Will Trump win again???

[Planktonmd]

When did medicine become such a political domain?
Medicine is about caring for people regardless of race, nationality, religion, or financial ability.
Why did we forget these simple principles?
A physician should be able to see the patient simply as a patient, someone who seeks that physician's help and expertise... nothing more.
We all feel disgusted by the physicians in Hitler's Germany who participated in eugenics and implemented the regime's political agenda on certain races and ethnicities, but we seem to be OK with physicians who have political opinions and who apply these political opinions and biases to the practice of medicine.
We seem to be OK with a physician who demands withholding care from immigrants since they might be a threat to american workers!
Is it OK in the 21st century to use medicine as a tool against political opponents?
Is it OK in the 21st century for a physician to become a political activist modifying his/her ethical role to accommodate a certain political agenda?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MoMoGesiologist]

When did medicine become such a political domain?
Medicine is about caring for people regardless of race, nationality, religion, or financial ability.
Why did we forget these simple principles?
A physician should be able to see the patient simply as a patient, someone who seeks that physician's help and expertise... nothing more.
We all feel disgusted by the physicians in Hitler's Germany who participated in eugenics and perused the regime's political agenda, but we seem to be OK with physicians who have political opinions and who apply these political opinions and biases to the practice of medicine.
We seem to be OK with a physician who demands withholding care from immigrants since they might be a threat to american workers!
Is it OK in the 21st century to use medicine as a tool against political opponents?
Is it OK in the 21st century for a physician to become a political activist modifying his/her ethical role to accommodate a certain political agenda?

I think any physician here as an individual would treat any patient regardless of race or immigration status (correct me if I’m wrong, really hoping someone wouldn’t deny care based on citizenship).

I think it’s fine for us to have opinions on a state and national level on how healthcare should be delivered and financed. Did someone in here advocate not treating immigrants (maybe I missed it)?

 

[Planktonmd]

I think any physician here as an individual would treat any patient regardless of race or immigration status (correct me if I’m wrong, really hoping someone wouldn’t deny care based on citizenship).

I think it’s fine for us to have opinions on a state and national level on how healthcare should be delivered and financed. Did someone in here advocate not treating immigrants (maybe I missed it)?

If as a physician you believe that an illegal immigrant should be denied basic health care, as many have expressed on this thread, then I am not sure what differentiates you from a German physician during Hitler's time who advocated that certain races and ethnecities are subhuman, and therefor should not be given the same consideration or treatment as the superior races.

 

[olabrador23]

I think any physician here as an individual would treat any patient regardless of race or immigration status (correct me if I’m wrong, really hoping someone wouldn’t deny care based on citizenship).

I think it’s fine for us to have opinions on a state and national level on how healthcare should be delivered and financed. Did someone in here advocate not treating immigrants (maybe I missed it)?

If as a physician you believe that an illegal immigrant should be denied basic health care, as many have expressed on this thread, then I am not sure what differentiates you from a German physician during Hitler's time who advocated that certain races and ethnecities are subhuman, and therefor should not be given the same consideration or treatment as the superior races.

I agree with @MoMoGesiologist there.

As a doctor, you treat any patient regardless of their background. Period.

But is it true that by laws, ILLEGAL immigrants already can go to a hospital's ER and get treated?

I think you are conflating the not providing the incentives for people to break in and break the laws in our country with being Nazi Germany. The two are not the same and should not be combined. I do not recall any country in the world providing "freebies" to attract people to come and stay in their country illegally ever. I am pretty sure they all are not Nazi.

 

[Twiggidy]

I have no answer. Healthcare is a tough enough issue when it comes to insuring AMERICAN CITIZENS let alone people who are here illegally. Look at what happened with the Affordable Care Act and that was for US citizens. I'll go ahead and say it but on this issue my ultimate opinion is take care of our own first. At least that's my take regarding insuring illegal immigrants. We all know to take care of who comes across from us in need regardless or race, citizenship, etc at Plank said.

 

[radsisrad]

If as a physician you believe that an illegal immigrant should be denied basic health care, as many have expressed on this thread, then I am not sure what differentiates you from a German physician during Hitler's time who advocated that certain races and ethnecities are subhuman, and therefor should not be given the same consideration or treatment as the superior races.

Very immoderate comment from a moderator.

 

[GaseousClay]

If as a physician you believe that an illegal immigrant should be denied basic health care, as many have expressed on this thread, then I am not sure what differentiates you from a German physician during Hitler's time who advocated that certain races and ethnecities are subhuman, and therefor should not be given the same consideration or treatment as the superior races.

Wow almost comical how much liberals mention hitler or nazis as moral justification for their views and to vilify any who’s views differ. Illegal immigrants being awarded healthcare benefits creates more of an incentive for people to come here. Do you not think 100,000 people a month is not a big deal? Think about how many are trafficked, raped, or die along the way. That will also increase when the floodgates open.

 

[deleted171991]

Very immoderate comment from a moderator.

This is a passionate but friendly discussion. The regular posters here know not to take it personally. Some are quite passionate and outspoken, but benign. That's part of the charm of this section.

@Planktonmd is emeritus not because of his (lack of) political common-sense, but because of his anesthetic one.

 

[Planktonmd]

This is a passionate but friendly discussion. The regular posters here know not to take it personally. Some are quite passionate and outspoken, but benign. That's part of the charm of this section.

@Planktonmd is emeritus not because of his (lack of) political common-sense, but because of his anesthetic one.

