• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

Its too bad WE cant afford for congress to play their silly games with our taxes.
Yep, and I think that's the point alot of us are going to be making soon.
 
That didn't answer my question. Why didn't Obama include even one major idea the Republicans brought him if this was supposed to be bipartisan? Explain yourself.

Not sure if you would count these as ideas brought to him during the current debate but this article outlines a number of key initiatives that Republicans had supported in the past.

wbur.org News Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate

Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

And before you say it - I know its from NPR.
 
The argument that he's not really turning away patients? I seriously doubt it.

He's not.

But we don't know if turning away patients this way is illegal anyway.

Since he's not turning away patients, the point is moot.



That may not hold up in court either.

Absolutely does. If I am not comfortable treating a patient, it is unethical for me to treat them. This is not arguable.
 
bottom line: cbs TODAY has obama at a new all time low, and he's sunk to a stunning job approval rating of FOURTY FOUR PERCENT

Obama's Approval Rating Hits New Low - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

he's DOWN FIVE since health care passed

on his moby-like obsession, health care, ahab-obama is DOWN TWENTY ONE!

that's TODAY!

C-B-S, the TIFFANY!

oh, if MISTER PALEY could SEE THIS!

obama on health care is at plus 34, minus 55

ouch!

gallup, the president's pet pollster, reported a full FIFTY PERCENT say the putz should not be invited back

Poll: More blame Obama for poor economy, unemployment - USATODAY.com

that too was AFTER health care

apparently, dr cassell (was that his name?) is not alone

Moderator's Warning:
You were warned. Now you're thread banned.
 
Like you, I'm interested to see where we're at a year or two from now.

Roger that.

History may very well repeat itself.

bush-approval-historic.jpg
 
I'll give the Doctor a break. He's a urologist. Could you do that, day in and day out, year after year, and not be a little bit off kilter? His whole life is skanky, sick urine, and miserable patients.

yuck.
 
The trend of toddler behavior being celebrated as heroism continues. If you think something presents an obstacle to you, the manly thing to do is to bear is stoically and continue performing your duty as optimally as circumstances and your own ability allows. The strong man is one to whom increasing adversity is not remarkable or noteworthy.

Writing emotional notes and then undermining them by professing to practice the contrary so as to be technically consistent with state law is not grown adult behavior.
 
Last edited:
The trend of toddler behavior being celebrated as heroism continues. If you think something presents an obstacle to you, the manly thing to do is to bear is stoically and continue performing your duty as optimally as circumstances and your own ability allows. The strong man is one to whom increasing adversity is not remarkable or noteworthy.

Writing emotional notes and then undermining them by professing to practice the contrary so as to be technically consistent with state law is not grown adult behavior.
First off, the country is being led by a tantrum thrower in chief, so people are reacting in kind. Secondly, when someone is being screwed over by bad policy the proper response is to remind those responsible for it that they own it, not to just say "okie dokie, whatever you say".
 
I think urologists should only see democrats and proctologists should only treat republicans.

That's a start.

Let things work themselves out naturally. :mrgreen:
 
First off, the country is being led by a tantrum thrower in chief, so people are reacting in kind. Secondly, when someone is being screwed over by bad policy the proper response is to remind those responsible for it that they own it, not to just say "okie dokie, whatever you say".

Please tell me you're more substantive than this.
 
Please tell me you're more substantive than this.
Of course, but that was a blatant attack on the character of legitimate protesters for no other reason than saying "we won now shut up and do as your told". That being said I didn't see the merit in bringing my A game.
 
I think urologists should only see democrats and proctologists should only treat republicans.

That's a start.

Let things work themselves out naturally. :mrgreen:
Finally, a little humor.:lol:
 
First off, the country is being led by a tantrum thrower in chief, so people are reacting in kind. Secondly, when someone is being screwed over by bad policy the proper response is to remind those responsible for it that they own it, not to just say "okie dokie, whatever you say".

The nature of masculinity does not change because of what other people do. More generally, failure to be morally excellent can never be excused because other people aren't being morally excellent, although it can be understood and sympathized with. But sympathy is the emotion of someone occupying a morally or materially superior position; we're supposed to feel sorry for the doctor because he was driven to an outburst and is inferior because of it, not celebrate inherently unmanly behavior as noble.

In addition, politicians have to behave in a non-masculine manner because the terms of their employment are defined by the expectations, desires, and fears of hundreds of millions of people as cultivated by a media superstructure dedicated to dramatizing every political event, even minor ones with a sensational appeal, as a contest between good and evil of cosmic significance. Tantrums are politically common behavior no matter what side of the aisle you are; political movements are themselves the collective tantrums of millions of people. Politicians have to imitate tantrums to some extent to get to their duty. The doctor doesn't have that in his favor; he didn't "have to" throw a tantrum to do his duty.

Also, the chances this results from economic constraints imposed on him by health care reform are small. Doctor's salaries can only be minimally impacted overall because the number of doctors x the amount of service that must be provided is always grossly disproportionate. Money is getting shifted around at the top in the health care industry; doctors still have to be apportioned a high sum in any deal. He is almost certainly complaining because his political ideals have been frustrated, which is a very poor reason to recuse yourself from moral excellence.
 
