Washington Monthly – Steve Benen – April 4, 2010:

Dr. Jack Cassell, an Orlando-area urologist and part-time Republican crank, probably couldn’t have imagined what he was getting himself into.

This week, Cassell’s medical office posted a sign for patients and their families: “If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.”

But perhaps the most important coverage was an interview between Cassell and Alan Colmes on the radio Friday night. The host tried to get a better sense of why, exactly, Cassell hates the Affordable Care Act so much.

Cassell struggled to explain himself, saying he’d seen some things “online,” and adding that the information he needs to understand the law “should be available to me.”

Of course, the information is available to him, and has been for months. Cassell chose not to do his homework before driving patients away — patients who, it turns out, may know a lot more than he does about the law he claims to hate.

This is painfully common — some of the loudest, angriest critics of the Affordable Care Act are also some of the least informed, most confused, embarrassingly ignorant observers anywhere. In this case, Cassell has become a national joke because he’s repulsed by a health care reform plan that he fully admits he doesn’t understand.

It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.




  1. tcc3 says:

    How is that different Guyver? When the poor uninsured show up at emergency, they must treated. That cost get spread around to paying customers. So in that way required coverage helps hold down cost, thus “protecting” everyone.

    A better argument would be that one is free not to drive.

    Insurance is a poor way to deal with medical costs. Required insurance is fixing a symptom, not the disease.

  2. tcc3 says:

    You repeated your earlier rant, and didn’t address the incongruity.

    Either its ok to force people to buy a product to protect others, or its not. Your argument is flawed.

    In a way I agree with you. I don’t like mandated purchases from private industry either. Especially when that industry’s services are not well suited to solving the problem, and the industry has shown that its willing to sacrifice the welfare of humans to make an extra nickel.

  3. Rick Cain says:

    He got a whole 2 stars out of 5 when rated by his patients on a popular doctors rating site.

  4. mga9400 says:

    To the guy saying we should move to Cuba .. Cuba actually has much better health care than the US .. go figure. They sent a large group of doctors to help after Katrina when Bush only sent words and idiots.

  5. smartalix says:

    Let’s also not forget this dickhead doctor took an oath, which he violates with this idiocy. Typical hypocritical stupid disingenuous right-winger.

  6. Guyver says:

    39, TCC3,

    You repeated your earlier rant, and didn’t address the incongruity.

    There’s no incongruity on my part. Health care insurance is NOT to protect others from yourself. You’re just seeing what you want to see. Liability insurance for automobiles is mandated to protect others from yourself. Collision insurance is NOT mandated and completely optional. Health care insurance is being mandated to subsidize the cost for others. HUGE difference. But I get it. You still think they’re all one in the same.

    42, Reganvelter,

    Return those Social Security checks.
    Don’t use Medic-aid/Medic-care,pay for all that out of Your own pocket.

    Would those same people be getting a refund for everything they paid into on both systems?

    43, SmartAlix,

    Let’s also not forget this dickhead doctor took an oath, which he violates with this idiocy.

    Let’s also not forget that he has maintained his oath. He has not turned anyone away. I think you’re confused with him exercising his 1st Amendment rights. All someone needs to do to test him is to come in and say they voted for Obama and they wish to make an appointment. If they get turned away, then the whiners have a point. Otherwise, this is just a bunch of liberals disgusted that this doctor exercised his right to free speech.

  7. tcc3 says:

    Ok. One is alright because you say it is. I get it now.

    I still say you’re barking up the wrong argument.

  8. smartalix says:

    Guyver,

    If you don’t interpret the sign that scumbag “doctor” posted as turning people away from his treatment for their political beliefs, you are lying to yourself more than you are to me. I already kow you’re full of shit.

  9. Guyver says:

    47, SmartAlix,

    You’re stuck in first gear. This might be a logical leap for you, but just because the man is a doctor does not mean he cannot exercise his right to free speech.

    Once you are able to comprehend that, then you’ll start to understand that he hasn’t actually turned anyone away.

    An Obama voter could just as easily still see the guy without uttering a peep about who they voted for. It’s quite obvious you’re disgusted with this guy making a public statement, but don’t confuse yourself into thinking he’s actually refused someone treatment.

    Grow up and stop obsessing over what the guy said and focus on what he actually did / not did with someone.

  10. Linda Johns says:

    Guyver,

    You obviously don’t understand medicine or medical ethics. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics states that:

    Conversations about political matters are not appropriate at times when patients or families are emotionally pressured by significant medical circumstances.

    Under no circumstances should physicians allow their differences with patients or their families about political matters to interfere with the delivery of high-quality professional care.

    Can you read? Can you understand logical reasoning? Do you have any reasoning skills?

    Since you don’t know anything about medicine or medical ethics, STFU.

  11. Guyver says:

    Linda Johns,

    Great! Another emotional whiny liberal (who happens to think the AMA writes medical legislation in this country).

