Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

[Gan]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2010-04/53055642.JPG


MOUNT DORA — A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama (http://forum.gsplayers.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic) to seek care "elsewhere."

"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

The sign reads: "If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

Estella Chatman, 67, of Eustis, whose daughter snapped a photo of the typewritten sign, sent the picture to U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (http://forum.gsplayers.com/topic/politics/government/alan-m.-grayson-PEPLT0000017585.topic), the Orlando Democrat who riled Republicans (http://forum.gsplayers.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/republican-party-ORGOV0000004.topic) last year when he characterized the GOP's idea of health care as, "If you get sick, America … Die quickly."

Chatman said she heard about the sign from a friend referred to Cassell after his physician recently died. She said her friend did not want to speak to a reporter but was dismayed by Cassell's sign.

"He's going to find another doctor," she said.

Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen (http://forum.gsplayers.com/topic/politics/government/william-allen-PEHST002299.topic), professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida (http://forum.gsplayers.com/topic/education/colleges-universities/university-of-florida-OREDU0000153.topic)'s College of Medicine.

Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is "trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation," Allen said.

"But this is pushing the limit," he said.

Cassell, who has practiced medicine in GOP-dominated Lake County since 1988, said he doesn't quiz his patients about their politics, but he also won't hide his disdain for the bill Obama signed and the lawmakers who passed it.

In his waiting room, Cassell also has provided his patients with photocopies of a health-care timeline produced by Republican leaders that outlines "major provisions" in the health-care package. The doctor put a sign above the stack of copies that reads: "This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it."

Cassell, whose lawyer wife, Leslie Campione, has declared herself a Republican candidate for Lake County commissioner, said three patients have complained, but most have been "overwhelmingly supportive" of his position.

"They know it's not good for them," he said.

Cassell, who previously served as chief of surgery at Florida Hospital (http://forum.gsplayers.com/topic/health/hospitals-clinics/florida-hospital-PLCUL000151.topic) Waterman in Tavares, said a patient's politics would not affect his care for them, although he said he would prefer not to treat people who support the president.

"I can at least make a point," he said.

The notice on Cassell's office door could cause some patients to question his judgment or fret about the care they might receive if they don't share his political views, Allen said. He said doctors are wise to avoid public expressions that can affect the physician-patient relationship.

Erin VanSickle, spokeswoman for the Florida Medical Association, would not comment specifically.

But she noted in an e-mail to the Sentinel that "physicians are extended the same rights to free speech as every other citizen in the United States."

The outspoken Grayson described Cassell's sign as"ridiculous."

"I'm disgusted," he said. "Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ‘Do no good.' If this is the face of the right wing in America, it's the face of cruelty. … Why don't they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?"

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401,0,6040296,full.story

[Gan]

I think its within his right to express this opinion just as much as its his patient's right to choose a different service provider.

[Drew]

The poll is poorly phrased IMO. I don't think what he did was right or wrong, just allowed. Should he be allowed to do this would be the question I'd ask.

[Keller]

I wonder whether a sign that read, "If you're black, seek medical care elsewhere" would be ok.

He wouldn't be turning black people away, just posting a sign.

[Keller]

The poll is poorly phrased IMO. I don't think what he did was right or wrong, just allowed. Should he be allowed to do this would be the question I'd ask.

Ya, the poll is not precise at all.

Is it right about it being allowed?

Is he right to deny Obama supporters coverage?

[Keller]

Oh, and I bet this is great free advertising for his practice.

Good idea, as long as he keeps his license.

[pabstblueribbon]

Ya, the poll is not precise at all.

Is it right about it being allowed?

Is he right to deny Obama supporters coverage?

Whoa slow down. You're going to fry his poor little brain.

[Drew]

I wonder whether a sign that read, "If you're black, seek medical care elsewhere" would be ok.

He wouldn't be turning black people away, just posting a sign.


Being black is something you can't control. Supporting something is. In the justice system we don't punish people for how they were born but we do punish them for their choices. Is it also ok for people to do that on a personal level?

[Taernath]

I wonder whether a sign that read, "If you're black, seek medical care elsewhere" would be ok.

He wouldn't be turning black people away, just posting a sign.

So what you're saying is, voting democrat is a genetic condition? Interesting.

*edit*

On a more serious note, I don't like the idea of doctors implying refusal of service to anyone, of any political persuasion. Even commies.

[Parkbandit]

So what you're saying is, voting democrat is a genetic condition? Interesting.

http://bullseyevaluation.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/bullseye.22112600_std.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Being black is something you can't control. Supporting something is. In the justice system we don't punish people for how they were born but we do punish them for their choices. Is it also ok for people to do that on a personal level?

Well, the reasoning of "you must be a racist" has come up if you are against Obamacare...

[Liagala]

I think its within his right to express this opinion just as much as its his patient's right to choose a different service provider.

This. He said he doesn't ask his patients about their political views. I don't know about you, but I usually spend my doctor visits talking about medical issues. He's not going to know what 90%+ of his patients think one way or the other. Those few that feel some need to talk politics with their doctor will probably be happier going elsewhere anyway.

[Parkbandit]

This. He said he doesn't ask his patients about their political views. I don't know about you, but I usually spend my doctor visits talking about medical issues. He's not going to know what 90%+ of his patients think one way or the other. Those few that feel some need to talk politics with their doctor will probably be happier going elsewhere anyway.

I talk about politics to my liberal doctor every visit. It's funny, he's gone from being a huge Obama supporter to an "anyone but Obama" supporter... and mostly over this healthcare law. He started his practice about a year ago.. now he figures he has about 4 years left before he's forced out.. or simply can't afford to stay in business.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Is he allowed? Yes.

Basically I agree with Lisa.

[Amber]

I think its within his right to express this opinion just as much as its his patient's right to choose a different service provider.

It is his legal right to express his opinion. Whether its morally right to express it is another thing, however.

[Gan]

I wonder whether a sign that read, "If you're black, seek medical care elsewhere" would be ok.

He wouldn't be turning black people away, just posting a sign.


Ya, the poll is not precise at all.

Is it right about it being allowed?

Is he right to deny Obama supporters coverage?

I expected better arguments from you.

Off day?

[TheEschaton]

It is his right, but he has a higher obligation to not turn away the sick.

IE: Say he was the only urologist within 100 miles. Say he only posted the sign, and didn't quiz people and turn them away if they gave the wrong answers. Is he "right" to scare away someone who otherwise might not get medical attention because they're afraid their politics will anger the man looking after their health?

[Gan]

Going back to highlight some things (red) that I feel are relevant to the discussion thus far...

[TheEschaton]

For example, if he was an auto mechanic protesting the auto bailout, and hung a similar sign, I wouldn't care.

Doctors, however, have a higher obligation than politics and profit.

[Gan]

So physicians should not have an opinion and the freedom to express it? Even if said opinion is not in violation of any law or professional oath?

Now add to this scenario the unrealistic expectation that physicians are supposed to automatically support such a radical change that will change how they practice medicine and the livlihood they derive from said practice.

What's next? A bill to force physicians to practice even when they do not wish to?

[Latrinsorm]

Is it also ok for people to do that on a personal level?No. Vigilantes make for great comic books and movies, but in real life they make for anarchy.

The doctor saying people turn around of their own volition is asinine. Exploiting peoples' general trust in doctors is sleazy. The doctor not having the stones to stand by his belief and cowering behind free speech gymanstics makes him a coward. So if your question is "is it right or wrong to be a sleazy, asinine coward", my answer is "wrong".

Keep in mind, if a pharmacist put a sign on her or his door that said "if you're looking for the day-after pill, seek pharmaceutical service elsewhere", Parkbandit would fire them.

[Latrinsorm]

Now add to this scenario the unrealistic expectation that physicians are supposed to automatically support such a radical change that will change how they practice medicine and the livlihood they derive from said practice.Nobody in America has to support anything. Go bunk with Eschaton in France or Limbaugh in Costa Rica. If you don't want to move and you do not want to follow the law, you risk being punished for it.
So physicians should not have an opinion and the freedom to express it?Everyone is allowed to express their opinion so long as they are not infringing on superior freedoms.

[Stanley Burrell]

Bah, it's not a woman.

Well, I guess I would still go in dressed up as Colonel Sanders to have him fondle my pp, tell him about my bladder control issues, then make a torrent of urine on him and run out before paying yelling, "VIVA FIDEL."

This guy is not going to get a lot of referrals written for him.

[Back]

Don’t know if he is right or wrong but I think he is a douche-bag and I would say the same about a dem leaning doctor refusing to treat a republican.

This petty bickering bullshit is stupid. The Civil war ended a long time ago.

[Kyra231]

I doubt most people even READ the sign. Hell they don't read ones that are much shorter like 'entrance' & "exit" ffs. He's a urologist too, most of his patients are going to be more worried about not falling & breaking a hip on their way in.

If he isn't screening patients in his office & turning them away then I don't see a problem with it.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I will say if a patient were to go to him and say "I voted for Obama, what are you gonna do about it?" and he turned the patient away, I would think he'd then be in danger of losing his license to practice because wouldn't that be a violation of the Hippocratic oath?

[Taernath]

I will say if a patient were to go to him and say "I voted for Obama, what are you gonna do about it?" and he turned the patient away, I would think he'd then be in danger of losing his license to practice because wouldn't that be a violation of the Hippocratic oath?

He's not turning people away, he hung up a sign implying he's turning people away. If Obama supporters came in, according to the article he'd still treat them.

That being said, if I were visiting a doctor that had a similar sign that applied to me, I'd be worried about receiving quality health care from him. "Is he cutting corners on my test results?" "Does he have my best interest in mind, or does he only care about what politics I support?"

[Keller]

Being black is something you can't control.

Tell that to Michael Jackson

[Keller]

I expected better arguments from you.

Off day?

Fine.

What if the sign said, "Christians seek care elsewhere"?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

He's not turning people away, he hung up a sign implying he's turning people away. If Obama supporters came in, according to the article he'd still treat them.

That being said, if I were visiting a doctor that had a similar sign that applied to me, I'd be worried about receiving quality health care from him. "Is he cutting corners on my test results?" "Does he have my best interest in mind, or does he only care about what politics I support?"

Re-read what I wrote.

[Parkbandit]

I would say the same about a dem leaning doctor refusing to treat a republican.


http://jcrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/bullshit-meter-0.gif

[Parkbandit]

Fine.

What if the sign said, "Christians seek care elsewhere"?

That would be fine.. much like "Good Friday" has been changed to "Spring Recess" and "Merry Christmas" is changed to "Happy Holidays".

Now.. if it were a sign that said "Muslims seek care elsewhere", then that obviously wouldn't be good.

[Keller]

That would be fine.. much like "Good Friday" has been changed to "Spring Recess" and "Merry Christmas" is changed to "Happy Holidays".

Now.. if it were a sign that said "Muslims seek care elsewhere", then that obviously wouldn't be good.

Angry old white guy is ANGRY

[Stanley Burrell]

Angry old white guy is ANGRY

http://img.youtube.com/vi/4sWgtGdl7KQ/0.jpg

Fuck yeah, he is.

[Parkbandit]

Angry old white guy is ANGRY

Since I'm an atheist.. I couldn't really care less.. just pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy.

[Taernath]

Re-read what I wrote.

... ok? All I see is a 'what if' scenario, you can 'what if' all day. He might be a douche but he's not turning people away. Also, read the modern Hippocratic oath, I'm not seeing anything in there about having to treat people you disagree with ideologically.

[Stanley Burrell]

The Hippocratic Oath would work if MDs were robots.

[Sean]

I wonder whether a sign that read, "If you're black, seek medical care elsewhere" would be ok.

He wouldn't be turning black people away, just posting a sign.

To be fair, based on how Blacks voted in the last election he pretty much is saying that just not exclusively.

Anyway I think the guy is an idiot but he should be allowed to voice himself and hopefully put himself out of business.

[Methais]

Is he right to deny Obama supporters coverage?


"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

Good job reading the article first.


It is his right, but he has a higher obligation to not turn away the sick.

IE: Say he was the only urologist within 100 miles. Say he only posted the sign, and didn't quiz people and turn them away if they gave the wrong answers. Is he "right" to scare away someone who otherwise might not get medical attention because they're afraid their politics will anger the man looking after their health?

I'd see it more as a small preview of what things will be like in a few years, except for the part about how he still won't be turning patients away.

I predict his office will be mysteriously burned down within a month and get no coverage by the mainstream media.

[Taernath]

I predict his office will be mysteriously burned down within a month and get no coverage by the mainstream media.

Probably. But before that happens, liberals will run this as the next 'republicans would slit their momma's throat for $5' story.

y r u against free healthcare!!! IT'S FREE!!!

[Methais]

y r u against free healthcare!!! IT'S FREE!!!

There's free cheese in a mousetrap, just like there's free candy in the van.


!!!!!!111

[Gan]

I wonder whether a sign that read, "If you're black, seek medical care elsewhere" would be ok.

He wouldn't be turning black people away, just posting a sign.


Fine.

What if the sign said, "Christians seek care elsewhere"?

Requoting a relevent part that I went back and highlighted red...



...doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law.

Damn, it is an off day for you.

I would have an issue if the sign were to violate any current civil right law discriminating against any patron based on their race, creed, color, religion, sex or natural origin.

Since we still have a choice as to where we seek healthcare (dont know how long that will last) then his patrons who are offended could go elsewhere. Additionally this would be a perfect opportunity for a competing practice to move in and pick up the customers who choose not to use the offending physician's services.

I think this is the first of many stories we'll see of physicians protesting the changes that are on their way that directly effect their practice.

[Cephalopod]

You know, I discuss politics civilly with coworkers and friends... but it's never come up with my doctor. If my doctor posted this sign, I may be a bit concerned that he's nuts*, but otherwise... politics in the doctor's office? Don't ask, don't tell, don't care.

* change 'voted for Obama' to 'have a lot of money' or 'don't like peas'.

[Keller]

Since I'm an atheist.. I couldn't really care less.. just pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy.

WE'RE LOSING OUR COUNTRY!!!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

... ok? All I see is a 'what if' scenario, you can 'what if' all day. He might be a douche but he's not turning people away. Also, read the modern Hippocratic oath, I'm not seeing anything in there about having to treat people you disagree with ideologically.

