• 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

Disgbe's are, this is correct, I am speaking to the general attitude of a very specific poster who knows about as much as disgbe's source. Again, I am reading the bill, and as an agent I see quite a bit of bad in it, most of the dismissals that I see from the Obama side are misinformed.

good. go locate the credible source for this one of digbe's "facts":
... what I have heard is that this bill forces doctors to move to areas that don't have enough medical professionals.

i look forward to your factual reply (as if there is any chance that's gonna happen)
 
good. go locate the credible source for this one of digbe's "facts":


i look forward to your factual reply (as if there is any chance that's gonna happen)
Pay attention, I already said that part was wrong. I'm also saying you aren't much better prepared in this debate.
 
Pay attention, I already said that part was wrong. I'm also saying you aren't much better prepared in this debate.

good. point out the post where you recognized digsbe was in error
 
How exactly has Obama hurt his practice?

Apparently Obama did something to upset this Doctor. :wassat1:

This type of behavior isn't typical after the government forces a takeover of an industry. The student loan industry bent over without even mere squeal.
 
He is a shame to the medical profession:(
 
He is standing up for what he believes. These brainwashed people need to wake up and see the fruits of their actions and what is to come. Many blindly believe that this bill means everyone gets covered and America will become some healthcare utopia. I approve of this doctor's message, but I think his method is immature and may not be the best way if getting his point across. Although it did get media attention so I'm not sure about that. This healthcare bill is not friendly towards doctors or anyone in the medical field.

Totally bogus crap.
As a member of the medical field I have taken care of patients with sheriff guards right outside their hospital room. Have taken care of a famous Aryan Nation leader. Have taken care of every walk of life.
And not once have I ever let my own judgement of them effect my giving them the best medical care I can .

I wouldn't trust you to attend any of my family members.
 
Pay attention, I already said that part was wrong. I'm also saying you aren't much better prepared in this debate.

Let's let this play out first before saying it won't happen. I thought the same thing about Obama's health care bill, until it happened. The real 'fun' doesn't start until 2014.
 
Just go back a page.

here is post 248
LOL! Dude, you're as lost as anybody on this subject. You want facts? The language of this bill does as much harm as anything my industry could think of to screw people, the difference is.....we didn't do it, your buddies in congress and the white house did. So remember, the language of the bill forces you to buy insurance or pay a tax, and the insurance premiums will go up, these are facts. I am reading this bill and it's currently worse than I thought it would be. To summarize, take your own advice and go get some facts.
here is post 250
Disgbe's are, this is correct, I am speaking to the general attitude of a very specific poster who knows about as much as disgbe's source. Again, I am reading the bill, and as an agent I see quite a bit of bad in it, most of the dismissals that I see from the Obama side are misinformed.
post 252 page 26:
Pay attention, I already said that part was wrong. I'm also saying you aren't much better prepared in this debate.
post 254 page 26:
Go back a page.
post 256 page 26:
Just go back a page.
every one of your posts are above since digsbe posted that comment about doctors being forcibly transferred to places with few physicians (post 239 page 24)
and no where have you posted that digsbe was wrong


i do enjoy outing your lying posts
you make stupid comments. i ask for facts and you lie and insist you have provided evidence already
yet it is not there

word for the day: PUTZ
Putz | Define Putz at Dictionary.com
 
By telling sick people he doesn't want to teat them?

He is doing them a favor. Just wait til they are all on universal health care.
 
If my doctor posted such a note, he would lose my business forever.

Not to worry...with the passage of universal healthcare it will all change and you wont have the first say in where you go and even IF you get seen.
 
Not to worry...with the passage of universal healthcare it will all change and you wont have the first say in where you go and even IF you get seen.

Doesn't it scare you a bit to think about what type of new mandates Obama and the Democrats might implement, in order to 'fix the glitch', so that doctors cannot turn people down? I think that's when Doctors will be told where to live, based on regional need for medical doctors... socialism is gonna be so much fun!!!
 
Last edited:
He is standing up for what he believes. These brainwashed people need to wake up and see the fruits of their actions and what is to come. Many blindly believe that this bill means everyone gets covered and America will become some healthcare utopia. I approve of this doctor's message, but I think his method is immature and may not be the best way if getting his point across. Although it did get media attention so I'm not sure about that. This healthcare bill is not friendly towards doctors or anyone in the medical field.