Some times the truth is too harsh for some people's sensitive ears.

 

[Mikkel]

If as a physician you believe that an illegal immigrant should be denied basic health care, as many have expressed on this thread, then I am not sure what differentiates you from a German physician during Hitler's time who advocated that certain races and ethnecities are subhuman, and therefor should not be given the same consideration or treatment as the superior races.

You seem to be equating my refusal to open up my check book to pay for illegal immigrants' healthcare as refusal to treat an illegal immigrant as a physician.

You are dead wrong. Nobody here would refuse to treat an illegal immigrant.

 

[pgg]

I agree. I am, by no means, advocating the status quo on immigration. However, rounding up and arresting all of the illegals or all their employers is an impractical, enormous, and expensive task.

Oh no, there's no need to arrest the illegal immigrants. Just arrest their employers, charge them, give them a court date, and release them. They don't need to spend more than a few hours in custody. They have businesses ... it's not like they'll miss their court dates.

Hit them with a modest but painful fine for the first offense. Repeat offenders would get rapidly escalating fines.

I don’t think it’s a big ask for the richest nation in the world to provide some basic form of healthcare to them all while reforming the immigration system so they can be legal participants in our society.

That's not what you're asking though.

When you ask for "the richest nation in the world to provide" what you're really asking is for the taxpayers of that nation to provide. Or in the case of deficit spending, you're asking the children of the taxpayers of that nation to provide now and pay later with interest.

I don't think it's a big ask for the persons committing crimes by employing illegal labor to
a) stop committing crimes
b) adhere to legal hiring practices that provide direct health benefits to those persons and/or payroll taxes to fund state/federal safety net health insurance

I mow my own lawn, thank you very much.

Say what?

I’m benefitting from their work because they mow my lawn for $50 a week instead of $300 a week. The least I could do is chip in a couple bucks to pay for some healthcare.

If someone else is posting from your account without your knowledge, you should change your password.

 

[Planktonmd]

You seem to be equating my refusal to open up my check book to pay for illegal immigrants' healthcare as refusal to treat an illegal immigrant as a physician.

You are dead wrong. Nobody here would refuse to treat an illegal immigrant.

What's the difference between refusing to treat some one and voting for politicians who would deny them care?

 

[radsisrad]

This is a passionate but friendly discussion. The regular posters here know not to take it personally. Some are quite passionate and outspoken, but benign. That's part of the charm of this section.

@Planktonmd is emeritus not because of his (lack of) political common-sense, but because of his anesthetic one.

I doubt anyone feels offended by the comment I quoted. I just mentioned its inanity.

Then again, in the age of vagina hats and Orange Man Bad...

 

[deleted50478]

What's the difference between refusing to treat some one and voting for politicians who would deny them care?

That’s a straw man argument. No one ever suggested denying care. The disagreement is about who should pay the bill, not about providing or denying care.

 

[deleted500612]

When did medicine become such a political domain?
Medicine is about caring for people regardless of race, nationality, religion, or financial ability.
Why did we forget these simple principles?
A physician should be able to see the patient simply as a patient, someone who seeks that physician's help and expertise... nothing more.
We all feel disgusted by the physicians in Hitler's Germany who participated in eugenics and implemented the regime's political agenda on certain races and ethnicities, but we seem to be OK with physicians who have political opinions and who apply these political opinions and biases to the practice of medicine.
We seem to be OK with a physician who demands withholding care from immigrants since they might be a threat to american workers!
Is it OK in the 21st century to use medicine as a tool against political opponents?
Is it OK in the 21st century for a physician to become a political activist modifying his/her ethical role to accommodate a certain political agenda?

Nobody here argued that race/nationality/religion should have any bearing on whether someone gets treated or not; such a premise seems to be a strawman argument that sets you up to then invoke every liberal's favorite "omg conservatives are literally no different from Hitler" clause, which is a much easier moral starting point to argue from than acknowledging the far more complex financial realities of medical ethics.

First of all, let's make it clear that by definition medical care is not a "basic human right" because it requires the labor of other people. No person has an inalienable right to someone else's labor -- citizen or non-citizen -- as to truly abide by this definition mandates the slavery of healthcare workers. A country that went bankrupt and couldn't afford to provide healthcare to every occupant would then either have to force the entire healthcare workforce to work without pay (slavery, a true human rights violation) or be guilty of supposedly violating their citizens' "basic human right" to healthcare by not providing it for them. So what about the home country these people are coming from, why don't they seek healthcare there? Because the countries can't afford to provide it? But I thought it was a "basic human right" and not providing it makes you literally Hitler? If your ability to provide or receive healthcare is dependent on financial capacity of your nation and the willingness and training of your workforce then it is not a basic human right, it is a privilege born of prosperity.

As a wealthy nation we could reasonably argue that a certain level of care should be afforded to all citizens (or any occupant, depending on your political leanings) of our country out of compassion and humanity, but the reality must be acknowledged that healthcare costs money, a lot of money and resources are still limited even for prosperous nations. The ethics of providing unconditional healthcare to illegal immigrants is thus not as morally unambiguous as you make it sound. In order to finance healthcare for illegals you are taking the funding from somewhere else. What about American citizens who don't have access to basic healthcare? What about access to basic food or shelter if you're homeless? What about basic education? Basic safety regulations on roads, pharmaceuticals, commercial products, workplaces? Effective emergency services for our cities, effective protection from international threats? To try and argue that anyone who thinks our finite funding should be prioritized to any of these causes that would save the lives of our own people instead of treating people from foreign countries who willfully disregard immigration laws for financial gain makes one "literally no different from Hitler" is just a bit hyperbolic and grossly oversimplifies the political debate.

