Doctor tells Obama voters "go elsewhere"

[MicroBalrog]

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

Isn't it the reverse? I.E. these laws exist because people believe they have a right to be treated 'equally' by private practitioners, salesmen, etc.?

[Jamisjockey]

Isn't it the reverse? I.E. these laws exist because people believe they have a right to be treated 'equally' by private practitioners, salesmen, etc.?

Perpetual feeding of the beast.  They believe they have a right to be treated equally, then subsequent generations believe the service itself is the right.

[alex_trebek]

Then why put up a sign that implies the opposite?

Because it was his chosen method of politically protesting a HCR bill/law that he feels negatively affects him.

The flyer is clearly purposely worded to be provacative (as is most speech), but this is hardly the most egregious or outrageous form of political speech ever performed.

I think the whole thing is comprable to gun stores posting similar flyers after the tragic events of 11-4-08. 

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

while the service itself isn't, what about access to it?

I mean there are plenty of things that aren't gauranteed by the constitution specifically, but people generally believe they have a right to.

I am thinking of stuff like gasoline. If it became illegal to buy tomorrow, would you feel like your rights had been violated? I mean there is no constitutional right to it, but people generaaly feel entitled to access to purchase it. IMO this is a reasonable position.

I am not trying to be facetous, I just think it's wrong to invalidate ideas/views instaneously because they aren't spelled out specifically in the bill of rights.

That said, I really don't have a problem with what the doc did here.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

while the service itself isn't, what about access to it?

I mean there are plenty of things that aren't gauranteed by the constitution specifically, but people generally believe they have a right to.

I am thinking of stuff like gasoline. If it became illegal to buy tomorrow, would you feel like your rights had been violated? I mean there is no constitutional right to it, but people generaaly feel entitled to access to purchase it. IMO this is a reasonable position.

I am not trying to be facetous, I just think it's wrong to invalidate ideas/views instaneously because they aren't spelled out specifically in the bill of rights.

That said, I really don't have a problem with what the doc did here.

There are two issues at play here.  The first is whether government should be able to prevent people from buying a given product (such as gasoline).  The second is whether government should be able to force people to sell certain services against their will (such as providing medical services to health care bill advocates).

Take the issues separately and it's clear that there's no contradiction or discrepency:  

Government should NOT be able to prevent people from buying any legal product of their choosing, so long as they can afford it.  That doesn't mean you have a right to buy, it only means that if you find a willing seller the government will not interfere.

Government should NOT be able to force providers to sell products against their will.  

[Jamisjockey]

Because it was his chosen method of politically protesting a HCR bill/law that he feels negatively affects him.

The flyer is clearly purposely worded to be provacative (as is most speech), but this is hardly the most egregious or outrageous form of political speech ever performed.

I think the whole thing is comprable to gun stores posting similar flyers after the tragic events of 11-4-08. 

while the service itself isn't, what about access to it?

I mean there are plenty of things that aren't gauranteed by the constitution specifically, but people generally believe they have a right to.

I am thinking of stuff like gasoline. If it became illegal to buy tomorrow, would you feel like your rights had been violated? I mean there is no constitutional right to it, but people generaaly feel entitled to access to purchase it. IMO this is a reasonable position.

I am not trying to be facetous, I just think it's wrong to invalidate ideas/views instaneously because they aren't spelled out specifically in the bill of rights.

That said, I really don't have a problem with what the doc did here.

Nobody is revoking thier access to healthcare.  He's just not interested in having Obama voters in his practice.  I'm sure, since the AMA backed the bill, there are plenty of libtarded healthcare providers they can turn to for care. 
Besides, it is a commodity.  Maybe it if were treated moreso as one, costs wouldn't be out of control.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

I am thinking of stuff like gasoline. If it became illegal to buy tomorrow, would you feel like your rights had been violated? I mean there is no constitutional right to it, but people generaaly feel entitled to access to purchase it. IMO this is a reasonable position.

