2121115

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jan 23, 2007
1,667
39
161
Status
Attending Physician
Several grammatical and spelling errors on the one page of his website that I read.
 

icpshootyz

7+ Year Member
Sep 17, 2009
525
85
171
Status
Attending Physician
I got the same one, but since I'm not in his state I really didn't pay much attention. I'm definitely not one to donate money to political candidates, regardless.
 

rirriri

easy
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 16, 2002
1,854
1
341
Status
Attending Physician

SLUsagar

rock chalk jayhawk
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2004
512
1
241
Visit site
Status
he MUST be good...

"He was rated as one of "Americas Top Physicians, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006" by the Consumer's Research Council, Washington D.C."

wow. that is $250 well-spent. I (and thousands of other physicians) also got a similar lame offer to become "eligible" for Top Physicians (I'm sure there is a thorough investigation of applicant quality/merit......i.e. will his/her check clear or not), and decided to spend the cash in Vegas rather than using it to pad my resume with artificial crap like that.
 
Aug 4, 2009
884
3
0
Status
Attending Physician
lol at this thread. I wonder if he's in those "who's who" publications. :laugh:

Doctors have yet to make good politicians. At least, politicians who help physicians. Tom Coburn is a physician, so is Ron Paul, so is Phil Gingrey. Coburn and Gingrey seem to be 95% concerned with abortion and other social issues like gay marriage and 5% concerned with everything else. Ron Paul is clinically insane. Are there others? I know Kevorkian was going to run for office at some point but he's also probably clinically insane.
 

Thrombus

Member
Removed
Removed
Account on Hold
10+ Year Member
Sep 27, 2004
749
94
271
lol at this thread. I wonder if he's in those "who's who" publications. :laugh:

Doctors have yet to make good politicians. At least, politicians who help physicians. Tom Coburn is a physician, so is Ron Paul, so is Phil Gingrey. Coburn and Gingrey seem to be 95% concerned with abortion and other social issues like gay marriage and 5% concerned with everything else. Ron Paul is clinically insane. Are there others? I know Kevorkian was going to run for office at some point but he's also probably clinically insane.
Tom Coburn is definitely one of our top 3 Senators fighting against the expansion of over-reaching, intrusive government which is trying to tax, regulate, and control the populace.
You are obviously a left wing liberal who thinks government knows best.
 
Aug 4, 2009
884
3
0
Status
Attending Physician
HAHAHA what a turd. Tom Coburn definitely fights against expanding government spending but he is also in the front line of those who want an expansion of an over-reaching, instrusive government which is trying to control our thoughts and opinions. Government does not know best, fool. But private industry often does not know best either. The best results of course are always obtained by cooperation and compromise. But unfortunately that becomes less likely to happen every year, in part because people like you tar and feather anyone who dares to use their brain as some sort of whacko communist who wants to take all your money. I happen to despise Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, and most of the rest of the liberal elite. How does that fit into your pathetic narrow view? Or are you going to ignore that because I have to be a liberal?

You know, the republican party used to appreciate people with brains. But in the past decade or so they ceased that and started only appreciating people with uninformed views of things, because people like that can be easily manipulated and gathered together in large loud groups. They learned that tactic from liberal mobs of the 60s, ironically they seem to not see the parallel. The current republican party couches everything in the language of "family" and "values" as if anything they do has any connection to it.

Why don't you use what minimal brain you have and start to question them with as much intensity as you question the far left? Extremism should have far less influence in forming policy than it does now - but because of people like you it does.
 

Thrombus

Member
Removed
Removed
Account on Hold
10+ Year Member
Sep 27, 2004
749
94
271
HAHAHA what a turd. Tom Coburn definitely fights against expanding government spending but he is also in the front line of those who want an expansion of an over-reaching, instrusive government which is trying to control our thoughts and opinions. Government does not know best, fool. But private industry often does not know best either. The best results of course are always obtained by cooperation and compromise. But unfortunately that becomes less likely to happen every year, in part because people like you tar and feather anyone who dares to use their brain as some sort of whacko communist who wants to take all your money. I happen to despise Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, and most of the rest of the liberal elite. How does that fit into your pathetic narrow view? Or are you going to ignore that because I have to be a liberal?

You know, the republican party used to appreciate people with brains. But in the past decade or so they ceased that and started only appreciating people with uninformed views of things, because people like that can be easily manipulated and gathered together in large loud groups. They learned that tactic from liberal mobs of the 60s, ironically they seem to not see the parallel. The current republican party couches everything in the language of "family" and "values" as if anything they do has any connection to it.