What's the difference between refusing to treat some one and voting for politicians who would deny them care?

So if you were in private practice and all of a sudden hundreds of people without insurance show up at your door, you are telling me you are going to treat every single one of them? For every one you treat, they tell 3 of their friends and more and more just keep showng up. Soon 99% of the patients coming to your office are uninsured. Your income is virtually zero. I guarantee that there is a point you would put your foot down and refuse to treat people who can't pay for their care. After all, you need to make a living to support your own family as well. But according to your own argument turning even a single patient down under any circumstance is unethical. So is it ok to turn one down when it's your own living and your own income at stake, but it's not even allowed to be debated when someone else is paying for it? Money is a finite resource, not only at a personal level but at a national government level, and to dedicate to one cause requires removing it from another. Because it's a zero sum game and there are countless uses for money that could improve quality of life for people there is always a moral debate to be had as to where that money should be spent. To insist that fully funding healthcare coverage for every foreigner who forces their way into the country is the only morally defensible stance otherwise "you're literally no different from Hitler" is a cop out and just shuts down any real discussion.

 

[DirtDocMD]

But, but, but... You forgot “richest nation in the World” ($22 trillion in debt), and the “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...” off of the Statue of Liberty plaque.

Seriously, stop trying to make sense. Everyone knows money grows on trees, and we have unlimited amounts of time for charitable care.....

 

[Planktonmd]

Nobody here argued that race/nationality/religion should have any bearing on whether someone gets treated or not; such a premise seems to be a strawman argument that sets you up to then invoke every liberal's favorite "omg conservatives are literally no different from Hitler" clause, which is a much easier moral starting point to argue from than acknowledging the far more complex financial realities of medical ethics.

First of all, let's make it clear that by definition medical care is not a "basic human right" because it requires the labor of other people. No person has an inalienable right to someone else's labor -- citizen or non-citizen -- as to truly abide by this definition mandates the slavery of healthcare workers. A country that went bankrupt and couldn't afford to provide healthcare to every occupant would then either have to force the entire healthcare workforce to work without pay (slavery, a true human rights violation) or be guilty of supposedly violating their citizens' "basic human right" to healthcare by not providing it for them. So what about the home country these people are coming from, why don't they seek healthcare there? Because the countries can't afford to provide it? But I thought it was a "basic human right" and not providing it makes you literally Hitler? If your ability to provide or receive healthcare is dependent on financial capacity of your nation and the willingness and training of your workforce then it is not a basic human right, it is a privilege born of prosperity.

As a wealthy nation we could reasonably argue that a certain level of care should be afforded to all citizens (or any occupant, depending on your political leanings) of our country out of compassion and humanity, but the reality must be acknowledged that healthcare costs money, a lot of money and resources are still limited even for prosperous nations. The ethics of providing unconditional healthcare to illegal immigrants is thus not as morally unambiguous as you make it sound. In order to finance healthcare for illegals you are taking the funding from somewhere else. What about American citizens who don't have access to basic healthcare? What about access to basic food or shelter if you're homeless? What about basic education? Basic safety regulations on roads, pharmaceuticals, commercial products, workplaces? Effective emergency services for our cities, effective protection from international threats? To try and argue that anyone who thinks our finite funding should be prioritized to any of these causes that would save the lives of our own people instead of treating people from foreign countries who willfully disregard immigration laws for financial gain makes one "literally no different from Hitler" is just a bit hyperbolic and grossly oversimplifies the political debate.



So if you were in private practice and all of a sudden hundreds of people without insurance show up at your door, you are telling me you are going to treat every single one of them? For every one you treat, they tell 3 of their friends and more and more just keep showng up. Soon 99% of the patients coming to your office are uninsured. Your income is virtually zero. I guarantee that there is a point you would put your foot down and refuse to treat people who can't pay for their care. After all, you need to make a living to support your own family as well. But according to your own argument turning even a single patient down under any circumstance is unethical. So is it ok to turn one down when it's your own living and your own income at stake, but it's not even allowed to be debated when someone else is paying for it? Money is a finite resource, not only at a personal level but at a national government level, and to dedicate to one cause requires removing it from another. Because it's a zero sum game and there are countless uses for money that could improve quality of life for people there is always a moral debate to be had as to where that money should be spent. To insist that fully funding healthcare coverage for every foreigner who forces their way into the country is the only morally defensible stance otherwise "you're literally no different from Hitler" is a cop out and just shuts down any real discussion.

Sorry this is way to long for my attention span, but I get the general idea of your lecture: I am obviously wrong and only certain people should get health care and any other social services. Not everyone is entitled to these services since people are not all the same and life is not fair. Thank you for clarifying this to me.

 

[Mikkel]

What's the difference between refusing to treat some one and voting for politicians who would deny them care?

Which politicians have said they want to make it illegal for physicians to treat illegal immigrants?

 

[Mikkel]

Sorry this is way to long for my attention span, but I get the general idea of your lecture: I am obviously wrong and only certain people should get health care and any other social services. Not everyone is entitled to these services since people are not all the same and life is not fair. Thank you for clarifying this to me.

You deliberately misrepresented his argument after you said that you couldn't be bothered to read it. You are being intellectually dishonest for the sake of being politically consistent.

