ObamaCare Subjects Nearly Every Phone and Computer to Government Control

I will believe some Sacha Faal before I believe Breitbart

talk about a fear mongering right wing nut job.

reply to post by Ghost375

Know how many idiots would think they have good b.p. when they don't because of a faulty app?

I respect your opinion though I disagree with it strongly. I just wanted to quote your text and raise a point. I feel like what you said above is the typical government thought pattern.

They think we are too stupid to realize a $2 piece of software on a smart phone can't replace a visit to the doctors office. I feel it is unrealistic to believe that. Though for the sake of argument, lets believe that is actually true and people are truly too dumb to know any better.

In that case what would be more dangerous?

Having it known that anything health related that is not coming out of your doctors mouth could be unsafe, incorrect or inaccurate so you better do your own research and take responsibility for your own health and risk taking.

or

Assuming that everything health related that is not coming out of your doctors mouth is assumed safe, correct and accurate because it has been FDA reviewed so there is no need to do your own research or take any responsibility for your own health.

I realize it may not be that black and white but before you come to your conclusion, please take note of the amount of drugs that are approved and then later unapproved by the FDA and the amount of people who die each year by simply taking prescription drugs as instructed or using a health device as intended.

It is clear the FDA is fallible yet it is perceived that once something gains FDA approval that it is now safe for use. So what is safer? Assuming everything could be dangerous so you better be informed or assuming nothing approved by the FDA is dangerous so there is no reason to worry?

Just my thoughts, the questions are rhetorical unless you would like to discuss it further. Just some food for thought I guess.

Originally posted by thov420


Doesn't say anywhere that it's going to be regulating all computers/smartphones etc.

Correct. It'll just demand regulation of every smartphone, computer that has an application that "might" be deemed as necessary towards a medical application.

Originally posted by muse7
I will believe some Sacha Faal before I believe Breitbart

talk about a fear mongering right wing nut job.

Fear the source
www.fda.gov...

Make up your own mind. (Though I think you already have)

reply to post by beezzer


It doesn't demand anything.

It says in the guidance itself its only recommendations and suggestions at this point.

Originally posted by thov420
reply to post by beezzer

 

It doesn't demand anything.

It says in the guidance itself its only recommendations and suggestions at this point.

Okay. *whew* it just suggests government oversight over every wireless/wired device that is associated with medical applications!

I suppose that when the government "suggests" that they gain oversight and full regulatory powers it wouldn't grow the government in any way, nor would it increase their powers over tools that we all use every day.

Might I "suggest" to the government that they stick to wars, building roads, and delivering the mail. I can do without their "suggestions", their oversight, their regulations, their closed fist around my throat!

Reply to post by Ghost375

Like the poster above you said, phones and comps are already under the watchful eyes of TPTB. What's done is done, technology gave TPTB the upperhand and there is no going back unless the sun's behavior knocks out electronics. And know that TPTB already have a Plan B if that happens. It's not fearmongering, it's fact. We are all under surviellance. The medical industry is the pathway TPTB are taking to intrude into our personal space.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

And no-one has yet to answer how this "proposal" aids in providing insurance to those that didn't have it.

Wasn't that the point of Obama's healthcare bill?

Or was it just a power grab?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

reply to post by beezzer

Far be it for me to take away from the potential gravity some feel has been created by this guidance, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this particular guidance was never part of ObamaCare, otherwise know as the Patient Protection and Accountability Act, which comprised of the enrolled bill H.R. 3590 or P.L 111-142 passed by both the House and Senate on 3/23/2010 and later amended by the Health Care and Reconciliation Act, H.R. 4872 or P.L. 111-152. Neither law addressed the FDA's oversight or rights of guidance on mobile medical devices.

The draft guidance cited and issued on 7/21/2011 can be found here and was issued separate and non-related to ObamaCare.

This guidance has to do with controlling the display of personal medical information, controlling it's intended use by the manufacturer or the energy source of the mobile device (i.e. potential exposure to radiation)' ensuring that the mobile device has been transformed from a legimate medical device (the functions and specifications of which have always had the oversight of the FDA) and negating the possibility of creating false alarms or new personal data by use of the mobile devices.

Whereas each person is entitled to review the guidance text and decide for him/herself its intended purpose, it was not a part of PPACA. I had the unfortunate job of dissecting and interpreting the 1,000's of pages of PPACA text after it was released at 4:00 pm on 3/23/2010 and the myriad of summaries from the various governing bodies that followed.