Why don't you use what minimal brain you have and start to question them with as much intensity as you question the far left? Extremism should have far less influence in forming policy than it does now - but because of people like you it does.
Blah blah blah. Typical left-wing rhetoric. Completely out of touch with history and what is going on in the world.

You think the government spends my dollar better than I do. Somehow you fail to address this issue and substitute "private industry" for "fleeced Taxpayer".

Let the people keep their tax money. Let the people keep their autonomy. Let the people keep their rights to self-reliance and independence from over-regulation and taxation.

Government should be there to protect life and liberty not to intrude on liberty. Lawmakers should be there to defend the Constitution, not to trample on it. You leftists are destroying the country by expanding the entitlement crowd who think that everyone else owe's them something.

You destroy once proud people's with your social programs (look at how the gov't has destroyed the one time self-reliant Native Americans and turned their reservations into bastions of unhealthiness, crime, and addiction -- but they have "free health care, education, food, housing". Its the end product of socialism and IT IS DETRIMENTAL TO MANKIND.

Now you leftists are forcing it on the country, robbing the citizenry of not only its money but its values. Punishing hard work. Stealing the fruits of one's labor. Creating an entitled class that is so selfish it thinks everyone owes them something and feels no shame when taking another's hard earned money.

I say unhook the feeding tube and get people to work. After that, let them work some more. A few generations ago the farmer and other people who built this country worked 100 hour weeks. Many of them still do. Now we are so pathetic we complain when we have to work more than 40 hours. And left wing loonies complain when someone has to take 2 jobs to pay the bills (including television, cell phone, etc. etc.) working 50 hours/week while sitting on a stool or chair. Absolutely pathetic.
 

BrainPathology

of Gnomeregon.
7+ Year Member
Sep 24, 2009
222
14
151
Florida
Status
Attending Physician
Blah blah blah. Typical left-wing rhetoric. Completely out of touch with history and what is going on in the world.

You think the government spends my dollar better than I do. Somehow you fail to address this issue and substitute "private industry" for "fleeced Taxpayer".

Let the people keep their tax money. Let the people keep their autonomy. Let the people keep their rights to self-reliance and independence from over-regulation and taxation.

Government should be there to protect life and liberty not to intrude on liberty. Lawmakers should be there to defend the Constitution, not to trample on it. You leftists are destroying the country by expanding the entitlement crowd who think that everyone else owe's them something.

You destroy once proud people's with your social programs (look at how the gov't has destroyed the one time self-reliant Native Americans and turned their reservations into bastions of unhealthiness, crime, and addiction -- but they have "free health care, education, food, housing". Its the end product of socialism and IT IS DETRIMENTAL TO MANKIND.

Now you leftists are forcing it on the country, robbing the citizenry of not only its money but its values. Punishing hard work. Stealing the fruits of one's labor. Creating an entitled class that is so selfish it thinks everyone owes them something and feels no shame when taking another's hard earned money.

I say unhook the feeding tube and get people to work. After that, let them work some more. A few generations ago the farmer and other people who built this country worked 100 hour weeks. Many of them still do. Now we are so pathetic we complain when we have to work more than 40 hours. And left wing loonies complain when someone has to take 2 jobs to pay the bills (including television, cell phone, etc. etc.) working 50 hours/week while sitting on a stool or chair. Absolutely pathetic.
I could maybe buy your rant.. if you hadn't said this in a different thread:

"Yes you did sell us out. Many people no longer have the opportunity to pay 230K cash to become a partner because you ran off with 3 million $.

You made it worse for business savy upcoming pathologists who now have their career reduced to a dead end employee model. Yes thats great right before retirement, but many of us did not go into this to take orders from some business admin. Yes you did sell us out. Many people no longer have the opportunity to pay 230K cash to become a partner because you ran off with 3 million $.

You made it worse for business savy upcoming pathologists who now have their career reduced to a dead end employee model. Yes thats great right before retirement, but many of us did not go into this to take orders from some business admin. "

That, to me, sounds like the ravings of someone who thinks he's "owed" something by everyone else. Namely established pathologists owe you and all younger pathologists the courtesy of not working hard and getting rewarded for their work. Capitolism is terrific until someone who isn't YOU makes 3million selling a successful practice, then that person is a sellout. When it's a community you care about, namely pathologists, you insist that people take a little less money for the greater good. But when it's a community you DON'T care about, namely Americans in general, you say screw everyone!! -- every man for himself.

Lipomas pointed out wonderfully that republican voters (not leaders) arent allowed to think. It's obvious by your free use of the most transparent hypocrisy that most republicans of any education aren't really used to dealing with people who can.

