Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Heightsite

Obama signs executive order giving him & congress control over all media

Recommended Posts

Hello Police State....

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6180/obama-signs-executive-order-giving-him-and-federal-government-control-of-all-forms-of-communication-under-any-circumstance/#.UAXPWpKq8mk.email

“The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience. The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications policies, programs, and capabilities.”

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6180/obama-signs-executive-order-giving-him-and-federal-government-control-of-all-forms-of-communication-under-any-circumstance/#ixzz20vDVH96H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, get a life and stop worrying about everything Obama does. This is a good thing. It's an extension of emergency preparedness dating back to 1984, but bringing the government up to today's tech world. It's making sure the government can get the bandwidth and information it needs during times of disaster. We all know how cell towers and and networks get clogged already when an emergency hits. This makes sure the government can take over (if needed) so they can save lives instead of letting people Tweet "OMG end of wrld hpning. Btr grb last latte 2 go :)"

http://www.zdnet.com/foreign-news-outlets-cynically-bash-americas-new-emergency-communications-executive-order-7000000554/

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heightsite, whose side are you on?

On the other hand, depending on where you read the news, you might get a completely different perspective. For example, take RT.com. RT stands for Russia Today -- so you know their perspective. If you read RT's article, you'd read "Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, get a life and stop worrying about everything Obama does. This is a good thing. It's an extension of emergency preparedness dating back to 1984, but bringing the government up to today's tech world. It's making sure the government can get the bandwidth and information it needs during times of disaster. We all know how cell towers and and networks get clogged already when an emergency hits. This makes sure the government can take over (if needed) so they can save lives instead of letting people Tweet "OMG end of wrld hpning. Btr grb last latte 2 go :)"

http://www.zdnet.com...der-7000000554/

You could even say it dates back to 1951, when CONELRAD was established to provide emergency broadcasting. I don't see how this executive order makes us a police state if it's for emergencies only, has been around in one form or another for over 60 years, and hasn't even been activated since the modern EAS was implemented over 15 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, get a life and stop worrying about everything Obama does. This is a good thing. It's an extension of emergency preparedness dating back to 1984, but bringing the government up to today's tech world. It's making sure the government can get the bandwidth and information it needs during times of disaster. We all know how cell towers and and networks get clogged already when an emergency hits. This makes sure the government can take over (if needed) so they can save lives instead of letting people Tweet "OMG end of wrld hpning. Btr grb last latte 2 go :)"

http://www.zdnet.com...der-7000000554/

I can respect that position.

The fact is that one of our own military tactics is to knock out all military command and control infrastructure at the outset of any hostile conflict. It is a highly effective tactic. If a foreign power attempted to do the same to us in a first strike and was even 20% successful, then civil and military demand for bandwidth would spike instantly and cause problems for all users. That wouldn't be good for anybody. It could be catastrophic.

OTOH, put politics aside. Whether or not any of us trusts Obama or trusted Bush or anybody that's running for office, it is not clear that all presidents are trustworthy or will continue to be trustworthy. It is a legitimate debate as to the amount of power that should be held by an American presidency. Look at what happened in Egypt when things got rough for Murabak. I could imagine that happening here and wouldn't want it to.

Perhaps the price of an insurance policy against tyranny is that the government needs to be able to support its own independent and highly redundant communication infrastructure (which may be wise, just to keep foreign hackers out of the network) or that government should develop redundant fiberoptic trunklines and well-shielded data centers that could be switched on if necessary to handle a bandwidth spike.

Or perhaps, in general, defense spending is the price of relative assurance that an organized foreign power does not attempt such a thing in the first place.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Niche

As a software and web developer who supports a free, open, and neutral internet... I really have no problem with government taking over any resource needed (if needed) during an emergency. I would love to see the government build the type of network you describe (they probably have something setup already). That said, if that network were to fail... they still should be able to take over what they need in order to protect the public.

Let's not forget that the government gave us the internet to begin with. Also, people don't understand how the internet works if they think the US government can just "take it all over". Even if someone were to come in and wanted to abuse their authority to turn America into a communist/socialist state... it would not be possible. just look at China as an example. They continue to struggle with blocking sites and stopping the flow of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone is worried about the government having the power in a real emergency to do it - the real question is what the considers an emergency....for instance if we had an anti-obama uprising being fueled by some right wing extremist group sometime around election day...those people may be able to disrupt the ability of the police/local authorities to ensure that everyone has an equal right to vote...now suppose Obama saw that as an emergency and shut down cell towers, twitter, facebook, and other popular forms of social media to control their ability to communicate.

It may be highly effective in curtailing a small revolt like that in terms of communication, but was the loss of systems for law abiding citizens really worth that? It really depends on what type of emergency qualifies and who has the power to authorize its use...ifs its a full congressional authority type of law its less prone to abuse, especially when we have split houses. But if the power rests on Obama himself - then I don't blame anyone for being a skeptic. Obama has proven himself to be incompetent and at times dictatorial...people who question his policies and authority are not all crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Niche

As a software and web developer who supports a free, open, and neutral internet... I really have no problem with government taking over any resource needed (if needed) during an emergency. I would love to see the government build the type of network you describe (they probably have something setup already). That said, if that network were to fail... they still should be able to take over what they need in order to protect the public.

