- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,834
- Reaction score
- 4
I guess payback is a b****
- Thread starter toughlife
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,246
- Reaction score
- 45
edited -
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,520
- Reaction score
- 3,174
Are you saying that his wife's recurrence of cancer is somehow payback for his political stances that you disagree with? Please elaborate.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 700
- Reaction score
- 1
Probably not for his stance on issues..more likely is how he made his law career by suing doctors.
- Joined
- May 1, 2003
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
I wouldn't call it payback. Karma perhaps........
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,934
- Reaction score
- 983
I mean, HE'S not the one with cancer...
D
deleted50478
Yeah, that's pretty low. On the other hand, I don't know how Edward's can ever visit a doctor with his wife knowing he'd screw the guy over as soon as look at him. What a scumbag. Poor Mrs. Edwards though, hope she does ok.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,965
- Reaction score
- 2
It's quite unfortunate for Mrs. Edwards.
But here's the question I have. His WIFE, who he's been married to for 30 yrs is having a recurrence...in fact mets. Obvious not the best of px.
Why in the heck is he still in the race. Wouldnt one's wife, who he's likely going to have a very limited time with on earth and the many things (ie chemo) she's going to need help with take precedence over the PRESIDENCY. I know we all have different aspirations,etc. But come on, this is her time of need!!
But here's the question I have. His WIFE, who he's been married to for 30 yrs is having a recurrence...in fact mets. Obvious not the best of px.
Why in the heck is he still in the race. Wouldnt one's wife, who he's likely going to have a very limited time with on earth and the many things (ie chemo) she's going to need help with take precedence over the PRESIDENCY. I know we all have different aspirations,etc. But come on, this is her time of need!!
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 7
Not very nice, but it brings up an interesting point. What would you do if a guy comes into your clinic needing non-emergent care who made millions suing your colleagues? Would you treat him? Would you treat his family?
I kinda wonder if Edwards has regrets how he's treated the medical community now that he needs them the most.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 94
I guess it just goes to show that some people have their eye on one prize, regardless of who they step on to get there. Hopefully his advisors will tell him that he should drop out of the race although in politics they are probably advising him that he now has part of the population that will vote for him out of sympathy.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,834
- Reaction score
- 4
No I meant that what goes around comes around. The guy likely screwed people over (doctors) by suing the crap out of them and likely destroyed many lives.
Now, the prick is relying on them to cure his wife. He should have thought that some day he would need the people he sought out to screw in the first place.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 1
No, he's probably having a party because he has plans to sue the pants off everyone involved in his wife's care for a little campaign donation. Personally, I would have NOTHING to do with any of their family if they came to me. That's not to say that she shouldn't receive medical care because she married a prick... it just wouldn't be by me!
- Joined
- May 28, 2004
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 0
He screwed more than just the doctors. Because of his tactics, and those of the ilk that he spawned, many people don't have access to decent health care. I'm sure he doesn't see it that way, but lots of good docs, ones that weren't getting sued, had to give up practicing certain areas of medicine because of the insurance rates.
I for one would not feel comfortable treating him or anyone he knows. And an informal discussion in our call room yesterday yielded pretty much a consensus on that point, as well as the fact that no one would vote for this SOB becuase of what he has done to the profession.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 7
I'd treat his wife. If you've ever known anyone with cancer you'd prolly treat her too. I know he's made a living suing doc's but I just wouldn't be able to sleep @ night if I turned her away. Him otoh, I'd prolly lose sleep deciding on whether or not to treat him. Thats a tough moral dilemma but in the end I'd prolly treat him too. I guess I'm just a sucker for repentance and I'd hope that one day he might argue for Dr's instead of against them.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,062
- Reaction score
- 156
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 940
- Reaction score
- 5
Hmm, if the politics thing doesn't work out for him, maybe he should switch to pre-med.🙄
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 94
Maybe I missed the point here but are you saying that pre-meds step on whoever to get to med school?????
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 940
- Reaction score
- 5
Heh, if you are/were a pre-med, and you didn't notice this kind of behavior from cutthroat (and usually weak) students, it's probably because you were one of them.