Being in the medical field, I disagree with your assertion. For me, I can provide treatment for more clients and more completely because of both the no pre-existing condition clause and the clause allowing people to remain on their parents insurance until age 26. The latter, especially, has caused a LOT of problems that will no longer occur.
 
every one of your posts are above since digsbe posted that comment about doctors being forcibly transferred to places with few physicians (post 239 page 24)
and no where have you posted that digsbe was wrong

He posted it TWICE. Once in this sequence:

Please see donsutherland's post. disgbe's facts have been shown to be false. Do you care to amend your post? :lol:

Disgbe's are, this is correct, I am speaking to the general attitude of a very specific poster who knows about as much as disgbe's source. Again, I am reading the bill, and as an agent I see quite a bit of bad in it, most of the dismissals that I see from the Obama side are misinformed.

And once here:

Pay attention, I already said that part was wrong. I'm also saying you aren't much better prepared in this debate.

Now you can stop.

Moderator's Warning:
And you can cease the personal attacks, too.
 
Being in the medical field, I disagree with your assertion. For me, I can provide treatment for more clients and more completely because of both the no pre-existing condition clause and the clause allowing people to remain on their parents insurance until age 26. The latter, especially, has caused a LOT of problems that will no longer occur.

I think we will find that the no pre existing clause is a sham. To the best of my understanding of this bill while it says you can't turn people away, it does not say what you can charge. So yes they can have that clause and then say that someone with some horrible disease can have insurance at $200K per year, great help.

Also without a strong mandate to have insurance, please explain how this works. I am healthy and don't sign up for insurance, then sign up for insurance after I have been diagnosed for a disease. Logic would say FEWER people will sign up for insurance, at least until 2016 when the mandate kicks in, With a penalty of only $695 people probably won't sign up anyway.

It just seems fair that people start fully explaining themselves when it comes to what is in or out of this bill. Lets not play gotya debate.
 
I think we will find that the no pre existing clause is a sham. To the best of my understanding of this bill while it says you can't turn people away, it does not say what you can charge. So yes they can have that clause and then say that someone with some horrible disease can have insurance at $200K per year, great help.

This is, of course possible, but quite doubtful an unlikely. I would be surprised if this particular loophole was not closed by the time this clause goes into effect.

However, it is also irrelevant to the context of my post. My post addressed whether this bill will be friendly to me as a professional. I indicated two aspects that are.

Also without a strong mandate to have insurance, please explain how this works. I am healthy and don't sign up for insurance, then sign up for insurance after I have been diagnosed for a disease. Logic would say FEWER people will sign up for insurance, at least until 2016 when the mandate kicks in, With a penalty of only $695 people probably won't sign up anyway.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I think you will find some who will sign up because they do not want the fine.

It just seems fair that people start fully explaining themselves when it comes to what is in or out of this bill. Lets not play gotya debate.

That's not what's happening from my end. As a medical professional, I was responding to digbe's comment that this bill is friendly towards me and others I work with. It refutes his comment that it is not.
 

I found a study that sort of relates to what you guys are talking about.

http://maximwebsite.tripod.com//BCBS_study.pdf

For what it's worth, the language in the bill makes the mandate worthless.
There is a religious exemption and there is no enforcement allowed with making people pay the fine.

"(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf#page=336
 
Last edited:
This is, of course possible, but quite doubtful an unlikely. I would be surprised if this particular loophole was not closed by the time this clause goes into effect.

I was using exagrerated numbers to make an example. The fact that the bill does not set up a high risk pool that is subsidized makes this problematic.

However, it is also irrelevant to the context of my post. My post addressed whether this bill will be friendly to me as a professional. I indicated two aspects that are.

I am just trying to cite ways that may not wind up to be the case.


Perhaps, perhaps not. I think you will find some who will sign up because they do not want the fine.

The fine does not start until 2016 and even then will cost much less than insurance. There will probably be some additional peole with insurance by 2016, granted.




That's not what's happening from my end. As a medical professional, I was responding to digbe's comment that this bill is friendly towards me and others I work with. It refutes his comment that it is not.

My comment was general in nature, just tucked into my previous response. Please do not take it as a rebuke of your particular missive.
 
I think we will find that the no pre existing clause is a sham. To the best of my understanding of this bill while it says you can't turn people away, it does not say what you can charge. So yes they can have that clause and then say that someone with some horrible disease can have insurance at $200K per year, great help.

Also without a strong mandate to have insurance, please explain how this works. I am healthy and don't sign up for insurance, then sign up for insurance after I have been diagnosed for a disease. Logic would say FEWER people will sign up for insurance, at least until 2016 when the mandate kicks in, With a penalty of only $695 people probably won't sign up anyway.