Let's not forget that the government gave us the internet to begin with. Also, people don't understand how the internet works if they think the US government can just "take it all over". Even if someone were to come in and wanted to abuse their authority to turn America into a communist/socialist state... it would not be possible. just look at China as an example. They continue to struggle with blocking sites and stopping the flow of information.

My principle concern is that an emergency might be manufactured or perpetuated by artificial means or that a president might overreach, testing the boundary of their authority. Even if they're not capable of completely quashing the public realm, stating that the worst case scenario is akin to Chinese internet is 1) misleading I think, because there are worse possible scenarios, and 2) still undesirable.

If it is time to revise those powers claimed by the presidency on the basis of advanced communications technology, then perhaps it is also time to revise those rights reserved by the people pursuant to the first amendment. Or perhaps executive privilege needs to be more explicitly defined in a 28th amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ifs its a full congressional authority type of law its less prone to abuse, especially when we have split houses.

That's precisely the problem. Do you honestly believe congress would be able to react in an emergency... quickly?

When an emergency happens, someone has to be able to call the shots quickly and you don't have time for debates. If the president were to abuse his power, citizens would have the opportunity to vote him out if they didn't feel it was just. Simple as that. Plus, any president should know that depriving citizens of Facebook and sports scores better have a darn good reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is dangerous, just like many other things the President does. He currently asserts the right to kill Americans with a drone strike without so much as an indictment against them for a crime. Due process is not judicial process, says his AG.

Edited by kylejack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's precisely the problem. Do you honestly believe congress would be able to react in an emergency... quickly?

When an emergency happens, someone has to be able to call the shots quickly and you don't have time for debates. If the president were to abuse his power, citizens would have the opportunity to vote him out if they didn't feel it was just. Simple as that. Plus, any president should know that depriving citizens of Facebook and sports scores better have a darn good reason.

In a real emergency? Yes - In a politically created or motivated emergency? No....I have quite a bit more faith in our government to act properly and in a bipartisan way in the event of a real emergency.... Unfortunately I think the only types of emergencies that could trigger something like this may be political in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My head hurts from rolling my eyes so hard.

Is it possible for Obama to do ANYTHING without people freaking out and thinking he has some hidden agenda or secret plan to destroy you? Every critique I hear about him (or a policy he has pushed for) is some "what if" or "this could happen in the future..." boogyman scenario that hasn't happened and probably never will. In fact, you can come up with any crazy "what if/it might happen" scenario for anyone and anything. I sure hope you guys don't live your lives constantly in fear.

Back when I used to complain about Bush, it was for ACTUAL things he was doing AT THAT MOMENT. ("Well, we just invaded a country for no reason." "Well, he just declared mission accomplished in a flight suit even though soliders are still dying." "Well, he just passed tax cuts for the wealthy." "Hmm, he's currently authorizing secret prisons and is allowing torture to happen right now.")

Edited by brian0123
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are highly cautious about granting the President any more power b/c he has already shown his absolute disdain for the legislative process....

1. He refuses to enforce immigration laws, bypassed congress by directing ICE to stop deporting non-felony illegal immigrants, and issuing work visas to people here illegally (basically the DREAM act)

2. He refuses to enforce actual election laws when non-whites are the perpetrators - dropped the case against the new black panthers in 2010

3. He refuses to enfoce the laws when it comes to gay marriage (which I dont actually care about, but its another example)

4. He unilaterally changed welfare laws by waiving the requirement you actually work

5. He bypassed congress by sending funds frozen by Congress to Palestine

6. He bypassed congress by unilaterally using policy to control EPA emissions in spite of congress blocking his laws to do so

7. He bypassed congress when he sent money to the Muslim Brotherhood

8. He bypassed congress when he appointed 3 members to the NLB board when congress was in session

9 He negotiates with the UN to reduce American influence throughout the world

10. He is fighting the states on simple state rights issues like requiring ID to vote (how heinous)

11. He is misusing executive privilege by is stonewalling fast & Furious

12. He crammed healthcare reform down everyones throats

13. He intentionally incites racial violence....Trayvon Martin, Professor and police acted stupidly, etc

14. He is actively recruiting people to sign up for food stamps and other government assistance programs by attempting to remove the stigma associated with being a leach on society

15. He is constantly attacking businesses and successful individuals by outright stating that he thinks the government solves all our problems - when in reality the government is creating them.

16. Killed the Keystone pipeline to appease his crazy environmental wacko base....

I can go on and on and on....He is the worst president in my lifetime....its pretty easy NOT to trust someone like Obama, when he says one thing and does another...if given another term it is extremely reasonable to expect that his policies and dictatorial tendencies will only grow as he no longer has to appear even remotely neutral....

Finally, in regards to most of your complaints about Bush

1. Obama kept Gitmo open

2. Obama has increased drone strikes worldwide

3. Obama spiked the football repeatedly when the seals caught Osama Bin Laden

4. Obama has transferred more money from the working class to the government class than Bush ever cut to the "wealthy" which is ridiculous class warfare.