I kid, I kid ....
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 94
Actually I'm a fourth year getting ready to start my anesthesia residency. I guess I really didn't notice that kind of behavior too much in undergrad. But then again I only went to College Park (which isn't really considered a super competitive undergrad ... more of a party school ... or maybe that was just the crowd I hung out with).
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 29
Your call room must've been full of total pricks. What's wrong with you people? You can refuse to serve him if you own a restaurant, but you have to treat him at the hospital. You're a ****ing doctor!
- Joined
- May 28, 2004
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, there were a bunch of surgeons in there at the time now that I think about it.
I'm certainly not going to hand my loaded gun to the murderer who broke into my house to kill me but forgot his own. Maybe you just haven't heard of this guy or something. And just because someone walks into my office doesn't mean I have to provide them a service. The ER is a different story.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 28,931
- Reaction score
- 62,844
Well, there were a bunch of surgeons in there at the time now that I think about it.
I'm certainly not going to hand my loaded gun to the murderer who broke into my house to kill me but forgot his own. Maybe you just haven't heard of this guy or something. And just because someone walks into my office doesn't mean I have to provide them a service. The ER is a different story.
True. Except in emergency cases, you don't have to provide care to anyone.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 7
You treat him then!
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,062
- Reaction score
- 156
it's this bleeding-heart mentality that got us into the current mess we're in, namely that everyone deserves equal access to medical care in spite of their (in)ability to pay and/or willingness to sue.
we'll catch you in a few years and see if this sentiment has changed.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 29
I'm probably the furthest thing from a bleeding heart there is. I said nothing about equal access to care or any of that crap. I don't know where that came from. I just don't think you deny care to someone because you don't like them. I seriously doubt you "like" most of your patients. Almost every trauma patient I've ever taken care of in the middle of the night, I patently dislike (there are of course exceptions) and don't really care much for their well being. But, my job is to take care of them, and I do it because I like my job. You've got a job to do. If you don't want to do it, find another job.
And please don't imply that I'm a liberal again.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2004
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,062
- Reaction score
- 156
physicians have a PR problem because joe blow on the street all thinks we're millionaires. he believes that we all make a $1M+ per year. he believes that every time you go to the hospital, the doctor should pinpoint your exact diagnosis within 5 mins of meeting him. and, that no matter what the problem is, he should be able to walk out of that hospital cured. anything less is malpractice. that's the PR problem.
i'm not cheering for john edward's wife's diagnosis. i'm saying that we have a right to refuse who we treat electively, and i wouldn't give anesthesia to john edwards. this has little to do with his wife.
and, for the EMTALA regulations (which is what all of this "universal care" stuff is predicated on), no where does it say that everyone deserves the "gold standard" of care if they can't pay. we often provide this regardless. our mistake.
don't confuse the issues here. we can pick and choose our patients (well, not exactly as anesthesiologists). i shouldn't be responsible for the person who smokes for 40 years, has a bmi>40 and a ton of co-morbidities when they come to the hospital, say "fix me", get tens of thousands of dollars of care, get discharged because the DRG has expired, don't pay their share, and then show-up on the doorstep again 2 weeks later with the same exact problem. now, don't forget that same person can sue you at any time for any reason. they'll hire a contingency lawyer at no cost to them, and go on a fishing expedition regardless whether or not there's any merit (pre-marriage i briefly dated a girl who worked for such a plaintiff's attorney). there were no repercussions to this guy. most insurance companies would just pay a nuisance fee to make it go away. rarely, he'd have a legitimate case. (yes, there are a few, rare bad doctors out there. i do realize that too.)
you gotta ask yourself when are we actually going to effectively deal with this problem and how. because, there are a hell of a lot more people like this in the world with each passing day. the population is getting older and sicker. insurance companies are trying to cut reimbursements. everyone is squeezing the physician, part of which is based on the mixed-message PR we get in the lay media (saint vs. demon) and the perception that we're deep pockets. we either geniuses or idiots in the public's mind - no in between. and, i blame a lot of that on shows like datline nbc and the like. the media only tells the sexy stories, and they never tell the whole story.
