Kerry's impact on MDs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
C

champs

I posted this info below within a reply for a previous thread. For the short version = read the last sentence. I then realized that I would additionally like some more INTELLIGENT input on the effect that this presidential race will have on the field of medicine, and more specifically on the field of Anesthesiology. This paragraph came from the Kerry website. Does anyone know more about his intentions to promote the unsupervised practice of APRNs (eg. CRNAs), and what is Bush's stand on this matter? This is where we should focus our energy, rather than fighting with other health care providers on this site. Well, do both if you want...but let's be productive, as well. From Kerry website:
"John Kerry will ensure fair treatment for Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists, Nurse Midwives and Nurse Anesthetists. Numerous studies have shown that advanced practice nurses provide safe and high quality care. It is long past time that the federal government properly recognized the crucial role that APRNs play in the American health care system. John Kerry has supported legislation to expand reimbursement opportunities for APRNs. However, he understands that there is much more to do to end the discrimination and barriers to practice that APRNs face. Too often, APRN services are not reimbursed by third party payers. They aren't on panels that set reimbursement policy or assess care. Highly restrictive limitations on APRN scope of practice persist. These barriers deny health care consumers the widest possible choice of providers. As president, John Kerry will fight for specific legislative and regulatory changes to allow APRNs to practice fully. "
Members don't see this ad.
 
A couple of years ago Bush veto'd the physician reimbursement cap and actually gave physicians a cost of living adjustment. The republican party always seems to side with the rich (in this case the physicians).

Too bad he's a ******. And too bad that my conscience won't let me vote with my pocketbook instead of my rational thought.
 
i agree. it sucks that we have to shoot ourself in the foot with our votes. but the idea that so many of the recent supreme court decisions have been split decisions, and that some may soon retire and be replaces with arch-conservative bush appointees for LIFE makes me mad.

interestingly, a gas doc was quoted in newsweek when howard dean was the big buzz...he said dean's healthcare plan in vermont shafted docs with the lowest reimbursements.

"Unleash your anger."

i loathe the temptation to be turned, and the wooing of me as a powerful ally.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I have been waiting 4 years to vote Bush out of office, but I am increasingly fed up with the unrealistic positions that democrats like Kerry take on health care issues. And Kerry is unique in that he has on his ticket someone who is at part personally responsible for escalating malpractice premiums through his reckless, moneygrabbing lawsuits. So as Kerry advocates policies that cut reimbursement, he teams with someone who has helped to raise premiums.

When I graduate this spring, I will be 225,000 dollars in debt. When my wife is diagnosed with an illness that requires surgery as has recently occurred, I have to schedule my 1 day a week off on the day of the surgery, and the surgery in the hospital that I am currently working in, to make sure I can visit. As a medical student, I myself don't have time to be sick, and if I am, must ignore it. All that we as physicans want is to work towards the highest level of training to take care of sick patients, but also to not have our salaries cut as our cost of our training continually escalates. I have never minded the prospect of paying higher taxes, that is something that I believe is applied equally to those who have been successful and is a way to give back. But politicians like Kerry and Edwards have specifically targeted physcians as a way to pay for their policies without upsetting their base, creating an us vs. them scenario. I oppose Bush in many many ways, but the growing lack of respect and understanding of my profession from the democratic side in recent years is outrageous. I will be sitting this election out.
 
Our profession, the practice of medicine and health care are all very dear to us.


That said, we must look at the big picture.

Would you vote for a fascist or dictator if he promised to take care of healthcare and medmal?


I am not suggesting any of the candidates are as bad as the above, but merely offering an analogy.

I, too, am very bothered by the addition of Edwards.

Single issue voting is very dangerous.
 
I like how those on the left side of the aisle throw around the word 'fascist' and 'dictator'.

Please do a google search on such luminaries as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Jong, the Khmer Rouge, etc. etc. etc. before insinuating that a standing president of the US can come anywhere CLOSE to that.

To all those docs who will hold their nose and vote for Kerry, don't complain if there is a huge increase in non-physician MD caregivers under his watch....it's not like he didn't warn you what his position is.

PS Why is the US castigated for intervening in Iraq (war for oil, etc etc etc), while two of the main opponents of Iraq intervention (France and China) are getting a free pass in the blocking of sanctions versus Sudan because their oil companies have invested billions in oil infrastructure? What's a little ethnic cleansing among friends? :rolleyes:
 
I think I might have to vote for Bush. I wanted to vote for Kerry, but I'd read about his view on healthcare months ago, and decided then that even if I don't agree with what Bush is doing overseas, I have to watch out for what is fair myself and my family in the end. I don't think Kerry's policies are fair. And I think its crap that edwards made millions off malpractice cases and then has the nerve to say we are overpaid and increasing the cost of healthcare.
 
I oppose Bush in many many ways said:
I imagine that there are very few of us who entirely agree with the ideas and beliefs of a particular candidate, but it seems a shame to refuse to participate based on these grounds. The voice of the majority can only be heard if they speak. Even B. Franklin, who did not entirely agree with the Constitution in the first place, signed his name to the document because the alternative was much worse. I suggest voting on principle - then writing the senators and representatives from your own state. Just my two cents...
Click to expand...
 