5. Obama has continued the secret prisions

6. Obama has continued the torture techniques

So what have we gotten from Obama? The largest increase in the defecit ever....Highest unemployment in years, class envy & class warfare, the worst race relations we have ever had in my lifetime, a health insurance program that has zero chance of working....Ya, he is terrible.

Obama is a one trick pony - His plan for reelection is simple. The rich have too much, corporations are evil, and the government can provide for you....He knows that will not be enough to get him reelected so he went ahead and bypassed congress with ICE deportations, and then fights diligently to ensure that no id is ever required to vote...if you can't sit back and objectively look at everything this president has done and be deeply disturbed by it, then you are most likely a recipient of one of his policies, ie a government worker, a union member, a contractor who benefits from government compliance costs, a teacher, a lawyer, or unemployed.

Nearly all productive industry where things are actually being accomplished in this country (not merely the service industry or the banks) realize how much he has done to kill this country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have time to address most of your points but I will comment on some....

Finally, in regards to most of your complaints about Bush

1. Obama kept Gitmo open

2. Obama has increased drone strikes worldwide

3. Obama spiked the football repeatedly when the seals caught Osama Bin Laden

4. Obama has transferred more money from the working class to the government class than Bush ever cut to the "wealthy" which is ridiculous class warfare.

5. Obama has continued the secret prisions

6. Obama has continued the torture techniques

1. Good

2. Good

3. Irrelevant

4. I dont have an opinion right now.

5. Good.

6. Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have time to address most of your points but I will comment on some....

1. Good

2. Good

3. Irrelevant

4. I dont have an opinion right now.

5. Good.

6. Good.

I dont disagree with you...Im glad we do drone strikes, kept gitmo open, torture terrorists, kept the secret prisons...

The Bin Laden Happy dance was obnoxious b/c it came a whole day or two after he said he wasn't going to do it. Then he let the press into the situation room and granted hollywood supporters access to secret intel in order to do a movie about it that will, I am sure, portray their hero Obama as our savior.

And the class warfare & wealth transfers I am highly opinionated on....His theory that you cant build something and succeed without government is wrong on so many levels...The government did not create the things that allowed the country to succeed. Education/roads/cars all of it would exist without the government....just in a very different form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when I used to complain about Bush, it was for ACTUAL things he was doing AT THAT MOMENT. ("Well, we just invaded a country for no reason." "Well, he just declared mission accomplished in a flight suit even though soliders are still dying." "Well, he just passed tax cuts for the wealthy." "Hmm, he's currently authorizing secret prisons and is allowing torture to happen right now.")

No worries, he's doing plenty of actual things as well, like extrajudicial assassination of an American teenager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So people...how about we not talk about Obama or Bush? How about we talk about the implications of American democracy in the 21st century? You know, as a system with roles and titles but without faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure greed is destroying this country more then anything. All of our money goes to China, they have almost every blueprint to EVERYTHING. Including military hard/software. They are pouring money into their science and education programs, while we cut back and do nothing.

Forget the debt, class war, democrat vs. republican. If we can't get this country educated and innovative (while building, manufacturing, designing things here), and not some cheaper country, then we're doomed.

Sorry for ranting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure greed is destroying this country more then anything. All of our money goes to China, they have almost every blueprint to EVERYTHING. Including military hard/software. They are pouring money into their science and education programs, while we cut back and do nothing.

Forget the debt, class war, democrat vs. republican. If we can't get this country educated and innovative (while building, manufacturing, designing things here), and not some cheaper country, then we're doomed.

Sorry for ranting.

I agree with you 100% and I suspect most people on both sides of the isle do as well - the difference between the political parties is the method of doing what you just said. All of the social programs that Democrats push are disincentives to actually go improve your situation.

Democrats believe if they make life easier for those who have it hard that it will enable them to improve their situation more easily. If they dont have to worry about food/rent health care they can concentrate on school....unfortunately many of the people receiving benefits are content with a life of doing nothing and being provided for....So they want to raise tax rates on those who have more to enable them to provide for those who have less.

Republicans, in general, believe that if you reward someone who is successful, that he in turn will reward those who work for him. A single good idea may need 10 people to implement it, or it may need ten thousand. Without the incentive of wealth to bring your good idea to market people would just say, why bother?

I believe wholeheartedly that the only way to put this country on a strong footing is through science, engineering and manufacturing. Those are the things that made this country great. An economy based entirely on banking, finances, and service is doomed to fail. I don't remember the statistic but it was something like 70% or more of our economy is now in the service or retail business. That is unsustainable. We must diversify the economy to avoid these massive swings. We are building countries like China and India by outsourcing our jobs and selling our intellectual property.

The only way for us to build a strong manufacturing and development environment is for people to accept the fact that they will have to put in a real days work in real world conditions. Couple real work with the government stepping back and letting business function and we have it!....the regulation and paperwork required to just operate is onerous and needs to be shortened. I personally do paperwork for something like 14 different government reports at our business and most of them take between 1 and 4 days to complete. I spend about 12-15% of my time doing reports that generate nothing and are never read unless they determine that they want to fine us or audit us for something. Its counterproductive.

Lets get rid of government constraints and let business do what business does best. Build things and employ people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100% and I suspect most people on both sides of the isle do as well - the difference between the political parties is the method of doing what you just said. All of the social programs that Democrats push are disincentives to actually go improve your situation.

