Florida doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere

[7starmantis]

You don't need to have read any bill in its entirety to vote for or against it.

Please dont go into politics at any time, thank you.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cpants]

The reason union members tend to be Democrats is because Republicans despise unions. On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the fact that the corporate world leans Republican, so I guess that evens things out somewhat, even though corporations have much more financial power than unions.
I will say though, uncharacteristically for someone from the left, that I don't think public unions should be legal. They have a financially crippling effect on local and state government in the form of the generous pensions that they're able to force out of them.

It's interesting that you have this paradoxical position on public vs. Private unions. Either unions are beneficial and necessary to protect the rights of workers or they aren't. It shouldn't matter who the employer is. BTW, unions have a crippling effect on private corporations too (see: auto industry).

 

[Dr Oops]

Well, the argument "who cares?" isn't much of an argument. Aside from the reductio ad absurdum angle, it simply isn't true. Google "Jack Cassell Obama" and you will find 212,000 hits. This little stunt has made it all over the news, and it's not good publicity for our profession.

This is what happens when our profession has no organization representing us.

Docs have to vote with their patients. It seems to be the only way our voices get heard.

 

[lejeunesage]

Please dont go into politics at any time, thank you.

Oh, I intended to, but I guess I won't, now that you're asking so kindly. Do you really think that legislators read all or even most bills fully? Seriously?

 

[7starmantis]

Oh, I intended to, but I guess I won't, now that you're asking so kindly. Do you really think that legislators read all or even most bills fully? Seriously?

Nope. but there is a difference between what I think (know) to be happening and what I think should be happening.

 

[lejeunesage]

It's interesting that you have this paradoxical position on public vs. Private unions. Either unions are beneficial and necessary to protect the rights of workers or they aren't. It shouldn't matter who the employer is. BTW, unions have a crippling effect on private corporations too (see: auto industry).

The government has the right to restrict rights when the interest of the state are threatened. That is why for years, public unions were not allowed. The government needs to be allowed to function at all times without the threat of strikes. This is the reason why, for instance, you can't have a union in the army, or you can't have a union of senators or justices who decide that they won't work because they need higher salaries.

When it comes to the corporate world, interests of the state are usually not threatened, and so the government has no right to interfere with contract negotiations between employer and employees. That said, if and effective case for state interest could be made (for instance the protection of a key industry in times of war), the government could use its powers to prevent strikes, or if needed, to directly takeover the industry.

It's a bit more complex than a Manichean world of benefit or non-benefit, you see?

 

[lejeunesage]

Nope. but there is a difference between what I think (know) to be happening and what I think should be happening.

"La politique, c'est l'art du possible," said Talleyrand, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Politics is the art of the possible. You deal with the political system you have, not with the one you wish to have. And in ours, the average bill is simply too long to be read fully by every lawmaker. They have to make decisions based on whether they agree with what they agree with more than they disagree with what they disagree. If you don't like it, I urge you to create a more perfect political system.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

i don't know how to respond/react to a person who says a politican, whose (very well compensated) job it is to craft and modify legislation, doesn't have to read the very laws s/he is entrusted to enact.

 

[lejeunesage]

Agreed.

I'm not sure if "protect the little guy" is the right way to look at it. Entitle, and therefore control, the little guy maybe.

But, you're right. At some point it was probably about ideology. Not sure if that's the case anymore. I think now it's just about keeping your "base" satisfied and your bank acct full.


Not oblivious to it, I was just focusing on unions

The game of politics has to played. What can you do? That's why in a perfect world neither unions nor corporations could financially contribute to elections. But being from the right (to the right me at least, which is not saying much, admittedly) you're likely to see unions as the more nefarious of the two. Each side has to go where they'll find money. And that money comes with strings attached, both on the left and on the right. It's deplorable, but it's the state of things. Unfortunately the Citizens United decision will make things worse.