Originally posted by timidgal
reply to post by beezzer

 

Far be it for me to take away from the potential gravity of this situation, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this guidance was never part of ObamaCare, otherwise know as the Patient Protection and Accountability Act which comprised of the enrolled bill H.R. 3590 or P.L 111-142 passed by both the House and Senate on 3/23/2010 and later amended by the Health Care and Reconciliation Act, H.R. 4872 or P.L. 111-152. Neither law addressed the FDA's oversight or rights of guidance on mobile medical devices.

Yet they are using Obamacare as an umbrella for draconiam measures such as this.
Your post has value though.
Will try to find a definitive link.
beez

ETA; I know it is difficult to prove a negative, but have you read through the bill to insure that measures like this are not in it?

I have no doubt that Obama wants to regulate smartphones, laptops, tablets, etc. as medical devices but the question I want to know the answer to is how does he plan to regulate them?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by timidgal
reply to post by beezzer

 

Far be it for me to take away from the potential gravity of this situation, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this guidance was never part of ObamaCare, otherwise know as the Patient Protection and Accountability Act which comprised of the enrolled bill H.R. 3590 or P.L 111-142 passed by both the House and Senate on 3/23/2010 and later amended by the Health Care and Reconciliation Act, H.R. 4872 or P.L. 111-152. Neither law addressed the FDA's oversight or rights of guidance on mobile medical devices.

Yet they are using Obamacare as an umbrella for draconiam measures such as this.
Your post has value though.
Will try to find a definitive link.
beez

On this point you'll get no argument from me on some aspects of the bill.

ETA; I know it is difficult to prove a negative, but have you read through the bill to insure that measures like this are not in it?

edit on 13-3-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

See my edited post. At the time I was a corporate broker who was imbued with the responsibility of painfully reading through each page of the bills themselves as well as the plethora of interpretations released ad nauseum by various governmental bodies. A responsibility, I assure you, which I do not miss for I divorced myself from the gluttonous insurance industry sometime thereafter.

reply to post by darkbake
And a fair question you pose but the answer wont be found in the text of ObamaCare.

Originally posted by beezzer


Will be back in a bit after digesting it.

Good thing you did not actually look into it before you posted it. How else would you have fear mongered with lies and still attempted to look honest, right?

reply to post by LErickson
Let's be fair to Beezer. Our country is in a state of confusion with all of these new rules, which the authors don't even initially understand themselves. That's why there's guidance and interim final rules followed by final rules which are later amended being thrown at us left and right.

The fact that this particular guidance wasn't part of the PPACA text doesn't negate some of the valid concerns presented by some within the thread, including Beezer him/herself.

Timidgal

Originally posted by timidgal
reply to post by LErickson

 

Let's be fair to Beezer. Our country is in a state of confusion with all of these new rules, which the authors don't even initially understand themselves. That's why there's guidance and interim final rules followed by final rules which are later amended being thrown at us left and right.

The fact that this particular guidance wasn't part of the PPACA text doesn't negate some of the valid concerns presented by some within the thread, including Beezer him/herself.

Timidgal

Nawww, LE is in it for the hate, not the information gained. Of course he does all his homework and knows everything. That's why he can sit in judgement.

And you're overly paranoid, along with everyone else that's running around with their heads missing.

A government that cannot regulate its' own debt cannot effectively regulate the people, despite the fears of those same people.

Originally posted by The Sword
And you're overly paranoid, along with everyone else that's running around with their heads missing.

A government that cannot regulate its' own debt cannot effectively regulate the people, despite the fears of those same people.

And yet they (the government) still wants to.

Originally posted by beezzer
From here.
In another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!...

My God...where to start with this nonsense. You have understood almost no aspect of the Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff - Mobile Medical Applications. At root are some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of the TECHNOLOGY AND A LACK OF BACKGROUND IN COMPUTER PROGRAMMING.

OK...first off I AGREE with you that the Obama administration has shredded individual civil liberties...especially in regards to the signing of the NDAA which is unconstitutional and deplorable. However, you have serious errors in your understanding of the Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff - Mobile Medical Applications. They are as follows:

1. This is not a rule, law, regulation, or other mandatory set of guidelines. It is a DRAFT of a set of SUGGESTIONS for certain types of mobile medical apps. This would be like referring to the FDA's food pyramid as "government over-reach". It's just sort of a baseline used by the FDA to establish a rough estimate of what "adequate" human nourishment is. This document has ZERO enforceability....it's more of a memo to manufacturer's or programmers of certain types of mobile medical apps.