I posed a what if question because I'm not sure of the intricacies of stuff like the oath- for instance, I know abortion is cited as a DO NOT in the oath and yet there are abortion doctors and obgyn's that will prescribe abortion pills, etc. No shit it's a 'what if' scenario, you responded as if it was not a what-if question (and basically said NO YOU'RE WRONG!!1 and explained why for something I never said in the first place). That was retarded and that was why I told you to go back and read.

In any case, the Hippocratic Oath is basically I will help all those that seek out my medical aid except when it directly prevents me from helping others, and I will not intentionally cause harm to or kill my patient.. to my knowledge anyway.

Denying someone medical aid because of their politics would be in violation according to the oath. I've already stated that because he hasn't turned anyone away he's perfectly allowed to post that sign, I just wondered if it came down to a situation where someone basically called him out and he responded by refusing service, if he would be in jeopardy of losing his license or whatever for violating the oath.

[Traelin]

Health care, Iraq War, Afghanistan, Cap and Trade, etc. None of this will matter when the debt is finally called in and our currency is debased. We won't be able to pay for any of this garbage. The fact is, we can't pay for any of this, we can't pay for what we're doing now... America is going to see some terrible times ahead. Time to stock your pantries and get your guns.

[Jayvn]

Holy shit I live like 20 minutes from Mt Dora...

[Gan]

Another curve ball.

Do Catholic hospitals have the right to choose NOT to offer abortion or sterilization services based on religious reasons?

Do doctors and or other medical professionals have the right NOT to perform such services based on religious reasons?

[Parkbandit]

WE'RE LOSING OUR COUNTRY!!!

http://hoboken411.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ted-turner-angry.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Another curve ball.

Do Catholic hospitals have the right to choose NOT to offer abortion or sterilization services based on religious reasons?

Do doctors and or other medical professionals have the right NOT to perform such services based on religious reasons?Of course not. Why would people care if their legislators are pro-choice or pro-life if doctors could just do whatever they wanted?

[ClydeR]

Requoting a relevent part that I went back and highlighted red...


...doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law.

Gan got it exactly right. You can discriminate on the basis of political affiliation. Every four years, there's a big to-do when an employer fires one of his employees because he doesn't like the presidential candidate bumper sticker on the employee's car. Everybody automatically assumes the employer broke a law. But no.

The doctor might still have a problem with his state medical association. Even though he didn't commit a crime, he may have broken the ethics rules applicable to doctors.

Very good, Gan.

[TheEschaton]

Civil rights have those protected categories. Doctors cannot refuse to treat someone based on criminal record, for example, but you can refuse to employ them, since they're not a protected class.

[Gan]

Of course not. Why would people care if their legislators are pro-choice or pro-life if doctors could just do whatever they wanted?

You do know that as a rule, Catholic Hospitals do not offer nor do they sanction or perform abortion or sterilization services dont you?

There are some that do and get away with it, but as a norm - thats a fundamental basis for the hospital being a Catholic supported institution.

[Gan]

Gan got it exactly right. You can discriminate on the basis of political affiliation. Every four years, there's a big to-do when an employer fires one of his employees because he doesn't like the presidential candidate bumper sticker on the employee's car. Everybody automatically assumes the employer broke a law. But no.
Only if said employer is in an at-will/right to work state.

Other states have laws that are not so forgiving. Especially if there is an employment contract in existence.



The doctor might still have a problem with his state medical association. Even though he didn't commit a crime, he may have broken the ethics rules applicable to doctors.
Only if said doctor refuses to treat or offers disparitive treatment. But as the article said, he does not ask for patient political affiliation, he does not refuse treatment and nor does he offer differing treatment for those who admit to being Obama supporters.

I do not see the Doctor being charged with any ethics violations.

[TheEschaton]

He's already treating them different by telling them to go seek medical care elsewhere.

[Gan]

He's already treating them different by telling them to go seek medical care elsewhere.

Medically treating them different.

Huge difference.

[Latrinsorm]

You do know that as a rule, Catholic Hospitals do not offer nor do they sanction or perform abortion or sterilization services dont you?

There are some that do and get away with it, but as a norm - thats a fundamental basis for the hospital being a Catholic supported institution.Just because someone does something doesn't mean they are entitled to (or have a right to) do it.

You're also squeezing "Catholic" pretty hard - there are absolutely Catholics and Catholic institutions that support abortion financially. I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic hierarchy when you say "Catholic", and that there are hospitals that "get away with it" is evidence enough that it's not that fundamental. The Roman Catholic hierarchy isn't exactly shy about speaking out when they see a member of the flock who has gone astray.

[Latrinsorm]

Medically treating them different.

Huge difference.He can't offer anyone medical treatment if they don't come in his office. If he intentionally creates an environment that impedes a group of people's entrance, that is unethical. If his sign had another line of text that read "although if you do decide to come in here, I won't treat you any differently... so I guess, you know what, I guess I could have just written OMG HEALTH CARE QQQQQQ", then that would be ok.

[Gan]

He can't offer anyone medical treatment if they don't come in his office. If he intentionally creates an environment that impedes a group of people's entrance, that is unethical. If his sign had another line of text that read "although if you do decide to come in here, I won't treat you any differently... so I guess, you know what, I guess I could have just written OMG HEALTH CARE QQQQQQ", then that would be ok.

That would be true if he were the only urological treatment center in his area and the government were mandating everyone to go to him for treatment.

[Gan]

Just because someone does something doesn't mean they are entitled to (or have a right to) do it.

You're also squeezing "Catholic" pretty hard - there are absolutely Catholics and Catholic institutions that support abortion financially. I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic hierarchy when you say "Catholic", and that there are hospitals that "get away with it" is evidence enough that it's not that fundamental. The Roman Catholic hierarchy isn't exactly shy about speaking out when they see a member of the flock who has gone astray.

So you should be protesting catholic hospitals who do not offer abortion services on the basis of religious discrimination, inorite?

[TheEschaton]

So you should be protesting catholic hospitals who do not offer abortion services on the basis of religious discrimination, inorite?

I do think that's pretty retarded, yes.

Edit: In fact, when I was in college, we protested the fact that our infirmary didn't give out birth control because it was a Catholic university, until they changed their policy. Now they don't advertise that they give out birth control, but will give it to you if you ask for it, lol.

[Latrinsorm]

So you should be protesting catholic hospitals who do not offer abortion services on the basis of religious discrimination, inorite?Did you assume that I don't?

[Methais]

He's already treating them different by telling them to go seek medical care elsewhere.

Not really, since he doesn't know who is and isn't an Obama supporter unless they walk in and are like HAY DOC I :heart: OBAMA ZOMG HOPE AND CHANGE YES WE CAN OMG OMG OMG OMG <HYPERVENTILATION> OMG OMG OMG CHAAAAANGE!!!

And even if that's the case, he's still not sending them away and is giving them the same treatment he would give to any other patient.


He can't offer anyone medical treatment if they don't come in his office. If he intentionally creates an environment that impedes a group of people's entrance, that is unethical. If his sign had another line of text that read "although if you do decide to come in here, I won't treat you any differently... so I guess, you know what, I guess I could have just written OMG HEALTH CARE QQQQQQ", then that would be ok.

Just like how restaurants and convenience stores that have a NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE sign on the door are discriminating against people who like to be shirtless and barefoot.

If people don't go into his office, that's their own choice. He's not impeding anyone's entrance either. If he was doing something like stopping people at the door and asking if they voted for Obama, then you might have a point. But he's not, and you don't.

Anyone who enters his office seeking medical treatment will still get it, regardless of their political beliefs, and all the QQ in the world isn't going to change that or make the left's argument look any better.

[TheEschaton]

Again, restaurants are not DOCTORS. Like I said, if he was an auto mechanic, I wouldn't give two shits.

[Methais]

Again, restaurants are not DOCTORS. Like I said, if he was an auto mechanic, I wouldn't give two shits.

You still seem to be missing the part about him not turning patients away, even if they wanna lick Obama's asshole like Chris Matthews.

So what's the problem again?

[radamanthys]

Again, restaurants are not DOCTORS. Like I said, if he was an auto mechanic, I wouldn't give two shits.

Like it or not, medicine is a business. If a doctor has his own practice, he's just selling his service, same as an auto mechanic or computer repair tech.

[Cephalopod]

Like it or not, medicine is a business. If a doctor has his own practice, he's just selling his service, same as an auto mechanic or computer repair tech.

"medicine is a business" is a very slippery-slope argument to make...

[Kyra231]

"medicine is a business" is a very slippery-slope argument to make...

That slope was slid down many years ago when for profit companies took over most of health care.

[radamanthys]

"medicine is a business" is a very slippery-slope argument to make...

What, you think doctors should treat people out of the kindness of their hearts?

[Parkbandit]

That slope was slid down many years ago when for profit companies took over most of health care.

Yea.. just think how fantastic it will be when our government takes it over!!!

[Kyra231]

Yea.. just think how fantastic it will be when our government takes it over!!!

No shit. They can't run the military health care, I can't wait to see what they do with civilian.

[Gan]

What, you think doctors should treat people out of the kindness of their hearts?

Some people live in a Patch Adams fantasy world. As if Doctors do not have bills to pay and lives/family to support.

Or maybe under the new system the state will make them all live in state housing so that they have no bills and therefore should not charge anything for their services.

[Athgo]

Some people live in a Patch Adams fantasy world. As if Doctors do not have bills to pay and lives/family to support.

Or maybe under the new system the state will make them all live in state housing so that they have no bills and therefore should not charge anything for their services.

Then they should also make medical school free, so that we don't have any debt to pay off when we graduate.

[Gan]

Then they should also make medical school free, so that we don't have any debt to pay off when we graduate.

Bingo
(See government run student loans for future details)

[Latrinsorm]

If people don't go into his office, that's their own choice. He's not impeding anyone's entrance either. If he was doing something like stopping people at the door and asking if they voted for Obama, then you might have a point. But he's not, and you don't.It doesn't matter whether a person intends to follow through on a threat, or even if they are capable of doing so. It matters if the threat is credible, if the target reasonably believes they will.

As an aside, it is interesting to me that certain people are suddenly interested in widening the protections of free speech.

[TheEschaton]

I don't think that doctors should be forced to work for free, no. However, I don't think health care should be a for-profit industry, the work they provide, to me, is akin to social services. By making it a profit-oriented business, you attract douchenozzles who care more about lining their own pockets than serving people in need.

[Methais]

It doesn't matter whether a person intends to follow through on a threat, or even if they are capable of doing so. It matters if the threat is credible, if the target reasonably believes they will.

As an aside, it is interesting to me that certain people are suddenly interested in widening the protections of free speech.

What part of the note on his door was a threat, besides nothing?


I don't think that doctors should be forced to work for free, no. However, I don't think health care should be a for-profit industry, the work they provide, to me, is akin to social services. By making it a profit-oriented business, you attract douchenozzles who care more about lining their own pockets than serving people in need.

Ok and how much do you think doctors should make? It's not like they took a 5 day course and suddenly knew everything they know. Is the time and effort and money they invested into learning how to be a doctor not valuable or worth paying for? Do you think we'd have all the medical technology we have today if doctors got paid the same as someone working at McDonald's? Would there even be any doctors? Where would be the incentive to create new things? Why would people want to invest that much of their life into something to get almost nothing in return, when they could go do an easy job making the same amount of money without having to spend 8 years and $250k in school?

[Latrinsorm]

What part of the note on his door was a threat, besides nothing?Expressing the intention that he would (or "threatening to") withhold service.
Do you think we'd have all the medical technology we have today if doctors got paid the same as someone working at McDonald's?Incidentally, credit for medical technology is mostly due to physicists and engineers, who don't get paid well at all compared to doctors. Einstein made less than $100,000 a year in today's dollars, for instance.

[Methais]

Expressing the intention that he would (or "threatening to") withhold service.

Please quote the part of the note on the door that expresses this, and then explain why it means what you just said it meant.

[Parkbandit]

No shit. They can't run the military health care, I can't wait to see what they do with civilian.

Hey now.. we had to pass healthcare or else we would go bankrupt.

Or, as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, the legislation is "the largest deficit-reduction bill that members will have a chance to vote on..."

Do people really believe this shit? If they do, please point them out, because I've not met a single person yet.. both sides of the isle, that actually believe that this healthcare "reform" law will reduce the deficit.

[Parkbandit]

I don't think that doctors should be forced to work for free, no. However, I don't think health care should be a for-profit industry, the work they provide, to me, is akin to social services. By making it a profit-oriented business, you attract douchenozzles who care more about lining their own pockets than serving people in need.

By making it a for profit industry, we also lead the entire world in medical advances. There is a reason why people from Europe/Canada come to the USA for treatment... and it's not for the cheap prices.

[Parkbandit]

Expressing the intention that he would (or "threatening to") withhold service.Incidentally, credit for medical technology is mostly due to physicists and engineers, who don't get paid well at all compared to doctors. Einstein made less than $100,000 a year in today's dollars, for instance.

If you are threatened by that sign, you should stay at home, cowering under your bed for the rest of your life.

I could see someone like you though, suing the Doctor for mental anguish over that mean sign.

[Back]

Bottom line is that he is an idiot for sabotaging his own profitability.

[radamanthys]

Bottom line is that he is an idiot for sabotaging his own profitability.

Perhaps it was good marketing. He likely received more conservatives than he lost liberals.

[Cephalopod]

I don't think his profitability will be negatively impacted (people who were going to see him as a doctor probably still will), and Radamanthys is right: he probably picked up a few conservative patients who couldn't wait to have his hands on their collective penis.


By making it a for profit industry, we also lead the entire world in medical advances.

I love this sort of statement, since it's entirely unsubstantiated. Our medical companies are the biggest and the richest, they must be producing the most.... right!?

First human heart transplant? South Africa.

Discovery of DNA? England.

Stem cell research? Canada.

In vitro fertilization? England.

Newer?

First cloned animal? Scotland.

First lyme disease vaccination? British pharma.

First HIV protease inhibitor? Swiss pharma.

Heart stents? The originals were designed by a Swedish engineer, first tested in a dog's heart by a Boston-born doctor, first used in a human by a French surgeon.