The only doctors who should be voting for Kerry are those who are already multimillionaires and dont really care if medicine goes into the toilet.

for the rest of us that actually have to depend on medicine as a career to support our families, a vote for Kerry is ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH!

Yes, Bush does a lot of stupid things that I dont agree with. But at least he isnt going OUT OF HIS WAY to destroy my profession and my livelihood.
 
I have to say, I actually agree with Mac on this. I feel like kind of a sell out because I don't really agree with the other policies, but in the end you gotta get yours, and I gotta get mine. And not voting is just as bad as voting for Kerry.
 
BTW .... isn't John Kerry's daughter a Harvard Medical student ?
 
DrDre' said:
Our profession, the practice of medicine and health care are all very dear to us.


That said, we must look at the big picture.

Would you vote for a fascist or dictator if he promised to take care of healthcare and medmal?
.
Click to expand...


No, I wouldn't. Which is why I'm not voting for anyone supporting anything like the democratic ticket.
 
Magyarorszag said:
BTW .... isn't John Kerry's daughter a Harvard Medical student ?
Click to expand...



On one level that should be somewhat reassuring that Kerry gets a physician's perspective, but when you think about it, Vanessa Kerry does not represent most med students that I know. She is part of a billionaire family, without a doubt has never filled out a financial aid form in her entire schooling career. Declining reimbursement is something that I don't think she loses too much sleep over.

It's kind of sad, but the way things are headed, in a few decades the only people who will be going into primary care medicine will be the independently wealthy types who don't have to worry about paying off hundreds of thousands of dollars with limited reimbursement, like John Kerry's daughter.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Don't be shy voicing your opinions publicly. I and others in my department and the resident component members of the ASA governing council have been very active in trying to put these issues before the candidates to both enlighten their perspectives and in a way, to subtly hint that we are a voting block that shouldn't be ignored. The AMA continues to work on our behalf as well, pushing medical issues including reimbursement before the legislative agenda.

While we voice our concerns privately or on bulletin boards such as this that are not seen by the general public, a great majority of us are still indifferent and unwilling to donate money to our organizations that are fighting for our cause.

In the Bush versus Kerry debate, there can be no doubt that Bush has been and will continue to be our defender compared to Kerry. This is just based on what Kerry's public voting record has been on health care issues in general.

It doesn't even begin to address his specific actions and letters espousing independent practice for mid level providers (CRNA's, NP's, PA's, etc.).
 
Is the damage some of you assume will happen to the medical profession if Kerry is elected SO GREAT, that it is more important to you than stopping the havoc Bush is wrecking on our country? I don't care enough to debate this ad nauseum, which could happen now that participants in the "Everyone" forum have a whiff of this thread (so long intelligent debate, hello conservative trolls). At least Kerry gives people the impression that he cares about our country's principles. Bush can't even do that. Bush pays quick lip service to "values", then creates policies that benefit wealthy industrialists at the expense of everything, and everyone else.

I don't think anything is going to happen to the medical profession, good or bad, regardless of who gets elected. Health care costs and access must be addressed somehow, and there simply aren't enough doctors to go around. The rise of midlevels is inevitable. Having said that, I doubt any president will go far attempting to cross physicians. I'm getting a little annoyed with how quick some are to assume Edwards = death of medmal reform. Since when has the VP been an important influence in major policy decisions that would have gone differently with another VP? Medmal is a major issue that has a huge effect on increasing health care costs. Kerry and Edwards know this, and they also know they can't afford not to address the issue.
 
Who's with me?

Will I get away with it, or get this thread shut down?

MacGyver you should not speak where nobody values anything that comes out of your mouth (or spews from your fingers in this case).

Tool.
 
Magyarorszag said:
BTW .... isn't John Kerry's daughter a Harvard Medical student ?
Click to expand...

Yes she is.

This reminds me of a story about Michael Jordan. When he quit basketball to play baseball, he was asked what kind of salary he would like.

This is his response: "I dont care about the money, I just want to play."

Now, its easy for Jordan to say that, knowing that he has a personal fortune of millions and doesnt need to work a day in his life again if he doesnt want to. I guarantee you if Jordan wasnt a millionaire he would have responded differently to the salary question.

the same analogy applies to Kerry's daughter. Her family is so freaking rich how could she POSSIBLY be as invested in the survival of medicine as we are? Her financial survival has NOTHING to do with medicine, whereas for us its absolutely key to our future.

Regardless of her actual views on medicine, her opinion on the financial aspects of medicine is totally hollow, because she suffers ZERO consequences for her position.
 
" I don't care enough to debate this ad nauseum, which could happen now that participants in the "Everyone" forum have a whiff of this thread (so long intelligent debate, hello conservative trolls)." - PowerMD


You just lost all credibility there...
 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I look at Kerry's campaign and see a lot of political rhetoric with little substance that always permeates the challengers' campaigns. I don't agree with everything that Bush says or does but considering the crises he's had to deal with, a little less criticism is probably due.

The rise of midlevels is multifactorial as are most issues. Yes health care costs are rising and that is a major factor. Not to be overlooked are the well organized organizations and PAC's of the midlevel providers. They have always pushed their cause as they were organized to do and a shortage of physicians in specific fields and locales has given them the impetus for their movements. Again we as physicians are partly to blame by ceding away specific territories and skills that we should have kept proprietary.