This is a symptom of the Democrat political party: anti-science, anti-economics, anti-equality.

I remember when the Republican party was mocked for being controlled by their religion. The pendulum has switched, and the religion obsessed party is the Democrat party. The religion of socialism.

 

[dannyboy1]

Nobody here argued that race/nationality/religion should have any bearing on whether someone gets treated or not; such a premise seems to be a strawman argument that sets you up to then invoke every liberal's favorite "omg conservatives are literally no different from Hitler" clause, which is a much easier moral starting point to argue from than acknowledging the far more complex financial realities of medical ethics.

First of all, let's make it clear that by definition medical care is not a "basic human right" because it requires the labor of other people. No person has an inalienable right to someone else's labor -- citizen or non-citizen -- as to truly abide by this definition mandates the slavery of healthcare workers. A country that went bankrupt and couldn't afford to provide healthcare to every occupant would then either have to force the entire healthcare workforce to work without pay (slavery, a true human rights violation) or be guilty of supposedly violating their citizens' "basic human right" to healthcare by not providing it for them. So what about the home country these people are coming from, why don't they seek healthcare there? Because the countries can't afford to provide it? But I thought it was a "basic human right" and not providing it makes you literally Hitler? If your ability to provide or receive healthcare is dependent on financial capacity of your nation and the willingness and training of your workforce then it is not a basic human right, it is a privilege born of prosperity.

Not that I am for socialized medicine but there are many things that we would consider to be basic human rights.. availability of police, fire departments, EMS, a functioning military, drivable roads etc.... the labor that provides these aren’t slaves, they are public employees, paid for by the taxpayer. It could be the same with physicians .....

 

[Mikkel]

Not that I am for socialized medicine but there are many things that we would consider to be basic human rights.. availability of police, fire departments, EMS, a functioning military, drivable roads etc.... the labor that provides these aren’t slaves, they are public employees, paid for by the taxpayer. It could be the same with physicians .....

None of those things are human rights.

 

[Twiggidy]

This makes me wonder what is the actual purpose of the United Nations because according to Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights there is a right to health care.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

If you read this all sorts of countries out here violating human rights so is it sort of like a "Well, everyone on the highway is doing 100 and I can't pull them all over" situation? I was just intrigued that this even existed.

 

[DirtDocMD]

Not that I am for socialized medicine but there are many things that we would consider to be basic human rights.. availability of police, fire departments, EMS, a functioning military, drivable roads etc.... the labor that provides these aren’t slaves, they are public employees, paid for by the taxpayer. It could be the same with physicians .....

These are not “rights”, these are the “benefits” of living in a civilized and prosperous society, that produces more (or as much) as it consumes. When millions of folks show up offering nothing, and expecting a “handout”, this quickly goes awry.

I call it the “Party beer/chips/toilet paper theorem”.

What happens when you throw a party?? A bunch of friends show up, some bring some goodies, some bring their “party skills”. Some show up with a friend or two, and it adds to the fun. What happens if you get “crashers”?? Well, pretty soon, the chips run out. The beer runs out. Even the TOILET PAPER runs out. People are puking, people are fighting, people are making off with personal items. You took what should have been an enjoyable party, and turned it into an overcrowded drunken free-for-all, and the house is now in shambles.

We have over 300 million people here. How much more “cheap” labor do we really need?? Skilled labor?? Hell, if you didn’t have “educated” folks coming here from Asia in such large numbers and driving down the wage rate in science/technology fields, you might actually have some native-born Blacks/Whites/Hispanics /Asians interested in “”STEM” degrees. It wouldn’t take but 4-8 years to fill that void. Instead, nobody wants to work that hard in college, to get a $60k a year job, only to find out they’re being replaced by someone on an H1B visa who’s willing to do the job for $40k....

If legal/illegal immigrants are such a “net gain” to the country, why don’t we just invite 100 million people here and REALLY make the country prosperous?????

 

[deleted500612]

Not that I am for socialized medicine but there are many things that we would consider to be basic human rights.. availability of police, fire departments, EMS, a functioning military, drivable roads etc.... the labor that provides these aren’t slaves, they are public employees, paid for by the taxpayer. It could be the same with physicians .....

I guess this is sort of delving into a more philosophical debate at this point (which is fine!), but I would digress and argue that any positive right cannot be a "basic human right". Basic human rights exist by virtue of being human no matter where you are born or where you live. These are negative rights; the right to not have certain things forced upon you by someone else, whereas a positive right is a right to have something provided to you by someone else. In order to truly view a positive right as an inalienable basic human right you must compel someone else to provide a service to that person, which is in fundamental contradiction to the negative right of not being forced to do certain things (like work without pay)

I get the gist of where you are coming from though, and would agree that those are rights (in America); but they are civil rights rather than basic human rights. Civil rights are rights afforded to people by virtue of legal or constitutional mandate. The government decided that yes they can afford these services and they think every American deserves to have equal access to them. They are not inalienable, they are a result of living in a prosperous nation that can finance those things. They are dependent upon our ability to afford them and our collective decision to prioritize them. Just as healthcare for illegal aliens is dependent upon our ability to afford it, and whether or not we can is what the political contention is all about.