I am not trying to be facetous, I just think it's wrong to invalidate ideas/views instaneously because they aren't spelled out specifically in the bill of rights.

I don't have a right to gasoline. It is a commodity to be bought and sold. Just like health cafe. Someone had to make that gasoline. Someone had to get educated to provide medical care. Your arguement doesn't hold water. It's akin to; you have to register your car, why not your firearm.

[alex_trebek]

I didn't say that anyone is being denied access to anything. I simply think that chanting "(insert cause here) is not a right because it isn't in the bill of rights" as a reason to reject any attempt (whether genuine or superfical) to fix the healthcare (insert other cause) problem contributes nothing, and isn't valid.

I used gasoline as an example because it is generally considered almost perfectly inelastic in the short run.

One can pick several other examples, how about access to purchase clean water?

The bottom line is there are plenty of better reasons to find fault in both the HCR law and industry.  People are not entitled to stuff that isn't free to produce (like atmospheric air).

That does mean they don't have a right to have access to purchase whatever they want.

     

I don't have a right to gasoline. It is a commodity to be bought and sold. Just like health cafe. Someone had to make that gasoline. Someone had to get educated to provide medical care. Your arguement doesn't hold water. It's akin to; you have to register your car, why not your firearm.

I didn't say anyone had a right to it, just the right to access to it (assuming lawful intentions). If you were denied the oportunity to utilize (buy) any form of fuel based on the whim of a politician or other group of people, I suspect you would be upset. Especially if you were singled out from everyone else based on something besides an ability to pay.

In other words, if you were denied the ability to purchase natural gas, electricity, clean water, whatever G&S because "the constitution doesn't recognize your right to clean water." you would probably be upset, as would anyone.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

But being singled out by being taxed out the arse to pay for the care of others is ok. Right? 

If a gas station owner does not want to sell me gas, for ANY reason. That's his right. It's his gas. It's his product.  He owns it.


This is where it starts. You don't have a right to access *expletive deleted*it. Nada. If you can
buy/barter for it, so be it. But you, no one has a right to gasoline, healthcare, Internet, housing, car.......

[alex_trebek]

I tried to be very specific and state that no one has a right to something that isn't free (using atmospheric air as an example).

I can only assume that most people have a problem with having the right to access to purchase a G&S market in general, not individual level. What I was getting at were the gray areas where people think they have rights, but they aren't necessarily written down anywhere.

That's fine, I mean any person is certainly entitled to that opinion. I just respectfully disagree, and really hope the system as envisioned is never abused. 

[BReilley]

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.

Given present law, whether the doctor was within his rights depends on whether he was turning patients away or not, the two issues can't really be separated.  It seems to me, though, that unless they require you to sign a form that says "I, the undersigned, did not vote for Barack Obama" at check-in, without which you will be kicked out, he's not actually refusing service.  One person read the sign and CHOSE to walk away.  I frequently choose to not patronize businesses who do not trust me to peaceable carry a firearm.  My choice.  How is this different - other than the fact that the law protects the customer in the former case, and the business in the latter?

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.

He's a *urologist*.  He's not the guy who brings you back to life when you roll into the ER with multiple gunshot wounds, so what's the big deal?  If you've got a pee-pee problem, you can probably find some other specialist to help you with it in a reasonably timely manner :)

Also, I can't say there's really a "wrong venue" for political speech.

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.

I think it's about time to prohibit medical offices from posting their hours.  After all, it's just wrong to turn people away after six at night.  Some people like to see the doctor in the evening, and they might turn around and go home if they see a sign saying "CLOSED".  Can't be turning them away, now!

[sanglant]

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

they can, but they might not know how. all they have to say is "there is nothing i can do to help you.", i have gotten that line more than a few times. sorry but i really don't want to have to think about it long enough to know how many.

[209]

Personally, I think it's funny.  The guy is upset and he's making a statement.  I also think he can legally post the sign.  Upsetting the tender feelings of certain people isn't against the law.

Another way for MD's to fight this is to refuse to accept Medicare or whatever name they give to the "Obamacare" policy as compensation.

