or at the point of use, according to previous research. Products that have been found to be contaminated include iodophors (antiseptics that contain iodine), alcohol products, chlorhexidine gluconate (used in hand sanitizers and as a pre-surgical antiseptic), and quaternary ammonium (an antiseptic used to clean surgical and medical procedure equipment).
The FDA is currently reviewing whether or not sterile manufacturing should be mandated for topical antiseptics that are meant to be used on broken skin, such as from injury, medical procedures or surgery. Public hearings on the subject are scheduled for Dec. 12 and Dec. 13.
Fakih said he believes that these products should be manufactured under sterile conditions. If the FDA doesn't mandate sterile manufacturing processes, he said it would be very helpful if they at least mandated that labeling contain information about whether or not the product was manufactured in sterile conditions. He said it's very difficult to find that information right now.
Hirsch said when using these types of products, it's important to remember that "exceptions are exceptions. The products we're using are safe and helpful, and make a positive difference, but there's no 100 percent guarantee."
"Antiseptics are meant to keep bacteria and other pathogens from entering the body through breaks in the skin, but sometimes these products can be contaminated with the very organisms they're supposed to guard against, new research shows.
In the Dec. 6 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration detail recent outbreaks that have occurred in products such as single-use alcohol swabs and pre-surgery antiseptics.
"It is important that health care providers be aware that topical antiseptic products, if contaminated, pose a risk of infection and that particular microbes isolated from clinical specimens have been traced to the contamination of such products," the FDA experts wrote in the report.
How can products that are supposed to kill germs contain germs?
"Nothing is 100 percent. Bacteria are really diverse and they're adapted to living in different environments," said Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. However, Hirsch added that he believes the FDA "should require sterilized manufacturing whenever possible."
Currently, companies that produce antiseptic products aren't required to manufacture these products in sterile environments.
The regulations surrounding the production of antiseptic products were designed in the 1970s. At the time, it was assumed that antiseptic products didn't need to be produced in a sterile environment, because experts believed that any pathogens present would be killed by the antiseptic.
But, according to the FDA researchers, a number of outbreaks associated with these products have been reported in medical journals and to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors also noted that there are probably more outbreaks related to these products than have been reported, because this method of contamination is quite difficult to detect."Sometimes it's really tricky to trace where an organism came from," explained Dr. Mohamed Fakih, medical director of infection prevention and control at St. John Hospital and Medical Center in Detroit. He said that most hospitals use one product to clean the skin before surgery, but even if that product is contaminated, not everyone will get sick from it. And, because everyone -- both the sick and healthy -- had the same product used on their skin, it's difficult to isolate the antiseptic as the cause of the infection.
In the case of single-use products, such as an alcohol swab, by the time someone has reported an infection, the packaging is gone and can't be tested for contamination, Fakih added.
Contamination of these products can occur during manufacturing or at the point of use, according to previous research. Products that have been found to be contaminated include iodophors (antiseptics that contain iodine), alcohol products, chlorhexidine gluconate (used in hand sanitizers and as a pre-surgical antiseptic), and quaternary ammonium (an antiseptic used to clean surgical and medical procedure equipment).The FDA is currently reviewing whether or not sterile manufacturing should be mandated for topical antiseptics that are meant to be used on broken skin, such as from injury, medical procedures or surgery. Public hearings on the subject are scheduled for Dec. 12 and Dec. 13.
Fakih said he believes that these products should be manufactured under sterile conditions. If the FDA doesn't mandate sterile manufacturing processes, he said it would be very helpful if they at least mandated that labeling contain information about whether or not the product was manufactured in sterile conditions. He said it's very difficult to find that information right now.
Hirsch said when using these types of products, it's important to remember that "exceptions are exceptions. The products we're using are safe and helpful, and make a positive difference, but there's no 100 percent guarantee."
This Just In: Data Breaches Are a Growing Problem in Helathcare Organizations
To contact us Click HERE
From Medical News Today. This is where the smartphone and Obamacare collide--two equally disastrous inventions!
"Many healthcare organizations allow employees to bring smart phones, tablets and other sophisticated data-gathering devices into their offices and to connect to their networks or enterprise systems, the third annual study on Patient Privacy and Data Security revealed today.
The authors wonder whether BOYD (bring your own device) is a security hazard that healthcare organization are simply not aware of.
The report, published by the Ponemon Institute and the Health Information Trust Alliance, revealed that the healthcare industry continues lagging behind most other sectors of the economy regarding stopping data breaches.
The 2012 report states that 94% of 80 healthcare organizations that took part in a survey admitted to at least one data breach during the previous 24 months; 45% said they knew about at least five data breaches, compared to 29% in the previous report.
Over half of all the organizations surveyed said that they had at least one incident of medical identity theft. Only 18% said they were sure the theft was the result of a data breach - 32% said they were unsure.
Over half of all the health organizations said they had little or no confidence in their ability to detect breaches. Just 40% said they can confidently prevent or rapidly detect all patient data loss or theft.
Data breaches have cost US health organization $6.78 billion every year.
BOYD does help productivity, time and motion experts have shown. Technologies today which promise greater productivity and convenience include mobile devices, file-sharing apps and cloud-based services - all very hard to secure. There is the risk that somebody in the company may take some of the data somewhere else, including confidential patient information, where it could end up in the wrong hands.