This isn't to say that the US hasn't had a strong hand in many of these areas and developments... but we are not the leader in medical advances. Looking at the future of genetics, nanotechnology and other emerging medical technologies, we are not the leader, just ONE of them. It has nothing to do with things being a for-profit industry.

You know what's more amusing? It's universities funded by the NIH (OMG SOCIALISM!) that make the major developments in the US, not big pharma. They piggyback on the advances and turn them into profits.


There is a reason why people from Europe/Canada come to the USA for treatment... and it's not for the cheap prices.

Is this even quantifiable? I've never heard anyone back this statement up, and the idea of people with money traveling from Canada or anywhere in Europe for US health care seems laughable. Despite the socialized medicine in countries like Canada and Britain, there are incredibly good private hospitals in both countries for people who have the affluence to afford them.

[Latrinsorm]

Please quote the part of the note on the door that expresses this, and then explain why it means what you just said it meant.If you voted for Obama...... seek urologic care elsewhere.

The "if" indicates that the statement is a conditional, which means that the second phrase follows from the first. In this case, if it is the case that person A voted for Obama, it follows that it is the case that the sign wants person A to seek urologic care elsewhere. The author in this case would like you to believe that he is not responsible for the actual meanings of his statement, that his claimed intent should trump how people would reasonably respond to it. This is the case neither in the American legal system nor any mature system of ethics.
If you are threatened by that sign, you should stay at home, cowering under your bed for the rest of your life.

I could see someone like you though, suing the Doctor for mental anguish over that mean sign.You seem unfamiliar with the definitions of the word "threaten": there is no emotional response implied by the word. For instance, if I say "it's threatening to rain", I do not mean that I am in some way afraid of rain, or the sky. What I mean is that I have reason to believe that rain is imminent. If I say "the sniper threatened the safety of the President, so I shot him (the sniper)", the President is not necessarily even aware of the sniper, let alone in a state of dread.

[4a6c1]

LOL Latrinsorm. SILLY BOI. There is no logic in this thread. GET YE GONE.

Seriously though. I think this relates to healthcare.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/rojodisco/awesome.jpg

[Amber]

By making it a for profit industry, we also lead the entire world in medical advances.

The thing is in most medical advances, physician involvement is minimal. Most advancements are made by researchers, physicists, and engineers, with physician involvement only after something has been shown to work in lab settings.

The top ten medical advances of the last decade, as determined via a survey among physicians, are:
1) Human genome project (completed due to the efforts of geneticists, biologists, researchers, mathematicians, physicists, and engineers)

2) the Internet (Invented by Al Gore, ya know. ;) )

3) Anti-smoking laws and campaigns to reduce public smoking. (Ok, physicians played a direct role in this one, but so did researchers.)

4) Reduction in heart disease related deaths (Much of this is due to new treatment regimens such as tissue plasminogen activator and statins (created by biochemists, molecular biologists, and geneticists) and the use of stents (invented by an engineer).

5) Stem cell research (Done by scientific researchers, not physicians)

6) Targeted cancer therapies (Again, these therapies were developed by researchers, not physicians)

7) HAART treatment for HIV patients (Again, this was discovered and is still being developed in the lab by researchers)

8) Minimally invasive surgical procedures (Ok, gotta admit this one absolutely requires physician involvement, but also took the work of physicists and engineers)

9) Discovery of heart and cancer risks correlated with hormone replacement therapy. (The correlation was first discovered in the lab of a biologist working with mice)

10) functional MRI (Invented by a neuroscientist)

While I've no problem with physicians making a profit, and agree they have a huge amount of training and skill, there is little correlation between the for profit nature of health care and medical advancement.

[Parkbandit]

I love this sort of statement, since it's entirely unsubstantiated. Our medical companies are the biggest and the richest, they must be producing the most.... right!?

First human heart transplant? South Africa.

Discovery of DNA? England.

Stem cell research? Canada.

In vitro fertilization? England.

Newer?

First cloned animal? Scotland.

First lyme disease vaccination? British pharma.

First HIV protease inhibitor? Swiss pharma.

Heart stents? The originals were designed by a Swedish engineer, first tested in a dog's heart by a Boston-born doctor, first used in a human by a French surgeon.

This isn't to say that the US hasn't had a strong hand in many of these areas and developments... but we are not the leader in medical advances. Looking at the future of genetics, nanotechnology and other emerging medical technologies, we are not the leader, just ONE of them. It has nothing to do with things being a for-profit industry.

Notice they are all different countries? If you had to name a single country that lead the world in medical research and discovery.. go ahead and name one ahead of America. And as much as I believe the Nobel Prizes are geared towards liberal ass kissing, feel free to see which country leads the pack by a very large margin in NPP in Medicine. I'll give you a hint.. it's not Canada, France or England.

[Ryvicke]

There is a reason why people from Europe/Canada come to the USA for treatment... and it's not for the cheap prices.

:rofl:

[Rocktar]

I don't think that doctors should be forced to work for free, no. However, I don't think health care should be a for-profit industry, the work they provide, to me, is akin to social services. By making it a profit-oriented business, you attract douchenozzles who care more about lining their own pockets than serving people in need.

Ok, besides the typical caveat of "you should have stopped with 'I don't think'" I am forced to ask the following:

Why do you think that health care should not be a "for profit" enterprise?

Your logic is flawed and cursory at best. No matter what you do for a career, there are always those "douchenozzles" that will get into the position and just cruise along either because it pays the bills or because they have risen to their level of incompetence. The medical profession pays pretty well as it is and we have a drastic shortage of personnel. You want to exacerbate the problem by taking away profit as a motive? That is simply retarded. We can't get enough people to commit to the 7+ years of school and then residency just to become a doctor now, and that includes the people that want to, as you put it, "serve people in need" IN ADDITION TO those that do it for money. Take out the ones doing it for money and you really make a shortage.

Who is going to care for all the poor and downtrodden in 4 years when they flood the market for healthcare when we don't have enough to care for the current market?

[Cephalopod]

Notice they are all different countries? If you had to name a single country that lead the world in medical research and discovery.. go ahead and name one ahead of America. And as much as I believe the Nobel Prizes are geared towards liberal ass kissing, feel free to see which country leads the pack by a very large margin in NPP in Medicine. I'll give you a hint.. it's not Canada, France or England.

So, to prove that the US for-profit medical industry is leading the world in medical advances... you cite the Nobel Prize, which is largely given to NIH-funded university researchers? Okayy.

The fact that the US has a higher number of prize wins compared to other countries is a result of sheer volume.

England? 21 prizes in Physiology/Medicine with a population around 49m and 91 universities.

US? 56 prizes in Physiology/Medicine with a population around 307m and 2000-3000 universities, depending on where you look.

Just since 2000, England has been involved in 5 of the prizes and the US has been involved in 8.

I'm going to stick by my original statement:


Looking at the future of genetics, nanotechnology and other emerging medical technologies, we are not the leader, just ONE of them. It has nothing to do with things being a for-profit industry.

[Cephalopod]

You know, another thing... I have no problem with the medical industries being for-profit. However, saying that the reason things are 'so good' is because they are for-profit is disingenuous.

In a similar vein, the 'slippery slope' I mentioned with regards to Radamanthys was that when you say "medicine is a business", you need to be careful with the analogies you draw to other businesses and the allowances you're willing to grant medicine because of them. It's the implied 'JUST' in that sentence that can be scary.

If someone at the BestBuy geek squad accidentally erases my hard drive, I get an apology and maybe they give me a store credit. If a doctor does something during surgery that causes my brain to be without oxygen and I wind up being a vegetable for the rest of my life, I can't get a new brain and any store credit I get is just going to go towards feeding me via tube for the rest of my life.

inb4 "You're already a vegetable."

[Methais]

If you voted for Obama...... seek urologic care elsewhere.

The "if" indicates that the statement is a conditional, which means that the second phrase follows from the first. In this case, if it is the case that person A voted for Obama, it follows that it is the case that the sign wants person A to seek urologic care elsewhere. The author in this case would like you to believe that he is not responsible for the actual meanings of his statement, that his claimed intent should trump how people would reasonably respond to it. This is the case neither in the American legal system nor any mature system of ethics.You seem unfamiliar with the definitions of the word "threaten": there is no emotional response implied by the word. For instance, if I say "it's threatening to rain", I do not mean that I am in some way afraid of rain, or the sky. What I mean is that I have reason to believe that rain is imminent. If I say "the sniper threatened the safety of the President, so I shot him (the sniper)", the President is not necessarily even aware of the sniper, let alone in a state of dread.

I have a hard time believing that you really perceive that as a threat and not just using it as some cheap talking point. The reason for that is I can't fathom anybody such a scared of nothing vagina.

[TheEschaton]

Ok, besides the typical caveat of "you should have stopped with 'I don't think'" I am forced to ask the following:

Why do you think that health care should not be a "for profit" enterprise?

Your logic is flawed and cursory at best. No matter what you do for a career, there are always those "douchenozzles" that will get into the position and just cruise along either because it pays the bills or because they have risen to their level of incompetence. The medical profession pays pretty well as it is and we have a drastic shortage of personnel. You want to exacerbate the problem by taking away profit as a motive? That is simply retarded. We can't get enough people to commit to the 7+ years of school and then residency just to become a doctor now, and that includes the people that want to, as you put it, "serve people in need" IN ADDITION TO those that do it for money. Take out the ones doing it for money and you really make a shortage.

Who is going to care for all the poor and downtrodden in 4 years when they flood the market for healthcare when we don't have enough to care for the current market?

The shortage of people in the medical profession have to do with the insurance costs, the debt entailed going into the profession, and money-grubbing medical malpractice lawyers who will sue for anything. Eliminate the high paydays, and insurance costs go down, and malpractice lawyers will damn near go out of business except for serious, legitimate malpractice cases. Reduce/subsidize the absurd cost of going to school in this country past high school, and the debt issue goes away too.

I stand by my statement because doctors (and other professions not discussed here) are expressly serving the needs (not wants, or desires) of people. That is why they are like social services, and that is why they need to be protected from money hungry douchenozzles who put themselves before their clients. While I may not like money hungry douchenozzles generally, when they go into investment banking, their role in life is not explicitly stated as the welfare of others.

-TheE-

[Back]

Perhaps it was good marketing. He likely received more conservatives than he lost liberals.


I don't think his profitability will be negatively impacted (people who were going to see him as a doctor probably still will), and Radamanthys is right: he probably picked up a few conservative patients who couldn't wait to have his hands on their collective penis.

While using words and phrases like “perhaps”, “likely”, “probably” and “I don’t think” really strengthen your arguments you both fail to see the common sense of any business wanting any and all customers regardless of political position to remain viable and profitable.

Oh, and “collective penis” lawls.

[ClydeR]

I've already stated that because he hasn't turned anyone away he's perfectly allowed to post that sign, I just wondered if it came down to a situation where someone basically called him out and he responded by refusing service, if he would be in jeopardy of losing his license or whatever for violating the oath.

This doctor is a urologist. You do not want to make a doctor mad at you right before he performs a urological procedure on you. It's not an issue that is likely ever to be tested.

If somebody can show that Obama supporters are more likely to have urological problems that the general population, then it might violate the Hippocratical oath.

[ClydeR]

I posed a what if question because I'm not sure of the intricacies of stuff like the oath- for instance, I know abortion is cited as a DO NOT in the oath and yet there are abortion doctors and obgyn's that will prescribe abortion pills, etc.

Excellent research there.

While we're talking about the Hippocratical oath, I want to point out that I object to it. I looked it up on the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath), and it is based on Pagan gods. Something about Apollo.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

He absolutely should be able to do what he wants. It's his business, at least for the next 4 years it is. His politics and the effect it has on his business is his choice.

Just like the Government mandating smoking laws for restaurants, I'm opposed to that level of government. If being a customer in a venue that allows smoking bothers you, you take your business to a place that doesn't allow smoking. Vote with your dollars. Don't infringe on my rights to inhale cancer causing agents. Undoubtedly someone will say but it's my air too you are poluting, to them I say go to a business that doesn't allow it. Let the owners of the business decide.

Frankly I think we are mature enough that things like this should manage themselves. And no, I don't support things like discrimination based on things a person cannot control - race obviously, sex, etc. But if I don't want to serve Catholics in my Buddist all you can eat buffet, why can't I?

I'm sure there will be some outrage over my statement, feel free to present them in a logical manner and I'm open to changing my mind. Right now though, I think vocal minorities are getting legislation enacted which infringes on the rights of people to do their own thing and be held accountable for doing their own thing.

Anyway, /soapbox.

[Latrinsorm]

But if I don't want to serve Catholics in my Buddist all you can eat buffet, why can't I?Because it's wrong. I can give you reasons why it is wrong both in itself and in what it causes, but like any other logical chain they inevitably have a first premise you will have to accept or refuse on its own merits. Take your statement about racial discrimination. If a person continued to ask you why racial discrimination was wrong, and why that reason, and why that reason, eventually what would you be left with?
Don't infringe on my rights to inhale cancer causing agents.From what do you draw these rights?
I have a hard time believing that you really perceive that as a threat and not just using it as some cheap talking point. The reason for that is I can't fathom anybody such a scared of nothing vagina.I cannot force you to read the words in front of you before commenting on them. I do strongly encourage it, though.

[TheEschaton]

So you're for the deregulation of pollution standards and the disbanding of the EPA too, then, because businesses should be able to decide whether they risk pissing off the consumer by polluting more?

Here's a hint: the American consumer is vastly uninformed. About everything. And companies spend millions and billions of dollars of advertising every year to keep them uninformed. The boycott is ineffective these days if people aren't educated about the things they buy, and thus the boycott hasn't worked since the 60s.

[Keller]

I, personally, think we have entirely too much toxic food in this country. It is the FDAs fault. They are the socialists that cause our food to be considered "toxic".

If we could just get rid of the FDA - we would save taxpayer dollars and have virtually no toxic food.

[CrystalTears]

Sure the doctor has the right to say what he wants in his own practice. Is it a wise choice? I don't think so. But then maybe this stunt just got him more attention from Obama-haters.

It's sad the lengths people will go to try and "prove" how right they are regarding politics.

