Doctor tells Obama voters "go elsewhere"

[sanglant]

they have replaced the poll, have to type gibberish and the results are hidden

[Boomhauer]

It's interesting just how many doctors are publicly protesting the bill in their offices. My sister's doctor has an "Obama witch doctor" poster in his office and photocopies of it that he gives to any patients who want one. She got a copy for me, and it's not an image I would post on APS as I think it would break our rules.

The fact that so many doctors would display something like that, or what is in this thread, is really telling of how ticked off much of the medical community is -- despite all the lab-coated individuals that surrounded Obama during his push for the bill.

Interesting that so many are getting annoyed? It isn't surprising in the least.

The REAL medical community is highly pissed that we're being forced out of business...my family's business will soon be nothing. 40 years of hard work, constant toiling, down the drain.

Deal with it Grayson, docs the right to outright turn away patients. I've seen it done before.

Many of the docs I know don't have a problem with telling someone to leave their property immediately and at least one will refuse service with a Glock 17 if someone won't leave.

[Perd Hapley]

Many of the docs I know don't have a problem with telling someone to leave their property immediately and at least one will refuse service with a Glock 17 if someone won't leave.

To turn the tables, I imagine one would get refused right quick, at some docs' offices, if one showed up with a Glock 17.

[kgbsquirrel]

they have replaced the poll, have to type gibberish and the results are hidden

But they didn't reset the poll. Still have the (plausibly) excess bot spammed votes locked in. *shrug* Care factor is kinda low but maybe next time they'll put in the gibberish key at the start?

[S. Williamson]

Since when have internet polls and internet petitions made any difference? 

[sanglant]

never, but who said they did. just because there useless doesn't mean they can't be entertaining.

[Blakenzy]

So someone deciding for themselves to leave without entering is "turned away"?

Leaving aside the issue of whether the doctor was in his right or not, YES, he was in fact turning away patients with the sign. Let's not be ludicrous. Now, maybe it's perfectly legal, and maybe it's not; I'll let the Courts decide on that one.

But how the heck else can you interpret "seek care elsewhere"? Unless the patient is illiterate and cannot read the sign, it is clear that they are suggesting him not enter and go away.You can always still go in and lie to your doctor, but patients shouldn't have to. You could barge in and engage in political debate, but some patients are too sick to do so. For a doctor to vent his political frustration on sick people is just cheap IMHO. Wrong venue to approach the subject.

Now if he posted a sign saying "Obamacare not accepted here" or similar, that would have been entirely different because it targets the social program in question, not the individual patient.

[Ben]

it is clear that they are suggesting him not enter and go away.

Yes, suggesting. Which means he's not refusing to treat anyone. The Congressman is seeking legal action on the assumption that the Doctor is refusing to treat people. Regardless of whether you think the sign is a cheap shot or not, the Doctor is not refusing to treat anyone.

Patients don't have to tell their doctor who they voted for, just like I don't have to tell the AMA or my doctor that I have guns in the house. I live in an extremely liberal area. If I avoided every medical office pushing their liberal agenda and that had copies of "evergreen environazi NRA hater journal" in their waiting rooms, I'd never be able to get medical care here.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

I don't see where the doctor is in the wrong. Matter of fact. I think a doctor should be able to refuse service, to anyone, anytime. The doctors service is a commodity. A good. He went to school to learn a trade to be able to sell his services.

Keep it simple. Health care IS NOT A RIGHT. It's a good, to be bought   

[MicroBalrog]

Consider the following:

I personally believe - as many people here do - that business owners should be able, legally, to refuse service to anyone, anywhere.

But this isn't the law. For example, restaurant food isn't a right, it's a service. And yet it's illegal to turn away black customers -and as far as I am aware, trying to turn them away with WE DON'T LIKE BLACKS signs even if you actually do offer services is illegal too.

This seems to be parallel. The law, AFAIK, prohibits discrimination based on voting patterns, does it not?

Again, I oppose this law, just as I oppose, say, gun regulations. But it doesn't seem wise to openly violate the law, unless you're deliberately trying to get charged.

[taurusowner]

The law, AFAIK, prohibits discrimination based on voting patterns, does it not?

I'm not familiar with that law.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm not familiar with that law.

Yeah, I'm not too sure either.

[RevDisk]

Consider the following:

I personally believe - as many people here do - that business owners should be able, legally, to refuse service to anyone, anywhere.

But this isn't the law. For example, restaurant food isn't a right, it's a service. And yet it's illegal to turn away black customers -and as far as I am aware, trying to turn them away with WE DON'T LIKE BLACKS signs even if you actually do offer services is illegal too.

This seems to be parallel. The law, AFAIK, prohibits discrimination based on voting patterns, does it not?

Again, I oppose this law, just as I oppose, say, gun regulations. But it doesn't seem wise to openly violate the law, unless you're deliberately trying to get charged.

You are prohibited (in the US) from discriminating based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and disability.  Anything else is fair game.


Off line subtopic : Does that mean you can stop selling food to hippies?  It would be a valid solution.  I'm not sure if "being a hippy" counts as being mentally disabled?  Ned, BW, thoughts?

[kgbsquirrel]

This seems to be parallel. The law, AFAIK, prohibits discrimination based on voting patterns, does it not?

According to Mister William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine. You may not discriminate based on: race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Political preference or affiliation is not covered.

[roo_ster]

Off line subtopic : Does that mean you can stop selling food to hippies?  It would be a valid solution.  I'm not sure if "being a hippy" counts as being mentally disabled?  Ned, BW, thoughts?

Are you implying that Ned ingests food and craps out hippies?  That would explain a lot...

[Perd Hapley]

Are you implying that Ned ingests food and craps out hippies?

Doesn't everyone?

[taurusowner]

According to Mister William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine. You may not discriminate based on: race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Political preference or affiliation is not covered.

Just out of curiosity, when did sexual orientation get added to that?  And is that actually part of the USC or some other government legislation?  I know some states have bans on government entities discrimination on homosexuality etc, and some businesses do as well.  But keeping someone out based on say, race, is considered violating their civil rights and there are legal consequences, no matter where or who you are.  I was not aware the same standard had been applied to sexual orientation.

[S. Williamson]

Best I could find.

Seems something that people include in a proactive manner, as it were.

[taurusowner]

Hmm.  Sounds like I need to start "identifying" myself as a female and demand to use female locker rooms 

[Jamisjockey]

Private practicioners (sic) not being allowed to discriminate for whatever reason is part of the reason people think Health Care is a right.

[HankB]

  . . . YES, he was in fact turning away patients with the sign . . .

No he wasn't, a point that has already been made, both in posts on this forum and in an interview with the doctor, who explained that he doesn't quiz patients, nor has he refused to treat anyone.   

. . . The law, AFAIK, prohibits discrimination based on voting patterns, does it not?

I've never heard of a law prohibiting this - can you provide a cite? 

The sign is, at most, a reminder to people that voting for a bad candidate (the greater of two evils) DOES carry unpleasant consequences.

[Jimmy Dean]

According to Mister William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine. You may not discriminate based on: race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Political preference or affiliation is not covered.

But wouldn't liberalism be considered a mental disability?

[RevDisk]

But wouldn't liberalism be considered a mental disability?

Wouldn't (insert your political orientation) also be considered a mental disability as well, in that case?

[MechAg94]

Wouldn't (insert your political orientation) also be considered a mental disability as well, in that case?

No, just liberalism, but progressivism is a valid substitute.   

[Blakenzy]

Regardless of whether you think the sign is a cheap shot or not, the Doctor is not refusing to treat anyone.

Then why put up a sign that implies the opposite?