Last edited:
The nature of masculinity does not change because of what other people do. More generally, failure to be morally excellent can never be excused because other people aren't being morally excellent, although it can be understood and sympathized with. But sympathy is the emotion of someone occupying a morally or materially superior position; we're supposed to feel sorry for the doctor because he was driven to an outburst and is inferior because of it, not celebrate inherently unmanly behavior as noble.
So I can expect your condemnation of "the republicans did it" when the next bad policy is pushed through using less than ethical maneuvers and especially without the proper context?
In addition, politicians have to behave in a non-masculine manner because the terms of their employment are defined by the expectations, desires, and fears of hundreds of millions of people as cultivated by a media superstructure dedicated to dramatizing every political event, even minor ones with a sensational appeal, as a contest between good and evil of cosmic significance.
No excuses means no excuses. If protesters are being called less than manly for things that are screwing them then the POTUS has zero excuse to bitch when not getting his way. No excuses remember?
Tantrums are politically common behavior no matter what side of the aisle you are; political movements are themselves the collective tantrums of millions of people. Politicians have to imitate tantrums to some extent to get to their duty. The doctor doesn't have that in his favor; he didn't "have to" throw a tantrum to do his duty.
Nope, what's good for the politician is good for the constituent. So either we all "act like adults" or we don't.
 
Last edited:
The nature of masculinity does not change because of what other people do.

You would have a point if the doctor's masculinity were a thing in question.

More generally, failure to be morally excellent can never be excused because other people aren't being morally excellent, although it can be understood and sympathized with. But sympathy is the emotion of someone occupying a morally or materially superior position; we're supposed to feel sorry for the doctor because he was driven to an outburst and is inferior because of it, not celebrate inherently unmanly behavior as noble.

Again, you would have a point if this were a question of the good doctor's morality or his manliness (where the **** did that whole line of illogic come from, anyway?:confused:) or if there were some sympathy for his expression of his right to free speech. I don't really think anyone has thought he needed sympathy for such a bold act.
 
Uhh... that's not done on a typewriter. :doh

Uh...I was making a joke. Reference the story which said it WAS done on a typewriter...
 
I love the crippled dependent pets...the un and under-employed that criticize people that have invested 8-12 years of their life in pursuit of the profssional education ALONE. Damned evil, driven, successful capitalists. They should all be like the ****ing slugs that criticize them.
 
So I can expect your condemnation of "the republicans did it" when the next bad policy is pushed through using less than ethical maneuvers and especially without the proper context?

First, I don't always live up to the ideal (ideals tend to work like that), but I never celebrate my or anybody else's inability to not live up to the ideal. If I fail, it isn't something I am proud of, though I will own it if forced to.

Second, partisanship colors the debate over what a bad policy or what ethical politics are to the point actual badness or ethics is very hard to determine. I'm trying to stay in the realm of the obvious, where a strongly worded belief based on a significant amount of feeling fostered during a short period of time and suffering being undermined by its own originator is unmanly.

Again, you would have a point if this were a question of the good doctor's morality or his manliness (where the **** did that whole line of illogic come from, anyway?) or if there were some sympathy for his expression of his right to free speech. I don't really think anyone has thought he needed sympathy for such a bold act.

'Boldness' is a generous way of putting it. It would have been more bold if he hadn't hastened to ensure his action couldn't be construed as breaking state law by refusing service to supporters of health care reform. As it is, he undermined the force of his own message by claiming he wasn't taking it that far; he stood up for his ideals to the point of expressing an inflammatory emotional response, but not to the point of actually putting his job at risk. But even if he had put his job at risk, it would have been unmanly because he hasn't actually suffered materially under the reform. The unmanliness inherent to complaining can only be mitigated by suffering.

A stoical person would not be capable of such an act (it would embarrass and demean him in his own eyes), and stoicism, a philosophy of self-reliance, determination, and dutifulness, is in practice a realization of manliness. Thus, his masculinity comes into question (not in a biological sense, but a moral one).

Stoical people can make bold movements, but bold movements require personal risk and require a lot of build up. The doctor would have to endure a lot for years before an action like this could be considered a morally legitimate complaint rather than a tantrum. That's what we intuitively expect, since toddlers are sensitive to the point that every deviance from their specifications is a cause for them to voice a huge complaint; they don't need to suffer over a long period of time.

No excuses means no excuses. If protesters are being called less than manly for things that are screwing them then the POTUS has zero excuse to bitch when not getting his way. No excuses remember?

If moral behavior is contingent on the behavior of your enemies, then moral behavior is impossible. I'm not saying the actions of politicians are praiseworthy. I don't think that even of politicians whose policies and behaviors I like; politics is distasteful to me. But they act so out of a necessity which emerges from a superstructure none of them can control. Individual citizens in the private sector, however, have no part in any such necessity. Indeed, the immorality that emerges out of political necessity makes moral behavior much easier for them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom