• 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

Question: Why does it cost as much at animal hospitals as it does for humans even though vets do not have to buy expensive liability and malpractice insurance?

I am talking about basic medical needs and not brain surgery.

Show proof of this.
 
Show proof of this.

The last time I took a cat to my vet for some minor things it cost $150. At that time it would have cost me the same amount to go to a doctor and have th same procedures done.

I am too lazy to prove it now but I would like to check out the comparissions in cost. A lot of them are close in price, you know.
 
But we're not talking about what you would do. We're talking about Obamacare.

That's why I prefaced my comment with "if". I'm not completely sure where this bill is going to lead us. There are things I like about it, and things I do not.

And doesn't Medicare deny more claims on average than the insurance industry?

From information I have read, I think so. This is also why I prefaced my comment with, "from my experience". In my field, Medicare is much easier to deal with than standard insurance companies. I think that physicians have it tougher. Our rate of reimbursement is significantly better than many insurance companies, but worse than that is offered to physicians.
 
Even if it decreases the number of physicians?

They won't though. They affect insurance companies mostly, not providers.
 
Wait - are you saying the gub'mint has a less bureaucratic system than private insurers?

Kinda yeah.

Currently, there are insurance companies that follow the exact rules that Medicare has in place.


:2wave:
 
Kinda yeah.

Currently, there are insurance companies that follow the exact rules that Medicare has in place.


:2wave:

But how can that be? The private sector is always superior, efficient, and wise! The government is always an evil, bloated, lazy bureaucracy!
 
What is the argument here? A doctor mingled his politics and his profession and some people think he's a dick and some people think he's a lion. He's no lion, he's probably just lacking a little control in his frontal lobe. He could use some therapy for his anger too.

Any Dr. who decides to get out of the profession because of the Health Care Bill can exit stage left. They are probably ****ty Dr.s to begin with and we'll be just fine without them... better off even.
 
The sign clearly refuses treatment to patients, despite the doctor's denial. He is in violation of the Hippocratic oath and Florida law, and should be prosecuted for his cutesy Teabag behavior.

Abortion is a violation of the Hypocratic Oath, too, but we don't hear the Libs getting their panties in a knot over that. In fact, hasn't it been proposed that doctors be required to perform abortions, even going against their religious convictions? Wasn't there a doc/nurse fired recently because she refused to perform/participate in an abortion?
 

Doctors are not forced to perform abortions. They refer patients to doctors that do.
 

No, abortions are not against the hippocratic oath. I would love to see how you prove that one.

And doctors do not perform abortions if they don't want to do so. In fact, general practitioners and family medicine practitioners don't perform them at all. They refer patients who want abortions to specific abortion doctors.
 

I'm no fan of Obama, but he is totally justified in rescinding that measure by Bush. It was worded in such a way that it would allow doctors to refuse birth control to patients also. Read your own sources before you post them. It will help you to avoid self destruction of your argument.
 

"That rule was actually a poorly drafted last-minute attempt to, I think, restrict health care access and I think it would have had far-reaching and unintended consequences."
"Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Obama administration supports those laws, said the HHS official"

Sometimes you have to read the whole piece to get the truth.
 
Last edited:

Your wish is my command, sir.

 

So much for religious freedom. eh?
 
So much for religious freedom. eh?

Your religion cannot be imposed on another person. Pharmacists and doctors are there to dispense meds and medical care, not to impose their religious restrictions on perfectly legal medical procedures and care. If they don't like it, find another profession more in line with their religious insecurities.
 
Your wish is my command, sir.

That's not the hippocratic oath doctors take today. So MASSIVE FAIL.

Today's Hippocratic Oath


 
I am really pleased- although not surprised- that Obama is following through with his promise to rescind this piece of garbage.
 
That's not the hippocratic oath doctors take today. So MASSIVE FAIL.

Today's Hippocratic Oath

Oops. Shame when those little details get in the way of a perfectly good rant.
 
But how can that be? The private sector is always superior, efficient, and wise! The government is always an evil, bloated, lazy bureaucracy!

Why are you having this dialog with yourself when you've done nothing to prove what you're saying? Did you know that Medicare denies more claims on average than the insurance industries? Did you know that an increasing number of physicians are refusing to take Medicare because of low payments and onerous paperwork? Your opinion does not reflect reality.
 
Oops. Shame when those little details get in the way of a perfectly good rant.

Funny thing is, it's been that way since 1966. It's not like it was breaking news or anything. LOL
 
It has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom. It's about doing ones job.

Do you oppose soldiers declaring a contiencious objector status in the United States military? Killing the enemy is a soldier's job. Yes?
 
Do you oppose soldiers declaring a contiencious objector status in the United States military? Killing the enemy is a soldier's job. Yes?

Depends on what job they signed on for. I would fully expect a chaplain to object while someone who signed on as infantry, I would see court martialed for refusing to perform that duty.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…