But let me talk about unions for a bit. While it's true that they tend to create problems (the impossibility of firing bad workers, for instance, and a corollary reluctance to hire) it's thanks to unions that people have the benefits that most of us take for granted today: the 40-hr work week, paid vacations, pensions, safe working conditions and so on. The problem with the right is that they seem blind to those benefits. Now we could probably increase the profits of all of our corporations if we did away with those benefits, but we've decided against that as a society. We've been there. That is what created the impetus for the formation of unions in the first place.

 

[lejeunesage]

i don't know how to respond/react to a person who says a politican, whose (very well compensated) job it is to craft and modify legislation, doesn't have to read the very laws s/he is entrusted to enact.

He should... but never does. Yet the sky is still above us and the seas have not engulfed us. It's okay.

 

[7starmantis]

"La politique, c'est l'art du possible," said Talleyrand, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Politics is the art of the possible. You deal with the political system you have, not with the one you wish to have. And in ours, the average bill is simply too long to be read fully by every lawmaker. They have to make decisions based on whether they agree with what they agree with more than they disagree with what they disagree. If you don't like it, I urge you to create a more perfect political system.

Seriously? Talleyrand, a Napoleonic supporter and French foreign minister to Napoleon and Louis XVIII ? Thats what you base your ideas of the modern American political system on?

I wont even go into the irony of that, but regardless, if we hold back what should be; to only what we think is presently possible, we accept the status quo and things like this healthcare bill would still be pipe dreams.

"Après moi le déluge" is not my view of political responsibility.

 

[7starmantis]

He should... but never does. Yet the sky is still above us and the seas have not engulfed us. It's okay.

I love this red herring people use. If we judge "bad things" as only the sky falling and the seas engulfing us, well then politicians in Washington are saints, with all of our best interests at heart. Then reality kicks in the door and beats you to death with its shoe.

 

[ArkansasRanger]

I find this absolutely disgusting. Politics should be left out of the doctors office.

Why's that?

 

[lejeunesage]

Seriously? Talleyrand, a Napoleonic supporter and French foreign minister to Napoleon and Louis XVIII ? Thats what you base your ideas of the modern American political system on?

I wont even go into the irony of that, but regardless, if we hold back what should be; to only what we think is presently possible, we accept the status quo and things like this healthcare bill would still be pipe dreams.

"Après moi le déluge" is not my view of political responsibility.

There you go again with another ad hominem. Talleyrand was venal in every way and even corrupt, but he was a most adroit politician and a superb diplomat. Look at the position France was able to retain in Europe even after the Napoleonic defeat. And two things: first, what is wrong with being a Napoleonic supporter? Two, Talleyrand had a lot to do with Napoleon's demise. It was he who urged Czar Alexander to resist at Tilsit.

In any case, I'll advocate chance where change is possible. This is an absolute irrelevancy. Lawmakers have dozens of aides who do the reading and other drudgeries for them. It's the state of modern things. They don't need to do the reading themselves to be cognizant of the main things included in the bill. If you think you can change that, be my guest.

Lastly, Talleyrand never said "après moi le déluge."

 

[lejeunesage]

I love this red herring people use. If we judge "bad things" as only the sky falling and the seas engulfing us, well then politicians in Washington are saints, with all of our best interests at heart. Then reality kicks in the door and beats you to death with its shoe.

Hyperbole + reductio ad absurdum.

 

[lejeunesage]

I know this is random, but anyone else here who thinks that pistachios are the best-tasting nuts?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

pot's the gateway drug mang

 

[7starmantis]

There you go again with another ad hominem. Talleyrand was venal in every way and even corrupt, but he was a most adroit politician and a superb diplomat. Look at the position France was able to retain in Europe even after the Napoleonic defeat. And two things: first, what is wrong with being a Napoleonic supporter? Two, Talleyrand had a lot to do with Napoleon's demise. It was he who urged Czar Alexander to resist at Tilsit.

Another? You have me confused with someone else?
Oh, and listing the biography of someone is not an ad hominem fallacy. Guess you read into my post that I was saying he was a bad badderson or something? Didn't say anything about him as a person at all....calm down.

I just think it ironic that one would use a reference about Napoleonic politics to explain their position on modern American politics.

In any case, I'll advocate chance where change is possible. This is an absolute irrelevancy. Lawmakers have dozens of aides who do the reading and other drudgeries for them. It's the state of modern things. They don't need to do the reading themselves to be cognizant of the main things included in the bill. If you think you can change that, be my guest.

So if doctors have lots of staff that read patients charts for them they dont need to read their patients charts at all. In the same manner, one voting for federal law should in fact read it for themselves and know whats in it. The idea that its too much to do, is just accepting the status quo. If its too much, then we should change that. This laissez faire attitude towards change is counterproductive for politicians. Thats why they are there in the first place. I dont know what else to say to someone who proposes those making our federal law need not read the laws.

Lastly, Talleyrand never said "après moi le déluge."

Never said he did, that would have been Louis XV, by the way. I assumed (my mistake) that you posting french would have known the origin and meaning of the phrase. Its generally accepted that King Louis XV was making a statement about what happens after his death.

The verb could be understood as a subjunctive concession: After me, let the deluge come (it can come, but it makes no difference to me). Sort of like the greek proverb:
ἐμοῦ θανόντος γαῖα μιχθήτω πυρί·
οὐδὲν μέλει μοι· τἀμὰ γὰρ καλῶς ἔχει.

When I die, let earth and fire mix:
It matters not to me, for my affairs will be unaffected.

Was hoping you knew the background of the phrase and thus I could use it to make a point about political responsibility being needed to protect the future of our country, not just what we see as feasible or probable at the present time.

Hyperbole + reductio ad absurdum.

Someone has been reading his logical fallacy cheat sheet. You have that written on your hand? Be honest!

I was making the ridiculous statement to hold a mirror to your post. Glad it worked out so well.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

i always thought apre moi le deluge was the sun king's words. guess not.

 

[lejeunesage]

i always thought apre moi le deluge was the sun king's words. guess not.

It was. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Actually, it was I who was mistaken. It was indeed Louis XV.

 

[lejeunesage]

Another? You have me confused with someone else?
Oh, and listing the biography of someone is not an ad hominem fallacy. Guess you read into my post that I was saying he was a bad badderson or something? Didn't say anything about him as a person at all....calm down.

I just think it ironic that one would use a reference about Napoleonic politics to explain their position on modern American politics.


So if doctors have lots of staff that read patients charts for them they dont need to read their patients charts at all. In the same manner, one voting for federal law should in fact read it for themselves and know whats in it. The idea that its too much to do, is just accepting the status quo. If its too much, then we should change that. This laissez faire attitude towards change is counterproductive for politicians. Thats why they are there in the first place. I dont know what else to say to someone who proposes those making our federal law need not read the laws.


Never said he did, that would have been Louis XV, by the way. I assumed (my mistake) that you posting french would have known the origin and meaning of the phrase. Its generally accepted that King Louis XV was making a statement about what happens after his death.

The verb could be understood as a subjunctive concession: After me, let the deluge come (it can come, but it makes no difference to me). Sort of like the greek proverb:
ἐμοῦ θανόντος γαῖα μιχθήτω πυρί·
οὐδὲν μέλει μοι· τἀμὰ γὰρ καλῶς ἔχει.

When I die, let earth and fire mix:
It matters not to me, for my affairs will be unaffected.

Was hoping you knew the background of the phrase and thus I could use it to make a point about political responsibility being needed to protect the future of our country, not just what we see as feasible or probable at the present time.



Someone has been reading his logical fallacy cheat sheet. You have that written on your hand? Be honest!

I was making the ridiculous statement to hold a mirror to your post. Glad it worked out so well.

You were stating that I shouldn't use Talleyrand's viewpoint solely because he was Talleyrand. That, sir, is an ad hominem attack.

Politics being the art of the possible is not Napoleonic Politics. It's just politics in general, whatever the age, whatever the place. Politics has been, and will never be but the art of the possible.

It was Louis quatorze, XIV. Correction. My mistake, it was Louis XV, you were right.

There's not a thing you could teach me about French or French grammar, I assure you. Apres moi le deluge does not need any explaining, thank you very much.

You were not holding any mirror to my post. You mere making ridiculous assumptions and an exaggerations about what I was saying. And as to that statement about logical fallacies, it's so puerile that I don't think it deserves an answer. Sorry.

Lastly, the doctor analogy does not work. Charts are not as long as bills and lives are immediately at stake. You have yet to explain how you plan to go about making lawmakers read every bill. I'm all eyes.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

lives swing in the balance with laws as well. if they are passing laws they can't read, then the laws are too big/long. it seems simple to me, but then again i'm a simpleton.

 

[lejeunesage]

lives swing in the balance with laws as well. if they are passing laws they can't read, then the laws are too big/long. it seems simple to me, but then again i'm a simpleton.

Then, if you would be so kind, propose an enforceable alternative.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Then, if you would be so kind, propose an enforceable alternative.

there's already one on the docket, if you've been following the political tickers

edit: isn't my enforceable alternative already contained within my previous post?

 

[lejeunesage]

there's already one on the docket, if you've been following the political tickers

edit: isn't my enforceable alternative already contained within my previous post?

It's not enforceable. People have the right to add a million amendments and many of them are bound to stick. So bill will and do get large. Aren't there bigger problems for us to worry about?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

It's not enforceable. People have the right to add a million amendments and many of them are bound to stick. So bill will and do get large. Aren't there bigger problems for us to worry about?

i think the mechanism of our governance is almost as big as it gets. amendments can't be read?

 

[7starmantis]

You were stating that I shouldn't use Talleyrand's viewpoint solely because he was Talleyrand. That, sir, is an ad hominem attack.

Nope, again you read more into my post than was written.

There's not a thing you could teach me about French or French grammar, I assure you. Apres moi le deluge does not need any explaining, thank you very much.

Arrogant much? I'm not sure why you are so aggressive towards me, you made two mistakes already trying to prove "I dont know what I'm talking about". I dont know if you are carrying some aggression from another thread or something, but I'm simply trying to post how I feel, sorry if I have offended you in some manner. You seem really uptight about things, this is an anonymous message board, chilax a bit.

You were not holding any mirror to my post. You mere making ridiculous assumptions and an exaggerations about what I was saying. And as to that statement about logical fallacies, it's so puerile that I don't think it deserves an answer. Sorry.

Wow, you are really wound tight man. Your statement was so absurd it deserved to be shown for what it was.

Lastly, the doctor analogy does not work. Charts are not as long as bills and lives are immediately at stake. You have yet to explain how you plan to go about making lawmakers read every bill. I'm all eyes.

As pointed out already, lives are at stake, especially when passing things like the helathcare bill. More so actually since these will be federal law for years to come for all Americans...much more life is at stake.

It's not enforceable. People have the right to add a million amendments and many of them are bound to stick. So bill will and do get large. Aren't there bigger problems for us to worry about?

Enforceable or not, its logical. Plus, the voters should enforce things like this anyway. There are bigger things to worry about, your right. However, we can "worry" about more than one thing at a time. So, to avoid things that need to be fixed for the sake of, other things that need to be fixed, is counterintuitive.

 

[lejeunesage]

Nope, again you read more into my post than was written.


Arrogant much? I'm not sure why you are so aggressive towards me, you made two mistakes already trying to prove "I dont know what I'm talking about". I dont know if you are carrying some aggression from another thread or something, but I'm simply trying to post how I feel, sorry if I have offended you in some manner. You seem really uptight about things, this is an anonymous message board, chilax a bit.


Wow, you are really wound tight man. Your statement was so absurd it deserved to be shown for what it was.


As pointed out already, lives are at stake, especially when passing things like the helathcare bill. More so actually since these will be federal law for years to come for all Americans...much more life is at stake.



Enforceable or not, its logical. Plus, the voters should enforce things like this anyway. There are bigger things to worry about, your right. However, we can "worry" about more than one thing at a time. So, to avoid things that need to be fixed for the sake of, other things that need to be fixed, is counterintuitive.

