Politicians are not doctors! (1 Viewer)

[Josie]

Do you agree?



I agree with these protestors. Politicians aren't doctors and shouldn't have anything to do with our healthcare.

 

[Carjosse]

Some of them are though they are probably doing some other job my MP is a doctor but she is instead in charge of youth unemployment I believe. Politicians can legislate a framework but the details need to be worked by the Medical Associations since they control everything anyways. It works in every other developed country.

 

[Fisher]

Do you agree?

View attachment 67149764

I agree with these protestors. Politicians aren't doctors and shouldn't have anything to do with our healthcare.

As long as you agree the politicians shouldn't be enacting laws that pay for anybody's healthcare, then sure, I will make the tradeoff with you. If the government is paying for anything related to anybody's healthcare, then the politicians have legitimate standing to do what they do.

 

[Samhain]

Do you agree?

View attachment 67149764

I agree with these protestors. Politicians aren't doctors and shouldn't have anything to do with our healthcare.

Unfortunately, there is the Department of Health and Human Services at the federal level, and in Texas, there is a State department of the same purpose( HHSC ). Because they exist, the people, and I use that in the broadest sense, have asked for their Health to be regulated at the State and Federal level.

 

[tererun]

Do you agree?

View attachment 67149764

I agree with these protestors. Politicians aren't doctors and shouldn't have anything to do with our healthcare.

So politicians should not be mandating things like ultrasounds for abortion seekers, and that decision should be left to the doctors who perform the services? OK, sure i can go with that.

 

[Hard Truth]

Many anti-abortion advocates are not concerned about women's health or the life of the foetus, they want to control women's sex lives. Many would ban all contraceptives if they could.

 

[fmw]

Unfortunately, there is the Department of Health and Human Services at the federal level, and in Texas, there is a State department of the same purpose( HHSC ). Because they exist, the people, and I use that in the broadest sense, have asked for their Health to be regulated at the State and Federal level.

No, the people have not asked for that. The politicians have imposed it on the people.

 

[Gardener]

The career polititician Ron Paul (PBUH) is also a doctor, isn't he?

Of course, that should hardly need mention since he is God to his followers so he is all things including doctor.

 

[Thrilla]

Do you agree?

View attachment 67149764

I agree with these protestors. Politicians aren't doctors and shouldn't have anything to do with our healthcare.

Larry Bucshon ,Tom Coburn, Howard Dean ,Joe Heck, Bill Frist, Jim McDermott, Larry McDonald, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Dave Weldon

...all doctors... and politicians.

to me , it's a silly argument.

politicians aren't a lot of things, yet they still legislate on all things.

folks would think it's silly to say " hey , you can vote to go to war.. you're not a soldier!"... this is the same type of thing.

 

[Sarcogito]

I do see a big difference in lawmakers dictating how tax dollars are allocated to health care and telling doctors what they can and can't do with regards to the practice of medicine.

 

[Boo Radley]

I do see a big difference in lawmakers dictating how tax dollars are allocated to health care and telling doctors what they can and can't do with regards to the practice of medicine.

There is. It's just another misdirection effort.

 

[minnie616]

So politicians should not be mandating things like ultrasounds for abortion seekers, and that decision should be left to the doctors who perform the services? OK, sure i can go with that.

Exactly.
I agree politicians should not be mandating things like ultrasounds for those seeking abortions, or requiring abortion clinics that do not perform surgical abortions to only have doctors who have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles or to meet the requirements of an ambulatory surgical unit. Sure , I would agree with that.

 

[Henrin]

I do see a big difference in lawmakers dictating how tax dollars are allocated to health care and telling doctors what they can and can't do with regards to the practice of medicine.

If the argument is politicians aren't doctors then why would it not include allocation of tax dollars towards healthcare? If it is up to doctors to know what is best for pregnant women then why not for everything else?

If people don't want politicians in their medical decisions would not follow they don't want them to allocate resources? How do you control your medical decisions if you aren't in control of the resources?

 

[tererun]

Larry Bucshon ,Tom Coburn, Howard Dean ,Joe Heck, Bill Frist, Jim McDermott, Larry McDonald, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Dave Weldon

...all doctors... and politicians.

to me , it's a silly argument.

politicians aren't a lot of things, yet they still legislate on all things.

folks would think it's silly to say " hey , you can vote to go to war.. you're not a soldier!"... this is the same type of thing.

That is not a good comparison. A war is a federal issue which is what we have politicians for. They should be versed in international laws, foreign relations, and capable of making decisions in regards to that because that would be a part of their job. The reality is that they may provide an overall goal, but the military provides more of the refined methods for getting there. For instance GWB said we would go into Iraq, but the military commanders did most of the actual commanding of battle strategy to accomplish the goal.