2. The purpose of this document is to address ONLY mobile apps which are designed to CONTROL OTHER PIECES OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, REVEIW DIAGNOSTIC SCANS, AND MEASURE EEG'S & ECG'S....in much the same way that the current control units before the era of smartphones and tablets were also had guidelines.

3. It specifically states that what this document DOES NOT apply to are things like apps for medical records, inventory, personal health & well being tracking, fitness, textbooks, instructional apps, and a whole lot more.

Here is why this is a VERY necessary thing:

1. There are two big "players" in mobile apps. Android and Apple's iOS. Apple is pretty unified...but the Android world is scattered over HUNDREDS & HUNDREDS of different devices, manufacturers, chips, graphic display units, and screens. Let's say your doctor is looking at your MRI...we want it to look the same from device to device, right? I mean...if your tumor is showing up as red on the main display but light pink or purple on the Doc's tablet...you might get misdiagnosed. Currently all desktop monitors which are certified to review such scans on have consistent color settings, resolutions, and gamma correction. This will extend those same 15-20 yr old rules handheld devices.

2. Algorithms are essentially nothing more than systems of equations with logical operators. For example, when an individual in the ICU flatlines and the "buzzer" goes off the control unit on the ECG makes this determination by running an algorithm. As it stands, all diagnostic or sensory equipment used in medicine currently has it's algorithms regulated...it's real important to know that everybody is doing their math the same way when it comes to pulse, heartbeats, brain scans, blood sugar levels, etc. Depending on the algorithm a rounding error of .001 on one of the first equations in a system could mean a RADICAL misdiagnosis and/or incorrect dosage of medication.

3. The Constitution gives the Federal government authority to establish and monitor the systems of weights and measures for much the same reason. If everybody is doing their math differently...interstate trade becomes a serious pain in the ass.

3. THE FREE MARKET PRODUCED THE SMART PHONE, APPS, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PLATFORM WHICH HAS BEGUN REPLACING AN ANTIQUATED AND LESS POWERFUL NON-PROGRAMMABLE NUMERIC CONTROL-BASED PLATFORM. Thus..."the government" is having the rules changed on THEM...not the other way around.

4. If your doctor used any mobile apps of these kinds in this document and inadvertently screwed up and killed you....YOUR FAMILY WOULD NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO COLLECT UPON HIS MALPRACTICE INSURANCE OR SUE THE MANUFACTURER OF THE FAULTY EQUIPMENT WITHOUT IT!!

This thing doesn't UNDERMINE civil liberties...it supports them. You have no right to tort law in these matters without this or something very much like it.

Take some time to understand higher mathematics, functional programming, and control units before you jump to such alarmist conclusions.

This might be the most sensible thing the Obama Administration has done to date.

Originally posted by timidgal
reply to post by beezzer

 

Far be it for me to take away from the potential gravity some feel has been created by this guidance, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this particular guidance was never part of ObamaCare, otherwise know as the Patient Protection and Accountability Act, which comprised of the enrolled bill H.R. 3590 or P.L 111-142 passed by both the House and Senate on 3/23/2010 and later amended by the Health Care and Reconciliation Act, H.R. 4872 or P.L. 111-152. Neither law addressed the FDA's oversight or rights of guidance on mobile medical devices.

The draft guidance cited and issued on 7/21/2011 can be found here and was issued separate and non-related to ObamaCare.

This guidance has to do with controlling the display of personal medical information, controlling it's intended use by the manufacturer or the energy source of the mobile device (i.e. potential exposure to radiation)' ensuring that the mobile device has been transformed from a legimate medical device (the functions and specifications of which have always had the oversight of the FDA) and negating the possibility of creating false alarms or new personal data by use of the mobile devices.

Whereas each person is entitled to review the guidance text and decide for him/herself its intended purpose, it was not a part of PPACA. I had the unfortunate job of dissecting and interpreting the 1,000's of pages of PPACA text after it was released at 4:00 pm on 3/23/2010 and the myriad of summaries from the various governing bodies that followed.

edit on 3/13/2012 by timidgal because: (no reason given)

Good call. Thank you.

I'm as horrified at our loss of civil liberties as the next person...but this just doesn't fit into that category. ESPECIALLY if you understand the underpinnings of programming languages, chip architecture, algorithmic science, etc.

We have a bunch of people here that are scared of this thing and don't even understand what it is.