I'm not aggressive towards you. It's hard to convey tone when one rights and my writing style may be giving you the wrong impression. You accuse me of reading more into your posts than you intend, and yet you're doing exactly that. You choose to read what I write in the most hyperbolic of ways, then decide that what I've written -due to the extreme views that you yourself infuse in my statements- is absurd. That, sir, is the very definition of absurdity.

The whole source of our disagreement here is that I'm willing to take the world as it it and you think it ought to be fixed. Fix it, then. There are matters worth spending energy on, but the fact that bills are not read by congressmen is not one of then. If you disagree, then be my guest and please solve this issue of great consequence.

Lastly, there's nothing arrogant about stating a simple fact: tout comme je ne pourrais pas pretendre enseigner le japonais a un nippon, il n'y a rien que tu puisse m'apprendre sur la grammaire francaise; c'est tout simplement un fait.

 

[lejeunesage]

i think the mechanism of our governance is almost as big as it gets. amendments can't be read?

Here's a thought: run for a congressional seat, win, then inspire lawmakers to read every word of every bill. Your countrymen will be eternally grateful.

 

[7starmantis]

The whole source of our disagreement here is that I'm willing to take the world as it it and you think it ought to be fixed. Fix it, then. There are matters worth spending energy on, but the fact that bills are not read by congressmen is not one of then. If you disagree, then be my guest and please solve this issue of great consequence.

No, the source of our disagreement is that you think federal laws need not be read before being enacted. Sticking our heads in the sand doesn't help the issue, neither does marginalizing it.

Lastly, there's nothing arrogant about stating a simple fact: tout comme je ne pourrais pas pretendre enseigner le japonais a un nippon, il n'y a rien que tu puisse m'apprendre sur la grammaire francaise; c'est tout simplement un fait.

And yet you were wrong twice trying to correct me about King Louis.
Its also pretty assumptive of you to assume you know my background.

 

[cpants]

The bills are read, just not necessarily by the congressman himself. That's what staffers and interns are for.

 

[lejeunesage]

The bills are read, just not necessarily by the congressman himself. That's what staffers and interns are for.

 

[tncekm]

The bills are read, just not necessarily by the congressman himself. That's what staffers and interns are for.

Yeah... we kinda figure some people read it and advise others. It's sort of part of the problem.

 

[lejeunesage]

No, the source of our disagreement is that you think federal laws need not be read before being enacted. Sticking our heads in the sand doesn't help the issue, neither does marginalizing it.



And yet you were wrong twice trying to correct me about King Louis.
Its also pretty assumptive of you to assume you know my background.

Lawmakers don't need to read the bills to know, BECAUSE THEY HAVE AIDES TO DO THAT FOR THEM.

Second, thinking that one sentence commonly attributed to Louis XV was in fact attributed to Louis XIV does not say much about our relative degrees of knowledge on French history, and especially not on French grammar. Si tu es si confiant de ta connaissance du francais, que dirais-tu de continuer notre debat entirement dans la langue de Moliere. Si tu es d'accord, je n'ecrirais plus rien en anglais, et nous debattrons, aussi longtemps qu'il te conviendra de le faire, sur les sujets de ton choix, quels qu'il soient, jusqu'a ce que tu obtienne satisfaction du fait -comment l'appeler autrement, cette verite?- que tu n'a rien, absolument rien a m'apprendre sur la grammaire francaise.

 

[lejeunesage]

Yeah... we kinda figure some people read it and advise others. It's sort of part of the problem.

How is that part of the problem? That's the way things have been done for as long as there have been legislative bodies. Lawmakers have aides, staffers, interns, whatever, to help them with the process of legislating. Do you also want them to type the pages or the amendments they propose themselves?

 

[tncekm]

If you're going to vote on something, KNOW IT. It's not too much to ask. If that means it took 5 years to work on this single healthcare bill and get to a vote, so be it! We need responsible government!!