The authors wrote:
Insider negligence main cause for data breaches
In 46% of data breaches, the employee's computing device was either lost or stolen, which the authors attribute to carelessness.
In 42% of cases, the breach was caused by employee mistakes or unintentional actions.
Third party SNAFUS is also a relatively common cause of data breaches.
The number of targeted criminal attacks on healthcare organization databases has also increased.
Among healthcare organizations that were covered in this report are:
Experts believe the number of data breaches is several times more than currently being reported, simply because most healthcare organizations do not have the means to detect them.
Of more concern is the low priority many leaders give to data breaches, the Ponemon Institute said. When compared to other sectors of the economy, such as banking, healthcare seems relatively unconcerned.
Medical devices, such as insulin pumps, mammogram imaging machines and wireless heart pumps have loads of sensitive patient data - most of them are connected wirelessly to commercial PCs and are vulnerable to cyber attacks. Most healthcare organizations do not secure their medical devices. The authors think that this is because organizations believe it is the responsibility of the medical device vendor to protect the products, and not theirs."
It's not just hospitals, either--if your doctor's office has electrtonic files, anyone with a smartphone and the same sort of apps can download your file and take it ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING with it...including delete it entirely. They can also figure out how to gain access to controlled drugs through someone else's insurance, and have it go on someone else's medical record. Social Security numbers are also vulnerable, opening up a whole new avenue for gaining credit based on YOUR job history and income.
Now, put the smartphone enthusiast together with the meth producer, and whadaya got?
"Many healthcare organizations allow employees to bring smart phones, tablets and other sophisticated data-gathering devices into their offices and to connect to their networks or enterprise systems, the third annual study on Patient Privacy and Data Security revealed today.
The authors wonder whether BOYD (bring your own device) is a security hazard that healthcare organization are simply not aware of.
The report, published by the Ponemon Institute and the Health Information Trust Alliance, revealed that the healthcare industry continues lagging behind most other sectors of the economy regarding stopping data breaches.
The 2012 report states that 94% of 80 healthcare organizations that took part in a survey admitted to at least one data breach during the previous 24 months; 45% said they knew about at least five data breaches, compared to 29% in the previous report.
Over half of all the organizations surveyed said that they had at least one incident of medical identity theft. Only 18% said they were sure the theft was the result of a data breach - 32% said they were unsure.
Over half of all the health organizations said they had little or no confidence in their ability to detect breaches. Just 40% said they can confidently prevent or rapidly detect all patient data loss or theft.
Data breaches have cost US health organization $6.78 billion every year.
BOYD does help productivity, time and motion experts have shown. Technologies today which promise greater productivity and convenience include mobile devices, file-sharing apps and cloud-based services - all very hard to secure. There is the risk that somebody in the company may take some of the data somewhere else, including confidential patient information, where it could end up in the wrong hands.
The authors wrote:
"Another worry presented in this research is that sophisticated and stealthy attacks by criminals have been steadily increasing since 2010.
The price tag for dealing with these breaches can be staggering. While the cost can range from $10,000 to more than $1 million, we calculate that the average cost for the organizations represented in this benchmark study is $2.4 million over a two-year period. This is up slightly from $2.2 million in 2011 and $2.1 million in 2010."
Insider negligence main cause for data breaches
In 46% of data breaches, the employee's computing device was either lost or stolen, which the authors attribute to carelessness.
In 42% of cases, the breach was caused by employee mistakes or unintentional actions.
Third party SNAFUS is also a relatively common cause of data breaches.
The number of targeted criminal attacks on healthcare organization databases has also increased.
How secure are these devices?
The authors explained that when they asked healthcare organizations how confident they were that the devices their employees bring into the office and take home are secure, the most typical answer was that they were not confident at all.Among healthcare organizations that were covered in this report are:
- Hospitals/clinics that are part of a network - 46%
- Integrated delivery systems - 36%
- Standalone hospitals/clinics - 18%
What should hospitals do to curb data breaches?
The authors say that they should:
- Carry out a privacy risk assessment
- Identify organizational gaps
- Create a policy which includes detailed guidelines on all mobile devices for all contractors and employees.
- When they create the policy, it should address the security risks and explain clearly which procedures must be followed
- The healthcare organization's mobile device policy should educate employees on why their mobile devices should be secure and safeguarded, as well as what risky behaviors to avoid
Experts believe the number of data breaches is several times more than currently being reported, simply because most healthcare organizations do not have the means to detect them.
Of more concern is the low priority many leaders give to data breaches, the Ponemon Institute said. When compared to other sectors of the economy, such as banking, healthcare seems relatively unconcerned.
Medical devices, such as insulin pumps, mammogram imaging machines and wireless heart pumps have loads of sensitive patient data - most of them are connected wirelessly to commercial PCs and are vulnerable to cyber attacks. Most healthcare organizations do not secure their medical devices. The authors think that this is because organizations believe it is the responsibility of the medical device vendor to protect the products, and not theirs."
It's not just hospitals, either--if your doctor's office has electrtonic files, anyone with a smartphone and the same sort of apps can download your file and take it ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING with it...including delete it entirely. They can also figure out how to gain access to controlled drugs through someone else's insurance, and have it go on someone else's medical record. Social Security numbers are also vulnerable, opening up a whole new avenue for gaining credit based on YOUR job history and income.
Now, put the smartphone enthusiast together with the meth producer, and whadaya got?
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)