RE: One Doctor's Resonse

RE: One Doctor's Resonse (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

OrpheusAgonistes -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 4:29:02 PM)
I'm no fan of Obama or the health care reform initiative, and of course I think it's the doctor's right to post this sign. It's his right to kick, scream, preach, proselytize, and shake his tiny pudgy, unnaturally tan, little paws at heaven. If he really wants, he can spray paint "OBAMA IS TEH SUCK LOL" on the side of his Mercedes and drive slowly up and down the street all day to really get the message out there. I find his behavior boorish and irritating, but it's the kind of gesture a fair number of people absolutely eat up and so in the long run it may be good for business. It's this last concern, incidentally, being good for business, that is most likely motivating his behavior--look at the demographics for urologists in Florida (always teeming with affluent, inexplicably angry, retired dudes) and my best guess is that Cassell is scoring some serious points with his target audience. All that said, I'd never get close enough to Cassell's office to read the sign. You always went to check out your doctor. If I ever need to go to a urologist, I'm guessing I'd be checking the urologist out twice. Information like how long a doctor has been practicing, where they went to med school, and what their patient rating is is all freely available. So where did the inestimable Dr. Cassell attend med school? Why, in beautiful St George's College, Grenada. His patient rating, btw, is "Fair", scoring just a hair below average in both "Accuracy of Diagnosis" (whoops!) and "Bedside Manner" (shocking!). All available at, among other sites, http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Jack_Cassell.html . Anyone who wants to go to a doctor based on a sophomore-class-president-level publicity stunt can knock themselves out. When it comes to choosing a doctor, I tend to base my decision on, you know, whether or not I'm going to a good doctor.

Silence8 -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 5:41:34 PM)
It's amazing so many people on this thread think this jerk's actions are acceptable. One individual even claimed what he was doing was 'great'. It's like... great? You're going with 'great'? How could this ever in a million years be considered 'great'?

eyesopened -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 5:42:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kiwisub12 quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Many doctors won't see Medicare or Medicare patients. A surprising number won't see Tricare Military healthcare patients unless they get a special monetary spiff over and above what Tricare pays. There are a whole plethora of doctors who are mainly in it for the money. I have had a lot of occasions to listen to surgeons talk - and as far as medicare and medicade goes? - they are at the point that it doesn't pay to treat these patients. As in , doesn't pay the office staff, the office space, the mortgage - much less make a profit. Since doctors are"in it" to make a living and pay off medical school loans and care for people, they can't take a lot of these patients. Not every patient pays their bills, so there is a large percentage of care that surgeons write off - and can't take a deduction on their tax return, by-the-way. Its just lost time and effort. How many mechanics and plumbers write off uncollected revenue? The doctors I have talked to about bills don't know anything about them. They don't want to know who has outstanding balances - they don't want to be influenced in their care. Doctors make a lot of money - don't get me wrong - but they work 13 hour plus days, take call, and are responsible for the lives of the patients in their care. In my humble (!) opinion they earn every penny they make - except maybe the cardiac surgeons. (way over-paid in my mind) The vast majority of doctors in any speciality are hard working , honest, caring individuals. They aren't money-grubbing, selfish, evil people. They want to do the right thing for their patients, and do their damndest. And yes, like everyone else they have bad days, bad moods and don't get it right all the time. They are human, they provide a service and they are worth the pay. If they were perfect - they would be Jesus, and we would all be dead. Perfection is only in heaven. I was not aware that doctors had different tax laws than other professions. http://www.advancingwomen.com/debt%20relief/small_business_tax_deduction_write_off_bad_debts.php Bad Debt Tax Deduction A small business can write-off bad debt losses if it meets nominal requirements. To claim such a tax deduction, the following must be shown: A. The existence of a legal relationship between the small business and debtor; B. The receivables are worthless; and C. The small business suffered an actual loss. Proving there is a legal relationship between the small business and debtor is fairly simple. You must simply show that the debtor has a legal obligation to make a payment. Most businesses issue invoices or sign contracts with debtors and these documents suffice to prove the legal relationship. If you are not putting your business relationships in writing, you should begin doing so immediately. Proving receivables are worthless is slightly more complex. A small business is required to show that the debt has become both worthless and will remain so. You must also show that you took reasonable steps to collect the receivables, but you are not necessarily required to go to court to meet this requirement. A clear example where you would meet this requirement is if the debtor filed bankruptcy. While proving that you suffered a loss may sound like the easiest requirement to meet, the issue is a bit more complicated. The Tax Code defines the loss as an amount that is included in your books as income, but is never collected. A classic example of such a situation would be a manufacturer that provides products to retailers on credit. The manufacturer can show a real loss if the retailer files bankruptcy. Unfortunately, there is almost no way to claim a loss if you provide hourly services and use a cash accounting method. The IRS does not consider the expenditure of time and effort to be a sustained economic loss. Small businesses suffer all too often from uncollected receivables. If you failed to claim such losses as a tax deduction during your last three tax filing years, you should file amended tax returns to get a refund." A plumber would be in exactly the same tax situation as the doctor when it comes to claiming loss on bad debt. A doctor is not in any worse position than a mechanic who writes off bad debt.