Money is finite and there are a lot of other services that money could go towards to also improve quality of life and health outcomes for Americans rather than of people who have never paid a dime towards the taxes that fund such potential services. I think it's reasonable to argue that tax money collected from Americans should go to helping Americans before illegals who don't respect immigration laws and haven't contributed anything. I'm not even insisting that my perspective is definitively the correct one, I'm just saying there's certainly a valid argument that can be made (one that I know a lot of people agree with) and should be considered without dismissing it out of hand with tiresome Hitler comparisons that attempt to quash political debate by labeling any dissenting opinions as taboo. If we start off with a premise that classifies our preferred policies as a "basic human right" and everyone who opposes it is a "Nazi racist" then right away this precludes any policy debate (by design) and it's the modus operandi of the current era of liberal politics.

 

[doctalaughs]

Sorry this is way to long for my attention span, but I get the general idea of your lecture: I am obviously wrong and only certain people should get health care and any other social services. Not everyone is entitled to these services since people are not all the same and life is not fair. Thank you for clarifying this to me.

This is one of the most twisted and inflexible views I’ve ever heard.

Medicine is nuanced. If a person shows up in front of a US physician bleeding to death NONE of us would dream of denying life-saving care or even think for a second about their ethnicity or immigration status. On the other hand, “healthcare” also includes a million other mundane things like treating dry eyes, checking on a rash the patient has, counseling on weight and diet etc etc. It also includes rare but incredibly expensive treatments like stem cell transplants and multi-million dollar targeted cancer drugs that sometime need to be taken for life.

All these things cost a LOT of money and a lot of labor to deliver. If you think a physician having a political opinion on how to allocate limited national resources in this spectrum that all fall under the umbrella term “healthcare” —- somehow makes them morally equivalent to the doctors in the nazi regime (who literally dissected their “subhuman” victims alive).... I’m speechless.

Argue all you want that we should use our taxes to provide for a level of basic care to all in our country.... I can respect that even if I disagree. But this sort of hitler comparison to your colleagues on “the other end of the political side” is exactly the liberal version of what Trump does to demonize his “enemies.”

 

[deleted171991]

This makes me wonder what is the actual purpose of the United Nations because according to Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights there is a right to health care.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

If you read this all sorts of countries out here violating human rights so is it sort of like a "Well, everyone on the highway is doing 100 and I can't pull them all over" situation? I was just intrigued that this even existed.

The actual purpose of the United Nations is to avoid another World War, and possibly other wars. It's a utopian organization (I just love when a bunch of insignificant countries get some pompous statement passed), but anything is better than nothing.

Regarding the UDHR, you may have missed this important part in article 29:
"(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."

For example, the duty to respect the law, to not immigrate and work illegally, unless one really has no choice (true refugee, and not for economic reasons).

In every country, a lawbreaker has a completely different set of rights than a law-abiding person. Unless one is a bleeding-heart liberal, one will not worry that much about the healthcare of illegal immigrants (again, I am not talking about true non-economic refugees), especially not when the law-abiding citizen still lacks it. So the Democratic candidates are completely out of tune with most of the American citizenry (except for idealistic inexperienced young people), and are on the way to losing this election to their own stupidity.

Instead of finding a more center-left leaning Trump-like populist attack dog, a Boris Johnson of their own, they are coming up with all these amateurs who just can't compete in today's social media-infested reality.

 

[Planktonmd]

This is one of the most twisted and inflexible views I’ve ever heard.

Medicine is nuanced. If a person shows up in front of a US physician bleeding to death NONE of us would dream of denying life-saving care or even think for a second about their ethnicity or immigration status. On the other hand, “healthcare” also includes a million other mundane things like treating dry eyes, checking on a rash the patient has, counseling on weight and diet etc etc. It also includes rare but incredibly expensive treatments like stem cell transplants and multi-million dollar targeted cancer drugs that sometime need to be taken for life.

All these things cost a LOT of money and a lot of labor to deliver. If you think a physician having a political opinion on how to allocate limited national resources in this spectrum that all fall under the umbrella term “healthcare” —- somehow makes them morally equivalent to the doctors in the nazi regime (who literally dissected their “subhuman” victims alive).... I’m speechless.

Argue all you want that we should use our taxes to provide for a level of basic care to all in our country.... I can respect that even if I disagree. But this sort of hitler comparison to your colleagues on “the other end of the political side” is exactly the liberal version of what Trump does to demonize his “enemies.”

You can't say I will take care of them if they show up dying but otherwise I don't want to take care of them!
If you don't provide them basic health care (HTN, Diabetes, Vaccines, OB/gyn...) they will inevitably show up at your ER dying at some point and you will have to take care of them at a much higher cost.
By the way this applies to immigrants as it applies to all the other poor people that the current administration does not think deserve health care.

 

[dannyboy1]

None of those things are human rights.

Fine. Don’t call them rights. Call it “things that need to be publicly financed for the good of society”. I don’t think anyone here will say that your ability to access the services of police, firefighters, roads, public schools, should depend on your insurance status or employers benefit plan.......
Again. I am not for socialized medicine. It would mean my salary goes down and I like $$. I’m just saying that the other sides argument is not unreasonable.....

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You can't say I will take care of them if they show up dying but otherwise I don't want to take care of them!
If you don't provide them basic health care (HTN, Diabetes, Vaccines, OB/gyn...) they will inevitably show up at your ER dying at some point and you will have to take care of them at a much higher cost.
By the way this applies to immigrants as it applies to all the other poor people that the current administration does not think deserve health care.

Couple things here.