Democrats believe if they make life easier for those who have it hard that it will enable them to improve their situation more easily. If they dont have to worry about food/rent health care they can concentrate on school....unfortunately many of the people receiving benefits are content with a life of doing nothing and being provided for....So they want to raise tax rates on those who have more to enable them to provide for those who have less.

Republicans, in general, believe that if you reward someone who is successful, that he in turn will reward those who work for him. A single good idea may need 10 people to implement it, or it may need ten thousand. Without the incentive of wealth to bring your good idea to market people would just say, why bother?

I believe wholeheartedly that the only way to put this country on a strong footing is through science, engineering and manufacturing. Those are the things that made this country great. An economy based entirely on banking, finances, and service is doomed to fail. I don't remember the statistic but it was something like 70% or more of our economy is now in the service or retail business. That is unsustainable. We must diversify the economy to avoid these massive swings. We are building countries like China and India by outsourcing our jobs and selling our intellectual property.

The only way for us to build a strong manufacturing and development environment is for people to accept the fact that they will have to put in a real days work in real world conditions. Couple real work with the government stepping back and letting business function and we have it!....the regulation and paperwork required to just operate is onerous and needs to be shortened. I personally do paperwork for something like 14 different government reports at our business and most of them take between 1 and 4 days to complete. I spend about 12-15% of my time doing reports that generate nothing and are never read unless they determine that they want to fine us or audit us for something. Its counterproductive.

Lets get rid of government constraints and let business do what business does best. Build things and employ people.

Agreed. But some regulations are needed. There has to be a happy medium, but unfortunately the see-saw keeps swinging... I really hope everyone wakes up and realizes that the debates we have now are petty in comparisons to the bigger picture.

It may not be China who uses our products against us, but anyone in the black market could purchase designs to put our business (and military) out.

I'm happy for China, India and other emerging economies, but we're basically signing our future away for a higher profit in the short run.

Edited by Montrose1100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure greed is destroying this country more then anything. All of our money goes to China, they have almost every blueprint to EVERYTHING. Including military hard/software. They are pouring money into their science and education programs, while we cut back and do nothing.

Forget the debt, class war, democrat vs. republican. If we can't get this country educated and innovative (while building, manufacturing, designing things here), and not some cheaper country, then we're doomed.

Sorry for ranting.

1. It starts at home with the family. And they are failing us.

2. Our public schools have failed us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. A political post turning somewhat civil, reasonable and mildly interesting. Who would have thunk it? :P

Keep going.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic?

Compared to what usually passes for political discourse here - yes.

Obama sucks. No- Bush sucked more and longer. Romney won't even get the chance to suck is how is usually goes.

There were actually a couple of mildly interesting comments made that I was hoping would take the thread in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I was responding to the OP, who ranted that this topic had been locked.

Oops. Sorry. Scurries back to lurking now.... :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that Obama is moving in the direction of marriage equality. I know some of you don't, and that's ok... But, at the same time, I dont like his other policies (healthcare for one).

I think he will be elected again, I can't remember the last time a president only served one term. I could look it up but I'm lazy, time for bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that Obama is moving in the direction of marriage equality. I know some of you don't, and that's ok... But, at the same time, I dont like his other policies (healthcare for one).

I think he will be elected again, I can't remember the last time a president only served one term. I could look it up but I'm lazy, time for bed.

What in particular do you not like about the healthcare reform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What in particular do you not like about the healthcare reform?

The single largest thing not to like about reform is the lack of access to care under the new plan. Currently if you have a good job with good insurance you can get good care and you can get it fast. Under the new plan everyone becomes insured...The reimbursement rates that the government has set for the care are so low that employers who do not drop their high quality coverage will eventually become priced out of their markets....some employers are large enough it wont matter, but smaller employers will universally drop their coverage in favor of the far cheaper government plan.

Democrats would have you believe that is a good thing because there is savings to be had in terms of sheer volume getting better pricing....Its not true though because there simply are not enough doctors to meet the new demand. Right now if you don't have insurance you only goto the doctor when you are very sick because it is too expensive to just wander into a doctors office (or the doctor wont accept patients without insurance)....People without insurance go to rediclinics or other PA run places b/c they are cheaper than a doctor....but once everyone has insurance, people will expect to be able to use it. These people who currently don't go to the doctor will start going to the doctor more often because they have paid for it and expect a service for what they have paid.

So now a hard working person, who has done everything right their whole life, and has earned better access to care is going to placed in the same line for health care with people who do not work nearly as hard as they do, and legitimately have not earned the same access to care...The law puts everyone on the same plan with the same priorities. So the accountant or lawyer who is far more productive, actually pays taxes, and has a net positive impact on our Economy has insurance dropped from a great plan, to the same plan as the people who have not worked as hard as he and whom are detractors from our economy....actually consuming more services than they contribute back.

One size fits all care does not work. It sounds cruel but there are not enough doctors to care for the productive and the non-productive. There needs to be a graduated scale for care.