Silence8 -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 5:44:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I just found this funny. Warped sense of humor? It's mildly amusing. And completely unprofessional. I would change. I'd turn around, get back in my car, and consult another urologist. Most doctors, though, support health care reform, and even a public option.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960 The only concerning consequence would be if that minority of 27% reported by the self represented "random", and not scientific or statistically validated, survey taken in September 2009 before the Health Care Law was written and its consequences established, decide to express their disfavor by leaving general practice; hoping that under the new medical profession government set pay scale for services, they'll be replaced. Or you can be concerned that versus the 2009 survey, Dr Cassell is more representative of Doctors reacting to reading the impact of this Law on their profession, practice, and livelihood. Worst English ever. Also, probably wrong.

Silence8 -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 5:47:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrpheusAgonistes I'm no fan of Obama or the health care reform initiative, and of course I think it's the doctor's right to post this sign. It's his right to kick, scream, preach, proselytize, and shake his tiny pudgy, unnaturally tan, little paws at heaven. If he really wants, he can spray paint "OBAMA IS TEH SUCK LOL" on the side of his Mercedes and drive slowly up and down the street all day to really get the message out there. Your use of 'of course' does not conform with any common understanding of the word's meaning.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 5:54:08 PM)
Not to be confused with off course.

Silence8 -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:18:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Not to be confused with off course. You mean like my comment? How is it obvious that it's somehow a 'right' for a doctor to deny people based on political beliefs? You can't discriminate based on skin color, right? How is this that different? Disagree as one will, but there is nothing at all obvious here, one way or another (that's partly why it's a good thread, by the way).

OrpheusAgonistes -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:26:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: OrpheusAgonistes I'm no fan of Obama or the health care reform initiative, and of course I think it's the doctor's right to post this sign. It's his right to kick, scream, preach, proselytize, and shake his tiny pudgy, unnaturally tan, little paws at heaven. If he really wants, he can spray paint "OBAMA IS TEH SUCK LOL" on the side of his Mercedes and drive slowly up and down the street all day to really get the message out there. Your use of 'of course' does not conform with any common understanding of the word's meaning. By way of full disclosure, I'm a dues paying member of the ACLU. My natural instinct on issues of free speech is to assume we have very broad rights, as individuals, to express political points of view. If my accountant wants to start leaving John Birch Society pamphlets around his office, or if my mechanic wants to start hanging a copy of Klonsky's RYM Manifesto on the wall at his shop, that's their right. When I first heard of this story, I couldn't formulate a compelling argument against this doctor having the constitutionally protected right to hang this sign. I still have not seen an argument that comes close to convincing me that the specific act of hanging this sign was wrong. This is what I mean when I say "Of course."