As a previous poster noted, we are an easy target of those who see 6 figure salary but ignore or are unaware of our 6 figure debts (with interest). We have abused the health care system in the past and are paying for an image propagated before most of us had even considered a career in medicine.

What we have to do now is present a unified front for ALL medical fields instead of retreating into our subspecialty shells and wagging our tails when scraps get thrown our way. As a group, physicians lag behind other political groups in terms of activity, participation, and determination. Nothing I have seen in our organization (ASA) has encouraged me to think that this will change soon.

However, I have chosen to be active in the political process and have attended our national meetings as a resident member of the ASA and have travelled to Washington for roundtable discussions on a variety of health care issues.

I would encourage all of us to stay active and to contribute to our specialty organizations and the AMA. However, I don't believe in just throwing money at a lawyer's feet (even if he/she is our lawyer). We have to voice our concerns more forcefully and push our organizations and political leaders in the direction of our cause. That cause can only benefit both ourselves and our patients because the constant fear of medicare clamp downs and reimbursement shortfalls is DRIVING OUR BEST TALENT OUT OF THE FIELDS WE NEED THEM THE MOST TO BE IN.

I am thankful that I discovered how much I love being an anesthesiologist, but had the problems I encountered as an internist had not occurred (4 days arguing with an insurance company for an extra day of care for a diabetic patient, being told that I would have to redo billing for clinic visits 8 times, seeing an endless supply of alien patients, etc.), I would have remained an internist and enjoyed the work I was doing.

Regardless of who is elected, we will need to push to ensure that the medical profession isn't crippled for the sake of hiring cheaper labor to save costs at the expense of patient safety. In the end it will only cost us more. Bush may not have helped us a great deal, but he certainly hasn't hurt us. Kerry's record indicates we would take a severe hit.

Addendum: If anyone would like to get together at this year's ASA in Las Vegas, let me know.
 
In my mind, Bush is the optimal candidate. I've listened to and read about the agendas on both tickets and am convinced that Bush has the right idea about how to lead our nation. I base my decision on three important issues.

First, I have been alarmed at the judicial system in our country. Judicial activists (typically liberal democrats) see the Constitution as a flexible document and are willing to stretch its meaning in order to interpret modern issues. What ends up happening is that special interest groups, instead of spending all of their resources lobbying Congress, find plaintiffs and cases and take their agenda to court. In court, activist judges may eventually decide in their favor - with the result upheld as law. In summary - Americans are bound by law that was forged within a court system (without representation by elected officials). The very idea that courts can legislate is extremely alarming. I have little doubt that Kerry and Edwards would do nothing to curb this current trend (Edwards made his millions through rampant litigation). In fact, Edward's campaign secretary admitted that 100% of their campaign money came from large trial lawyer firms and associations. Incredible!

Second, the war on terror. Whearas Pres. Clinton chose to pursue terrorists and treat them as criminals, Pres. Bush has declared war on terrorism in general, including the intricate networks behind the assassins. I feel that this is the right thing to do, even in the face of a disgruntled international community. No one knows how best to protect the United States, than the United States. I am glad that Pres. Bush has been so aggressive in protecting our homeland.

Third, economic security. I have long believed that the American people will flourish if given the freedom (including economic freedom) to do so. The rich will always avoid paying taxes because they can afford to invest in diverse ways that protect their income. Cutting taxes, across the board, encourages investors and small businesses to produce. Health care, I believe, is best provided by individual Americans in a capitalist market. Should the government step in to help those who cannot afford health care? Absolutely. But the Kerry/Edwards ticket is steering us straight into socialism, and that is the last thing America needs.

These issues seem clear to me. Though I fully realize that he is not perfect, I fully support Pres. Bush and respect his overall performance.
 
"In fact, Edward's campaign secretary admitted that 100% of their campaign money came from large trial lawyer firms and associations. Incredible!"

Just a touch of exagerration....


"Second, the war on terror. Whearas Pres. Clinton chose to pursue terrorists and treat them as criminals, Pres. Bush has declared war on terrorism in general, including the intricate networks behind the assassins."

I think that we're living in a tad bit of a different world than we did prior to Sept 11th, 2001.

"Third, economic security. I have long believed that the American people will flourish if given the freedom (including economic freedom) to do so. The rich will always avoid paying taxes because they can afford to invest in diverse ways that protect their income."

No matter how diverse one can invest, the "rich" (top 2%; which includes most doctors) still pay over 95% of this country's taxes. Furthermore, investments; especially the market aren't doing so hot.
 
I can't vote for Bush, I can't.

I couldn't if he paid off my student loans with his personal check.

Not if he got Saudi investors to finance my lifestyle.

Not if he built me my own private hospital.

Not if he got his republican party to make it illegal to sue me.

So many dead soldiers are on his hands. Don't hand me that terrorism nonsense. If he had a shread of evidence dirrectly linking Iraq to terrorism he could have stopped there. Did we need to talk about chemical weapons in Afganistan? Go before the security councel with "proof"? NO, the world supported us because the Taliban supported terrorism, end of story.