[TheEschaton]

Frankly I think we are mature enough that things like this should manage themselves.

BTW, LOLZ.

[Daniel]

But if I don't want to serve Catholics in my Buddist all you can eat buffet, why can't I?



Too bad you guys fucked that up didn't you? How about you take some personal responsibility for yourselves and stop complaining because you can't be racist anymore.

[Cephalopod]

I've never eaten Buddhist before. Are they tasty?

[Keller]

I've never eaten Buddhist before. Are they tasty?

They are organic and free range.

Not bad.

[Methais]

Too bad you guys fucked that up didn't you? How about you take some personal responsibility for yourselves and stop complaining because you can't be racist anymore.

Not serving Catholics in a Buddhist buffet is racist now?

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/race_card.jpg


Because it's wrong.

There are plenty of things that are morally wrong, yet still perfectly legal. Learn the difference.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/129075441765133866.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Too bad you guys fucked that up didn't you? How about you take some personal responsibility for yourselves and stop complaining because you can't be racist anymore.

I think you prematurely played your race card there... since neither religion is based upon race.

[Methais]

I think you prematurely played your race card there... since neither religion is based upon race.

It's become so reflexive of them to do so that I see it done when people are talking about things like baseball, playing Go Fish, or even when debating on whether or not the Waltons really do take way too long to say good night.

Not only can they not help it, but they probably don't even realize they're doing it half the time. Kind of like normal people and breathing.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Too bad you guys fucked that up didn't you? How about you take some personal responsibility for yourselves and stop complaining because you can't be racist anymore.

In comes the troll playing the race card. Go Daniel!

[Daniel]

In comes the troll playing the race card. Go Daniel!

Wait, you weren't trying to say its your right to be bigoted?

[Daniel]

It's become so reflexive of them to do so that I see it done when people are talking about things like baseball, playing Go Fish, or even when debating on whether or not the Waltons really do take way too long to say good night.

Not only can they not help it, but they probably don't even realize they're doing it half the time. Kind of like normal people and breathing.


I think you prematurely played your race card there... since neither religion is based upon race.

Thanks for the lulz guys. I know you've been trying to bait me into something resembling a race card for along time now, but even if this did qualify (and it doesn't), it would be kinda silly to start giving out fistbumps when you guys hardly go a day without playing it yourself.

[Latrinsorm]

There are plenty of things that are morally wrong, yet still perfectly legal. Learn the difference.It's already been stated that such behavior is illegal, hence the question in context is "why is it illegal?" In this case, it is illegal because it is wrong.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Because it's wrong.

It's wrong to whom? Your definition? Or mine? Or Hitlers? Or the Pope?

I don't think it's wrong that a for profit business determine which clients they'll serve.

Based on your response, I take it you are against Gym's which only allow women? See, that doesn't bother me at all. There are handicap slots in my parking garage, does it bother you, since it's wrong to make me, the smoker with emphysema, walk those 20 extra agonizing feet to the door?

Ok I don't have emphysema. But I'm too short for my weight.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Wait, you weren't trying to say its your right to be bigoted?

Nope, not at all. You again have failed to understand.

I think it's every person's right to be bigoted.

[Parkbandit]

Thanks for the lulz guys. I know you've been trying to bait me into something resembling a race card for along time now, but even if this did qualify (and it doesn't), it would be kinda silly to start giving out fistbumps when you guys hardly go a day without playing it yourself.

Show me where I've used the "race card" on this or any other forum. You called someone a racist for something that wasn't close to being racist. No one baited you.. as this was never about race.. until you brought it up. How exactly was that baiting you?

[Parkbandit]

It's already been stated that such behavior is illegal, hence the question in context is "why is it illegal?" In this case, it is illegal because it is wrong.

You seem unfamiliar with the definitions of the word "illegal". I think that sign threatened you so badly, you can't think straight.

[Gan]

Eliminate the high paydays, and insurance costs go down, and malpractice lawyers will damn near go out of business except for serious, legitimate malpractice cases.

Holy shit! A D-Team law school grad clamouring for tort reform?

Do my eyes deceive me?

[Gan]

Too bad you guys fucked that up didn't you? How about you take some personal responsibility for yourselves and stop complaining because you can't be racist anymore.

:facepalm:

[Methais]

Thanks for the lulz guys. I know you've been trying to bait me into something resembling a race card for along time now, but even if this did qualify (and it doesn't), it would be kinda silly to start giving out fistbumps when you guys hardly go a day without playing it yourself.

You just played the race card on SHM after he talked about a Buddhist buffet refusing to serve Catholics, which has nothing to do with race.

Nobody was trying to bait you. Nobody was even holding a fishing pole or in a boat or even near the water, and you cried "Racist!" anyway.

Lulz indeed, with a side order of http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif


It's already been stated that such behavior is illegal, hence the question in context is "why is it illegal?" In this case, it is illegal because it is wrong.

What part of the doctor not turning people away are you failing to get?

[Keller]

Holy shit! A D-Team law school grad clamouring for tort reform?

Do my eyes deceive me?

Has there been a "D-Team" law school grad that has argued tort reform is bad?

[BigWorm]

Holy shit! A D-Team law school grad clamouring for tort reform?

Do my eyes deceive me?

OMG!!! That doesn't fit your world view. Must be a lie!!!

[Latrinsorm]

It's wrong to whom? Your definition? Or mine? Or Hitlers? Or the Pope?I don't have a comprehensive list of to whom it is wrong, I only know that it is. Ethics is not a poll, and the majority does not rule it.
Based on your response, I take it you are against Gym's which only allow women? See, that doesn't bother me at all. There are handicap slots in my parking garage, does it bother you, since it's wrong to make me, the smoker with emphysema, walk those 20 extra agonizing feet to the door?Neither of those two things are wrong or bother me. I'm glad you don't actually have emphysema, though, I think you should quit smoking while you're ahead.
You seem unfamiliar with the definitions of the word "illegal".Please see Title II Sec. 201(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the similarly titled acts following and preceding it as needed.
What part of the doctor not turning people away are you failing to get?First, for clarity's sake, the "such behavior" was in response to SHM's hypothetical Buddhist-only buffet. Second, and I'm glad you brought this up because it is a crucial point, the doctor is not turning people away once they are inside his office. The doctor is turning people away at the door. In America, you are not allowed to put up a sign that says "no people of X sort" even if you are just kidding and you will sell widgets to people of X sort, or there's a widget store next door, or etc.

[EasternBrand]

Has there been a "D-Team" law school grad that has argued tort reform is bad?

Wouldn't that depend on what shape the specific reform proposition in question would take?

Also, since no one can agree on the meaning of right and wrong, of what use is this poll?

[pabstblueribbon]

Wouldn't that depend on what shape the specific reform proposition in question would take?

Also, since no one can agree on the meaning of right and wrong, of what use is this poll?

winnar winnar chikon dinnar

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't have a comprehensive list of to whom it is wrong, I only know that it is. Ethics is not a poll, and the majority does not rule it.

I don't disagree with you that "it's wrong"... but, pretend I do.

If I think it's not wrong, and I'm absolutely firm in my belief, and you believe it IS wrong, and are absolutely firm in your belief... who decides? We both KNOW opposite answers.

I still think people should be allowed to make "wrong" decisions in running their business.

My sister belongs to a woman only gym, which advertises safe and comfortable exercise facility designed for women by women (drawing my example from life). Using the most strict definition of who can serve whom, that gym should be in violation of the law. I'd love to go to a female only gym! I bet it smells better, is cleaner and surely has more women than a unisex gym. Hopefully no one sues them, because my sister really likes it that she doesn't get hit on when she's working out.

Now, same example as above. But it's owned by a feminist man hating bull dyke (stereotype anyone) who doesn't want men in it because she hates them. Is it wrong now?

To me it doesn't matter either way. While one on the surface seems ok to me, and the other seems spiteful, in either case the owner is marketing to a specific market segment.

[Parkbandit]

Has there been a "D-Team" law school grad that has argued tort reform is bad?

Well, let's just say I don't hear many that support tort reform from the D-team.


So... how has Louisiana's extensive tort reform reduced premiums and lead to more uninsured having coverage?

Oh wait. You have some of the highest premiums in the country and a ton of uninsured.

Also... news flash. Many insurance companies sell in many states. They tend to not be in all of them because they don't want to submit to their laws. It isn't some easy Federal boundary.




While you can point to trivial arguments such as tort, illegals, defensive medicine, regulation ... most arguments seem to overlook or blatantly ignore the issue of excessive administration.



So let me say it again. Tort reform will anything but a negligible effect on healthcare.



This is your opinion and nothing more. Tort is no more of an issue than abortion. It is nothing more than a misleading distraction. Tort reform will have a negligable impact on the quality of healthcare let alone the cost of healthcare.





Tort reform would limit that too.

Merck may've gotten slammed... but what they propose would've stopped A.H. Robins and American Home Products from getting slammed too.

You say socialized medicine systems are poor. Maybe you're basing that off of only Canada?

(not that I advocate them for the US... just am against tort reform)

[Cephalopod]

Tsa`ah was a law school grad?

[Parkbandit]

Please see Title II Sec. 201(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the similarly titled acts following and preceding it as needed.

Here's the part of your stupidity you didn't pay attention to:


It's already been stated that such behavior is illegal, hence the question in context is "why is it illegal?" In this case, it is illegal because it is wrong.

Being "wrong" doesn't equate anything to being illegal.

But hey, don't worry.. I barely read your posts.. I wouldn't expect you to.

[Latrinsorm]

If I think it's not wrong, and I'm absolutely firm in my belief, and you believe it IS wrong, and are absolutely firm in your belief... who decides? We both KNOW opposite answers.Luckily, history indicates that humanity progresses in terms of reaching the right answers. Unfortunately, this is only worthwhile as long as humanity actively intervenes in the affairs of each individual and group, see next point.
I still think people should be allowed to make "wrong" decisions in running their business.People cannot be allowed to make wrong decisions when the consequences of doing so are sufficiently grave. I don't know everything about urology, but I'm sure there are at least some lives saved by urologists. How many people are we willing to let die so that this doctor can make a political statement that by his own admission is empty whining? My answer is zero. (This is also why we can't wait for the so-called free market to solve the problem.)
Being "wrong" doesn't equate anything to being illegal.Again, I am describing a causal relationship, not a definition. I did not say that being wrong "equate[d]" "anything" to being illegal, I said that this particular illegal thing is illegal because it is wrong.

As an aside, it is interesting that you will repeatedly take the time and effort to respond to my posts while declaring that you aren't really reading them. What purpose could you possibly derive from such behavior?

[Clove]

I think its within his right to express this opinion just as much as its his patient's right to choose a different service provider.Ditto.

Personally I think it's bad business and bad taste for a doctor to use his office as a political megaphone, in general. Then again, considering the topic, health-care, I can't look down on my nose because he chooses to express his opinion on the subject, even from his own office. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect that if Obama pushed bill that might impact lawyers, engineers, architects, college professors etc as dramatically I suspect you might see similar stunts in their offices/classrooms.

[Parkbandit]

Tsa`ah was a law school grad?

No idea to be honest. He's an idiot.. and a piss poor excuse for a human being, so it's very possible.

Is Warriorbird?

[Parkbandit]

Again, I am describing a causal relationship, not a definition. I did not say that being wrong "equate[d]" "anything" to being illegal, I said that this particular illegal thing is illegal because it is wrong.

Nothing is illegal because it is wrong... it's only illegal because it's unlawful.. meaning against the law.



As an aside, it is interesting that you will repeatedly take the time and effort to respond to my posts while declaring that you aren't really reading them. What purpose could you possibly derive from such behavior?

It's like watching a retard pick his nose and eat it.. you know you should just look the other way, but sometimes you just can't help laughing at him.

[TheEschaton]

WB is, yes.

Edit: Actually, he might be in his last year of law school. IIRC, Keller was a year ahead of me, I was a year ahead of WB.

[Gan]

Has there been a "D-Team" law school grad that has argued tort reform is bad?

Lack of support for tort reform by D-Team law school attendees/grads on this board would imply yes.

[Gan]

Tsa`ah was a law school grad?

You noob. Tsa'ah gradudated from the law school of life.

Learn it, live it, love it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Luckily, history indicates that humanity progresses in terms of reaching the right answers. Unfortunately, this is only worthwhile as long as humanity actively intervenes in the affairs of each individual and group, see next point.

Like the US intervened in Iraq?


People cannot be allowed to make wrong decisions when the consequences of doing so are sufficiently grave. I don't know everything about urology, but I'm sure there are at least some lives saved by urologists. How many people are we willing to let die so that this doctor can make a political statement that by his own admission is empty whining? My answer is zero. (This is also why we can't wait for the so-called free market to solve the problem.)

Last I checked Doctors typically pay their way through extensive schooling. They are people, who have THE vote in what they do. So irrespective of their own personal history, political affiliations and opinion, you dismiss them out of hand for choosing a profession in which they provide medical attention to others. What should the punishment be for having an opinion in the medical profession? I'm very curious what consequences you will assign to this doctor, since he cannot be allowed to make the "wrong" decision. Please elaborate.

You also didn't answer my question about the gym - hate monger or personal comfort owner. Different or not?


Again, I am describing a causal relationship, not a definition. I did not say that being wrong "equate[d]" "anything" to being illegal, I said that this particular illegal thing is illegal because it is wrong.

As above, please explain what your proposed legal consequences of having an opinion should be.

[Rocktar]

The shortage of people in the medical profession have to do with the insurance costs, the debt entailed going into the profession, and money-grubbing medical malpractice lawyers who will sue for anything. Eliminate the high paydays, and insurance costs go down, and malpractice lawyers will damn near go out of business except for serious, legitimate malpractice cases. Reduce/subsidize the absurd cost of going to school in this country past high school, and the debt issue goes away too.