First, turns out that if you don't provide primary/preventative care its actually cheaper in the long run because people die much younger. If you have an MI at 50 then you're not going to need that knee replacement at 70, cataract surgery at 75, and 5 years in the nursing home at 80. You get the idea.

Second, primary care is cheap. I mean, it can be really cheap. When I had my insurance-free practice, $50/month got you unlimited visits including weekend/after hours (plus a bunch of other stuff but I don't want to derail too much here). We don't really need insurance to cover primary care for 90+% of people out there. For that other 10-ish%, we have FQHCs, free clinics, and charity care.

 

[Mikkel]

You can't say I will take care of them if they show up dying but otherwise I don't want to take care of them!
If you don't provide them basic health care (HTN, Diabetes, Vaccines, OB/gyn...) they will inevitably show up at your ER dying at some point and you will have to take care of them at a much higher cost.
By the way this applies to immigrants as it applies to all the other poor people that the current administration does not think deserve health care.

It's clear that you think healthcare should be "free" for illegal immigrants and paid for by someone else.

Why aren't these illegal immigrants paying for their own medical care?

But why stop at healthcare? Why aren't you advocating for other basics like free housing for illegal immigrants? You don't want them to live on the streets, do you?

What about food stamps? Free phone? Free internet? Free car? Free car insurance? Free entertainment?

 

[deleted171991]

If you support Trump (for other reasons than being poor and uneducated), you're a racist. There is simply no way around it.

A Blunder of Epic Proportions

Regular readers know that I am a fan of President Trump, and more often than not, a fan of his use of social media. But today he committed the worst unforced error of his presidency, one that we wi…

www.powerlineblog.com

I quoted a right-wing blog for those who don't know what I am talking about.

 

[Mikkel]

If you support Trump (for other reasons than being poor and uneducated - my comment), you're a racist. There is simply no way around it.

Ilhan Omar likely committed tax fraud by "marrying" her brother and filling taxes with him. Probably was given US citizenship based on fraud.

She has a professed hatred of the United States.

I couldn't care less what she has to say.

Trump is right to call out these America-hating politicians. The more focus on these America-haters, the more likely Trump will be reelected.

 

[deleted171991]

Ilhan Omar likely committed tax fraud by "marrying" her brother and filling taxes with him. Probably was given US citizenship based on fraud.

She has a professed hatred of the United States.

I couldn't care less what she has to say.

Trump is right to call out these America-hating politicians. The more focus on these America-haters, the more likely Trump will be reelected.

I don't care about Ilhan Omar. As far as I am concerned, she's an ungrateful brat. But the other three are American citizens by birth, so they have exactly as much right to speak their mind as he.

 

[doctalaughs]

You can't say I will take care of them if they show up dying but otherwise I don't want to take care of them!
If you don't provide them basic health care (HTN, Diabetes, Vaccines, OB/gyn...) they will inevitably show up at your ER dying at some point and you will have to take care of them at a much higher cost.
By the way this applies to immigrants as it applies to all the other poor people that the current administration does not think deserve health care.

Devils in the details. Do you cover the new great dm2 drug that is 10% better than the old one but very expensive? The kidney transplant? The wound vac and Home care nursing for that dm2 related leg ulcer in an elderly pt who can’t change dressings themselves?

Americans won’t accept “basic” coverage because it’s “inhumane.”

It’s easy to be an idealist and proclaim “healthcare is a human right” to pander votes — but another thing to come up with an actual PLAN that addresses the complexity of health care delivery and how to finance it (who pays) if we “cover” all-comers.

 

[deleted171991]

Americans won’t accept “basic” coverage because it’s “inhumane.”

And because they are the most equality-obsessed and anti-elitist nation I know. They would rather have nothing than a two-tiered wonder. I don't know whether this is not envy, given the continuous obsession with taxing the rich and "fair share".

 

[Mikkel]

I don't care about Ilhan Omar. As far as I am concerned, she's an ungrateful brat. But the other three are American citizens by birth, so they have exactly as much right to speak their mind as you. Or he.

The other three are also anti-Semitic.

Omar downplayed the September 11 attacks as "some people did something".

The US Congress passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism because of Omar, Tlaib, and Cortez.

 

[deleted171991]

The other three are also anti-Semitic.

Omar downplayed the September 11 attacks as "some people did something".

The US Congress passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism because of Omar, Tlaib, and Cortez.

Actually, the House passed a resolution condemning all forms of hate (not that it did much good).

Are you really trying to compare Trump's racism with "the Squad"'s racism? You really don't remember Trump's "fine" neonazi people chanting "Jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville?

I am sorry, but if you can't call an obvious spade a spade, you may be a spade, too.

 

[vector2]

Omar downplayed the September 11 attacks as "some people did something".

The story is a bit more nuanced, but to realize that would require you peeling your eyes away from fox news for more than 5 seconds

------
The supposedly controversial comments came in a speech Omar gave at a banquet for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights organization, in late March. In footage of the address uploaded to YouTube on Tuesday, Omar discusses the need for organizations like CAIR to ensure that Muslims writ large aren’t punished for the actions of a handful of extremists on 9/11.

“Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen, and frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it,” Omar said at the event. “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

Sounds harmless, right? But if stripped out of the context, Omar’s phrase “some people did something” can be spun as minimizing the significance of 9/11 for both the victims and the country writ large. This is not remotely accurate if you watch the full video, which I encourage you to do as a counterpoint to the out-of-context attacks. At the end, for example, she speaks movingly about how America’s national values motivated her family to immigrate to the United States.