Look at it from a primary care physicians perspective......College + Med School = $200,000. Time lost with zero income -8 years. Residency -3 years- income $30,000 (hardly a living wage for a doctor)....this doctor can now be a primary care physician....12 years and over $200,000 in debt....Monthly payments on that $200,000 loan over 15 years $1687/month. Median primary doctors income $168,000.....that puts them in the 28% tax bracket...take home pay of approximately $120,000/yr...minus their annual student loans of $20,244 = $99,750.

Why would a person put themselves through that much school for 11 years of their life, to earn $99,000? They could have gotten an engineering degree in 1/3 of the time, started working, and been earning $99,000 within 4 years....if they are smart enough to be a doctor they are likely to be in the $125-$200,000 range in engineering by year 10....

The incentive for a doctor just isnt there and the programs that the government offers are not nearly a strong enough incentive.

There are lots of other bad things about the law...the reduction in govt payments for medicare/medicaid has already driven doctors away from accepting new patients, and a recent survey I read showed that something like 30% of doctors that are currently in their 50s or above plan to retire or close thier practice rather than take the new rates and mandates...turns out doctors wont work for free....even if you legislate that they have to.

Edited by Marksmu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The single largest thing not to like about reform is the lack of access to care under the new plan. Currently if you have a good job with good insurance you can get good care and you can get it fast. Under the new plan everyone becomes insured...The reimbursement rates that the government has set for the care are so low that employers who do not drop their high quality coverage will eventually become priced out of their markets....some employers are large enough it wont matter, but smaller employers will universally drop their coverage in favor of the far cheaper government plan.

Democrats would have you believe that is a good thing because there is savings to be had in terms of sheer volume getting better pricing....Its not true though because there simply are not enough doctors to meet the new demand. Right now if you don't have insurance you only goto the doctor when you are very sick because it is too expensive to just wander into a doctors office (or the doctor wont accept patients without insurance)....People without insurance go to rediclinics or other PA run places b/c they are cheaper than a doctor....but once everyone has insurance, people will expect to be able to use it. These people who currently don't go to the doctor will start going to the doctor more often because they have paid for it and expect a service for what they have paid.

So now a hard working person, who has done everything right their whole life, and has earned better access to care is going to placed in the same line for health care with people who do not work nearly as hard as they do, and legitimately have not earned the same access to care...The law puts everyone on the same plan with the same priorities. So the accountant or lawyer who is far more productive, actually pays taxes, and has a net positive impact on our Economy has insurance dropped from a great plan, to the same plan as the people who have not worked as hard as he and whom are detractors from our economy....actually consuming more services than they contribute back.

One size fits all care does not work. It sounds cruel but there are not enough doctors to care for the productive and the non-productive. There needs to be a graduated scale for care.

Look at it from a primary care physicians perspective......College + Med School = $200,000. Time lost with zero income -8 years. Residency -3 years- income $30,000 (hardly a living wage for a doctor)....this doctor can now be a primary care physician....12 years and over $200,000 in debt....Monthly payments on that $200,000 loan over 15 years $1687/month. Median primary doctors income $168,000.....that puts them in the 28% tax bracket...take home pay of approximately $120,000/yr...minus their annual student loans of $20,244 = $99,750.

Why would a person put themselves through that much school for 11 years of their life, to earn $99,000? They could have gotten an engineering degree in 1/3 of the time, started working, and been earning $99,000 within 4 years....if they are smart enough to be a doctor they are likely to be in the $125-$200,000 range in engineering by year 10....

The incentive for a doctor just isnt there and the programs that the government offers are not nearly a strong enough incentive.

There are lots of other bad things about the law...the reduction in govt payments for medicare/medicaid has already driven doctors away from accepting new patients, and a recent survey I read showed that something like 30% of doctors that are currently in their 50s or above plan to retire or close thier practice rather than take the new rates and mandates...turns out doctors wont work for free....even if you legislate that they have to.

There is simply so much untruth and speculation in this post that I won't post a long response, but just say that it is untrue. I see doctors often without insurance. I've had to, since insurance was unaffordable under the old rules. If Obamacare lowers prices, I am all for it...and I am a small businessman.

Obamacare is not one size fits all. That is the propaganda put out by opponents. And, if there are currently enough doctors to serve the people with insurance PLUS the uninsured who go to emergency rooms, then there will be enough doctors to serve them when they have insurance. Frankly, the reason that healthcare cost so much is that doctors over-practice, giving numerous unneeded tests to drive up the bill. Maybe now they will stop doing so, since more people will have insurance.

I don't know any poor doctors, so I am unsympathetic to their supposed plight. When they make what I make, or less, I'll start to feel sorry for them.

I find it strange that conservatives are complaining that government funded Medicare payments are dropping. Maybe all of this deficit spending rhetoric is just deficit spending rhetoric. They do it on defense spending, too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to summarize.

American healthcare was thousand dollarsed, is thousand dollarsed, and will continue to be thousand dollarsed.

Every party's deficit spending rhetoric is a different flavor of absurd that nobody honestly believes in. Every party's deficit cutting rhetoric is superficial, and thousand dollarsing meaningless. No need to worry, just get young people to pay for it. They're young; thousand dollars'em.

That is why I object to Obamacare (and every other politically feasible outcome regardless of the party in power). There is not and cannot be justice.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is simply so much untruth and speculation in this post that I won't post a long response, but just say that it is untrue. I see doctors often without insurance. I've had to, since insurance was unaffordable under the old rules. If Obamacare lowers prices, I am all for it...and I am a small businessman.