I'd LOVE to join a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, intellectual republican party. The rediculous mockery of logic, intelligence and honest discourse that you and most republicans (and liberals) make of every policy debate makes that a dream that I doubt anyone will ever have the chance at again.
 

Thrombus

Member
Removed
Removed
Account on Hold
10+ Year Member
Sep 27, 2004
749
94
271
I could maybe buy your rant.. if you hadn't said this in a different thread:

"Yes you did sell us out. Many people no longer have the opportunity to pay 230K cash to become a partner because you ran off with 3 million $.
Obviously YOU have not thought this through.

No where did I ask for the use of government coercion to stop this guy from selling us out now did I???

Instead I used another tool that you might have read about had you been somewhat studied in free markets -- SHAMEFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES WILL GET YOU WHAT YOU DESERVE.

In my view this pathologist benefited from benevolence with a buy in and sold us out without offering the same deal to future generations. In the same way a colleague can decry the guy in the free market doing some other practive he deems to not be right. It is some form of SELF-REGULATION that is part of the invisible hand that will regulate business in free markets.

So think your own positions through before you accuse people of being hypocritical.
 

Thrombus

Member
Removed
Removed
Account on Hold
10+ Year Member
Sep 27, 2004
749
94
271
Typical left wing rhetoric involves slandering Nancy Pelosi?
Nancy Pelosi is a hypocritical elitist leftist. A leftist can criticize her for being hypocritical and elitist (flying her family around on military jets on the taxpayer dime).

In the same way a conservative can criticize GW Bush for his mostly failed presidency.

I would think you can reason as to when things may or may not be mutually exclusive.
 

schrute

RoyalCrownChinpokoMaster
10+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2007
414
15
251
Status
Attending Physician
HAHAHA what a turd. Tom Coburn definitely fights against expanding government spending but he is also in the front line of those who want an expansion of an over-reaching, instrusive government which is trying to control our thoughts and opinions. Government does not know best, fool. But private industry often does not know best either. The best results of course are always obtained by cooperation and compromise. But unfortunately that becomes less likely to happen every year, in part because people like you tar and feather anyone who dares to use their brain as some sort of whacko communist who wants to take all your money. I happen to despise Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, and most of the rest of the liberal elite. How does that fit into your pathetic narrow view? Or are you going to ignore that because I have to be a liberal?

You know, the republican party used to appreciate people with brains. But in the past decade or so they ceased that and started only appreciating people with uninformed views of things, because people like that can be easily manipulated and gathered together in large loud groups. They learned that tactic from liberal mobs of the 60s, ironically they seem to not see the parallel. The current republican party couches everything in the language of "family" and "values" as if anything they do has any connection to it.

Why don't you use what minimal brain you have and start to question them with as much intensity as you question the far left? Extremism should have far less influence in forming policy than it does now - but because of people like you it does.
Oh please. Saul Alinsky wrote his book for progressive leftists...not conservatives.

Yes, the Republican Party of Bush, Rove, et al, was indeed more progressive-religious-conservative than traditional conservative (eg. their aims to restructure social security seemed like rather token gestures). I'll never forget Bush admonishing W.F. Buckley for his style of conservatism, despite Buckley (one of the most erudite & intelligent scholars of modern conservative & political thought) having a more tangible grasp on notions of liberty & freedom than Bush would ever.

That being said, however, it doesn't make the Republican party an enemy...it represents the only feasible means to combat the collectivist proclivities of the Democratic party and this administration, which take us nowhere but the road the serfdom.

And issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, et al, don't represent pandering to Republican constituents any more than the same issues represent such to Democratic constituents...those are deeply personal & thought provoking issues, and to reduce the political arguments to simple "vote pandering" completely ignores the reality that half the country genuinely feels one way, half feels the other...the political stage represents the only meaningful way for those two halves to stake a claim in their beliefs.

Furthermore, your characterization of Republican constituents as know-nothings with an "...uninformed view of things" is typical of the elitism expressed quite succinctly by Obama back during the campaign:

And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I find that quite insulting, arrogant, and not contributory to solving any of our issues (that being the tactic of reducing your political opposition to ignorant knuckle-draggers, consequently making any belief they hold moot).

Anyway, Barrasso from WY is another Repub Senator, as was Bill Frist...then again Ron Paul is ridiculous...as is Howard Dean. The physicians in Congress don't represent an accurate sample of practicing physicians, any way you slice it.
 
