bbakkd

> Jarlstrom was informed that he wasn't entitled to hold himself out as an engineer and agreed not to do so. The reasons not to do that are valid, for the simple reason that it pretends to a level of expertise he does not have, when trying to influence how public infrastructure is run.

Actually, from the documents provided, he initially made the claim that he held an engineering degree in electronics, which is hardly holding himself out as a registered engineer in the state of Oregon. In a later email he commented to the board that he was an excellent engineer, which may in fact be the case given that he held a degree in engineering. Again, there is no attempt to misrepresent himself as licensed in Oregon.

The first incident is a huge stretch to say he was attempting to mislead the public that he was a registered professional engineer. In fact, if he was a Swedish engineer, regardless of whether they regulate the industry or not, it is a factual statement to say he is a Swedish engineer and is not an attempt to make false claims of his credentials. The are arguing that he cannot speak of his occupation in another country and perform engineering calculations in the state of Oregon. That is clearly a violation of his free speech.

The second statement that he was an excellent engineer is a little more vague, but it is also a factual statement that he is an engineer. He does not ever claim to be a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon and it is a valid argument that they cannot prevent him from stating his background in engineering.

If he was a doctor in Sweden, it would be perfectly if he still called himself a doctor in Oregon without implying that he was licensed to practice medicine. He would in fact be, after all, a doctor. Essentially what they are doing is equating the performing of engineering calculations (to back up his theory and present to actual engineers) with the practice of medicine. They are attempting to bolster that with two weak (but possibly valid) claims that he was representing himself as a registered professional engineer in Oregon in the process.

The fact is that the laws in this case are vague enough that they could be used to keep someone quiet for whatever reason--perhaps they didn't like the media making them look bad. Ultimately, that would be up to a judge to decide if they are in fact infringing on his first amendment rights.

> I am a bit depressed to see how easily people are taken in, and abandon reason in favor of their emotional reaction to a piece of obscure public policy

I don't see how, all the documents are right there in the article. And seriously, I have read well over thirty condescending comments from you in this thread with your fake intellectualism and it is a bit much. But hey, why don't you refer me to an essay or something.

That doesn't make it any less of a hustle and probably why rent-to-own places still get customers. So yeah if you have to have the most expensive phones but can't afford them you will do this.

The thing is they are pretty much forcing everyone into these plans by almost doubling the old plan prices. Plus the old family plans are no longer cheaper if you don't have a smartphone and don't use data--you pay the same price for all phones.

Yes except you are paying a high retail price for the phone. I paid $100 for a top-of-the-line phone and the rest was subsidized in my contract price, I didn't have to pay an installment plan. Yeah, if the phone lasted more than two years it would be an okay deal but how often does a smartphone ever last that long without being lost, broken, or obsolete?

You are better off buying it somewhere else--even on a credit card--and staying on the old $15/mo contract.

It actually is worse than the article states because he calculated it at 24 months but he should have calculated it at 30 months. And if you lose, break, or even crack your phone before the 30 months--which isn't at all uncommon--you still have to pay for the old one and a new one.

It's actually worse than this article states. If you get the "AT&T Next 24" plan that just means you can upgrade to a new phone after 24 months. You are actually agreeing to make 30 payments so you end up with $56 tax plus $29 x 30 or $926.

Edit: Also note that you are only eligible for upgrading after 24 months if your phone is in good condition--no cracks, chips, etc. If your phone breaks not only do you have to buy a new one, but you have to keep paying for the old one for 30 months!

If you are not a terrorist or a foreign government official or work for a large corporation or bank or travel or communicate with people in certain countries or use certain keywords in your communications you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

So do we get any say in what our government is allowed to do?

The problem with what this doctor and other Obamacare opponents are saying is that it will not massively increase the number of people who get free healthcare. If someone simply cannot afford healthcare, they should he covered by the number of federal, state, and private programs already available.

The biggest increase will be from people who do not have insurance available to them through work and those who cannot get coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Yes there will be people in that group who also cannot afford the coverage but currently make too much to qualify for other programs such as medicaid, but that will be a minor segment.

As for me, I have been self-employed for 15 years and have several significant pre-existing conditions. I have been turned down numerous times when trying to purchase insurance. Even my wife has been turned down simply for having seen a doctor about headaches. The thing is I could afford even the outrageous non-group rates but no insurance company would have me.

Now they can't do that. I am able to purchase insurance coverage from a private company with my own money and pay my own co-pays and deductibles. To a doctor me and millions of other people are no different than any other patient with private insurance.

It is extremely misleading to say that Obamacare is all about giving out health care for free. It is mostly about giving us the right to purchase insurance with our own money. Even those who get payment assistance from the government will often still be purchasing their insurance from private companies so there won't be anyone other than the same insurance companies dictating how much a doctor gets paid.

In fact, one of the greatest (non-imaginary) shortcomings of Obamacare is that there is nothing in there to keep doctors from pushing fees higher, abusing the fact that everyone will now have insurance. When doctors already charge 2-3 times as much when a patient has insurance, this sounds like a major windfall for everyone in the medical profession.

This doctor clearly does not understand Obamacare and apparently this article is more about expressing political views than anything else.