OrpheusAgonistes -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:31:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Not to be confused with off course. You mean like my comment? How is it obvious that it's somehow a 'right' for a doctor to deny people based on political beliefs? You can't discriminate based on skin color, right? How is this that different? Disagree as one will, but there is nothing at all obvious here, one way or another (that's partly why it's a good thread, by the way). There's your confusion. I don't know if a doctor has the right to "deny [service to] people based on political beliefs." I think that's a more salient question. The act of hanging a sign is not the same as denying service. This sign does not even say "I refuse to treat anyone who voted for Obama." The doctor is clear that he does not ask patients their political affiliations. All he's done is hang a sign. I realize this may seem like hair splitting, but these are crucial questions. The doctor has made himself look like a cad, a buffoon, and a jackass; but he has also remained well within his rights.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:32:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Not to be confused with off course. You mean like my comment? How is it obvious that it's somehow a 'right' for a doctor to deny people based on political beliefs? You can't discriminate based on skin color, right? How is this that different? Disagree as one will, but there is nothing at all obvious here, one way or another (that's partly why it's a good thread, by the way). He says he isn't turning anyone away, perhaps he is just venting his frustration? Although I agree with you that regardless of whether or not he is turning people away it is unethical to make people seeking healthcare feel uncomfortable based on their political beliefs.

Silence8 -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrpheusAgonistes quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: OrpheusAgonistes I'm no fan of Obama or the health care reform initiative, and of course I think it's the doctor's right to post this sign. It's his right to kick, scream, preach, proselytize, and shake his tiny pudgy, unnaturally tan, little paws at heaven. If he really wants, he can spray paint "OBAMA IS TEH SUCK LOL" on the side of his Mercedes and drive slowly up and down the street all day to really get the message out there. Your use of 'of course' does not conform with any common understanding of the word's meaning. By way of full disclosure, I'm a dues paying member of the ACLU. My natural instinct on issues of free speech is to assume we have very broad rights, as individuals, to express political points of view. If my accountant wants to start leaving John Birch Society pamphlets around his office, or if my mechanic wants to start hanging a copy of Klonsky's RYM Manifesto on the wall at his shop, that's their right. When I first heard of this story, I couldn't formulate a compelling argument against this doctor having the constitutionally protected right to hang this sign. I still have not seen an argument that comes close to convincing me that the specific act of hanging this sign was wrong. This is what I mean when I say "Of course." I don't see this is as really a freedom of speech issue. If the sign just made fun of Obama, or even black people more generally (who's kidding whom? race is likely a factor), then this would be a freedom of speech issue. If restaurants cannot selectively refuse people based on race, why should doctors be allowed to do so based on politics (er... as well as race)? That's at least one form of the relevant argument. Equal access, opportunities, etc. Now, there's this questionable response of, well, just go to another doctor. Okay... what if more doctors start to do the same thing, and more, and more. Suppose all doctors refused to treat Democrats -- you'd admit that that's wrong, right? So why is it right if some doctors refuse treatment? Where exactly is the line, Sorites?

thishereboi -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:40:39 PM)
quote: So why is it right if some doctors refuse treatment? It's not right. Luckily in this case, he isn't refusing to treat anyone. He isn't asking people who they voted for and he isn't turning anyone away. Really, this is not brain surgery, why are you having such a hard time understanding it?

OrpheusAgonistes -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:44:07 PM)
quote: Although I agree with you that regardless of whether or not he is turning people away it is unethical to make people seeking healthcare feel uncomfortable based on their political beliefs. I don't know if it's unethical or immoral. I think it reflects poorly on the doctor as a professional (it makes him look daft, flippant, and, worst of all, the sign just isn't funny), but, as I noted above, regardless of my political beliefs I'd be far more uncomfortable about the fact that he attended medical school in Grenada and has mediocre/poor patient ratings. I know growing up, my father found his business partner's politics absolutely repugnant, but the guy was very good at what he did and they did well as partners. Part of being an adult in a pluralistic society is recognizing the fact that other adults can feel differently than you do about political issues and still be competent, intelligent, and trustworthy. In any case, the crucial question is whether the doctor has done anything illegal (as opposed to immoral or unethical) and, on that issue, I still just don't see how.