Last edited:

schrute

RoyalCrownChinpokoMaster
10+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2007
414
15
251
Status
Attending Physician
More eloquently:

"The real danger of Obama’s technocratic administration lies in its habit of tendentiously recasting serious moral and political debates as misguided arguments about plainly observable empirical facts. Such intellectual self-indulgence preemptively labels all disagreement as uninformed or nefarious and renders democratic process — and all those that demand it — tiresome and frustrating. This transforms every nuanced policy debate into a choice between the light of reason and the darkness of ignorance; this heavy-handed dogmatism inevitably creates a cultural cleavage between the chosen bearers of truth and those who stupidly refuse the gifts bestowed by progress. "

--Ivan Kenneally
 
Aug 4, 2009
884
3
0
Status
Attending Physician
Oh please. Saul Alinsky wrote his book for progressive leftists...not conservatives.

Yes, the Republican Party of Bush, Rove, et al, was indeed more progressive-religious-conservative than traditional conservative (eg. their aims to restructure social security seemed like rather token gestures). I'll never forget Bush admonishing W.F. Buckley for his style of conservatism, despite Buckley (one of the most erudite & intelligent scholars of modern conservative & political thought) having a more tangible grasp on notions of liberty & freedom than Bush would ever.

That being said, however, it doesn't make the Republican party an enemy...it represents the only feasible means to combat the collectivist proclivities of the Democratic party and this administration, which take us nowhere but the road the serfdom.

And issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, et al, don't represent pandering to Republican constituents any more than the same issues represent such to Democratic constituents...those are deeply personal & thought provoking issues, and to reduce the political arguments to simple "vote pandering" completely ignores the reality that half the country genuinely feels one way, half feels the other...the political stage represents the only meaningful way for those two halves to stake a claim in their beliefs.

Furthermore, your characterization of Republican constituents as know-nothings with an "...uninformed view of things" is typical of the elitism expressed quite succinctly by Obama back during the campaign:

And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I find that quite insulting, arrogant, and not contributory to solving any of our issues (that being the tactic of reducing your political opposition to ignorant knuckle-draggers, consequently making any belief they hold moot).

Anyway, Barrasso from WY is another Repub Senator, as was Bill Frist...then again Ron Paul is ridiculous...as is Howard Dean. The physicians in Congress don't represent an accurate sample of practicing physicians, any way you slice it.
I was going to respond to thrombus' post but it was so completely idiotic that it doesn't deserve anything - yours is much better.

I really really despise this whole tactic of current republicans to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with their policies (and possibly supports some liberal policies) as an "elitist." Do you not see the same thing happening with republicans? It is abominable how the neo-con and in your face religious wings have completely taken over the party and dominate. The Sarah Palin phenomenon is a perfect indication of this - I used to love John McCain - I supported him wholeheartedly when he ran for president the first time against GWB. But when he selected Palin and went nuts with the "joe the plumber" stuff he completely lost me and I voted for a democrat for the first time in my life. Does that make me a liberal? Who cares?

Look - republicans are not the only ones who pander to the populace with empty slogans and promises, but they are doing it more and they are using it more inappropriately currently. On the health care thing - what exactly are they proposing? They don't want any new taxes but they also don't want any reductions in medicare. They talk about the deficit a lot but they do nothing to prevent it from skyrocketing.

I understand where you are coming from about the democratic party favoring policies leading to collectivism, I totally agree. But do you not see that the republican party currently seems to be trying to make everyone think the same way? It is not less reprehensible to try to control thoughts and minds than it is to control financial means and the like. Personally, I see more of a threat to this country's way of life in the mind-control behavior than I do in the tax-and-spend behavior. I also have more confidence that politicians will reject excessive taxing and spending than I do that they will reject excessive controls on personal behavior. A lot of the social issues they rail against are issues which should not bother them at all if they stay true to their focus on fiscal issues and freedom of speech/movement. But they do pander. All politicians pander. And you have to admit that the populist so-called tea party mobs have a lot of negative connotations along with their positive traits. The fact that the republican party is fumbling their attempt to gain control over it is a good thing.

I just hate politicians. I am unsure why that makes me a liberal. Republicans currently annoy me more because they have no clue. But that will probably change when they figure things out.

The quote that you posted in your last post is quite prescient, I agree with it. But I don't take that quote to mean I should support the republican position. I could restyle your quote to read, "The real danger of the Republican party's anti-intellectualism and simplistic populism lies in its habit of tendentiously recasting serious moral and political debates by distilling them down to simplistic slogans and fearmongering. Such populist self-indulgence preemptively labels all disagreement as uninformed, unpatriotic, or nefarious and renders democratic process — and all those that demand it — tiresome and frustrating. This transforms every nuanced policy debate into a choice between the light of reason and the darkness of ignorance; this heavy-handed dogmatism inevitably creates a cultural cleavage between the chosen bearers of truth and those who stupidly refuse the gifts bestowed by progress. "

Notice I did not change the last half at all.
 

