Right now Melimouth is pulling a Rodham Clinton on some BJ Clinton and ashtrays are flying. This is what happens when stupid spoiled arrogant losers don’t get their way.
“you get a real buzz out of punishing life’s “losers,” those unlucky enough get the wrong illness or lose a job at the wrong time.”
You seem to do a great job punisdhing yourself. What happened to you ? You just happened to get stupid at the wrong place and the wrong time?
Are you seriously suggesting that we should have a society where laziness pays off? Where we eliminate the possibility of anyone’s bad choices result in bad consequences? Have you no understanding of why people choose route A rather than route B in life?
Here is Oscar explaining the standard authoritarian doctrine that state-provided health care makes people lazy. Yes, indeed, the Germans, Swedes, and Swiss are just overrun with lazy grifters soaking up free health care and undermining their economies. If only they could learn to drive the poor into premature death and disability and bankrupt huge numbers of middle class people, they could have as healthy a society as America. I’ll bet those Europeans would love to tear down their national health care systems and replace them with a casino system like America’s.
Only Americans are smart enough to know that people should be punished for not figuring out how to get cheap health care. Those foolish Europeans and Asians actually make it easy for the poor and their children to get care. If you don’t punish the weak and the incompetent, how can the strong and capable take pleasure in their achievements. In America, it is not enough to succeed; others must suffer to demonstrate the penalties for failure.
Mellie, I could really, truly, give a sh$t what passes for opinion in Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden. You love to hold those countries up as examples of what America should do.
And, Mellie, the only ones that are reflecting “authoritarianism” in their dogma is you, yourself. You would, authoritarianistically, remove as much of a person’s hard-earned income as possible, to pass it on to someone who didn’t work for it. This is theft, and the only way to make it happen is AGAINST someone’s will. Yet you support it, and call those who oppose it “authoritarian”. You are quite happy to force all those of us who work in healthcare to HAVE TO have the government as our employers. You cannot do this without making it happen against someone’s will. Yet you support it, and call those who oppose it “authoritarian”.
All of your solutions are authoritarian. All require partial enslavement of someone else, taking of someone else’s property, limiting someone else’s liberty. Yet YOU have the gall to call those of us here who simply support a person’s right to the fruits of his labor, who simply support the concept that there are consequences to choices, “authoritarian”.
Bunk. Silly bunk. Passed on by a sophomoric attempt to be erudite by a silly socialist. Hey, Einstein, answer us one thing: What is your view on actions and consequences? Do you think they should be related, or disconnected? And how does that impact human behavior?
What is your view on actions and consequences? Do you think they should be related, or disconnected? And how does that impact human behavior?
I believe that actions should have consequences. For example, if the child of a rich person abuses drugs and requires medical attention, that child should not enjoy privileged, high-quality health care for making bad lifestyle choices. The wealth of his or her parent should not insulate that person from the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Similarly, when a rich kid gets in trouble with the law, the wealth of his or her parents should not shield that offender from the fair exercise of justice. The hard work of the parent does not logically entitle the child to a free ride in life.
If America allowed preferential treatment for the children of the rich, an irresponsible mediocrity with a rich and powerful father could behave badly for much of his life, then use the privileges of his family connections to enrich himself and win high political office. Such a disreputable wastrel could even become President - if he had enough money and connections. But that could only happen in a decadent America in which people worship money and power.
There is your desire to take away or redistribute someone else’s money again in a way you see fit.
If I’ve worked my butt off to build a business or do my research and invest wisely or just plain old lived frugally and saved, and I want to share that bounty with my kids, that is MY prerogative. Not yours or anyone else’s. The consequence for the action of a parent doing what you described above is that you get a spoiled brat who’ll likely act out again. That’s a parenting issue.
Nevertheless, if someone wants to do that with their own money, let them. They are responsible. You can’t mandate against poor parenting anymore than you can mandate against stupidity, as much as there are those in government who seem to think that they indeed can.
What is your view on actions and consequences? Do you think they should be related, or disconnected? And how does that impact human behavior?