The problem i see with the government deciding procedures for people is not all about their medical training. Your list is nice, but they are a minority and as we can see from certain congressman's comments even an OBGYN might think fetuses are masturbating. Really, whether they are reliably educated or not they miss one major point in determining treatment. They have not done any evaluation of the patient. Yes, i know Doctor House could probably determine what is wrong with a patient without ever seeing them, but doctors in the real world tend to have the best idea of what is needed from actually evaluating the patient. Even with direct contact with a doctor patients are often given options for treatment that they need to personally evaluate with their own circumstances.

The law does not work well with specifics. It works on generalizations which establish a defined line with little concern for individual circumstances. This makes it impractical to have specific legislation on treatments as the law is terrible at evaluating the specifics of medical care for the entire country. This is why general laws like do no harm to the patient, or malpractice are far better at determining a line. The decisions should be left to the doctor who is responsible for the patient and the patient. those are the people who will know the best of what is to happen. The moral codes related to the ideals of the patient are best left to the patient themselves to adhere to any standards they might have through philosophy or religion. The moral code of some unrelated people who have no interest in the health and well being of the patient should not be considered in the equation. If your life or health is on the line then you make the decision as to what treatments you are willing to undergo from the doctor who is caring for you and their recommendations. You should not be making that decision for another person from a position of health.

 

[Sarcogito]

If the argument is politicians aren't doctors then why would it not include allocation of tax dollars towards healthcare? If it is up to doctors to know what is best for pregnant women then why not for everything else?

If people don't want politicians in their medical decisions would not follow they don't want them to allocate resources? How do you control your medical decisions if you aren't in control of the resources?

Because allocating tax dollars actually IS a politician's job.

 

[Henrin]

Because allocating tax dollars actually IS a politician's job.

But to do this job they must decide on where those resources go. Does that not affect peoples medical decisions?

 

[Samhain]

No, the people have not asked for that. The politicians have imposed it on the people.

Then your position should be to eliminate the cabinet department of HHS, which would in turn eliminate the FDA, Medicare, and Medicaid. Sounds good to me.

 

[Samhain]

I do see a big difference in lawmakers dictating how tax dollars are allocated to health care and telling doctors what they can and can't do with regards to the practice of medicine.

Doctors, nurses, & practitioners, in all fields, are regulated. They've been told what they can and can't do, under the mantra of "for your safety( read: for your own good )", since 1953.

So unless a person is committed to removing all health care related regulations, since in their words: "nobody should be between a patient and their doctor", they really don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Do you agree?

View attachment 67149764

I agree with these protestors. Politicians aren't doctors and shouldn't have anything to do with our healthcare.

Abortion isn't healthcare. It's killing humans. Therefore it would be the opposite of care.

 

[fmw]

Then your position should be to eliminate the cabinet department of HHS, which would in turn eliminate the FDA, Medicare, and Medicaid. Sounds good to me.

Me too.

 

[Tigger]

I agree with these protestors. Politicians aren't doctors and shouldn't have anything to do with our healthcare.

Definitely. The Government shouldn't be involved in healthcare at all. No Medicare. No Medicaid. No ACA.

However, abortion is a MORAL issue more than a healthcare one and that IS something the Government should be dealing with.

 

[Gina]

Do you agree?

View attachment 67149764

I agree with these protestors. Politicians aren't doctors and shouldn't have anything to do with our healthcare.

Then you agree with their protesting against the government forcing medically unnecessary ultra-sounds on a woman before an abortion?

 

[Threegoofs]

Definitely. The Government shouldn't be involved in healthcare at all. No Medicare. No Medicaid. No ACA.

However, abortion is a MORAL issue more than a healthcare one and that IS something the Government should be dealing with.

Hmmm.

I'm trying to think of a nation that doesnt have government involved in health care at all.

Myannmar, maybe? Somalia, definitely. Some of sub-Saharan Africa, but a whole lot of the healthcare is provided by other governments - not those of Ghana or Congo.

Either way - they all sound like unhealthy places to live.

I'd be fascinated to hear your views on vaccinations. (Actually, I wouldnt, because they are probably as poorly though out as your views on government funding of health care....)

 

[Henrin]

Hmmm.

I'm trying to think of a nation that doesnt have government involved in health care at all.

Myannmar, maybe? Somalia, definitely. Some of sub-Saharan Africa, but a whole lot of the healthcare is provided by other governments - not those of Ghana or Congo.

Either way - they all sound like unhealthy places to live.

Sounds like you need to prove that correlation you're suggesting there.

 

[Sarcogito]

So unless a person is committed to removing all health care related regulations, since in their words: "nobody should be between a patient and their doctor", they really don't have a leg to stand on.

That is exactly what I am in favor of. I am fine with having regulations for medical practitioners to keep rogue doctors from doing whatever they want, but those regulations should be established by the medical community, such as a State Board of Medicine.