He sent a paltry number of soldiers to fight in Afganistan, home base of the 9/11 terrorists. The majority of the Taliban escaped because he sent so few, a fraction of what he sent into Iraq. Now they die daily in Iraq trying to pacifiy an angry Arab nation, breeding more terrorists with every combat action. A nation that was never a serious threat to begin with.

I feel guilty even thinking about my wallet while my friends are dying in Iraq.
 
Actually, 17 of the 20 hijackers from 9/11 were saudi arabian. Maybe they were living in afghanistan before though, I don't know.
 
"So many dead soldiers are on his hands. Don't hand me that terrorism nonsense. If he had a shread of evidence dirrectly linking Iraq to terrorism he could have stopped there. Did we need to talk about chemical weapons in Afganistan? Go before the security councel with "proof"? NO, the world supported us because the Taliban supported terrorism, end of story."

Terrorism nonsense? You must think that it's Iraqi insurgents that are fighting against the Americans; when in fact the majority are from other nations. You probably subscribe to the belief that we waited to long with Afghanistan and that we jumped the gun with Iraq; when in reality it's a lot easier to second guess than to accept the fact that it isn't a black and white issue.

and you don't think that Iraq was supporting Terrorism? What about the $25 or $50,000 that Sadam was giving to suicide bombers in Israel. Oh I forgot that it doesn't matter what goes on in the rest of the world just as long as we protect our borders at home. Boy, the Democrats and Republicans today seem to have switched their roles on foreign policy from ten years ago. By the way, don't forget that Kerry voted in favor of going to war in Iraq. And if your excuse is that he got bad information, then isn't it also his responsiblity to evaluate the info and seek out "the truth" before deciding to support going to war. The blood of American Soldiers does not lie alone on Bush's hand or Kerry's.


the rest of the world supported us in Afganistan b/c they could care less about a country that doesn't offer anything to their own country (ie, oil). You think that France and China and Russia weren't making dirty deals with the Iraqi's? Come on...
 
"He sent a paltry number of soldiers to fight in Afganistan, home base of the 9/11 terrorists. The majority of the Taliban escaped because he sent so few, a fraction of what he sent into Iraq. Now they die daily in Iraq trying to pacifiy an angry Arab nation, breeding more terrorists with every combat action. A nation that was never a serious threat to begin with."

Paltry number? you must have forgotten how many people we sent originally. You must not also be aware of the the difference in the terrains and how they chose to fight each war.

Are you kidding? The majority escaped? Most were vaporized by the number of bombs we were dropping. Many of the high ranking officials have been captured slowly along the way. The dwindling number of troops there now have a different objective than those in Iraq.

you think that there are more terrorists out there now? This is extremely debatable considering they don't take a census on these things. I think there are less terrorists out there but we're now more exposed to them. Furthermore, they are defintately less organized than before.

I'd venture to guess that we are safer today in this world. Just the fact that most Americans have finally awoken to the idea that the majority of the world doesn't like us. And if you think that this is new b/c we invaded Iraq... Come on....
 
Frankly, for OUR purposes, who cares about how many troups he sent! This is an aneshesiology forum last I checked. The fact of the matter is, Kerry is NOT on the side of anesthesiologists and clearly is on the side of mid-level practitioners. He, like President Clinton, would love to drive health care costs down by decreasing the amount needed for OUR services. Reimbursement is based completely on what medicare is willing to pay us. The large insurance companies model their reimbursement models on what medicare is willing to reimburse us. Many of the large insurance companies invest HUGE amounts of $$$ into the campaigns of individuals who want to cut Physician reimbursement....ie: Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc. Like him or loathe him, Bush is on our side! One of the first things he did while in office was reversing the pro-CRNA legislation that Clinton signed into law shortly before leaving office.
If CRNA's continue to legislate their way into the ability to practice solely in every state, it is VERY obvious what will happen to our reimbursement.
 
undecided05 said:
"In fact, Edward's campaign secretary admitted that 100% of their campaign money came from large trial lawyer firms and associations. Incredible!"QUOTE=undecided05

Just a touch of exagerration....

Oh, really?

Here is the quotation -

"It was Senator Kerry?s press secretary ? not some Bush operative ? who earlier this year described Mr. Edwards?s campaign as ?wholly funded by trial lawyers,? and the response to such criticism by Mr. Edwards?s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri,was more revealing yet: ?We have no problem if 100 percent of our money came from trial lawyers.? - Walter Olson, Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jul 7, 2004; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:8


"Third, economic security. I have long believed that the American people will flourish if given the freedom (including economic freedom) to do so. The rich will always avoid paying taxes because they can afford to invest in diverse ways that protect their income."

/QUOTE=undecided05 - No matter how diverse one can invest, the "rich" (top 2%; which includes most doctors) still pay over 95% of this country's taxes. Furthermore, investments; especially the market aren't doing so hot.
Click to expand...

You're right - richer Americans do pay the majority of our nations' taxes. My point, however, is that cutting taxes encourages economic growth. History demonstrates this. During Reagan's presidency, income tax rates and capital gains tax rates fell dramatically. Following is data delivered this month by George Gilder, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, to the students of Hillsdale College, entitled "Ronald Reagan and the Spirit of Free Enterprise".

He writes, "Since 1980, U.S. marginal tax rates fell some 40 percent on income and 75 percent on capital gains and dividends, and the American economy added close to 36 million jobs. America, responsible for one fifth of global GDP in 1980, produced one third of global GDP in 2003."