BrainPathology

of Gnomeregon.
7+ Year Member
Sep 24, 2009
222
14
151
Florida
Status
Attending Physician
Obviously YOU have not thought this through.

No where did I ask for the use of government coercion to stop this guy from selling us out now did I???

Instead I used another tool that you might have read about had you been somewhat studied in free markets -- SHAMEFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES WILL GET YOU WHAT YOU DESERVE.

In my view this pathologist benefited from benevolence with a buy in and sold us out without offering the same deal to future generations. In the same way a colleague can decry the guy in the free market doing some other practive he deems to not be right. It is some form of SELF-REGULATION that is part of the invisible hand that will regulate business in free markets.

So think your own positions through before you accuse people of being hypocritical.
Yes of course.. that situation is completely different. So sorry.

So as long as the government isn't doing the coercion it's fine. I guess that explains the recent drive to turn the government over to the far right wing of the Christian church. That acutally IS very enlightening. As long as the CHURCH controls my every thought and action everything is super duper!

Just on a practical note though, in its purest sense democracy IS self regulation. Just because we as a people have let the government go out of control under EVERY administration under EACH party doesn't mean that a government is inherently incapable of running something efficiently. The military still runs pretty well I think. It's overextended, it's in way too many places that should be running their own military (Germany, Japan etc) but really it runs pretty well. No one is proposing we privatize the entire military to keep big goverment from ruining wars.
 
Aug 4, 2009
884
3
0
Status
Attending Physician
I probably shouldn't have lumped Tom Coburn in with the whack jobs. He apparently criticized fox news at a town hall meeting for going overboard with conspiracy theories and false rumors. AMEN. Some woman was convinced she was going to jail if she refused to pay for health care, a rumor (like the death panels) which talking heads and politicians are all too happy to let perpetuate. I still don't think he represents physicians very well, but that's another point.
 

schrute

RoyalCrownChinpokoMaster
10+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2007
414
15
251
Status
Attending Physician
I was going to respond to thrombus' post but it was so completely idiotic that it doesn't deserve anything - yours is much better.

I really really despise this whole tactic of current republicans to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with their policies (and possibly supports some liberal policies) as an "elitist." Do you not see the same thing happening with republicans? It is abominable how the neo-con and in your face religious wings have completely taken over the party and dominate. The Sarah Palin phenomenon is a perfect indication of this - I used to love John McCain - I supported him wholeheartedly when he ran for president the first time against GWB. But when he selected Palin and went nuts with the "joe the plumber" stuff he completely lost me and I voted for a democrat for the first time in my life. Does that make me a liberal? Who cares?

Look - republicans are not the only ones who pander to the populace with empty slogans and promises, but they are doing it more and they are using it more inappropriately currently. On the health care thing - what exactly are they proposing? They don't want any new taxes but they also don't want any reductions in medicare. They talk about the deficit a lot but they do nothing to prevent it from skyrocketing.

I understand where you are coming from about the democratic party favoring policies leading to collectivism, I totally agree. But do you not see that the republican party currently seems to be trying to make everyone think the same way? It is not less reprehensible to try to control thoughts and minds than it is to control financial means and the like. Personally, I see more of a threat to this country's way of life in the mind-control behavior than I do in the tax-and-spend behavior. I also have more confidence that politicians will reject excessive taxing and spending than I do that they will reject excessive controls on personal behavior. A lot of the social issues they rail against are issues which should not bother them at all if they stay true to their focus on fiscal issues and freedom of speech/movement. But they do pander. All politicians pander. And you have to admit that the populist so-called tea party mobs have a lot of negative connotations along with their positive traits. The fact that the republican party is fumbling their attempt to gain control over it is a good thing.

I just hate politicians. I am unsure why that makes me a liberal. Republicans currently annoy me more because they have no clue. But that will probably change when they figure things out.

The quote that you posted in your last post is quite prescient, I agree with it. But I don't take that quote to mean I should support the republican position. I could restyle your quote to read, "The real danger of the Republican party's anti-intellectualism and simplistic populism lies in its habit of tendentiously recasting serious moral and political debates by distilling them down to simplistic slogans and fearmongering. Such populist self-indulgence preemptively labels all disagreement as uninformed, unpatriotic, or nefarious and renders democratic process — and all those that demand it — tiresome and frustrating. This transforms every nuanced policy debate into a choice between the light of reason and the darkness of ignorance; this heavy-handed dogmatism inevitably creates a cultural cleavage between the chosen bearers of truth and those who stupidly refuse the gifts bestowed by progress. "

Notice I did not change the last half at all.
I believe I gave an affirmative nod to your assessment of the Bush-era-and-partially-present Republican party having a large constituency that prides itself on religious dogma, but again, that doesn't negate the Republican party as the only realistic means less-religious-yet-still-traditional conservatives have to change the current government overhaul.