People are often criticized by others for basing their knowledge of the healthcare bill based on their favorite news source, etc. But, the people who voted for/against it are basing their vote based on some intern. LOOOOOOOOOOL. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Staffers can help, but they sure as hell shouldn't be deciding votes. And,if they're the only ones who know the bill, they're deciding votes. (Of course, the reality of the situation is none of the senators/congress people actually care and whether or not the staffer advised them wouldn't have changed the votes one single bit--but it's the principle of the matter)

 

[lejeunesage]

If you're going to vote on something, KNOW IT. It's not too much to ask. If that means it took 5 years to work on this single healthcare bill and get to a vote, so be it! We need responsible government!!

People are often criticized by others for basing their knowledge of the healthcare bill based on their favorite news source, etc. But, the people who voted for/against it are basing their vote based on some intern. LOOOOOOOOOOL. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Staffers can help, but they sure as hell shouldn't be deciding votes. And,if they're the only ones who know the bill, they're deciding votes. (Of course, the reality of the situation is none of the senators/congress people actually care and whether or not the staffer advised them wouldn't have changed the votes one single bit--but it's the principle of the matter)

You, sir, live in a utopia... and what's more even more paradoxical, an unworkable utopia. You're admitting that it's a non-issue, yet you persist in complaining about it. I'm finished with the topic reading bills. It's not something about which anyone will be convinced to change their views.

 

[7starmantis]

How is that part of the problem? That's the way things have been done for as long as there have been legislative bodies. Lawmakers have aides, staffers, interns, whatever, to help them with the process of legislating. Do you also want them to type the pages or the amendments they propose themselves?

Sources? Would love to see sources on this statement. Especially within American politics.

Lawmakers don't need to read the bills to know, BECAUSE THEY HAVE AIDES TO DO THAT FOR THEM.

Right, and doctors dont need to read charts, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NURSES TO DO THAT FOR THEM. lolerskates

Second, thinking that one sentence commonly attributed to Louis XV was in fact attributed to Louis XIV does not say much about our relative degrees of knowledge on French history, and especially not on French grammar. Si tu es si confiant de ta connaissance du francais, que dirais-tu de continuer notre debat entirement dans la langue de Moliere. Si tu es d'accord, je n'ecrirais plus rien en anglais, et nous debattrons, aussi longtemps qu'il te conviendra de le faire, sur les sujets de ton choix, quels qu'il soient, jusqu'a ce que tu obtienne satisfaction du fait -comment l'appeler autrement, cette verite?- que tu n'a rien, absolument rien a m'apprendre sur la grammaire francaise.

Someone has some passive/aggressive issues with self image. Why would I want to continue in a language no one else on the board could understand? And I never said anything about my knowledge of French, you obviously are compensating. What a tool.

 

[tncekm]

You, sir, live in a utopia... and what's more even more paradoxical, an unworkable utopia.

How is that a utopia? I simply said that people voting on bills should read the bills. You're a flippin' ***** if you think that's unreasonable simply because it's not part of the current status quo.

You're admitting that it's a non-issue, yet you persist in complaining about it.

I didn't say it's a non-issue. I said our corrupt representatives don't care about the contents. The fact that these authoritarian a-holes don't care doesn't mean that we need representatives who do care, and that the only responsible way to vote on a bill is after you've mastered it!

I'm finished with the topic reading bills. It's not something about which anyone will be convinced to change their views.

Obviously not. You're perfectly happy with the broken system because "it is the system that 'is'". <-- Yeah, sounds stupid, right? That's because it is stupid.

 

[lejeunesage]

Sources? Would love to see sources on this statement. Especially within American politics.


Right, and doctors dont need to read charts, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NURSES TO DO THAT FOR THEM. lolerskates





Someone has some passive/aggressive issues with self image. Why would I want to continue in a language no one else on the board could understand? And I never said anything about my knowledge of French, you obviously are compensating. What a tool.

It is wise of you to retreat from a battle (knowledge of French) which you have no chance of winning in a million years. But no amount of imbecilic ranting about self-image will change that.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the doctor-nurse thing with charts is not a proper analogy. You may disagree with it if you want. I really couldn't care less. I you really care, then run for a congressional seat and change things or make it a campaign issue. I'm more than tired of this sterile debate.

Lastly, there's more to the history of legislatures than American history. Human nature and human ways are imperfect. Deal with it.

Good night.