Oh really? Do my eyes deceive me or is a lawyer saying that others in his profession have been a major causal factor in the doctor shortage? Perhaps genuine tort reform as proposed many times by both Democrat Socialists and Republicans should have been a key factor in genuine health care reform? Since insurance costs are driven almost completely by legal fees and risk it would seem that lawyers and the great surplus of them, the highest over all number per population in the world last I knew (back in the 90s), is indeed the single largest factor in doctor shortage and costs yet the current administration, a lawyer, did not want to put a leash on his profession. A little bit of a conflict of interest there? And we do subsidize the medical profession heavily. In fact, there are many places in this country where if you are willing to "serve the people" for a couple years, at a modest salary, you can have your entire debt wiped clean. Also, if people pay the cost of education, and many do, then the cost is not absurd, apparently, people, like you or your parents, though that the cost was worth the benefit. In your case, I think someone was shorted and you should get a refund even though you seem to have finally seen a little bit of the light of reality on this subject.

Yet so many choose not too, why? Because those places that need doctors really are in poor and rural areas and egotistical MDs don't want to go work there. The same could be said for teachers and other key people. One major factor that you have over looked in your analysis is that being a doctor is hard. It takes a lot of school, a lot of dedication and a lot of long, hard work. It is in payment for this long period of dedication that we pay doctors a lot of money. They go 7+ years without any pay and then we expect them to be perfect once done so they should get rewarded.


I stand by my statement because doctors (and other professions not discussed here) are expressly serving the needs (not wants, or desires) of people. That is why they are like social services, and that is why they need to be protected from money hungry douchenozzles who put themselves before their clients. While I may not like money hungry douchenozzles generally, when they go into investment banking, their role in life is not explicitly stated as the welfare of others.

-TheE-

Really, doctors don't serve wants too? And if you really want to get to it, how do you decide what is and is not a need. Life sustaining treatment could be classed as a need, or it could be a want. I might want to live longer, if I am sick and dying because of it, nature seems to think my time is over and I don't need any more. Fundamentally, you get into the idea of want and need and when one crosses the line and becomes the other and in every single case, this is a personal decision. You want to make it a societal decision and that in and of it's self is wrong. It is no more your right to say I should die if I can afford treatment than it is to make me live if I want to die. This is the heart of the difference in Liberal vs Conservative. You, a Liberal even if you deny it, believe that you have the right to personally dictate your moral and ethical standards onto me and then force me to abide by them. I, a conservative, believe that my moral and ethical standards are my own and I have no right to force them on others.

By they way dumbass, if investment banking is not a service for the welfare of others, then how do you explain the billions of lives adversely affected by this economic downturn? Or the thousands of lives lost due to it? Or how about the many lives for generations that will be effected by it and the policies resulting from it? Every profession, sells something that effects someone else and on a large enough level of responsibility and scope, they can effect the whole world.

[AnticorRifling]

As an aside, it is interesting that you will repeatedly take the time and effort to respond to my posts while declaring that you aren't really reading them. What purpose could you possibly derive from such behavior?

It probably amuses him, or he's doing it for the same reason you wear women's shoes (to get a reaction).

[Gan]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With a 21% cut to Medicare reimbursement rates set to take effect Monday, the nation's largest physician organization has informed its members about their options -- which include shutting off practices to newMedicare patients.

"To our physicians, we are providing information on their Medicare participation options, including how to remove themselves from the Medicare program," said James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, whose more than 250,000 members include doctors, medical students and faculty members.

Some 43 million Americans receive Medicare coverage. For doctors who accept Medicare, federal law requires that reimbursement rates be adjusted annually based on formula tied to the health of the economy.

That law says rates should be cut every year to keep Medicare financially sound. But Congress has blocked those cuts from happening in seven of the last eight years and could still do so this year.

Those temporary fixes aren't good enough anymore, warned Rohack.

He said the AMA wants the current law to be repealed and a new formula used "that more accurately reflects the cost of providing care" in determining Medicare reimbursement rates.

In the meantime, physicians are asking the AMA to prepare handouts they can give patients to prepare them for the worst-case scenario: getting dropped completely. And a new report on the AMA's Web site tellsdoctors how they can help their patients find other doctors if they decide to no longer accept Medicare.

"All this is a result of physicians becoming very frustrated with the situation," said Rohack. "It's regrettable, but it reflects the current political environment. Congress need a crisis before it acts."
Dropping patients

Dr. Edward Kornel, a neurosurgeon based in White Plains, N.Y., stopped seeing Medicare patients two years ago. Two colleagues in his group practice have joined him in dropping Medicare patients over the past six months.

Kornel, who's been in practice for 27 years, said he had always accepted Medicare patients in the past.

"But when I looked at my income from reimbursements, I was losing money every time I took care of a Medicare patient," said Kornel. "It wasn't covering my costs."

While Medicare patients accounted for about 20% of his total patient load, they were generating less than 5% of his income.
"I would have had to do 300 operations in one year just to break even," he said.

Still, he said he doesn't want to turn away anyone who wants him as their doctor. "If they really can't pay the fees then I will do it pro bono," said Kornel.

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons, to which Kornel belongs, has warned that Medicare patients would likely get less access to doctors if Medicare payment cuts continue.

In a survey, the association found that 65% of its 3,400 members said they are referring their Medicare patients to other doctors. About 60% said they were reducing the number of Medicare patients in their practice.

"These results paint a bleak path we are going down," said Dr. Troy Tippett, president of the association.

However, the federal government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that its own data, and other industry reports, show that only a small percentage (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/27/news/economy/healthcare_medicare_doctors/index.htm?postversion=2009110100) of beneficiaries unable to get physician access.

The agency maintains that 96.5% of all practicing physicians, nearly 600,000 doctors, currently participate in Medicare.

Dr. Priscilla Arnold, an ophthalmologist based in Bettendorf, Iowa, and past president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, isn't buying those numbers.

"You have to assume that CMS' data reflects physicians that are accepting Medicare patients but [do]not account separately for those who are reducing the number of Medicare patients," said Arnold, who added that a majority of her patients are on Medicare.

She said she has to "realistically evaluate" every year if she can continue to see all her patients.

If this latest cut goes into effect, Arnold said many doctors in her specialty won't be able to sustain their practices.

"This year, the situation is more crucial than ever," she said.

Kornel said consumers should prepare for some difficult days ahead.

"If doctors drop Medicare patients, these people will be forced to go to clinics where it's hard to get appointments, the waits are long and you get far less attention than you would otherwise get," said Kornel. "I think this situation is headed for disaster."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/24/news/economy/doctors_ditching_medicare_patients/

__________________________________________________ ______

What say you now?

Its not like this was not without warning...

PS. You can thank Nancy Pelosi for the 21% Medicare reimbursement cut.

[Atlanteax]

Looks like it's time for NO health-care, in a dastardly twist of irony.

[Rocktar]

Luckily, history indicates that humanity progresses in terms of reaching the right answers. Unfortunately, this is only worthwhile as long as humanity actively intervenes in the affairs of each individual and group, see next point.

Oh really? Where do you come up with this line of drivel? Humanity only seems to progress because you seem to think the current state is indeed more advanced that previous ones and that is a tenuous assertion at best.


People cannot be allowed to make wrong decisions when the consequences of doing so are sufficiently grave. I don't know everything about urology, but I'm sure there are at least some lives saved by urologists. How many people are we willing to let die so that this doctor can make a political statement that by his own admission is empty whining? My answer is zero. (This is also why we can't wait for the so-called free market to solve the problem.)

And here we have it boys and girls, the epitome of Liberal Socialist arrogance. Latrine here seems to think that he or the government knows what is best for everyone and that because, in their egotistical minds, they know better for everyone, they should have the right to make the decisions. The fundamental keystone of Liberal/Socialism is that a group or individual that is supposedly more "enlightened" than the general rabble should be in charge of making the decisions for everyone and they have the right to enforce their decisions on everyone regardless of the individual's wishes. Thus is born, the tyrannical Oligarchy/Dictatorship and THIS is why Liberal/Socialism is wrong.

What is more incredulous here is that you think that someone will die because of this doctor's sign. Again you assume that the individual who is seeking treatment has no personal responsibility in their lives and that someone outside them is to blame. Yet another keystone of Liberal/Socialism, lack of personal responsibility for one's life. The doctor says he will not turn anyone away and it is their choice if they proceed, yet the doctor would somehow be responsible for someone turning away by their own conscience and dying from lack of treatment. You really are delusional and insane.



Again, I am describing a causal relationship, not a definition. I did not say that being wrong "equate[d]" "anything" to being illegal, I said that this particular illegal thing is illegal because it is wrong.

It is not illegal to voice your opinion in civil society, only in an Oligarchic Tyrannical State. The doctor said he would not refuse anyone and until you can prove he has, he has not in any way broken the law, and even then, I am not all that sure he would have committed a crime.

[Latrinsorm]

Like the US intervened in Iraq? ... You also didn't answer my question about the gym - hate monger or personal comfort owner. Different or not?In order: For instance, yes, and different to the degree that it can be verified.
What should the punishment be for having an opinion in the medical profession? I'm very curious what consequences you will assign to this doctor, since he cannot be allowed to make the "wrong" decision.The problem isn't the having the opinion part, and frankly it's disingenuous to frame this event in that manner. The problem is that this particular way of expressing his opinion has foreseeable results that are unacceptable. As to what happens to the doctor, it depends on his history. If this is the first serious infraction, leniency may be appropriate. Otherwise, the immediate consequence is that he can't be a doctor anymore. Depending on the verifiable medical harm he caused, further legal action could be required.
It probably amuses him, or he's doing it for the same reason you wear women's shoes (to get a reaction).This is a fundamental misrepresentation of my motivation.
Oh really? Where do you come up with this line of drivel? Humanity only seems to progress because you seem to think the current state is indeed more advanced that previous ones and that is a tenuous assertion at best.Observation. Consider:
1. When was the last time you heard the 101st Airborne had declared General Campbell President and marched on Washington?
2. When was the last time a Senator assassinated the President, following which the rest of the Senate declared him President?
3. When was the last time thousands of American cavalry sailed to Jerusalem to massacre civilians?
4. When was the last time a conquerer put an entire continent to the sword?
5. When was the last time you heard the name "Bombingham" ascribed to current events?
6. When was the last time you saw a Hooverville? A slave? A lynch mob? A coloreds only fountain?

Would you rate our current understanding of science as better or worse than all those in recorded history? How about engineering, architecture, medicine?
The doctor says he will not turn anyone away and it is their choice if they proceed, yet the doctor would somehow be responsible for someone turning away by their own conscience and dying from lack of treatment.The doctor says to the news that he won't turn anyone away. The doctor says to his prospective patients that he will. The news isn't going to the doctor because they want medical attention. The patients are.

Incidentally, the idea that "the individual's wishes" are universally sacrosanct is compatible with exactly one form of government: anarchy. Like every mature system of government, the one I support compromises between liberty and our need to function as a sociological unit. In this case, the compromise is that one's freedom of speech does not trump anyone's right to live. You can call my system Liberal/Socialist, Oligarchic/Dictatorial, Peanut Butter/Jelly, Sass/afrass, but these are all incorrect. Its true name is America, and America is here to stay.

[CrystalTears]

The doctor says to the news that he won't turn anyone away. The doctor says to his prospective patients that he will.I disagree. I believe he's telling patients that he'd prefer if people who voted for Obama didn't visit his practice. I don't see anywhere on that one sign that he will turn people away if he found out they voted for Obama.

[Latrinsorm]

When you see a sign that says "closed", do you believe that the proprietors merely prefer you did not enter, but will nevertheless serve you upon entrance?

[AnticorRifling]

When you see a sign that says "closed", do you believe that the proprietors merely prefer you did not enter, but will nevertheless serve you upon entrance?

That depends does it say CLOSED or does it say CLOSED followed by more words that you have to read?

[Cephalopod]

lol. Did anyone see this particular doctor giving interviews about this? He basically has no idea why he's against the health care changes. I definitely don't want this guy touching my penis now.



Cassell: Hospice cuts in 2012…Does the government want people to die slowly?

Colmes: Do you really think the government wants people dead?

Cassell: Well I think that they’re cutting all supportive care, like nursing homes, ambulance services…

Colmes: What to you mean they’re cutting nursing homes?

Cassell: They’re cutting nursing home reimbursements

Colmes: Isn’t what they’re cutting under the Medicare plan what was really double dipping; they were getting credits and they were getting to deduct them at the same time.

Cassell: Well you know, I can’t tell you exactly what the deal is.

Colmes: If you can’t tell us exactly what the deal is, why are you opposing it and fighting against it?

Cassell: I’m not the guy who wrote the plan.

Colmes: But if you don’t know what the deal is why are you speaking out against something you don’t know what the deal is?

Cassell: What I get online, just like any other American. What I’m supposed to understand about the bill should be available to me.

Colmes: It is; it’s been online for a long time; it’s also been all over the media…

[Kithus]

What say you now?

Its not like this was not without warning...

PS. You can thank Nancy Pelosi for the 21% Medicare reimbursement cut.

Well I say you're completely wrong in this instance Gan and you're also totally outdated. The 21% medicare cut will go into affect only if the Congress does not further delay it. The specific action pre-dates the Healthcare overhaul. In this case the article you linked is from Feb 26th and the delay was finally passed. The ones blocking the delay were Republicans. If you remember the GOP Senator who wasn't allowing a vote on extending unemployment benefits, this was part of that package. Anything else I can correct you on today?

[Back]

lol. Did anyone see this particular doctor giving interviews about this? He basically has no idea why he's against the health care changes. I definitely don't want this guy touching my penis now.

rofl! Classic.

[Ryvicke]

Well I say you're completely wrong in this instance Gan and you're also totally outdated. The 21% medicare cut will go into affect only if the Congress does not further delay it. The specific action pre-dates the Healthcare overhaul. In this case the article you linked is from Feb 26th and the delay was finally passed. The ones blocking the delay were Republicans. If you remember the GOP Senator who wasn't allowing a vote on extending unemployment benefits, this was part of that package. Anything else I can correct you on today?

I bet the day people realize that FOX News has been lying to them is a really hard day. I would probably eat some candy and just try to watch some funny movies or something.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

In order: For instance, yes, and different to the degree that it can be verified.

The result in the women only gym example is exactly the same. A gym that only allows women in it. One reason for only allowing women in it is palatable to you, the other is not. From your below logic, the man hating bull dyke should, by law, not be allowed to have a woman only gym. The one who may or may not like penis, can. I fundamentally disagree with you there. They should equally be able to have a woman only gym, for whatever reason they want. If you do, having an opinion different than whoever is making the laws, put your livelihood in jeopardy.