That's my point. Reagan's policy was to cut taxes, resulting in a better, wealthier America.
 
A few points to clarify

#1: I supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. I wanted him to succeed; I am a veteran of 8 years, including a combat tour in the first gulf war with the 101st Airborne Division. I'm sorry my flag-waving friends, but Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan. Bombers are USELESS against guerillas, how many times do we need to learn this? Vietnam, useless. Serbia, how many targets did we actually hit? very few, maybe even none. Fighting in Afghanistan was done by proxy forces (northern alliance) lead by Special Forces advisors. Bush failed to put troops on the ground and aggressively pursue terrorist leaders. Most of them escaped, even the military admits this. We've wiped out so many terrorists eh? Do you feel safer? Did we not just have ANOTHER scare?


#2: The fact that foreign fighters are in Iraq proves my point. Instead of a tyrannical dictator that we kept isolated, we have near anarchy with any terrorist in the world blowing up our troops. Explain this logic to me, terrorists in Iraq now proves terrorists were there to begin with? I think not, I think Iraq is more of a terrorist training ground now than ever before. And the more we kick down doors, the more we will create.

#3: Saddam was a bad man who killed lots of people. Yep, sure was. But tell me, when exactly did he turn bad? It must not have been in 1983 when DONALD RUMSFELD was warmly shaking his hand...that meeting lead to the Reagan government delivering all kinds of military aid to saddam. Interesting people want to bring up saddam supporting anti-Israeli terrorists, because we were supporting him at the same time. It's time to stop the republican hypocrisy. Reagan and Bush Sr. did everything they could to prop up saddam while he routinely gassed Iranian troops and murdered his own people. Now we expect the Iraq people to trust our intentions when we invade? Damn near 50% of Americans don't think it was a good idea.

Kerry is a veteran. Not a fluffed up vet like Gore (military reporter, oh please...) Not a dodger like Clinton (and Rumsfeld and Cheney) or an absent reservist like Bush. He served, people who try to attack him on this need to get a clue. He EARNED the Silver Star for valor. He EARNED more than one Purple Heart.

He's the guy I want taking care of my Army. I honestly don't care about much else at this point.
 
Our soldiers lives are worth more than your wallets my anesthesia friends. If I could mix and match my candidates platforms I would. But Bush is a package deal, and I'm not signing on to four more years of stupidity to protect my bottom line.
 
JBP18460-
This is an anesthesia forum... good point. I'll cease to speak my political beliefs if they do not apply to gas.. Hope everyone else here feels the same.

And there is a big difference from a secretary saying that they wouldn't have a problem if 100% of the $$ came from trial lawyers vs saying that 100% of the funding DID come from trial lawyers.
 
mike327 said:
Our soldiers lives are worth more than your wallets my anesthesia friends. If I could mix and match my candidates platforms I would. But Bush is a package deal, and I'm not signing on to four more years of stupidity to protect my bottom line.
Click to expand...

And what would Kerry do? Who knows? He sure doesn't - he doesn't have a clue, he doesn't have a plan, he doesn't have squat. He's big on fluff, realllllllll short on specifics. At least Bush is standing by his convictions and is willing to act on them. Kerry doesn't have any convictions - it would end up being government by poll, just like Slick Willy.

Vietnam vet? Big deal - most of the guys in his own unit don't even support him. Why? They saw the real Kerry, and didn't like what they saw. It truly amazes me that modern-day vets can support Kerry. But then many supported the draft-dodging Clinton as well, so what should we expect?

Support or lack thereof for mid-level providers or physicians is way down my list of important items to consider this election. The war on terrorism and protecting our nation's security are first and foremost. Right after that it's the economy. We've made an amazing turnaround since 9/11. Interest rates are low, inflation is low, jobs are coming back. I want to see all that continue. It won't with Kerry.

Bush isn't perfect - he never claimed to be. But Kerry isn't the answer - not even close.
 
Well, I was thinking of replying that it's just too polarizing to try to talk about election stuff in this day & age and bow out, but hey screw that

There is nothing laudable about Bush 'standing by his convictions'. His convictions have gotten two good friends of mine killed.
Quite frankly, nobody has a good answer for getting us out of Iraq. We are completely isolated from any support (Thanks to Bush) and our Army is over extended. Our best shot at getting out of Bush's mess is to get new leadership that can (hopefully) bring in international support.
This is Kerry's plan; it?s the best chance we have. But quite frankly, Bush should be punished harshly for his complete stupidity in starting this war in the first place. It's going to be slow and bloody no matter who is in office.


Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - President George W. Bush

that's gold George, pure gold...
 
I just can't imagine ever voting for someone like Kerry after the fiasco that we went through with the previous administration. To me the most important thing is intentions. Bush is a moral person who I believe we can trust to do what he believes is the right thing for our country. Kerry is a self-serving politician who I believe will only lie and do what is best for himself and his liberal interests. Bush isn't a genius and needs some work on his speaking, but I don't think he's stupid. He'll stand up for our country and won't take any crap from anybody, that's for sure.
 
Enough already! If I wanted to see lame arguments about politics I'd look at the "everyone" forum (which I don't).
 