 

[lejeunesage]

How is that a utopia? I simply said that people voting on bills should read the bills. You're a flippin' ***** if you think that's unreasonable simply because it's not part of the current status quo.

I didn't say it's a non-issue. I said our corrupt representatives don't care about the contents. The fact that these authoritarian a-holes don't care doesn't mean that we need representatives who do care, and that the only responsible way to vote on a bill is after you've mastered it!

Obviously not. You're perfectly happy with the broken system because "it is the system that 'is'". <-- Yeah, sounds stupid, right? That's because it is stupid.

You think they should and I think they don't need to. You have your opinion; I have mine. You're assuming that I'm merely defending the status quo. It has nothing to do with being the status quo. I don't think that delegating the writing and reading of bills to one's own hired staff is unreasonable.

Lawmakers obviously care about contents, otherwise there wouldn't be such such long debates and such vociferous arguments over policy prescriptions in bills.

I'm not "perfectly happy with the system" merely because I think it's not a great calamity that lawmakers delegate the reading of bills to their aides. On the contrary, I think that since there are actual issues that need to be fixed, we shouldn't focus on petty distractions.

"Authoritarian?" You've never lived under an authoritarian government, have you? You're falling into the disappointing rhetoric of the tea-partiers. We have a functioning democratic republic, which has its faults, like every human institution, but please, temper the rhetoric. We are far from having an authoritarian government. The fact that you're able to level that criticism without consequence, the facts that opponents of the administration in power (both this one and the previous one) are able to air their discontent publicly without governmental repression is proof of this.

 

[demayette]

Lets make it official... All doctors should make a $1,000,000 salary/year. Whenever, they talk about cutting doctor's salary, every specialty except primary care physicians put their f....horn out. You guys are not entitled to make whatever you think you should make. Get real !!!

 

[tncekm]

Lets make it official... All doctors should make a $1,000,000 salary/year. Whenever, they talk about cutting doctor's salary, every specialty except primary care physicians put their f....horn out. You guys are not entitled to make whatever you think you should make. Get real !!!

Who said anything about $1,000,000/yr?

How much do you think physicians are worth? Give me an hourly number, not yearly salary. Salary is funky because hours worked.

 

[demayette]

Who said anything about $1,000,000/yr?

How much do you think physicians are worth? Give me an hourly number, not yearly salary. Salary is funky because hours worked.

150k-200k is good enough assuming the average physicians loan is 175k. I won't give an hourly number even if I believe physicians work an average 55hrs/week.

 

[tncekm]

...drivel...

You're hopeless. I'm done.

 

[tncekm]

150k-200k is good enough assuming the average physicians loan is 175k. I won't give an hourly number even if I believe physicians work an average 55hrs/week.

Give me an hourly number please. Then tell me how much you feel the average public union employee should make, on an hourly basis. Think DMV worker, or post office worker.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Yeah... we kinda figure some people read it and advise others. It's sort of part of the problem.

Reading and taking notes on the bills is not the most efficient use of our $174,000 per year house and senate members. Just like editing/redrafting opinions isn't the most efficient use of our Supreme Court Justices' time. Just like people lower on the ladder almost always do supporting work for people higher on the ladder. I'm not an aide or assistant, but at least 1/3 of my work is doing preliminary work for the higher ups (sweet anecdote, I know).

 

[demayette]

Give me an hourly number please. Then tell me how much you feel the average public union employee should make, on an hourly basis. Think DMV worker, or post office worker.

What got you into medicine? the ability alleviate people's suffering or to make a lot of cash...Unbelievable!

 

[TooMuchResearch]

What got you into medicine? the ability alleviate people's suffering or to make a lot of cash...Unbelievable!

There's a fine line to be walked when it comes to money. One needs to make enough to pay back educational debt and feel properly compensated. ...But I also think a lot of specialists are overpaid. And I'm not an FFS fan.

 

[demayette]

There's a fine line to be walked when it comes to money. One needs to make enough to pay back educational debt and feel properly compensated. ...But I also think a lot of specialists are overpaid. And I'm not an FFS fan.

My point exactly...