OrpheusAgonistes -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:55:26 PM)
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your argument descends pretty quickly into incoherence. quote: I don't see this is as really a freedom of speech issue. Why not? quote: If the sign just made fun of Obama, or even black people more generally (who's kidding whom? race is likely a factor), then this would be a freedom of speech issue. Two things: 1) You try to sneak in the assertion that "who's kidding whom? Race is likely a factor." That's a clumsy rhetorical trick, totally lacking in substance. There is no reason to assume that any and all criticism of Obama is racially motivated. I don't deny that racism still exists or that many of Obama's harshest critics may have some kind of lingering racial resentment. I do deny, emphatically, that any and all criticism of Obama and his policies must be racially motivated, which is what your aside is asking the reader to believe. 2) That would indeed be a free speech issue. It would be a free speech issue on which I would be loath to defend the right to free speech. In most cases I probably still would. Principled political views sometimes mean you wake up next to some unsavory characters. But your assertion does nothing to show why this act, this political, non-overtly racist, not particularly funny sign is not also an issue of free speech. This is where your argument breaks down. Your argument is the equivalent to saying "Jumping rope can't be cardiovascular exercise because running is cardiovascular exercise." Two different actions can belong to the same class of action. What you're trying to argue here is really bizarre. quote: If restaurants cannot selectively refuse people based on race, why should doctors be allowed to do so based on politics (er... as well as race)? That's at least one form of the relevant argument. Equal access, opportunities, etc. He hasn't refused service. He has hung a sign. He has told a bad joke. There is no evidence he has turned anyone away. There is no evidence he has ever asked anyone's political beliefs or for which candidate they voted. Crucially, he has not even explicitly denied service to anyone in his sign. It may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between the way he phrased the sign and saying "If you voted for Obama I will not treat you." quote: Now, there's this questionable response of, well, just go to another doctor. Okay... what if more doctors start to do the same thing, and more, and more. Suppose all doctors refused to treat Democrats -- you'd admit that that's wrong, right? So why is it right if some doctors refuse treatment? Where exactly is the line, Sorites? There are levels of absurdity in this contention into which, thankfully, there is no need to delve because the only salient question remains "Has he, in fact, refused service to anybody?" The only answer we can give, given the facts at our disposal is "No. Not as far as we can tell. So relax."

Termyn8or -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 6:58:55 PM)
FR Doesn't matter as long as they take the hypocritical oath. And no that is not a misspelling. T

takemeforyourown -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 7:13:29 PM)
In my nursing experience, most doctors lack social graces of any sort. Yawn. Another MD with a bad sense of humor. I'm so surprised.

kiwisub12 -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 7:19:59 PM)
Its not so much that they lack social graces - they just don't use it on underlings - like nurses, and sometimes, patients. [8\|]

Brain -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 7:20:22 PM)
Dr. Cassell is probably too absorbed by his own political grandstanding to notice the early signs of someones cancer. Good doctors treat their patients to the best of their ability, period. It's no surprise he's backpedalling now because refusing to treat a patient because of their political views is a violation of medical ethics and will probably result in his license being suspended. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I do hope the good Dr has adequate legal cover, given that he has here opened himself up to some very lucrative negligence claims. "He failed to provide proper treatment to me because of my political choices". E

redwoodgirl -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 7:25:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcbride A urologist? Hey, doc...you're supposed to treat sick penises. not become one. EXCELLENT!!!

thishereboi -> RE: One Doctor's Resonse (4/3/2010 7:27:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Dr. Cassell is probably too absorbed by his own political grandstanding to notice the early signs of someones cancer. Good doctors treat their patients to the best of their ability, period. It's no surprise he's backpedalling now because refusing to treat a patient because of their political views is a violation of medical ethics and will probably result in his license being suspended. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I do hope the good Dr has adequate legal cover, given that he has here opened himself up to some very lucrative negligence claims. "He failed to provide proper treatment to me because of my political choices". E That's right brain, totally ignore the article that says he didn't refuse to treat anyone and all the posters who have pointed it out, and continue with your rant. I am sure no one will notice you don't know what your talking about.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875