John Kerry will work hard to advance the rights of NPs, PAs, CRNAs and midwives. This is because they have earned the right to practice medicine without going to medical school. I'm sure when he had had his knee scoped 3 months ago he had the PA do it, the CRNA give him anesthesia unsupervised and the radiology tech read the films....... NOT!!!

He went to Man's Greatest Hospital (MGH). :laugh:

If he has so much confidence in midlevels, why didn't he go to Hole-in-the-Wall Medical Center in Small-town-usa to have Midlevel practioners work on him? Hmmm..
The only thing John Kerry will work hard for is his political career. The things he did in D.C. during the Nixon Admin. were all geared towards gaining some ground for political office later on. How sad.....What a disgrace to the service.

I can't wait to become an attending so that I can donate more time and money to the ASA-PAC.
 
mike327 said:
I can't vote for Bush, I can't.

I couldn't if he paid off my student loans with his personal check.

Not if he got Saudi investors to finance my lifestyle.

Not if he built me my own private hospital.

Not if he got his republican party to make it illegal to sue me.

So many dead soldiers are on his hands. Don't hand me that terrorism nonsense. If he had a shread of evidence dirrectly linking Iraq to terrorism he could have stopped there. Did we need to talk about chemical weapons in Afganistan? Go before the security councel with "proof"? NO, the world supported us because the Taliban supported terrorism, end of story.

He sent a paltry number of soldiers to fight in Afganistan, home base of the 9/11 terrorists. The majority of the Taliban escaped because he sent so few, a fraction of what he sent into Iraq. Now they die daily in Iraq trying to pacifiy an angry Arab nation, breeding more terrorists with every combat action. A nation that was never a serious threat to begin with.

I feel guilty even thinking about my wallet while my friends are dying in Iraq.
Click to expand...


Did you lose anyone on 911? Until you have, you will not even have a bit of idea of the pain we feel.
 
drfeelgood said:
John Kerry will work hard to advance the rights of NPs, PAs, CRNAs and midwives. This is because they have earned the right to practice medicine without going to medical school. I'm sure when he had had his knee scoped 3 months ago he had the PA do it, the CRNA give him anesthesia unsupervised and the radiology tech read the films....... NOT!!!

He went to Man's Greatest Hospital (MGH). :laugh:

If he has so much confidence in midlevels, why didn't he go to Hole-in-the-Wall Medical Center in Small-town-usa to have Midlevel practioners work on him? Hmmm..
The only thing John Kerry will work hard for is his political career. The things he did in D.C. during the Nixon Admin. were all geared towards gaining some ground for political office later on. How sad.....What a disgrace to the service.

I can't wait to become an attending so that I can donate more time and money to the ASA-PAC.
Click to expand...


Very well put, and I agree with you 100%. How can a midlevel even think of treating more than the typical common cold, and even that is a reach.
It is great to have PA's around, although they are really here to asst. a MD, and not replace the MD. It is to bad the the Insur. companies are so money centered to realize the risk in midlevel care givers. For the people who think I am nutts, do you think the CEO of Blue Cross would get his gas from a midlevel? I would have to vote on that one, a big fat NO.
 
endodoc said:
Did you lose anyone on 911? Until you have, you will not even have a bit of idea of the pain we feel.
Click to expand...


I lost people in Iraq. Both in the 1st Gulf war (I served in that war as an Infantry rifleman, by the way...) and in the 2nd. I know your pain as well as anybody.

9/11 had nothing to do with our war in Iraq. The battle plan for this Iraq war has been out there since the early '90s and Bush's Saudi Arabian business partners had more to do with 9/11 than the Iraqis. But still, we blindly accept Bush's goundless assertions that Saddam was involved. I said this before:

The war in Afghanistan was intimately related to 9/11. I supported it fully, Bush did not. He was gearing up for his was in Iraq, and letting the real criminals escape. My harsh critisism of Bush centers around this point. Bush doesn't give a rats ass about our suffering, he's protecting his own interests and marching to the orders of neo-conservatives.



Enough is Enough, 9/11 and the war on Iraq are completely separate. Bush is using your suffering as an excuse to forward his own agenda. Period
 
mike327 said:
I lost people in Iraq. Both in the 1st Gulf war (I served in that war as an Infantry rifleman, by the way...) and in the 2nd. I know your pain as well as anybody.

Enough is Enough, 9/11 and the war on Iraq are completely separate. Bush is using your suffering as an excuse to forward his own agenda. Period
Click to expand...

With all due respect - there is a difference between losing soldiers in combat (in an all-volunteer armed service where there is always that possibility) and losing innocent non-combatants on the scale of 9/11 in a terrorist attack.

On the link between 9/11 and the Iraq War, we've reached the point of agree to disagree. Nothing I say could change your mind, nothing you say will change mine. The same can be said of Kerry and Bush. You'll never vote for Bush, I would never vote for Kerry.

My father-in-law is a WWII combat vet, and he and I disagree on politics 100%, but I respect his opinion and the fact that he put his life on the line to allow me to voice my opinions freely.
 
jwk said:
With all due respect - there is a difference between losing soldiers in combat (in an all-volunteer armed service where there is always that possibility) and losing innocent non-combatants on the scale of 9/11 in a terrorist attack.