The problem isn't the having the opinion part, and frankly it's disingenuous to frame this event in that manner. The problem is that this particular way of expressing his opinion has foreseeable results that are unacceptable. As to what happens to the doctor, it depends on his history. If this is the first serious infraction, leniency may be appropriate. Otherwise, the immediate consequence is that he can't be a doctor anymore. Depending on the verifiable medical harm he caused, further legal action could be required.

Well, lets frame it in an ingenuous manner then. You are assuming several things.
1) Someone with a life endangering urinary problem made an appointment with this doctor.
2) Upon arriving at the office (not emergency room) for their appointment, they see the sign and have voted for Obama
3) They leave and do not seek medical attention for their life endangering urinary problem

Assuming all the above happened, and the potential patient continues to not seek medical attention, you put the fault on the doctor for posting his sign. What if he'd posted it to a website, but the door remained sign-less? Could he have an opinion then? What if instead of telling anyone, he just added to his admittance sheet a question that asks if the person voted for Obama, and if they did, he gives them generic prescriptions for the clap instead of name brand?

Should all of humanity be hooked up to thought machines that don't allow them to make the "wrong" (those are finger quotes if you could see me here) decisions or have the "wrong" opinion that somehow is crystal clear in your mind? I suspect you would support this, since this person having an opinion different than yours, puts him on the fast track to the bighouse. George Orwell wrote a wonderful novel titled 1984 I think you should read.

[Latrinsorm]

The result in the women only gym example is exactly the same. ... They should equally be able to have a woman only gym, for whatever reason they want.Results are important, but motivations are also important. We have manslaughter (with various degrees), murder (with various degrees), and accidental death laws, for instance.
Well, lets frame it in an ingenuous manner then. You are assuming several things.Point #3 is an incorrect depiction of what I am suggesting. They may seek aid elsewhere, but this takes a non-negligible amount of time. Most people aren't doctors, hence it is reasonable that the person would be unaware they even have a life-threatening problem, hence maybe a few hours pass, or weeks, or even months. The point of the exercise is that a doctor can reasonably foresee a gravely ill person dying when delayed treatment.
Could he have an opinion then?The opinion part is "I disagree with the new healthcare plan passed by Congress". That part (still) isn't the problem, and he could tattoo that to his forehead for all I care, have it in neon on his door. It may be convenient to divide people into camps for or against "having opinions", those for freedom and those for cognitive totalitarianism, but that is an inaccurate and (again) disingenuous description.

If I could prevent people from making a wrong decision like (for instance) raping a child, you bet I would. If that makes me Orwellian, then I say three cheers for Orwellianity.

[Valthissa]

Point #3 is an incorrect depiction of what I am suggesting. They may seek aid elsewhere, but this takes a non-negligible amount of time. Most people aren't doctors, hence it is reasonable that the person would be unaware they even have a life-threatening problem, hence maybe a few hours pass, or weeks, or even months.

In Mount Dora, Google maps tells me it is 3 minutes by car to next Urologist. I consider that neglible. Also, one sees a Urologist on referral, so one would be aware of the nature of the medical issue at hand.

For a GP in rural Montana, the situation would be different.

It will be interesting to see if he is censured by the state board of medicine in Florida. That will be the definitve answer on whether he is within his rights to post the sign.

C/Valth

[Methais]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vje2FtM_itw

[Parkbandit]

I bet the day people realize that FOX News has been lying to them is a really hard day. I would probably eat some candy and just try to watch some funny movies or something.

Not nearly as bad as your hangover from the Obama Kool-aid has and will be.

[Rocktar]

Consider:
1. When was the last time you heard the 101st Airborne had declared General Campbell President and marched on Washington?
2. When was the last time a Senator assassinated the President, following which the rest of the Senate declared him President?
3. When was the last time thousands of American cavalry sailed to Jerusalem to massacre civilians?
4. When was the last time a conquerer put an entire continent to the sword?
5. When was the last time you heard the name "Bombingham" ascribed to current events?
6. When was the last time you saw a Hooverville? A slave? A lynch mob? A coloreds only fountain?

Keep tap dancing in that backpeddle, someone might think it's cute. Anecdotes are not logical arguments do try again. In addition, Argumentum ad antiquitatem is a logical fallacy and thus fail.


Would you rate our current understanding of science as better or worse than all those in recorded history? How about engineering, architecture, medicine?

~tappitty tappity tap~ More tap dancing, this time to side step the discussion with Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Progress in one area does not mean progress in all areas, and since we were discussing progress in social and ethical arenas, the arenas of scientific progress are inapplicable.



The doctor says to the news that he won't turn anyone away. The doctor says to his prospective patients that he will. The news isn't going to the doctor because they want medical attention. The patients are.


So, in conclusion, you want to convict the guy of a crime he MAY commit though there is no proof that he has done so all because his sign makes you feel bad. Yep, that is some sound reasoning there.


Incidentally, the idea that "the individual's wishes" are universally sacrosanct is compatible with exactly one form of government: anarchy. Like every mature system of government, the one I support compromises between liberty and our need to function as a sociological unit. In this case, the compromise is that one's freedom of speech does not trump anyone's right to live. You can call my system Liberal/Socialist, Oligarchic/Dictatorial, Peanut Butter/Jelly, Sass/afrass, but these are all incorrect. Its true name is America, and America is here to stay.

Incorrect, individual wishes in your mind lead to anarchy. And based on the views you have put forward, you do not support compromises except in the direction of the individual relinquishing freedom, responsibility and decision making to the government. And you are clearly going to a ridiculous extreme to say that the doctor's freedom of speech is costing anyone their lives but then again, I don't ever expect anything more of you especially when you are tap dancing so fast and trying to support your baseless accusation.

Oh, and the last part about America is more of your senseless drivel as you attempt the time honored political tradition of wrapping yourself in the flag to try and hide the shit you are covered in. Nice try though, your logic still stinks.

[Gan]

Well I say you're completely wrong in this instance Gan and you're also totally outdated.
Yes, pardon my use of an article a little over a month old that happens to have coorelation to the healthcare bill that you're conveniently overlooking. :facepalm:

The 21% medicare cut will go into affect only if the Congress does not further delay it. The specific action pre-dates the Healthcare overhaul.
Specifically the bill that Bunning was blocking contained more than just the 'patch' to fix the automated Medicare formula that will slash the reimbursement amount by 21%.

Bunning held up the 'patch' bill due to the other parts that included an extension of unemployment benefits and cobra coverage under the pretense that it would add significant increases to the deficit and violate the Senate pay-go rules. Imagine that, a fiscally conservative Republican.

The automated Medicare formula (Sustainable Growth Rate) originates back to 1997 and congressional efforts to balance the budget. And has been routinely blocked in part or in whole by Congress every year since then.

Now consider that one of the primary CBO cost calculations of the 2010 Healthcare Bill includes the 21% cuts in order to pull the program from red to black. This was one of the budget tricks used by Pelosi in order to make the bill more appealing while knowing full well that the 21% savings would never be realized due to the 'doc fix' language in the bill.


In this case the article you linked is from Feb 26th and the delay was finally passed.
Only through March 31st. It has expired again while Congress is out on recess.


I bet the day people realize that FOX News has been lying to them is a really hard day. I would probably eat some candy and just try to watch some funny movies or something.
As if Fox news is any different than MSNBC, CNN, or any major network news outlet. But help yourself to some candy to go with your kool-aid and hope that the healthcare bill will offer you some dental coverage in the future.

[Gan]

In Mount Dora, Google maps tells me it is 3 minutes by car to next Urologist. I consider that neglible. Also, one sees a Urologist on referral, so one would be aware of the nature of the medical issue at hand.

For a GP in rural Montana, the situation would be different.

It will be interesting to see if he is censured by the state board of medicine in Florida. That will be the definitve answer on whether he is within his rights to post the sign.

C/Valth



Erin VanSickle, spokeswoman for the Florida Medical Association, would not comment specifically.

But she noted in an e-mail to the Sentinel that "physicians are extended the same rights to free speech as every other citizen in the United States."

I'm guessing he will not be censured.

[TheEschaton]

Alan Colmes himself discussed, with said doctor, the supposed cuts to Medicare. He asked him, isn't it true that what's being eliminated is merely double dipping that doctors get out of Medicare, and ensuring that they aren't paid twice?

Said doctor, like most conservatives on this board, didn't know, and admitted he got his information online, from conservative news sources.

[Cephalopod]

Alan Colmes himself discussed, with said doctor, the supposed cuts to Medicare. He asked him, isn't it true that what's being eliminated is merely double dipping that doctors get out of Medicare, and ensuring that they aren't paid twice?

Said doctor, like most conservatives on this board, didn't know, and admitted he got his information online, from conservative news sources.


lol. Did anyone see this particular doctor giving interviews about this? He basically has no idea why he's against the health care changes. I definitely don't want this guy touching my penis now.

(I included a transcript of Colmes talking to him. Amusing stuff.)

[Clove]

When you see a sign that says "closed", do you believe that the proprietors merely prefer you did not enter, but will nevertheless serve you upon entrance?When I see a sign that says "Closed if you voted for Obama" I think "how are they going to know I voted for Obama?" Last I checked polls were anonymous. So yeah, I expect them to serve me if I walk in.

[TheEschaton]

Sorry, didn't keep up with the thread. Jon Stewart actually did a piece on this, first lambasting the doctor, then lambasting a democratic rep for taking him (the doctor) seriously. LOL

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-5-2010/inethical-basterds

[EasternBrand]

I'm guessing he will not be censured.

It should be noted that professional ethical regulations, by and large, do not implicate First Amendment concerns. For instance, if a doctor prints up your medical history on flyers and distributes them in the public park, it's no defense to disciplinary action by the state board that he was merely exercising his right to free speech.

Of course, the fact that the cryptic First Amendment reference was made by a member of the state board may suggest that they are not planning on taking any action against the doctor, but that is an argument based on the identity of the speaker, not the content of her message.

[Gan]

When I see a sign that says "Closed if you voted for Obama" I think "how are they going to know I voted for Obama?" Last I checked polls were anonymous. So yeah, I expect them to serve me if I walk in.

Card check!

[Gan]

It should be noted that professional ethical regulations, by and large, do not implicate First Amendment concerns. For instance, if a doctor prints up your medical history on flyers and distributes them in the public park, it's no defense to disciplinary action by the state board that he was merely exercising his right to free speech.
That would be a HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/)violation and thusly against Federal law.

Much the same as if a doctor walking out into a crowded waiting room and yelling "FIRE!" would not be protected speech as defined under the 1st Amendment.

The sign did not violate any Civil Rights Laws, First Amendment or other local, state or federal laws nor does it imply to any form of disparate treatment from the physician.

[Parkbandit]

It should be noted that professional ethical regulations, by and large, do not implicate First Amendment concerns. For instance, if a doctor prints up your medical history on flyers and distributes them in the public park, it's no defense to disciplinary action by the state board that he was merely exercising his right to free speech.

Of course, the fact that the cryptic First Amendment reference was made by a member of the state board may suggest that they are not planning on taking any action against the doctor, but that is an argument based on the identity of the speaker, not the content of her message.

Yea.. because posting a note on a door is the same, exact thing as printing out someone's medical history and distributing it.

Oh wait.. it's not even close.

[Parkbandit]

That would be a HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/)violation and thusly against Federal law.

Much the same as if a doctor walking out into a crowded waiting room and yelling "FIRE!" would not be protected speech as defined under the 1st Amendment.

The sign did not violate any Civil Rights Laws, First Amendment or other local, state or federal laws nor does it imply to any form of disparate treatment from the physician.

BUT IT WAS WRONG, AND THUS OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL!!!1111oneone.

[EasternBrand]

That would be a HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/)violation and thusly against Federal law.

That doesn't change my premise. The professional obligation is independent of the federal law, and I specified that my hypothetical proceedings were in a disciplinary action by the state board, not a court of law.

I'm not saying that the doctor should or should not be censured; I'm not familiar enough with Florida's ethical codes for doctors to make that assessment. And I agree that, under federal law as it now stands, he cannot be prosecuted, because political affiliation is not a protected group under the civil rights statutes.

What I am saying, however, is that the spokesperson's statement that doctors have the same free speech rights as any other citizen is only accurate up to a point. In the context of lawyers' codes of ethics, the Supreme Court has said that those rules do restrain some forms of expression, and that the restraint isn't a problem for the First Amendment.

[EasternBrand]

I want to clarify what I'm saying here. IF the relevant ethical code had a provision like, "Doctors should not threaten to turn away patients for any reason," and IF he were censured because the sign was found to do just that, THEN his First Amendment rights would not be implicated, EVEN THOUGH there is no federal statute proscribing his conduct, and EVEN THOUGH the state medical board, who would censure him, is a state organization.

Let me be clear: I just want to point out that this spokeswoman is inaccurate when she is talking about the First Amendment.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Results are important, but motivations are also important. We have manslaughter (with various degrees), murder (with various degrees), and accidental death laws, for instance.

You are comparing an activity in which someone dies, to one in which a for profit business is limiting their client pool intentionally. I don't think it is an apt comparison. A better example might be a store that sells water and a person literally dying of thirst comes in and they don't serve them for some reason. That, I would agree, could and should be something a civil suit could be brought over. It doesn't require laws passed though. I'm not advocating seperate but equal or reintroducing segregation. I'm saying this instance of this doctor's opinion requires no laws or litigation at all. It is his business.


Point #3 is an incorrect depiction of what I am suggesting. They may seek aid elsewhere, but this takes a non-negligible amount of time. Most people aren't doctors, hence it is reasonable that the person would be unaware they even have a life-threatening problem, hence maybe a few hours pass, or weeks, or even months. The point of the exercise is that a doctor can reasonably foresee a gravely ill person dying when delayed treatment.

If they are un-aware they have an issue, why are they going to a doctor (again, it's not an emergency room)? If they were referred, you'd think they made an appointment. When I call the office and say I want to make an appt because of X, and they say, we don't accept your insurance here... what do you do? Go to another office.