everyone is looking for someone else to blame for their problems, be it the hospital or the physician. and, even if a lawsuit is completely bogus, often your insurance company will settle it out of court just to save costs. the system is broken. it's easy to blame the doctor. and, chances are it'll work regardless of merit.
i (as every physician should) treat all of my patients to the best of my training and ability. this includes the 4 a.m. gang banger i took to the OR about a month ago who told me post-op (paraphrasing without the expletives) that i "suck" as a doctor because he's permanently paralyzed from the waist down. did i shoot him in the spine? did i even perform the surgery? did i have a choice about dragging my ass out of bed and taking him to the OR for 3 hours in the middle of the night? no, i did my duty and we saved the guy's life. do you think we'll see a nickel of the probably $20k it took to patch him back together? take a guess. better yet, guess who's REALLY going to pay for that surgery. but, what's the real point of trying to explain all this to this idiot. instead, i'm just waiting for the subpoena. (and, you should see the note that i left in that chart... some of my finest work.)
as a profession, we gotta toughen up. at some point, though, we're going to have to start saying, "you need to pay a retainer or i'm not going to treat you." nothing changes until we convince the public that they have to take responsibility for their own health. and, the only way you can do this is by the "carrot and stick" approach, people need to be penalized for abuse (yes, it's abuse) of the medical system and rewarded for taking care of themselves. right now, we have almost a marxist healthcare delivery model where everyone gets penalized. it's a herd mentality that just isn't working, and companies hire more and more administrators to force us to cut costs on our side - how do you think those administrators are paid? (i know; i used to work for one!) and now, the governator wants us to take money from our own pocket to pay for "universal" healthcare in california? why ANYONE would consider practising there is beyond me.
the bottom line: problem right now is, people erroneously believe their skyrocketing insurance premiums go straight into our pockets. the real education starts with making them realize that nothing could be further from the truth.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 3,757
- Reaction score
- 7
The edwards oncologist is in trouble. According to the NY Times, the doc (obviously an idiot) told Edwards that her cancer was similar to diabetes in that it was more of a long term chronic disease than anything else.
Of course thats blatantly false, and when Edwards dies you can bet John is going to sue the pants off the oncologist. To compare stage IV breast cancer to diabetes is a joke.
Of course thats blatantly false, and when Edwards dies you can bet John is going to sue the pants off the oncologist. To compare stage IV breast cancer to diabetes is a joke.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 29
You gotta be kidding...
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,934
- Reaction score
- 983
Please correct me - but I believe this position is LEGAL but not ETHICAL, i.e., to refuse treatment to someone because you don't like them.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 28,931
- Reaction score
- 62,844
That is the legal position. Now, I'm sure some of the ethics can become legal. If I open a clinic and refuse to treat black people, that's probably breaking a law. If I refuse to treat non-christians, while I personally think that's unethical, I'm don't think its against the law. Civil suit maybe, criminal suit not likely.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm convinced that the original poster is not the only one who had these feelings upon hearing this news.
Just think: Edwards made a lot of money suing doctors. And he wants universal health care. Doctors who are in private practice must have a difficult time with this.
Just think: Edwards made a lot of money suing doctors. And he wants universal health care. Doctors who are in private practice must have a difficult time with this.
I know this is a common claim, but is it really true?
The burden of stupid malpractice suits is very accurately reflected in the cost of malpractice insurance premiums ... and they're not that high, for most specialties.
Health care is an increasing national expense because the population is aging and because drugs & all that high-tech stuff we use costs a lot more than it used to (new anesthesia machines, laparoscopic surgery toys, activated factor VII, "lasers", hip prosthetics, MRI machines, on and on).
Tort reform is important, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the twin money sinks of technology and fat old smokers.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,246
- Reaction score
- 45
Maybe I'm misreading but the impression I got from the original post was "His wife deserves to have cancer because of his actions suing doctors."
And that's f*ck3d up. No matter how you feel about malpractice, etc.