It just seems fair that people start fully explaining themselves when it comes to what is in or out of this bill. Lets not play gotya debate.

Once the intent of Congress is made clear by the bill, for instance in the case of no pre-existing conditions, the Department of Health is free to set rules to guarantee compliance. There are no "loopholes" in the bill, just gray areas that will be clarified by future rules.
 
Once the intent of Congress is made clear by the bill, for instance in the case of no pre-existing conditions, the Department of Health is free to set rules to guarantee compliance. There are no "loopholes" in the bill, just gray areas that will be clarified by future rules.

That was not my point. The law does not have any type of high risk pool. So while insurance will be offered, it will be very expensive. No regulation will be able to tell a private company that they have to lose money.

I contend that this bill will be proven to be a lot less beneficial to people with pre-existing conditions than we are being told.

Interesting isn't it. First we were told, you have not seen the final bill so any flaws pointed out are lies, per the president. Now we are told there is a bill but it will be fixed with regulations.

So the best defenders can do is say that trust me, that isn't what the bill says but not what it means.

I would be ashamed if made to make these lame excuses.
 
53055642.JPG



Obama health care supporters: Florida doctor tells Obama health care supporters to go elsewhere - OrlandoSentinel.com

Now that's a smart Doc! :) I like his attitude.
this doc is a certified ass
 
While we can all agree that this doctor is well within his First Amendment rights to do such a thing, he made a pretty bad decision by doing so. After reading that article, I checked with our sales staff about the particular hospitals and private practices we do business with in Mount Dora. While I did see Leesburg Regional Medical Center on our correspondence, I didn't see this particular doctors name. And that's a good thing, because as a laboratory, we would probably have dropped him like a bad habit had he been affiliated with us in the first place. I imagine the companies that do his testing are probably considering this as well, and if not, they are most certainly going to hit him with an inspection within the month. You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

The sad thing is, it has nothing to do with differences of political opinion, and everything to do with his intention of posting that sign at his place of business. He may not refuse treatment, but if he's that brazen to post that sign, he's probably brazen enough to do other things. My concern would be things like sample-switching, or purposely contaminating said samples as to obscure the results of folks who did, in fact, get treatment at his practice, but made it clear they disagreed with his political views. And we are right to be concerned; after all, he wouldn't be held liable - the laboratory would. And any confirmation tests would be coming out of the laboratory's pocket.

What he did was the business equivalent of shooting himself in the foot, whether you support him or not. It doesn't matter whether you are conservative or liberal, it's probably best to keep your political opinion to yourself at a place of business. A little professionalism goes a long way.
 
While we can all agree that this doctor is well within his First Amendment rights to do such a thing, he made a pretty bad decision by doing so. After reading that article, I checked with our sales staff about the particular hospitals and private practices we do business with in Mount Dora. While I did see Leesburg Regional Medical Center on our correspondence, I didn't see this particular doctors name. And that's a good thing, because as a laboratory, we would probably have dropped him like a bad habit had he been affiliated with us in the first place. I imagine the companies that do his testing are probably considering this as well, and if not, they are most certainly going to hit him with an inspection within the month. You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

The sad thing is, it has nothing to do with differences of political opinion, and everything to do with his intention of posting that sign at his place of business. He may not refuse treatment, but if he's that brazen to post that sign, he's probably brazen enough to do other things. My concern would be things like sample-switching, or purposely contaminating said samples as to obscure the results of folks who did, in fact, get treatment at his practice, but made it clear they disagreed with his political views. And we are right to be concerned; after all, he wouldn't be held liable - the laboratory would. And any confirmation tests would be coming out of the laboratory's pocket.

What he did was the business equivalent of shooting himself in the foot, whether you support him or not. It doesn't matter whether you are conservative or liberal, it's probably best to keep your political opinion to yourself at a place of business. A little professionalism goes a long way.

I will agree that from the viewpoint of how you treat customers or patients it is inappropriate to post such a sign. It was a poorly thought out action in my view.

That being said, for those who thought talking about death panels was over the top as I did so are some of your comments. To suggest that this doctor would actually do harm to his patients is a pretty outrageous statement. I am not a lawyer, if there is one who reads this I would like your opinion in the statement I am addressing could be called libelous.

People can't say things like the comment I am pointing out and then claim the other side is over the top.
 
Back
Top Bottom