“As an American member of Congress, I have to make sure I live up to the ideals of fighting for liberty and justice — those are very much rooted in the reason why my family came here,” she says.

Not exactly what an anti-American ideologue would say. But the full context hasn’t stopped Republicans from using the out-of-context version to bash Omar.
-------------

 

[Mikkel]

Actually, the House passed a resolution condemning all forms of hate (not that it did much good).

Are you really trying to compare Trump's racism with "the Squad"'s racism? You really don't remember Trump's "fine" neonazi people chanting "Jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville?

I am sorry, but if you can't call an obvious spade a spade, you may be a spade, too.

Wasn't Trump talking about the people on both sides of the flag debate? Those who view the Confederate flag as part of a cultural identity vs those who only viewed it as a symbol of racism?

 

[Mikkel]

Actually, the House passed a resolution condemning all forms of hate (not that it did much good).

The House lacked the moral fortitude to call out Omar and Tlaib specifically. The whole reason for the resolution was their persistent and unapologetic anti-Semitism.

 

[deleted171991]

@Mikkel, again, if you can't call a spade a spade, maybe you have a problem.

Telling natural-born Americans citizen to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came" is ...??? What do you call it, patriotism? Is it "American" enough for you to counter-balance all those "un-Americans", Mr. McCarthy?

 

[Mikkel]

The story is a bit more nuanced, but to realize that would require you peeling your eyes away from fox news for more than 5 seconds

------
The supposedly controversial comments came in a speech Omar gave at a banquet for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights organization, in late March. In footage of the address uploaded to YouTube on Tuesday, Omar discusses the need for organizations like CAIR to ensure that Muslims writ large aren’t punished for the actions of a handful of extremists on 9/11.

“Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen, and frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it,” Omar said at the event. “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

Sounds harmless, right? But if stripped out of the context, Omar’s phrase “some people did something” can be spun as minimizing the significance of 9/11 for both the victims and the country writ large. This is not remotely accurate if you watch the full video, which I encourage you to do as a counterpoint to the out-of-context attacks. At the end, for example, she speaks movingly about how America’s national values motivated her family to immigrate to the United States.

“As an American member of Congress, I have to make sure I live up to the ideals of fighting for liberty and justice — those are very much rooted in the reason why my family came here,” she says.

Not exactly what an anti-American ideologue would say. But the full context hasn’t stopped Republicans from using the out-of-context version to bash Omar.
-------------

Tlaib:

"I think two weeks ago we celebrated, or took a moment I think in our country to remember, the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling"


She then went through an ahistorical account of how Arabs helped Jews during WW2, when in fact the opposite actually happened.

 

[vector2]

Steve King, a literally Nazi, is still a member of Congress (albeit he's been stripped of his committee seats), but please, feel free to work yourself up into a tizzy about Tlaib and Omar.

 

[deleted171991]

Tlaib:

"I think two weeks ago we celebrated, or took a moment I think in our country to remember, the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling"


She then went through an ahistorical account of how Arabs helped Jews during WW2, when in fact the opposite actually happened.

Muslims are the main source of antisemitism in the developed world. That still doesn't excuse what Trump said. If you can't see that, you're so biased I have no words.

Learn your history. People who shout un-American are usually the ones who are the worst defenders of the Constitution.

 

[deleted171991]

Steve King, a literally Nazi, is still a member of Congress (albeit he's been stripped of his committee seats), but please, feel free to work yourself up into a tizzy about Tlaib and Omar.

Please talk to the Republican party about that. Btw, Steve King is also a Trump fan, congrats.

 

[vector2]

Tlaib:

"I think two weeks ago we celebrated, or took a moment I think in our country to remember, the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling"


She then went through an ahistorical account of how Arabs helped Jews during WW2, when in fact the opposite actually happened.

You're a posterboy for what I can only assume is purposeful, disingenuous misquoting

-------------------------
Here are the relevant quotes, which I transcribed from the video.

Interviewer:Congresswoman, you’ve created something of a stir by coming out in favor of a one-state solution, Israel and Palestine, and I think you may be the only Democrat who’s publicly supported a one-state solution. So what is your vision for a one-state solution that meets both Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish national aspirations?


Tlaib: Absolutely. Let me tell you — I mean, for me, I think two weeks ago we celebrated, or took a moment I think in our country to remember, the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways had been wiped out, and some people’s passports — I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right?, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right, and it was forced on them.



Tlaib does not assert that Palestinians welcomed Jews or worked in any way to create the “safe haven.” Instead, she says, using the passive voice, that Palestinians were displaced “in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews.” In fact, “it was forced on them” — that is, the Palestinians. And despite the cost to her people in property and dignity, she goes on, she “love the fact that” something good came of it — a safe haven for Jews who were suffering “horrific persecution” around the world.

She does say that it was her “ancestors that provided that,” but “provided” is different than “created.” And Tlaib qualifies “provided” with “in many ways” — hardly an assertion of open arms — and immediately says that “they did it” (presumably, Jews created the haven) in a way that “took their human dignity” (that is, the Palestinians’ dignity).

Far from claiming that her ancestors worked to bring Jews to Palestine, or welcomed them when they arrived, she is saying that even if the Jews did come and take their land and rights away, at least it was for the alleviation of another people’s suffering.

In acknowledging that suffering and noting her own people’s, her remarks are closer in spirit to the anti-Zionist refrain that the Jews escaped the window of a burning house only to land on someone else’s head.