Try going to a surgeon without health insurance....try getting an elective surgery, like an ACL repair without insurance. They will not do it....unless you pay cash in advance of the procedure. Most people who cant afford insurance don't have $35,000 laying around to book an O.R. anesthesiologist, and a surgeon. So good luck with that.

Obamacare is not one size fits all. That is the propaganda put out by opponents. And, if there are currently enough doctors to serve the people with insurance PLUS the uninsured who go to emergency rooms, then there will be enough doctors to serve them when they have insurance. Frankly, the reason that healthcare cost so much is that doctors over-practice, giving numerous unneeded tests to drive up the bill. Maybe now they will stop doing so, since more people will have insurance.

Under the ACA there are relatively few choices of significance. That is not propaganda or misinformation....The law states what must be covered and every single plan in America must fit that bill. What must be covered is so broad, that it is essentially comprehensive insurance for everyone....I am intimately aware of the nuances of this law. I run a self insured health care trust for our company and I purchase health care for more than 800 lives . I have been through over 30 classes, lectures, and compliance lunches and they are all being put on by compliance experts, many of whom favor the law...ie, not people I politically agree with.

Doctors do over practice, but the run-up of the bill is just as much to blame on lawyers as doctors. What is needed in this regard is significantly more patient education. Doctors do not spend enough time talking to patients about their options and the costs of those options. They just come in and tell you what is happening. That is a problem, the ACA did not solve that problem...it just blanket dictates what tests are authorized for what symptoms. Its basically a redi-clinic for all doctors who want to be paid. If your patient does not have all of the symptoms necessary to justify the test it will be denied coverage.

I don't know any poor doctors, so I am unsympathetic to their supposed plight. When they make what I make, or less, I'll start to feel sorry for them.

Well I for one do feel sorry for them. They provide an extremely valuable service and to make ends meat now they have see WAY too many patients in order to make what they deserve, or they have to charge an annual fee just to have access to them

Our pediatrician is trying to make it without doing either, and I dont see how much longer she can do it. I told my daughters pediatrician the other day that I felt sorry for her....I told her that I got her bill from the last time we visited for my daughters fever and sore throat and that I was not sure how she could stay in business based on the rate of pay the insurance gave her.

We called for an appointment, got one, saw a nurse for about 5 minutes to go through the temperature, weight, height, etc....then the doctor came in talked to us for about 10 minutes about her symptoms and how everything was going - answered another 5 minutes of unrelated child health care questions, and then did a step test. We used about about 15 minutes of the doctors time, 5 minutes of the nurses time...couple that with building rent, medical record filing staff, receptionist, and insurance and her overhead is pretty substantial. I paid my co-pay $15 and she billed insurance $185....her time, plus lab work on the strep test. My insurance paid - $18....so on my visit she received $33 and I was being tended to for about 20 minutes..

Why would anyone go through all that school/money for such a pathetic sum of money? Doctors deserve to make more so that we always have the best in the medical field...take away the incentive to be a doctor and you will be left with terrible doctors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try going to a surgeon without health insurance....try getting an elective surgery, like an ACL repair without insurance. They will not do it....unless you pay cash in advance of the procedure. Most people who cant afford insurance don't have $35,000 laying around to book an O.R. anesthesiologist, and a surgeon. So good luck with that.

Under the ACA there are relatively few choices of significance. That is not propaganda or misinformation....The law states what must be covered and every single plan in America must fit that bill. What must be covered is so broad, that it is essentially comprehensive insurance for everyone....I am intimately aware of the nuances of this law. I run a self insured health care trust for our company and I purchase health care for more than 800 lives . I have been through over 30 classes, lectures, and compliance lunches and they are all being put on by compliance experts, many of whom favor the law...ie, not people I politically agree with.

Being someone intimately involved with purchasing healthcare plans, what is the name of the "government plan" that you are saying that companies can sign up for?

Edited by kylejack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not currently a name for any plan in Texas as they are not available yet. All major carriers though (Blue Cross, Aetna, UMR, etc) are expected to administer the plans but nothing has happened yet. Texas has chosen not to extend some of the benefits, and its still undecided how that is going to play out. Under the ACA the states were supposed to lose funding for not complying, but that was the one part of the ACA the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional...As its not currently required by law none of the carriers are offering anything yet as their base plan is more profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not currently a name for any plan in Texas as they are not available yet. All major carriers though (Blue Cross, Aetna, UMR, etc) are expected to administer the plans but nothing has happened yet. Texas has chosen not to extend some of the benefits, and its still undecided how that is going to play out. Under the ACA the states were supposed to lose funding for not complying, but that was the one part of the ACA the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional...As its not currently required by law none of the carriers are offering anything yet as their base plan is more profitable.

I'm not aware of a government plan. What I've heard of is they're going to create a market where you can shop private market plans.

Large companies have been required to offer HMO for their employees for some time now. Small companies have not been required to, and I don't think Obamacare forces them to either. Obamacare does have an individual mandate, though, whereby if you make over a certain amount you have to either buy a plan or pay more taxes not to buy a plan.