There's no law (yet) that a doctor has to take all insurance plans presented.

Obamacare isn't worth much if most practices won't accept it as payment.

No law in place yet.  However I did see a claim that hidden in the healthcare law is a new requirement that any new hospital that opens must accept medicare/medicaid as an accepted form of insurance.  I suspect we'll see another change in the law shortly that will require any medical practice to accept those and whatever other insurance the government creates.

There are more and more doctors not taking new MC/MA patients.  It's a growing trend.  My neurosurgeon stopped taking new ones last year.  Sadly for me, he also stopped taking BC/BS folks.  I can still go to him, but I have to work with the insurance company to get coverage and payment.  I asked him why.  He said neither MC/MA reimburses him enough and that over the last couple of years, BC/BS has been lessening reimbursements also.  I just hope I don't need another operation requiring his services.

[S. Williamson]

Before the closing of the doctor's office I used to work at, we had stopped accepting new MC/MA patients.  Even the electronic Medicare filing system was obtuse and outdated, and I ended up having to write an entire manual for the office to use each and every time they wanted to make the attempt at reimbursement. 

Dealing with the insurance companies seemed like an easy day off from dealing with that BS.  Before we switched over to the electonic filing completely, we'd get MC forms back with the most inane reasons for rejection.  My personal favorite that I ended up framing in the patient records area was one that was rejected because, and I am not making this up, the ink used to fill it out was too dark.

[HankB]

. . . I am thinking of stuff like gasoline. If it became illegal to buy tomorrow, would you feel like your rights had been violated? I mean there is no constitutional right to it, but people generaaly feel entitled to access to purchase it. IMO this is a reasonable position.

The difference between gasoline and health care is that I haven't heard anyone say "I have a right to gasoline, and someone else has to pay for it."

Advocates of health care as a right are making the assertion that everyone is entitled to avail themselves of it, regardless of their ability to pay. On the surface, this is a noble sentiment. But dig down a little deeper and you see that what it really means is involuntarily imposing a burden on others - and ultimately reducing services available to those actually footing the bills - which isn't so noble after all.

. . . I suspect we'll see another change in the law shortly that will require any medical practice to accept those and whatever other insurance the government creates. . .

Several decades ago, Belgium imposed similar requirements on their medical community, prompting a nationwide doctor's strike. The government response was to draft doctors into the Belgian army. Doctors responded either by taking extended vacations in neighboring countries before being served with draft notices, or requiring that the Army provide all supplies - from transportation to their little black bags.

Things got ugly for a while, and people died . . .

[roo_ster]

Things got ugly for a while, and people died . . .

I sincerely hope they were policritters and major proponents of the legislation.

[Tallpine]

The difference between gasoline and health care is that I haven't heard anyone say "I have a right to gasoline, and someone else has to pay for it."

Why shouldn't the government pay for my gasoline?

It's getting so expensive lately that I can no longer afford to take long vacations!

 

 

[AZRedhawk44]

The difference between gasoline and health care is that I haven't heard anyone say "I have a right to gasoline, and someone else has to pay for it."

Peggy Joseph did.  I'm sure you heard this before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

The argument (or is it assumption?) is there.  

Need something?  Spent all your money on Disney DVD's, big screen TV's, XBox games and delivered pizza?  Can't face your responsibilities due to your dependency on disposable luxury?  It's okay.  The government still loves you.

"O-bama money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM#t=28s

[longeyes]

The difference between gasoline and health care is that I haven't heard anyone say "I have a right to gasoline, and someone else has to pay for it."

Advocates of health care as a right are making the assertion that everyone is entitled to avail themselves of it, regardless of their ability to pay. On the surface, this is a noble sentiment. But dig down a little deeper and you see that what it really means is involuntarily imposing a burden on others - and ultimately reducing services available to those actually footing the bills - which isn't so noble after all.

Exactly.  A "right" means you can make other people pay for you.  And this is where, in The Great Leveling, it is all going--unless we put a stop to the insanity PDQ.