There is a lot to disagree with in Tlaib’s remarks. The Holocaust is hardly the sole justification of the existence of Israel. She denies the Jews the right to autonomy in a state of their own. She rejects the idea of two states for two peoples and instead holds out for the impossible idea that Israel will surrender its sovereignty in hopes of creating some sort of United States of Isratine. It’s that kind of wishful, almost messianic thinking that has prevented Palestinian leaders from accepting anything less.

But it’s a tremendous and dangerous distraction to attribute to her words and ideas she didn’t say.
--------------------

 

[Mikkel]

Telling natural-born Americans citizen to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came" is ...??? What do you call it, patriotism? Is it "American" enough for you to counter-balance all those "un-Americans", Mr. McCarthy?

I think Americans are sick and tired of people like Omar who come to the United States and take a massive mudpie on everything America stands for. Oh, and add a healthy mix of anti-Semitism, socialism, and disregard for victims of the September 11 attacks, and you get a real winner for Trump's re-election.


I think Americans are sick of pictures like this, in America:

 

[deleted171991]

I think Americans are sick and tired of people like Omar who come to the United States and take a massive mudpie on everything America stands for. Oh, and add a healthy mix of anti-Semitism, socialism, and disregard for victims of the September 11 attacks, and you get a real winner for Trump's re-election.


I think Americans are sick of pictures like this, in America:

I am specifically not talking about Omar (as I said before), but please keep going on with your rationalizations. You are obviously not listening. Maybe you should watch American History X.

 

[Mikkel]

You're a posterboy for what I can only assume is purposeful, disingenuous misquoting

-------------------------
Here are the relevant quotes, which I transcribed from the video.

Interviewer:Congresswoman, you’ve created something of a stir by coming out in favor of a one-state solution, Israel and Palestine, and I think you may be the only Democrat who’s publicly supported a one-state solution. So what is your vision for a one-state solution that meets both Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish national aspirations?


Tlaib: Absolutely. Let me tell you — I mean, for me, I think two weeks ago we celebrated, or took a moment I think in our country to remember, the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways had been wiped out, and some people’s passports — I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right?, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right, and it was forced on them.



Tlaib does not assert that Palestinians welcomed Jews or worked in any way to create the “safe haven.” Instead, she says, using the passive voice, that Palestinians were displaced “in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews.” In fact, “it was forced on them” — that is, the Palestinians. And despite the cost to her people in property and dignity, she goes on, she “love the fact that” something good came of it — a safe haven for Jews who were suffering “horrific persecution” around the world.

She does say that it was her “ancestors that provided that,” but “provided” is different than “created.” And Tlaib qualifies “provided” with “in many ways” — hardly an assertion of open arms — and immediately says that “they did it” (presumably, Jews created the haven) in a way that “took their human dignity” (that is, the Palestinians’ dignity).

Far from claiming that her ancestors worked to bring Jews to Palestine, or welcomed them when they arrived, she is saying that even if the Jews did come and take their land and rights away, at least it was for the alleviation of another people’s suffering.

In acknowledging that suffering and noting her own people’s, her remarks are closer in spirit to the anti-Zionist refrain that the Jews escaped the window of a burning house only to land on someone else’s head.

There is a lot to disagree with in Tlaib’s remarks. The Holocaust is hardly the sole justification of the existence of Israel. She denies the Jews the right to autonomy in a state of their own. She rejects the idea of two states for two peoples and instead holds out for the impossible idea that Israel will surrender its sovereignty in hopes of creating some sort of United States of Isratine. It’s that kind of wishful, almost messianic thinking that has prevented Palestinian leaders from accepting anything less.

But it’s a tremendous and dangerous distraction to attribute to her words and ideas she didn’t say.
--------------------

From Daily Wire:
The Palestinians allied with Hitler. The leader of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement, Haj Amin al-Husseini, allied with Hitler. He was living in Germany in Berlin from 1941 to 1945. He not only allied with Hitler, he called for the massacre of Jews in the Arab world. He did it on Nazi radio stations all throughout Berlin. He called specifically for an anti-Jewish jihad. He then aided the Nazis because he was friends with Hitler. He aided the Nazis in recruiting Muslims from the Balkans for the SS and for the Wehrmacht.

The Palestinian Arabs launched a revolt between 1936 and 1939 to deter European Jews from coming into the region of Palestine. When we use the word Palestine, we have to be clear we're not referring to a country called Palestine. There has never been a nation state called Palestine. That nation state might as well exist between Narnia and Wakanda. It is completely imaginary, completely fictitious. There is a region that was named by the Romans, Palestine. So, when we refer it historically to Palestine we're referring to a region named by the Romans, well after the nation of Israel inhabited that land. And then when the British took over the area there was the mandate of Palestine. It's referred to British Palestine or Mandatory Palestine, so that's a region, not a nation state.


The Arabs who were living in British Mandatory Palestine launched a revolt to stop Jews from coming into the area, and eventually they petitioned the British to stop the refugee Jews almost altogether from entering the region.

 

[Mikkel]

I am specifically not talking about Omar (as I said before), but please keep going on with your rationalizations. You are obviously not listening. Maybe you should watch American History X.

You do realize that Trump grouped Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib together because pelosi is trying to marginalize their caucus? Trump is playing a political game, forcing pelosi to defend Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib when she was just trying to get rid of them.

It's a brilliant political move.