Edited by kylejack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the requirements of the ACA such as no preexisting condition exclusions, no cost coverage of birth control no wait for benefits to begin, etc will quickly bankrupt employer sponsored plans. That is, at least I believe, the governments plan all along as they really want a single payer system anyway.

The expectation among the professionals I deal with is that the states will each end up offering a government plan at a reduced price from federal subsidies and it will be administered through existing TPA's such as blue cross or united, etc. Essentially the only options will be deductible and max out of pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always tell when an ACA opponent is lying through his teeth. How? When they say this...

Many of the requirements of the ACA such as...no cost coverage of birth control...

Pregnancies, which are covered by insurance, cost thousands of dollars. In 2007, the average full term pregnancy cost over $7500. C-sections averaged nearly $11,000. A premature delivery averaged over $51,000.

And the cost to insurance companies to avoid all of that through birth control? As little as $16 per month.

It takes a special kind of math to claim that the $16 prevention will bankrupt the insurance company, but the $11,000 C-section will not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always tell when an ACA opponent is lying through his teeth. How? When they say this...

Pregnancies, which are covered by insurance, cost thousands of dollars. In 2007, the average full term pregnancy cost over $7500. C-sections averaged nearly $11,000. A premature delivery averaged over $51,000.

And the cost to insurance companies to avoid all of that through birth control? As little as $16 per month.

It takes a special kind of math to claim that the $16 prevention will bankrupt the insurance company, but the $11,000 C-section will not.

Correct, it is in the financial interest of insurances companies to provide birth control. That's why almost all of them do. Many of the ones that don't have an ideological objection, not a financial one (such as the Catholic Church).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always tell when an ACA opponent is lying through his teeth. How? When they say this...

Pregnancies, which are covered by insurance, cost thousands of dollars. In 2007, the average full term pregnancy cost over $7500. C-sections averaged nearly $11,000. A premature delivery averaged over $51,000.

And the cost to insurance companies to avoid all of that through birth control? As little as $16 per month.

It takes a special kind of math to claim that the $16 prevention will bankrupt the insurance company, but the $11,000 C-section will not.

I used birth control as an example b/c it is the most talked about & debated drug. There are actually a litany of free pharmaceutical products included in the act...Most are preventative care type that are supposed to reduce future illness costs, but there is no such thing as free anything....if the insurance company previously charged the individual for the drug, now they must charge the whole group. Its not free. Instead of a single person paying for their own lifestyle, everyone must pay for it. Its the democrats mentality....its cheaper for most people if everyone pays for it. However most people is not all people. Under the ACA an 18 yr old male in great health is now subsidizing birth control for a woman,b/c she is unable or unwilling to be personally responsible and pay $16/mo to not get pregnant.

Its always easy to tell when your talking to an uninformed supporter of the ACA because they make ridiculous statements like pregnancy is covered by insurance. It has been and continues to be an option for an employer to choose to cover or to exclude.

There is no question that a pregnancy costs much more than a bottle pills. However, many insurance policies, exclude pregnancy. Ours does not and most employer provided comprehensive plans do not. However all individual plans that you buy outside of a group option, ie directly from Blue Cross, or United, do exclude pregnancy....if you are a woman its specifically excluded unless you pay extra for it....

You need to do more research on Group/Individual health insurance plans before you make blatantly incorrect statements like the one above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush Sr.

Before that Carter and before that Ford. That's three within the last nine elections. Apparently, and thankfully, the electorate is not so tolerant of that which displeases them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used birth control as an example b/c it is the most talked about & debated drug. There are actually a litany of free pharmaceutical products included in the act...Most are preventative care type that are supposed to reduce future illness costs, but there is no such thing as free anything....if the insurance company previously charged the individual for the drug, now they must charge the whole group. Its not free. Instead of a single person paying for their own lifestyle, everyone must pay for it. Its the democrats mentality....its cheaper for most people if everyone pays for it. However most people is not all people. Under the ACA an 18 yr old male in great health is now subsidizing birth control for a woman,b/c she is unable or unwilling to be personally responsible and pay $16/mo to not get pregnant.

Its always easy to tell when your talking to an uninformed supporter of the ACA because they make ridiculous statements like pregnancy is covered by insurance. It has been and continues to be an option for an employer to choose to cover or to exclude.

There is no question that a pregnancy costs much more than a bottle pills. However, many insurance policies, exclude pregnancy. Ours does not and most employer provided comprehensive plans do not. However all individual plans that you buy outside of a group option, ie directly from Blue Cross, or United, do exclude pregnancy....if you are a woman its specifically excluded unless you pay extra for it....

You need to do more research on Group/Individual health insurance plans before you make blatantly incorrect statements like the one above.

Sounds like you are the one who needs to bone up on the purpose of insurance, as you do not seem to understand the basic premise of insurance. The group ALWAYS pays for the "lifestyle" of the individual. That is the way insurance works. Because paying for cancer treatments or open heart surgery would be catastrophic for most people, they pool their money to pay the cost for those few individuals who need the surgery. People like me who have never needed surgery subsidize people like you, who have had two pregnancies covered by insurance. To pick out only birth control for ridicule, especially when it actually saves money, is to inflict your political beliefs on the group's insurance. I would think that you'd be mighty upset if single guys like me demanded that your wife's pregnancies not be covered, since you are forcing me to pay for your reckless fornicating lifestyle.