On the link between 9/11 and the Iraq War, we've reached the point of agree to disagree. Nothing I say could change your mind, nothing you say will change mine. The same can be said of Kerry and Bush. You'll never vote for Bush, I would never vote for Kerry.

My father-in-law is a WWII combat vet, and he and I disagree on politics 100%, but I respect his opinion and the fact that he put his life on the line to allow me to voice my opinions freely.
Click to expand...

This is the great thing about the US, we can all have different views.
As MD's we need to also realize what we are voting for, and know that our profession is in danger.
 
mike327 said:
A few points to clarify

#1: I supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. I wanted him to succeed; I am a veteran of 8 years, including a combat tour in the first gulf war with the 101st Airborne Division. I'm sorry my flag-waving friends, but Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan. Bombers are USELESS against guerillas, how many times do we need to learn this? Vietnam, useless. Serbia, how many targets did we actually hit? very few, maybe even none. Fighting in Afghanistan was done by proxy forces (northern alliance) lead by Special Forces advisors. Bush failed to put troops on the ground and aggressively pursue terrorist leaders. Most of them escaped, even the military admits this. We've wiped out so many terrorists eh? Do you feel safer? Did we not just have ANOTHER scare?


#2: The fact that foreign fighters are in Iraq proves my point. Instead of a tyrannical dictator that we kept isolated, we have near anarchy with any terrorist in the world blowing up our troops. Explain this logic to me, terrorists in Iraq now proves terrorists were there to begin with? I think not, I think Iraq is more of a terrorist training ground now than ever before. And the more we kick down doors, the more we will create.

#3: Saddam was a bad man who killed lots of people. Yep, sure was. But tell me, when exactly did he turn bad? It must not have been in 1983 when DONALD RUMSFELD was warmly shaking his hand...that meeting lead to the Reagan government delivering all kinds of military aid to saddam. Interesting people want to bring up saddam supporting anti-Israeli terrorists, because we were supporting him at the same time. It's time to stop the republican hypocrisy. Reagan and Bush Sr. did everything they could to prop up saddam while he routinely gassed Iranian troops and murdered his own people. Now we expect the Iraq people to trust our intentions when we invade? Damn near 50% of Americans don't think it was a good idea.

Kerry is a veteran. Not a fluffed up vet like Gore (military reporter, oh please...) Not a dodger like Clinton (and Rumsfeld and Cheney) or an absent reservist like Bush. He served, people who try to attack him on this need to get a clue. He EARNED the Silver Star for valor. He EARNED more than one Purple Heart.

He's the guy I want taking care of my Army. I honestly don't care about much else at this point.
Click to expand...

Mike, I'd becareful how many times I'd use the term EARNED r/t Kerry, a guy who is living off of a fortune neither he or his wife have earned. How could anyone forget Kerry is a veteran? He only mentions that fact several times in every speech he gives. I am by no means making light of the personal sacrifices that veterans make, have made, and will continue to make for this nation. I thank you Mike for your service to this country but, being a decorated war veteran doesn't inherently make someone a "good" person or much more importantly capable of being the president of The United States. Timothy McVeigh was also a decorated war veteran. do you think he would have made a good president? If Kerry does get elected wait and see what your reimbusement becomes and what your malpractice insurance becomes w/ a trial lawyer as Vice President.
 
9/11 had nothing to do with our war in Iraq. The battle plan for this Iraq war has been out there since the early '90s and Bush's Saudi Arabian business partners had more to do with 9/11 than the Iraqis. But still, we blindly accept Bush's goundless assertions that Saddam was involved. I said this before:

The war in Afghanistan was intimately related to 9/11. I supported it fully, Bush did not. He was gearing up for his was in Iraq, and letting the real criminals escape. My harsh critisism of Bush centers around this point. Bush doesn't give a rats ass about our suffering, he's protecting his own interests and marching to the orders of neo-conservatives.



Enough is Enough, 9/11 and the war on Iraq are completely separate. Bush is using your suffering as an excuse to forward his own agenda. Period
Click to expand...

Here goes. Thank you for your service to our country. You however are throwing out untruths regarding statements by President Bush. There has never been an asertion that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11. The statements that have been made are clear in that they support an alliance between Iraq and terrorists. This is an undeniable truth. Ask the Isrialies (sp) who were killed by homocide bombers whose families were paid $25,000 for their martyrdom. Furthermore, Afghanistan is pretty well under control right now. The Afghans are poised to hold democratic elections this year. Also, we have Special Ops hunting down and killing the remnants of the Taliban and AQ.

BTW, have you read the 9/11 Commission report. It completly supports the link between AQ/Iraq. It just states there was no connection with 9/11. Also, Al Zarquai(sp) fled Afghanistan to Iraq where he recieved medical treatment in one of Sadam's hospitals. That is aiding and abetting the enemy.

Would you rather us wait for another attack on US soil before we act again?


Oh, and stop quoting Michael Moore. The 9/11 Commission report exposes his little work for what it truely is. Propaganda.
 
OldMarriedFart said:
Oh, and stop quoting Michael Moore. The 9/11 Commission report exposes his little work for what it truely is. Propaganda.
Click to expand...


It's more than propaganda - it's pure fiction. It amazes me that any intelligent person would see it as a factual documentary.
 