The opinion part is "I disagree with the new healthcare plan passed by Congress". That part (still) isn't the problem, and he could tattoo that to his forehead for all I care, have it in neon on his door. It may be convenient to divide people into camps for or against "having opinions", those for freedom and those for cognitive totalitarianism, but that is an inaccurate and (again) disingenuous description.

If I could prevent people from making a wrong decision like (for instance) raping a child, you bet I would. If that makes me Orwellian, then I say three cheers for Orwellianity.

To use your favorite term, it's a bit disingenuous to compare rape to having selective clientel. I'd say it's being willfully obtuse even.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Alan Colmes himself discussed, with said doctor, the supposed cuts to Medicare. He asked him, isn't it true that what's being eliminated is merely double dipping that doctors get out of Medicare, and ensuring that they aren't paid twice?

Said doctor, like most conservatives on this board, didn't know, and admitted he got his information online, from conservative news sources.

Fascinating. Your ability to know what the "conservatives on this board" know is remarkable. What constitutes most? I'm certainly interested to know how many conservatives versus liberals we have.

What is the ratio of liberals who don't know?

[Methais]

Said doctor, like most conservatives on this board, didn't know, and admitted he got his information online, from conservative news sources.

Are you implying that most of the liberals on this board know what exactly is in all 2000+ pages of the bill?

[Gan]

Fascinating. Your ability to know what the "conservatives on this board" know is remarkable. What constitutes most? I'm certainly interested to know how many conservatives versus liberals we have.

What is the ratio of liberals who don't know?

Blanket statements for the win, right?

"you conservatives!"... LOL

[Latrinsorm]

Anecdotes are not logical arguments do try again. In addition, Argumentum ad antiquitatem is a logical fallacy and thus fail. ... Progress in one area does not mean progress in all areas, and since we were discussing progress in social and ethical arenas, the arenas of scientific progress are inapplicable. ... And you are clearly going to a ridiculous extreme to say that the doctor's freedom of speech is costing anyone their lives...I have made no claims about the logical necessity of progress, only the observations and empirical basis for declaring it. This is indicated by my saying "history shows" as opposed to, for instance, "this syllogism shows". Also, I did not say that the doctor did have blood on his hands: quite to the contrary, I explicitly described appropriate punishments depending on whether he did or not.

I find your reticence towards observing progress odd. Can you describe any metric under which my life would have been better in Sparta, or Jerusalem, or Kiev, or anywhere/anywhen else you can name?
You are comparing an activity in which someone dies, to one in which a for profit business is limiting their client pool intentionally. I don't think it is an apt comparison. A better example might be a store that sells water and a person literally dying of thirst comes in and they don't serve them for some reason. ... To use your favorite term, it's a bit disingenuous to compare rape to having selective clientel. I'd say it's being willfully obtuse even.In the same way that your comparison between a gym and a doctor's office is not meant to indicate that they are 100% interchangeable, I am pointing out that intent is well-established as a relevant factor in our legal system. I am further pointing out that everyone would (and ought to) jump at the chance to wipe out wrong decisions. The disagreement is only on what constitutes a sufficiently wrong decision. If you'll recall, I did not propose lobotomy as a reasonable punishment for the doctor's offense.
If they are un-aware they have an issue, why are they going to a doctor (again, it's not an emergency room)? If they were referred, you'd think they made an appointment. When I call the office and say I want to make an appt because of X, and they say, we don't accept your insurance here... what do you do? Go to another office.What they could be unaware of is the life-threatening part. They could just know something hurts, or burns, or doesn't feel quite right. Self-diagnosis is spectacularly unreliable. As an aside, have you ever given your insurance information over the phone when making an appointment? In my experience they always stress bringing the card with me when I show up, then they Xerox it and I (redundantly) write the various letters and numbers on the form. This is all somewhat beside the point, however, as the doctor did not turn people away on the basis of their hypothetical insurance.
In Mount Dora, Google maps tells me it is 3 minutes by car to next Urologist. I consider that neglible. Also, one sees a Urologist on referral, so one would be aware of the nature of the medical issue at hand.Geological distance is not a primary factor. I have seen multiple doctors who had more than a month's wait between when I called to schedule and when they could see me, yet I could easily drive anywhere in the continental US in under a month. I have also had referrals where even the referring physician wasn't sure what I had - that is one of the points of referrals, after all, to see someone more familiar with the relevant field of medicine.
It will be interesting to see if he is censured by the state board of medicine in Florida. That will be the definitve answer on whether he is within his rights to post the sign.No need to wait! I have already given the definitive answer. :)

[Rocktar]

I find your reticence towards observing progress odd. Can you describe any metric under which my life would have been better in Sparta, or Jerusalem, or Kiev, or anywhere/anywhen else you can name?

I find your innate cranial density in addition to your continued professed ignorance of my opinion in the face of clear and concise expressions of said opinion disturbingly immature. I have clearly said, in many places where you and I have crossed words, that I do not believe that the current socialistic trend in politics, the trends away from personal responsibility and emotional maturity in social and educational matters and finally the prohibition on corporal or draconian punishments in society as being more advanced or enlightened paths.

For example, in Sparta, you would be not have to worry about the government coming and taking approximately 1/2 of all your labor every year to support a large class of unemployed citizens who's single feat in life is to produce more unemployed citizens. In Jerusalem, around the time of the crusades, you would have been protected from repeat victimization at the hands of a thief as a convicted thief would have one or both hands removed. These are direct ways in which you would be better off than now, in my opinion. Oh, and in all cases previous to the last 40 years, your food would be organically grown, lack pesticides and industrial chemicals and would be minimally processed as well as the carbon footprint of your life would be much smaller and thus you would be much less offensive to Mother Nature.

[AnticorRifling]

I heard pontificating is how you get the bitches.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think I'm going to just discontinue debating that opinion doesn't need to be legislated, as it's a waste of time.

[Parkbandit]

I heard pontificating is how you get the bitches.

I heard if you use terms such as "pontificating", you get the bitches.

[Cephalopod]

I heard if you use terms such as "pontificating", you get the bitches.

You know who gets the bitches? The pontiff.
http://z.about.com/d/catholicism/1/0/6/-/-/-/Pope_Benedict_Easter_Vigil_2007.jpg

(no comment about the age of the bitches...)

[AnticorRifling]

I heard if you use terms such as "pontificating", you get the bitches.

Don't lie you had to look up what it meant and then said "Damn I bet that gets the bitches".

[Kithus]

(no comment about the age of the bitches...)

Were we talking about the Pope or PB here?

[Latrinsorm]

For example, in Sparta, you would be not have to worry about the government coming and taking approximately 1/2 of all your labor every year to support a large class of unemployed citizens who's single feat in life is to produce more unemployed citizens.It's funny you should mention that, because if I was a resident of classical Sparta statistically I would most likely be a helot, and would bring "the half of all the fruits the corn-land bears" to my Spartan owners.
In Jerusalem, around the time of the crusades, you would have been protected from repeat victimization at the hands of a thief as a convicted thief would have one or both hands removed.I would feel really bad if someone got their hand cut off for stealing. Feeling bad is worse than feeling okay, and I feel okay about our legal system. I'd also like to inquire about the source for this claim.
I think I'm going to just discontinue debating that opinion doesn't need to be legislated, as it's a waste of time.I'll say! It's not clear to me who you were even talking to.

[Parkbandit]

Don't lie you had to look up what it meant and then said "Damn I bet that gets the bitches".

No, I actually knew what "pontificating" meant.. not exactly sure where I've heard it used repeatedly though.. I think there was a sports announcer that used it regularly.

[Rocktar]

I would feel really bad if someone got their hand cut off for stealing. Feeling bad is worse than feeling okay, and I feel okay about our legal system. I'd also like to inquire about the source for this claim.

And of course, the acid test of the legal system is if you feel OK about it. The fact that you feel OK about our current legal system is even more anecdotal evidence that it is fucked up.

The removing of a hand as punishment for theft is from the Law of Talion which is and was the guiding principle in Muslim law. Since Muslims controlled Jerusalem during the Crusades, this is the law that applied.

[Tea & Strumpets]

No, I actually knew what "pontificating" meant.. not exactly sure where I've heard it used repeatedly though.. I think there was a sports announcer that used it regularly.

It's kind of like pondering something, but I think when you are pontificating it might involve doing so out loud. I should google it.

[radamanthys]

It's kind of like pondering something, but I think when you are pontificating it might involve doing so out loud. I should google it.

Pontif refers to the pope. It's basically "speaking like the pope". More dogmatic, though. I'd say sermonize would be the closest synonym.

I use the word often; it's part of my active lexicon. I like it.

[TheEschaton]

Retribution in Islam is not required, but it is allowed to the injured party. The Quran actually preaches that you lessen or even forgive the punishment of one man against you.

You should read about the concepts of Qisas and Diyya before you pronounce yourself an expert on Islamic law. The enforcement of Qisas without mercy or appeasement arose with the enforcement of Sharia law. Such law didn't rise to prominence til the 18th century, which, coincidentally, coincided with the rise of Western colonization of Muslim countries.

[Rocktar]

Retribution in Islam is not required, but it is allowed to the injured party. The Quran actually preaches that you lessen or even forgive the punishment of one man against you.

You should read about the concepts of Qisas and Diyya before you pronounce yourself an expert on Islamic law. The enforcement of Qisas without mercy or appeasement arose with the enforcement of Sharia law. Such law didn't rise to prominence til the 18th century, which, coincidentally, coincided with the rise of Western colonization of Muslim countries.

And where did I espouse being an expert? I also stated that it came from the Law of Talion, which did require such in Babylonian times and was the basis of most legal structures to follow in the region for a great length of time. Trying to find fault in my statements by making assumptions and fabricating a framework where those assumptions are wrong is simply pitiful. All that work to prove your supposed superiority just to fall flat on your face. Again, someone needs a refund for your education.

[TheEschaton]

The removing of a hand as punishment for theft is from the Law of Talion which is and was the guiding principle in Muslim law. Since Muslims controlled Jerusalem during the Crusades, this is the law that applied.

Your direct assertion was that Talion law was the "guiding principle" to Islamic law. By not knowing anything about Islamic law, you failed to recognize that while Islamic law did recognize a right to retribution, it preached forgiveness. Thus, your latter statement, "this is the law that applied," in Jerusalem during the Crusades, is factually incorrect. Maybe it applied in Babylonian times, but again, that's not what you asserted. Please, learn to just apologize and admit you were wrong.

-TheE-

[Rocktar]

Your direct assertion was that Talion law was the "guiding principle" to Islamic law. By not knowing anything about Islamic law, you failed to recognize that while Islamic law did recognize a right to retribution, it preached forgiveness. Thus, your latter statement, "this is the law that applied," in Jerusalem during the Crusades, is factually incorrect. Maybe it applied in Babylonian times, but again, that's not what you asserted. Please, learn to just apologize and admit you were wrong.

-TheE-

How can I be wrong when you, yourself assert that while it was the law and was used, it also extolled forgiveness and compassion?


Retribution in Islam is not required, but it is allowed to the injured party. The Quran actually preaches that you lessen or even forgive the punishment of one man against you.

Allowed but not required seems to suggest that you agree that it was done and was legal to do. Preaching forgiveness in no way exempts the guilty from punishment. In addition, the law did apply and was enforced during the Crusades and people did, indeed, loose their hands as punishment for theft. Just because in your idyllic little world they preached forgiveness and compassion does not in any way change the facts. Please, just learn that despite your best efforts, I am right in this and you are simply spewing idealistic shit in a lame effort to appear more knowledgeable and falsely discredit what I said.

[Methais]

This thread has become extremely gayosexual.

[Parkbandit]

This thread has become extremely gayosexual.

^^

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/fingerouch.jpg

[Methais]

Your Higher Taxes pay for My healthcare thanks President Obama Healthcare Reform
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw

Way to break the stereotype there.

This just in -- Capitalism pwns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjH4QBSwWlg

[Back]

Your Higher Taxes pay for My healthcare thanks President Obama Healthcare Reform
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw

Way to break the stereotype there.

ROFL! That was hilarious. Did you actually think she was serious?

[Gan]

Medical Schools Can't Keep Up

As Ranks of Insured Expand, Nation Faces Shortage of 150,000 Doctors in 15 Years

By SUZANNE SATALINE (http://forum.gsplayers.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=SUZANNE+SATALINE&bylinesearch=true) And SHIRLEY S. WANG (http://forum.gsplayers.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=SHIRLEY+S.+WANG&bylinesearch=true)

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.

Proponents of the new health-care law say it does attempt to address the physician shortage. The law offers sweeteners to encourage more people to enter medical professions, and a 10% Medicare pay boost for primary-care doctors.

Meanwhile, a number of new medical schools have opened around the country recently. As of last October, four new medical schools enrolled a total of about 190 students, and 12 medical schools raised the enrollment of first-year students by a total of 150 slots, according to the AAMC. Some 18,000 students entered U.S. medical schools in the fall of 2009, the AAMC says.

But medical colleges and hospitals warn that these efforts will hit a big bottleneck: There is a shortage of medical resident positions. The residency is the minimum three-year period when medical-school graduates train in hospitals and clinics.

There are about 110,000 resident positions in the U.S., according to the AAMC. Teaching hospitals rely heavily on Medicare funding to pay for these slots. In 1997, Congress imposed a cap on funding for medical residencies, which hospitals say has increasingly hurt their ability to expand the number of positions.

Medicare pays $9.1 billion a year to teaching hospitals, which goes toward resident salaries and direct teaching costs, as well as the higher operating costs associated with teaching hospitals, which tend to see the sickest and most costly patients.

Doctors' groups and medical schools had hoped that the new health-care law, passed in March, would increase the number of funded residency slots, but such a provision didn't make it into the final bill.

"It will probably take 10 years to even make a dent into the number of doctors that we need out there," said Atul Grover, the AAMC's chief advocacy officer.

While doctors trained in other countries could theoretically help the primary-care shortage, they hit the same bottleneck with resident slots, because they must still complete a U.S. residency in order to get a license to practice medicine independently in the U.S. In the 2010 class of residents, some 13% of slots are filled by non-U.S. citizens who completed medical school outside the U.S.