It's the Republican ticket or the arm-chair.

Unfortunately, your mad-libs version of my quote, incorporating "...populist so-called tea party mobs [that] have a lot of negative connotations…" with "simplistic slogans and fear-mongering," aside from being utterly incoherent, represents a worn-out diatribe that does exactly what I just accused Obama of doing: reducing the argument of one's opponent to that of a simpleton, and consequently not worthy of discussion. Stunning.

This notion that by & large the Republican party harbors "anti-intellectualism and simplistic populism" is no less meaningless than saying the Democratic party does the same thing to its base. Simply claiming you "hate politicians", including Nancy Pelosi, doesn't give you a pass from serious discussion, or excuse you from using a cudgel of arrogance to defend your position…which is…what? Some magic third way? Some unbiased middle-ground that incorporates an untainted view of the process?

I'm sick to death of purportedly middle-ground "independents" who relentless claim both indifference to & annoyance with either sides' politics & beliefs, then stop short of nothing to berate one particular side while employing no less ideological zeal than that which they claim to abhor.

I'm arguing against the progressive collectivist viewpoint that the government's job is to perform favors for its citizenry…against the viewpoint that we have a limitless government subject to particular exceptions rather than a limited govt. with limited powers.

That mentality—in less words—emanates from the depths of the tea party crowd (though I'm sure you juvenilely refer to them as "tea baggers"), despite the fact they are regularly cast as some illiterate, uninformed, anti-intellectual class.

Why is the premise of the tea party crowds inherently wrong?

Rather than simply recast the debate put forth by Republicans as "anti-intellectualism" crowd-surfing through the "tea party mobs," why don't you explain to me what your position is.

Why does marching in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
</st1:State><ST1:pWashington </ST1:pbecause the administration restructured the entire health care industry make someone a mobster? Because they hold a sign with a 4-word political slogan rather than arguing with you on SDN?
 
Aug 4, 2009
884
3
0
Status
Attending Physician
Again, you're behaving like a typical politician, making vast conclusions off of things which do not warrant it, and defining the argument as one which can only have two diametrically opposed opinions. This is not only inappropriate but harmful. You dismiss moderates because somehow they do not have an extreme opinion? How wasteful! Fascinating that you claim my reworking of your quote above is an incoherent, worn-out diatribe when the quote in question is really no different. But that is the problem - we interpret quotes that conform to our opinions as being far more coherent and legitimate than those that do not. When they do not, we blow them off as elitist, incoherent, or irrelevant. I totally agree that my statement was everything you said it was. But so was the quote you provided. Are your opinions more valid because they are more strident and involve less of the middle ground?

What are my arguments? I maintain that I do not want health care policy in the future to be decided by angry mobs who have no earthly clue what the legislation actually says it is (other than what uninformed talking heads tell them). But I also do not want health care policy to be decided by Washington think tanks who are trying to win elections and establish their own legacy. Health care is going to bankrupt this country if it continues on its current pace. Medicare is unsustainable yet is treated as a birthright by many who hypocritically claim it is too bloated. We need to make more inroads at reforming the malpractice climate in this country. Of course we as physicians need to reduce excessive procedures and testing and spending, but I do not really know how legislation can solve that problem unless compensation is reduced (which is a horrible slippery slope). I do believe for-profit healthcare has become a problem in this country - some reference labs, for-profit hospitals, they all answer to shareholders instead of patients, and this can lead to inappropriate utilization. This needs to change. Healthcare has no easy answers - you post as if I should have some sort of easy answer. I agree that "No to Obamacare" is an easy answer but is also far too superficial and jingoistic and has no alternative. I am sorry if you find it inconvenient or unhelpful that I don't think extremists should be dominating the discussion (on either side). Perhaps we should be like olympic judging - just discard the most extreme opinions because they have no relevance. You haven't posted any solutions either, just complaints about the problems - should I dismiss your opnions because you did not?