    Through your emotional rant, did you realize that the code of ethics is something a doctor who is a member of the AMA SHOULD do (not necessarily that all doctors are required to do?)

    Does that compute? Or are you too dense?

    It’s probably best you take some of your own advice before you get emotionally unstable again and lose what little logic you have.

  12. smartalix says:

    Exactly. This doc is a typical hatriot, and not only does he not understand his own group’s ideology, he doesn’t understand his own profession’s ethics. He’s a typical dickhead right-wing asswipe. I have yet to meet a right-winger whose arguments didn’t devolve into “suck it up”.

  13. tcc3 says:

    Not my example. Uncle Patso brought it up. But you were the one that said that one government mandated insurance policy was ok and the other one wasn’t.

  14. Guyver says:

    51, SmartAlix, It could be worse. You could meet a whiny liberal who can’t do anything for themselves and need government to be their nanny. 🙂

    52, TCC3,

    But you were the one that said that one government mandated insurance policy was ok and the other one wasn’t.

    No I wasn’t the one that said that. That’s either your conclusion or you have a reading comprehension problem. Feel free to point out which post where I said it was alright. I have been stating the comparison is apples to oranges and you keep insisting they’re apples to apples.

  15. tcc3 says:

    You don’t say it outright, but do by implication

    “Liability insurance is to protect other drivers from yourself. You can’t make the same comparison with health care insurance.”

    If mandatory liability car insurance is also not ok, (as you are now implying) why have you spend the last several posts arguing the semantic difference between two kinds of insurance?

    If you used half as much effort on your arguments’ logic as you do insulting other posters this would be a much more interesting conversation.

  16. smartalix says:

    I notice Guyver’s arguement does seem to devolve to “suck it up”, just as I predicted.

    The problem is, as the teabaggers (protesting while living off of ‘mandatory” government unemployment insurance) protesting health-care isurance show, that they can’t even recognize the hypocrisy of their actions.

  17. Pheobus says:

    “ I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

    I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

    I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

    I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

    I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

    I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

    I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

    I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

    I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

    If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

  18. Guyver says:

    54, TCC3,

    You don’t say it outright, but do by implication

    Ah, so now it’s clear. You have a reading comprehension problem or are prone to hasty conclusions. You should have simply asked and I would have pointed out the obvious (like I thought I did) in that it’s an apples to orange comparison.

    I was only pointing out the logic of “your” argument is flawed. No more, no less. You saw what you wanted to see and assumed I was somehow promoting one situation over the other.

    55, SmartAlix,

    I notice Guyver’s arguement does seem to devolve to “suck it up”, just as I predicted.

    There’s nothing impressive with your “prediction”. What I would call it is being a master of the obvious over the difference between a whiny liberal and a self-sufficient Libertarian / Conservative. I hope you don’t actually think you were being insightful with your “prediction”.

  19. Guyver says:

    54, TCC3,

    If mandatory liability car insurance is also not ok, (as you are now implying) why have you spend the last several posts arguing the semantic difference between two kinds of insurance?

    LOL. I’m “now” implying? Good grief.

    The reason for why the two examples are not good comparisons (logically speaking) is because they are mandatory for two COMPLETELY different reasons. Please ponder on this point a while.

    In other words, you must buy liability insurance because you are potentially a menace to others on the road. I am not saying nor implying that I think it’s alright that it is “alright”. This is a comprehension problem of yours it seems. I am not changing my stance at all.

    Go back and re-read everything and you will see I am QUITE consistent. I am pointing out what SHOULD be obvious.

    The logic for mandatory health care has NOTHING to do with you being a potential menace to society. It has everything to do with forcing others to buy into it so as to subsidize someone else’s costs.

    Another way of saying it is, you aren’t forced to buy liability insurance to subsidize other driver’s premiums.

    If you used half as much effort on your arguments’ logic as you do insulting other posters this would be a much more interesting conversation.

    I am more than civil compared to the rants of the liberals on this forum. You just perceive things differently.

    I can’t help it if you’re stuck in first gear over whether “your” stance was a logical one to begin with or how you CHOOSE to interpret black and white wording.

  20. tcc3 says:

    I’m going to need a spirograph for all this circular logic.

  21. Guyver says:

    59, TCC3,

    Not really. There’s absolutely nothing circular about the discussion. This is a weak attempt on your part to somehow obfuscate what was clearly explained to you.

    Your logic was not sound. No more, no less. I pointed out why your logic wasn’t sound and now somehow this is all circular? LOL. Whatever.

    You seem to have a predisposition of seeing things in a partisan way which causes you to be stuck in first gear and attempt to put words into people’s mouths based off of your partisan conclusions.

    Oh well. Life goes on.

  22. tcc3 says:

    The guy who slings “liberal” around like an epithet is calling me a blind partisan. That’s rich.

    Whatever dude. There’s no discussion when “because I say so” is your only play.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 9231 access attempts in the last 7 days.