One provision in the law attempts to address residencies. Since some residency slots go unfilled each year, the law will pool the funding for unused slots and redistribute it to other institutions, with the majority of these slots going to primary-care or general-surgery residencies. The slot redistribution, in effect, will create additional residencies, because previously unfilled positions will now be used, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Some efforts by educators are focused on boosting the number of primary-care doctors. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences anticipates the state will need 350 more primary-care doctors in the next five years. So it raised its class size by 24 students last year, beyond the 150 previous annual admissions.

In addition, the university opened a satellite medical campus in Fayetteville to give six third-year students additional clinical-training opportunities, said Richard Wheeler, executive associate dean for academic affairs. The school asks students to commit to entering rural medicine, and the school has 73 people in the program.



“ As a specialist physician I will suggest that until primary care physicians can earn 70-80% of what most specialists make without killing themselves, there will be no incentive for the best and the brightest to go into primary care. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html?m od=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews#articleTabs%3Dcomments) ”—Michael Brennan

"We've tried to make sure the attitude of students going into primary care has changed," said Dr. Wheeler. "To make sure primary care is a respected specialty to go into."

Montefiore Medical Center, the university hospital for Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, has 1,220 residency slots. Since the 1970s, Montefiore has encouraged residents to work a few days a week in community clinics in New York's Bronx borough, where about 64 Montefiore residents a year care for pregnant women, deliver children and provide vaccines. There has been a slight increase in the number of residents who ask to join the program, said Peter Selwyn, chairman of Montefiore's department of family and social medicine.

One is Justin Sanders, a 2007 graduate of the University of Vermont College of Medicine who is a second-year resident at Montefiore. In recent weeks, he has been caring for children he helped deliver. He said more doctors are needed in his area, but acknowledged that "primary-care residencies are not in the sexier end. A lot of these [specialty] fields are a lot sexier to students with high debt burdens."
http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BF445_RESIDE_NS_20100412170829.gif

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

[Methais]

SHIRLEY S. WANG

8=====D

[Daniel]

Nope, not at all. You again have failed to understand.

I think it's every person's right to be bigoted.

Hahahaha. My bad.

I'm so sorry I missed this response.

I'm also glad that we as a society has determined that bigotry is beneath us as a nation.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I forgot, you don't think it's right for anyone to have an opinion other than yours. Hahahaha. My bad.

[Daniel]

Yes. Absolutely. Saying that bigotry has no place in this country is the same as saying you are not entitled to your opinion.

Or: You're an idiot. Either/or, really.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I forget, are you just trolling today or just on your usual us poor nigga's gotta have laws to protect us because whitey has it out for us? Your inability to see past color is why racism still exists - you are the best example on these boards of a racist.

The tune may change but your bullshit never does. Welcome back.

[Gibreficul]

The PROBLEM is that all you fucking bleeding hearts think you're special, and thus, you take everything personal, as if it was directed to special little you. News flash, there's over 300 million Americans, over 6 billion human beings. You (yes, I'm talking to YOU specifically) are NOT special. Nobody gives a shit what YOU want. I don't care about YOUR feelings, I don't have to. As soon as you idiots realize you're not special and your special interest doesn't mean shit, we'll all be happier.

On topic, the doctor has every right to post any sign he wants. First amendment bitches. you can't take away my right, or anyone's right to be a total douchebag. I'm PROUD to be an American.
:club:

[Daniel]

I forget, are you just trolling today or just on your usual us poor nigga's gotta have laws to protect us because whitey has it out for us? Your inability to see past color is why racism still exists - you are the best example on these boards of a racist.

The tune may change but your bullshit never does. Welcome back.

Lol. Yea, that's exactly what I'm saying. It must be nice to live in your own little backwards world.

You really are a pathetic, sad little human being.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Lol. Yea, that's exactly what I'm saying. It must be nice to live in your own little backwards world.

You really are a pathetic, sad little human being.

Yeah, in my world I judge people on their merits, where in your world you base it on their skin color.

Who's racist again? Anything else to say besides lame attempts at insulting me?

[Daniel]

Yeah, in my world I judge people on their merits, where in your world you base it on their skin color.

Who's racist again? Anything else to say besides lame attempts at insulting me?

You have some serious mental deficiencies. I say bigotry has no place in this country and you say I judge people based on their skin color? Meanwhile, you're making arguments in favor of bigotry and you "judge people based on their merit" How does that even make sense?

You got anything else besides strawman arguments against my character?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You have some serious mental deficiencies. I say bigotry has no place in this country and you say I judge people based on their skin color? Meanwhile, you're making arguments in favor of bigotry and you "judge people based on their merit" How does that even make sense?

You got anything else besides strawman arguments against my character?

Actually, if you read what I wrote and don't imagine some KKK member writing it, you'll see I said I believe everyone has a right to be a bigot - it's a leap, even for the whitey hating you, to think (I'll use this term lightly with you) I said I'm in favor of people being bigots.

So, not that I've explained it for you, you'll see how I judge people based on their merits. Your merits are essentially that your a bigot. Your posts on this board would be my evidence of that fact.

[Daniel]

Actually, if you read what I wrote and don't imagine some KKK member writing it, you'll see I said I believe everyone has a right to be a bigot - it's a leap, even for the whitey hating you, to think (I'll use this term lightly with you) I said I'm in favor of people being bigots.


Are you drunk right now? Or did you just give up on being coherent and consistent? You can't say you're fine with people being bigoted and then say you're personally against it.




So, not that I've explained it for you, you'll see how I judge people based on their merits. Your merits are essentially that your a bigot. Your posts on this board would be my evidence of that fact.

Lol. Oh really? Please show me ONE post where I've ever said anything that is even *remotely* bigoted or racist against white people.

For reference, I'm not talking about the words you and your buddies like to put in my mouth because I don't accept your notions of race in America.

[Parkbandit]

http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/0//44/266/44266966_unsuccessful_troll.jpg

[Rocktar]

Are you drunk right now? Or did you just give up on being coherent and consistent? You can't say you're fine with people being bigoted and then say you're personally against it.

Ummm, the comment in question was that people had the RIGHT to be bigoted. That means that SHM does not believe in the thought police and the supposed "right" for extremists to control through and to tell people what is and is not OK to think. Allowing the people the RIGHT to be a bigot does not, in fact, include any value judgment on the act of being a bigot. Your entire argument is based on your immature and incorrect assumption that saying someone has the right to do something is indeed saying you support it. You are wrong.




lol. Oh really? Please show me ONE post where I've ever said anything that is even *remotely* bigoted or racist against white people.

You have often supported and aligned yourself with organizations and positions presented by people who are clearly and openly racist and your support for such things as affirmative action and other laws indicates that you indeed do show a level of racism against white people. Affirmative Action is at it's base, a 100% racist law. So are the so called "Hate Crime" laws as well as most all of the laws that provide any differential degree of government service or subsidy based on race.


For reference, I'm not talking about the words you and your buddies like to put in my mouth because I don't accept your notions of race in America.

Trust me, I didn't put anything into your mouth, unlike many that post negative rep to me, I don't have an unnatural obsession with homosexual sex acts or male on male fellatio. You have managed to dig your own hole here.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Are you drunk right now? Or did you just give up on being coherent and consistent? You can't say you're fine with people being bigoted and then say you're personally against it.

Your lack of comprehension is astounding.

I'll try to provide an analogy that is more comprehensible for you, since it doesn't involve race. I'm FOR women having the choice to have an abortion. I personally am AGAINST women having abortions.

Unless you are being intentionally obtuse (which I believe is the case), you are just stupid.

[Sean]

I'm pretty sure Daniel is against Affirmative Action.

[Sean of the Thread]

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/302/b/c/Nigga_Please_Cereal_by_Kia_Motors.jpg

[Daniel]

Your lack of comprehension is astounding.

I'll try to provide an analogy that is more comprehensible for you, since it doesn't involve race. I'm FOR women having the choice to have an abortion. I personally am AGAINST women having abortions.

Unless you are being intentionally obtuse (which I believe is the case), you are just stupid.

The two analogies are not comparable. You were talking about whether or not someone has the ability to deny services to someone because they are bigoted. There is a difference between someone making a personal decision for them selves and making a decision as to what someone else may or may not do.

Nice try though.

Oh, since you left it out, does this mean you can't find a single post of mine where I am bigoted towards white people?

I thought so.

[Daniel]

I'm pretty sure Daniel is against Affirmative Action.

Please don't let silly facts get in the way of their narrative where I hate all white people, presumably including myself and my family, and blame whitey for all my problems, despite the fact that I always brag about how awesome and successful I am like the pompous asshole that I am that is stupid and on possibly on welfare.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The two analogies are not comparable. You were talking about whether or not someone has the ability to deny services to someone because they are bigoted. There is a difference between someone making a personal decision for them selves and making a decision as to what someone else may or may not do.

Nice try though.

Oh, since you left it out, does this mean you can't find a single post of mine where I am bigoted towards white people?

I thought so.

Only in your world are they not comparable. I make decisions every day that impact others ability to do or not do something. I'm sure you can think up a whole bunch yourself.. Nice try though.

I actually didn' t say a word about you being racist against white people, but you sure did jump to that, didn't you? I left it out because frankly I don't feel the need to prove any more than I already have what a bigot you are - it's a fact.

I said you were a bigot. Look it up. You thought incorrectly.

[Daniel]

Only in your world are they not comparable.

You mean America?

Good luck trying to deny people services because you are bigoted. Let me know how far that takes you.




I actually didn' t say a word about you being racist against white people, but you sure did jump to that, didn't you? I left it out because frankly I don't feel the need to prove any more than I already have what a bigot you are - it's a fact.

I said you were a bigot. Look it up. You thought incorrectly.

Oh really?



just on your usual us poor nigga's gotta have laws to protect us because whitey has it out for us? Your inability to see past color is why racism still exists - you are the best example on these boards of a racist.


Don't backtrack too fast. You might hurt yourself.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You mean America?

Good luck trying to deny people services because you are bigoted. Let me know how far that takes you.

My opinion hasn't limited me yet, and I've done very well for myself. I guess everyone I work and socialize with must have a different opinion than you, so they must all be bigots? Or maybe it's just you. I wonder what my sisters all woman gym thinks of being bigots.

Don't backtrack too fast. You might hurt yourself.[/quote]

Well admittedly you got me there. Troll is successful I suppose. My bad for falling for it. I'll have to remember in the future that all you do is troll, and not fall for the bait. Sorry, my brother. I still think you hate whitey though.

Doh, I hurt myself today responding and scuffed my shoes. Do you know anyone who can spit shine them for me?

[Daniel]

Well admittedly you got me there. Troll is successful I suppose. My bad for falling for it. I'll have to remember in the future that all you do is troll, and not fall for the bait. Sorry, my brother. I still think you hate whitey though.

Doh, I hurt myself today responding and scuffed my shoes. Do you know anyone who can spit shine them for me?

For falling it? Lol. What exactly did you fall for? Being a pathetic failure at life?

Not only do you continue to pull the race card with no justification you admit to lying about it to try substantiate your perceived superiority on the internet.

Sad.

You should probably just stick to trying to nail fat ugly bitches off the internet.

[Methais]

Not only do you continue to pull the race card with no justification...

While we're on the subject of pulling the race card with no justification...

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1101185&postcount=67


Don't you mean steals his bullshit? He is black, afterall.

[Methais]

Doh, I hurt myself today responding and scuffed my shoes. Do you know anyone who can spit shine them for me?

http://static.funnyjunk.com/gifs/epic_beard_man.gif
http://i.imgur.com/56guk.jpg

[Keller]

While we're on the subject of pulling the race card with no justification...

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1101185&postcount=67

I was mocking you, simpleton.

[Methais]

I was mocking you, simpleton.

It was the worst attempt at mocking someone since Warclaidhm went to Ardwen's thrak table in '02 then.

Might wanna work on that some.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

For falling it? Lol. What exactly did you fall for? Being a pathetic failure at life?

Not only do you continue to pull the race card with no justification you admit to lying about it to try substantiate your perceived superiority on the internet.

Sad.

You should probably just stick to trying to nail fat ugly bitches off the internet.

I'm really curious now, how would you define being a worthwhile success at life? And no justification? There is a whole board of posts by you that justify you being called a bigot. If me calling you on that makes you perceive me as being superior to you, well I guess we agree on one thing :)

Happy.

I realize you can't ever get your facts straight, but I wouldn't say she was fat or ugly, and I did nail it.

Also, when she was living with me and I offered you a free place to stay until you found one to live in VA - you didn't seem to think those things about her, or me. I guess if you recognize I won't be giving you anything for free, the real you comes out?

[ruineye]

Why would people want to invest that much of their life into something to get almost nothing in return, when they could go do an easy job making the same amount of money without having to spend 8 years and $250k in school?

Sorry for jumping in late, but I haven't seen any other MDs chime in here.

To clarify, urologists are surgeons; and the vast majority of patients, during their pre-operative consultation, will state that they want to be operated on by the most skilled surgeon, period.

As it stands, the most financially lucrative subspecialties (e.g., plastics, derm) already attract the most "talented" physicians**. So it is not unreasonable to suspect that a net decrease in physician salaries may at least shift the larger biomedical talent-pool toward other occupations (scientists, engineers, nurses, etc.).

Such a shift would not necessarily be a bad thing, but neither is it something to dismiss out of hand. We will all find ourselves in a peri-operative situation at some point... :injured:



**on average, and as measured by performance throughout medical school, which although imprecise is the best metric available:

http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf

[Daniel]

I'm really curious now, how would you define being a worthwhile success at life? And no justification? There is a whole board of posts by you that justify you being called a bigot. If me calling you on that makes you perceive me as being superior to you, well I guess we agree on one thing :)

Feel free to post any examples you can find. As for surperior, I'm moreso referring to your shoe shine/welfare references. Nice try though.


Happy.

I realize you can't ever get your facts straight, but I wouldn't say she was fat or ugly, and I did nail it.

Also, when she was living with me and I offered you a free place to stay until you found one to live in VA - you didn't seem to think those things about her, or me. I guess if you recognize I won't be giving you anything for free, the real you comes out?

What are you even talking about?

[Methais]

As for surperior, I'm moreso referring to your shoe shine/welfare references. Nice try though.

It was a reference to epic beard man, which I'm guessing you haven't seen yet.