Again, I did not say that the tea partiers are useless or that they are all uninformed. I have said that it is unfortunate that too many of them fall under the rubric of racism, hatred, and being uninformed. And they are what gets the attention. Simply because they are a loud angry mob means they will get the attention they seek, and likely influence policy. But they need to do more than just spout falsities and conspiracies. I do not say they are inherently wrong, but a great many in the movement are inherently hypocritical. This is far from unique to them, however. Your condescending tone (presuming that I call them all tea baggers, that I am juvenile, that I have no inherent argument) is a typical flagrant and overblown tactic of windbags who have no interest in actually compromising or listening to opposition. Despite what you think, true change in health care is going to require compromise. The republicans have some good ideas but they also have some bad ideas. Same with the democrats. You badmouth a middle ground as if it is some sort of copout. True compromise requires true compromise! How exactly do you propose that reform could be done better if a high percentage of the country actually agrees with the current plan? If you can find some poll that says 51% of the country is against health care reform, does that automatically mean that the 49% should have no say or input? Because by eliminating any chance at compromise that is essentially what you are saying. What if you are in the 49%?

You make a lot of theoretical arguments but nothing concrete - why is it that your position is somehow more coherent than mine? In case it matters, I agree with most of what you say. I do not understand your slavish devotion towards the republican party and attempting to prove that anti-intellectualism is not a major part of their tactics these days. Falling in line with them means agreeing with their tactics and positions. Like I said - the tea partiers have provided a great service in getting the republicans to realize the errors of their ways - unfortunately it has come more than 5 years too late!
 

schrute

RoyalCrownChinpokoMaster
10+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2007
414
15
251
Status
Attending Physician
What are my arguments? I maintain that I do not want health care policy in the future to be decided by angry mobs who have no earthly clue what the legislation actually says it is (other than what uninformed talking heads tell them). But I also do not want health care policy to be decided by Washington think tanks who are trying to win elections and establish their own legacy. Health care is going to bankrupt this country if it continues on its current pace.
So spending trillions of dollars solves this looming bankruptcy? Adding billions upon billions to the books of debt already pushing our insolvency somehow...makes the dollar worth more? Please.

Medicare is unsustainable yet is treated as a birthright by many who hypocritically claim it is too bloated. We need to make more inroads at reforming the malpractice climate in this country.
Indeed.

Of course we as physicians need to reduce excessive procedures and testing and spending, but I do not really know how legislation can solve that problem unless compensation is reduced (which is a horrible slippery slope). I do believe for-profit healthcare has become a problem in this country - some reference labs, for-profit hospitals, they all answer to shareholders instead of patients, and this can lead to inappropriate utilization. This needs to change. Healthcare has no easy answers - you post as if I should have some sort of easy answer.
No, my friend, YOU post as if the govt has some easy answer lying somewhere in the magical claim that insuring more + guaranteed issue + insurance mandates + hundreds,hundreds,hundreds of pages unread by nearly everyone = cost containment...how?

I agree that "No to Obamacare" is an easy answer but is also far too superficial and jingoistic and has no alternative.
Jingoistic?? The Democrats are the ones that paraded this mess into public policy insisting that it's their way or the highway, while people expressing their concern in the form of wanting restraint are jingoistic????

My assertions about "middle grounders" was a generality, and I never said healthcare specifically wouldn't require middle ground, but there is nothing middle ground about the legislation.
How many Republican votes did it receive?
There is nothing moderate about adopting a portion of your opponents views in order justify the passage of large sweeping idealogically 1-sided legislation (1 sided in terms of who WANTS it to pass). A bill is not bipartisan if it placates some token conditions of the opposition yet still in overall form is a beast of idealogy.

And why are the tea partiers "racist"? Because three African American Democrat politicians intentionally walked through the crowd, rather than the usual underground tunnels, hoping to have racial epithets tossed their way? Their claims are not only spurious, they are unsubstantiated: where's the proof that some goon yelled the "N" word? Haven't seen anything other than heresay, but have seen PLENTY of videos suggesting the opposite.

And even if one or two of the thousands DID, you're still willing to characterize "too many of them" as "racist", full of "hate", and "uninformed."

Because the talking heads & conservative pundits are easy targets?


Why are they "uninformed"? Because they haven't read the Bill? Has ANYONE???? Other than the Progressive think tank that drafted it?

Why are they "racist"?

Why are they "unintelligent"?

I'll repeat this ad nauseum...it's all to easy to dismiss a position entirely by associating the least common denominator with the overarching case.
 

zao275

Assistant Professor
10+ Year Member
Sep 3, 2004
486
3
241
Little Rock, AR
Status
Attending Physician
Wow! Hot topic. But back to the OP's question: I met Eric Wargotz briefly at CAP 2009. He seems like a nice guy but I haven't discussed much politics with him. He seems to have strong views against the recent healthcare reform bill; whether that is good or bad is your call. You can look him up on Facebook too for occasional update.