For those of you who think the Iraq war was unjust, and that your all Holy John Kerry would never go to war in Iraq. You all should take a look at this artice. Here is a brief summery of the artice.

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.


http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

Happy reading flipers..... :thumbdown:
 
DO NOT vote for the kerry/edwards ticket. Voting for those bottom-dwellers, scum-sucking trial lawyers (yes Kerry is also a trial lawyer who has made money suing docs) will only make matters worse for all physicians. If you care about the future of your profession, your family and your future ability to practice then choose Bush. Please take a look at the July 27th edition of the Wall Street Journal and look for the center page ad posted by the american society of neurosurgery regarding the malpractice liability crisis. if the Kerry/Edwards ticket wins we are screwed. It seems that the democrats are out to destroy the medical profession. I, for one, will welcome every trial lawyer to my practice, with a baseball bat in hand.


Just my 0.02 cents.
 
siguanabo said:
DO NOT vote for the kerry/edwards ticket. Voting for those bottom-dwellers, scum-sucking trial lawyers (yes Kerry is also a trial lawyer who has made money suing docs) will only make matters worse for all physicians. If you care about the future of your profession, your family and your future ability to practice then choose Bush. Please take a look at the July 27th edition of the Wall Street Journal and look for the center page ad posted by the american society of neurosurgery regarding the malpractice liability crisis. if the Kerry/Edwards ticket wins we are screwed. It seems that the democrats are out to destroy the medical profession. I, for one, will welcome every trial lawyer to my practice, with a baseball bat in hand.


Just my 0.02 cents.
Click to expand...


I agree! What are people thinking who have any common sense, much less a MD? We are all in serious trouble if these two liberals get in office. I must also add, Kerry is the 2nd most liberal Sen. in office, other than the old drunk Kennedy.
 
I'm in one of the three fields that is currently the LEAST vulnerable to the whims of government-controlled medicine. However, I realize there is a trickle down effect and once the primary care physicians fall, specialists and then us sub-specialists are next.

I value my chosen career. I wish to practice it in an environment with less fear of frivolous lawsuits, less fear of us health care providers being the ones squeezed in the fight to balance the health care budget.

I think if it were a matter of Kerry/Edwards being the favorable party on 75% of all other issues and just so drastically anti-doctor on the health care issues of reimbursement and malpractice liability, it would really be a tough decision. But since I'm at least 50% against Kerry's potential in dealing with other issues (many of which have been mentioned in other forums, so I won't start into them here), on the sole issue of impact on our happiness and fulfillment as physicians ALONE, it will be a disaster for us if Kerry/Edwards get into power.
 
endodoc said:
For those of you who think the Iraq war was unjust, and that your all Holy John Kerry would never go to war in Iraq. You all should take a look at this artice. Here is a brief summery of the artice.

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.


http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

Happy reading flipers..... :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

Very disingenouous.
This is why you can't trust conservatives in these forums. They are shamelessly intellectually dishonest. Endodoc, and the author of this article, it seems, intentionally misinterpreted this statement from Kerry just to make him look bad. ALWAYS look up the 'source' from which these people draw their erroneous conclusions. Here is the relevant quote that the whole article is based on:

"Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

Kerry said he would vote for "the authority." The quote is out of context, so we can only guess what he meant by "authority". I think it's reasonable to assume he meant "power to choose to go to war." Kerry believes the president should have had that power, period. This quote does not say Kerry would have gone to war if he had that power, or that voting for "the authority" is the same thing as voting to go to war. Anyone who knows even a little about thoughtful legislators like Kerry know they will vote to defend a principle, even if it supports actions that legislator would otherwise stand against. The principle here is that the president, whoever he/she is, and whatever his/her agenda, ought to have the authority to do whatever action was in question here. I assume they're talking about the war, but again this quote was taken of context. The next thing Kerry said was that he would use "the authority" "effectively." That could be interpreted any way you want, so it is unreasonable to automatically assume he supported President Bush's actions. In fact, it is implied by his use of the word "effectively," that President Bush's actions were "ineffective," thus Kerry disapproves of Bush's use of "the authority." One might reasonably interpret that to mean he disapproves of Bush's handling of the war, and would have handled it differently, if there were a war at all.
 
Typical liberal rhetoric, always trying to explain a bad decision by contorting words and sentences. In fact we all know that Mr. Kerry voted for going to war against Iraq the second time while voting no to the first Iraqi war. No one was twisting his arm, if he had any balls he would have stood up and voted no to the second Iraqi war. Instead he showed his liberal inconsistent voting pattern. He is definitely not fit to run our country when he cant make up his own mind on what to do and also not have the integrity to stand up for what he thinks is right.

"Kerry and Edwards, when you have two guys who are this full of ****, you definitely need two Johns."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

I
Impact of a late step 2/comlex 2
Replies
1
Views
859
Mehd School
Mehd School
H
CRNA impact on job market
Replies
21
Views
4K
jwk
jwk
DancingAstronaut
Difference in residency training between SRNAs and MDs?
2
Replies
62
Views
10K
Iso4ane
Iso4ane
N
Western PA group looking for quality MDs
Replies
0
Views
2K
norwood
N
F
Impact of program changing the PD
Replies
6
Views
2K
Doctor4Life1769
Doctor4Life1769
Top