I've said this many times, so I'll repeat it here. NO ONE should get their ACA information from anyone with a strong political belief. They ALL lie about what it includes. This includes Marksmu. I have no opinion on the ACA yet, as many of its particulars are still unknown, especially the cost of individual policies. However, when falsehoods are proffered as truth, I do occasionally weigh in.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you are the one who needs to bone up on the purpose of insurance, as you do not seem to understand the basic premise of insurance. The group ALWAYS pays for the "lifestyle" of the individual. That is the way insurance works. Because paying for cancer treatments or open heart surgery would be catastrophic for most people, they pool their money to pay the cost for those few individuals who need the surgery. People like me who have never needed surgery subsidize people like you, who have had two pregnancies covered by insurance. To pick out only birth control for ridicule, especially when it actually saves money, is to inflict your political beliefs on the group's insurance. I would think that you'd be mighty upset if single guys like me demanded that your wife's pregnancies not be covered, since you are forcing me to pay for your reckless fornicating lifestyle.

I've said this many times, so I'll repeat it here. NO ONE should get their ACA information from anyone with a strong political belief. They ALL lie about what it includes. This includes Marksmu. I have no opinion on the ACA yet, as many of its particulars are still unknown, especially the cost of individual policies. However, when falsehoods are proffered as truth, I do occasionally weigh in.

I am not actually opposed to birth control. I am opposed to the government dictating that it must be included in group policies when they object to it. Since I took over control of our Health Care plan I have implemented lots of changes...some went over well, others not so much....Year after year we look at how our plan operates and we make changes to our plan that are well thought out and based on trends in our individual group....the ACA takes away much of that freedom to make choices.

I added free birth control and free immunizations to our plan in 2008, long before the ACA came around. In 2009 I added penalties for tobacco users. In 2010 I drastically raised the price of emergency rooms b/c our employees over utilized them and I forced generic drugs when they were available....its changes like these that are no longer available under the ACA. Specifically written into the ACA is a clause that requires an employers plan to meet every single requirement under the act if you make ANY change to your plan.

Ive said it many times on this site - I am far closer to a libertarian than a republican...I am socially ambivalent...I dont care what you do to yourself...I only care when it affects me, and it costs me money...My objections to the ACA are primarily based on putting everyone, productive or not, on the same level, doctor access, and to the fact that the government is dictating to employers what they must provide...its all or nothing...they either meet all requirements or pay penalties for not offering insurance..

Finally, I understand well how insurance is a pool, but its a pool I voluntarily got into. I did not have to get in if I did not want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a pretty good understanding of Obamacare because I lived in Boston when it was Romneycare.

Have you seen the polls out of the Commonwealth? A huge majority love it. I know I did. My insurance costs went down by over half despite keeping the same coverage (Blue Cross Blue Shield). My coverage didn't change. Private insurers didn't flee the state. All in all, health care in Massachusetts > healthcare in Texas and it isn't even close.

Obamacare/Romneycare isn't perfect, but it's a good first step.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a pretty good understanding of Obamacare because I lived in Boston when it was Romneycare.

Have you seen the polls out of the Commonwealth? A huge majority love it. I know I did. My insurance costs went down by over half despite keeping the same coverage (Blue Cross Blue Shield). My coverage didn't change. Private insurers didn't flee the state. All in all, health care in Massachusetts > healthcare in Texas and it isn't even close.

Obamacare/Romneycare isn't perfect, but it's a good first step.

Boston is not Texas. Texas borders Mexico and is a gigantic open border. It is well documented that Mexican nationals cross the border illegally to have children in Texas hospitals....Logic dictates that if you are going to start giving everything away for free that you first must establish who qualifies for it....This country can not afford to just give health care away to anyone who happens to be inside our imaginary borders - contributing or not....this begs others to come here for free...not only that it offers yet another incentive for someone not to work...we don't need to give more incentives to keep people on their butts at home. All you hear about is unemployment this, unemployment that...but at my office we have had and continue to have over 60 positions open on the night shift and NOBODY wants them. When people start fighting over a good paying job with good benefits then we can start talking about offering more freebies...until then, I am hugely in favor of cutting them all off and getting people back up looking for work.

If you want to work hard and be productive your whole life and then sit in line behind someone who has never worked a day in their life - that is your prerogative....I for one do not want that to be the case. Im all for everyone getting treatment, but not when it comes at my expense.

You may have liked the care in Boston better, but I assure the quality of Boston's care was not higher than that of Texas, and I dont care what a ridiculous rating system says (they are all skewed). Houston's medical center is consistently rated among the absolute best in the world. If you don't think your getting good care then you are obviously not looking for it in the right places...a doc in the box is not the same as a good doctor just b/c they have an MD behind their name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you hear about is unemployment this, unemployment that...but at my office we have had and continue to have over 60 positions open on the night shift and NOBODY wants them. When people start fighting over a good paying job with good benefits then we can start talking about offering more freebies...until then, I am hugely in favor of cutting them all off and getting people back up looking for work.

Sounds like we need about 60 illegal immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...