In any case, he's the first path to run for Congress in about 30 years I believe. More power to him for actually trying.
 

tncekm

MS-1
10+ Year Member
Jul 18, 2006
3,616
4
0
Status
Medical Student

zao275

Assistant Professor
10+ Year Member
Sep 3, 2004
486
3
241
Little Rock, AR
Status
Attending Physician
Can I ask an off topic question? How do I add a signature to my posts? Can't find the box to enter signature anywhere in my profile settings? Any help? Thanks!
 

tncekm

MS-1
10+ Year Member
Jul 18, 2006
3,616
4
0
Status
Medical Student
Can I ask an off topic question? How do I add a signature to my posts? Can't find the box to enter signature anywhere in my profile settings? Any help? Thanks!
At the top-left of the browser window, select "my account" and the look at the menu on the right of the "my account" screen after it loads. There will be an option that says "edit signature".
 
Aug 4, 2009
884
3
0
Status
Attending Physician
OK, now I just got an email from them too. I also don't live in MD. It is an invitation to a fundraiser. I would really love to support Republicans but Jesus, they make it really hard. The "Message from Eric" at the bottom states, "For 30 years, Maryland's senators have voted for a liberal agenda designed to eradicate capitalism and to replace it with socialism." Do people actually believe this tripe? When I read a statement like that any inclination I would have to lend my financial support to a candidate is going right out the window.

I would have a lot more respect for him if he didn't seem to be allowing his campaign to be entirely directed by Republican party operatives. It is pure drivel. The same damn complaints about big government, entitlements, etc, and the need for more tax cuts while hypocritically talking about controlling the expanding deficit at the same time. Get a damn backbone! Which is it? The deficit or tax cuts? Because no current republican is ever going to reduce spending on anything that will have a real impact on the deficit! You can't preserve Medicare and defense spending (which together account for almost all government spending that can be legitimately cut with any real effect) AND cut taxes and say you are against the expanding deficit!

If the democrats weren't even worse there would be no chance republicans got my vote.
 

2121115

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jan 23, 2007
1,667
39
161
Status
Attending Physician
OK, now I just got an email from them too. I also don't live in MD. It is an invitation to a fundraiser. I would really love to support Republicans but Jesus, they make it really hard. The "Message from Eric" at the bottom states, "For 30 years, Maryland's senators have voted for a liberal agenda designed to eradicate capitalism and to replace it with socialism." Do people actually believe this tripe? When I read a statement like that any inclination I would have to lend my financial support to a candidate is going right out the window.

I would have a lot more respect for him if he didn't seem to be allowing his campaign to be entirely directed by Republican party operatives. It is pure drivel. The same damn complaints about big government, entitlements, etc, and the need for more tax cuts while hypocritically talking about controlling the expanding deficit at the same time. Get a damn backbone! Which is it? The deficit or tax cuts? Because no current republican is ever going to reduce spending on anything that will have a real impact on the deficit! You can't preserve Medicare and defense spending (which together account for almost all government spending that can be legitimately cut with any real effect) AND cut taxes and say you are against the expanding deficit!

If the democrats weren't even worse there would be no chance republicans got my vote.
Ditto.
 

zao275

Assistant Professor
10+ Year Member
Sep 3, 2004
486
3
241
Little Rock, AR
Status
Attending Physician
I think it would be nice in general to have more options besides the 2 polar opposite parties (and the in between parties that will probably never win). Although I have heard that countries with many different parties still have lots of issues politically...
 
Aug 4, 2009
884
3
0
Status
Attending Physician
I think it would be nice in general to have more options besides the 2 polar opposite parties (and the in between parties that will probably never win). Although I have heard that countries with many different parties still have lots of issues politically...
That's the problem with the primary system - moderates get effectively tarred and feathered and do not stand a chance because the extremists rule the primary scene. Many republican extremists consider moderates to be liberals, sometimes even worse than liberals. Often they use language like, "moderates are worse because they don't stand for anything" which is complete hogwash but it sticks with many voters.

The main problem with moderate candidates is that party operatives (and sympathetic voters, often) can't trust them as much, so they throw support behind the extremists who is more predictable. Obviously this is good if your primary goal is to predict how the candidate will vote. But it is not good if your actual goal is to have government work better.

But yes, countries with multiple parties often have more problems because they require coalitions to get things done, and compromises often require giving a smaller party something in order to get them to the table. Or proposals have to be watered down or filled with carrots in order to appeal to as many as possible. As a result nothing really gets done there either. Politics sucks.