I believe that actions should have consequences. For example, if the child of a rich person abuses drugs and requires medical attention, that child should not enjoy privileged, high-quality health care for making bad lifestyle choices. The wealth of his or her parent should not insulate that person from the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Similarly, when a rich kid gets in trouble with the law, the wealth of his or her parents should not shield that offender from the fair exercise of justice. The hard work of the parent does not logically entitle the child to a free ride in life.
If America allowed preferential treatment for the children of the rich, an irresponsible mediocrity with a rich and powerful father could behave badly for much of his life, then use the privileges of his family connections to enrich himself and win high political office. Such a disreputable wastrel could even become President - if he had enough money and connections. But that could only happen in a decadent America in which people worship money and power.
Interesting post. So, your advocacy for government-run social programs (such as health care) derives from some vague sense of equity in which the government gets even with “the rich” on behalf of the wider populace. All this time, I thought the push for socialized medicine resulted from a misguided desire to help people. I wonder how long this “majority” that you seem to think is pining for socialized medicine will endure when they learn the truth. I suspect that most people who support socialized medicine do so, because they (wrongly) think it might improve their standard of living, and not to get even with anybody. I wonder where in the Constitution the government derives the authority to undertake such a scheme…
And as for “decadent America”, you’re right--you are much too good for us, you shouldn’t grace us with your presence or your wisdom. It’s truly amazing that anyone would advocate making sick people wait in a queue to get needed medical treatment all for the sake of getting even with Bush.
What is your view on actions and consequences? Do you think they should be related, or disconnected? And how does that impact human behavior?
I believe that actions should have consequences. For example, if the child of a rich person abuses drugs and requires medical attention, that child should not enjoy privileged, high-quality health care for making bad lifestyle choices. The wealth of his or her parent should not insulate that person from the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Similarly, when a rich kid gets in trouble with the law, the wealth of his or her parents should not shield that offender from the fair exercise of justice. The hard work of the parent does not logically entitle the child to a free ride in life.
If America allowed preferential treatment for the children of the rich, an irresponsible mediocrity with a rich and powerful father could behave badly for much of his life, then use the privileges of his family connections to enrich himself and win high political office. Such a disreputable wastrel could even become President - if he had enough money and connections. But that could only happen in a decadent America in which people worship money and power.
1. “I believe that actions should have consequences.”
Fine. Many actions DO have consequences. And those consequences are best not interfered with, as in preventing those people who have chosen not to educate themselves from reaping the consequences of those choices by funding them at a comfortable level.
2. “the child of a rich person abuses drugs and requires medical attention, that child should not enjoy privileged, high-quality health care for making bad lifestyle choices.”
Do you think a rich person who “abuses drugs and requires medical attention” is within his rights to enjoy “high-quality health care” for HIMSELF, so long as he pays for it? Why do you then force him to NOT spend his money on his children? Again, this is an authoritarian stance of yours. You would actually PREVENT people who have worked hard and become rich from spending the money to benefit their kids? Do you buy food for your kids? If so, why is it okay for you to buy food for your kids, but it is not okay for the rich guy to buy health care for his?
Another evidence of your authoritarianism is your suggestion that people who can pay for “high-quality” health care should not be able to buy it. It smacks of HillaryCare circa 1994, when she wanted to make it a CRIME for a willing patient to see a willing doctor and pay for his care out of his pocket. Authoritarian from end-to-end. I thought you were not the authoritarian in here?
3. “The wealth of his or her parent should not insulate that person from the consequences of irresponsible behavior.”
Why? You would actually PREVENT and outlaw parental concern? Parents deal with their kids the way they believe that they need to deal with their kids. I can agree or disagree with any particular parent, but do you actually think that the STATE should be responsible for setting those guidelines? Is there anything more authoritarian than a person suggesting that what a parent and his kid do in terms of the kid’s irresponsible behavior that affects only the kid and his parents, that doesn’t violate law or damage another outside party, is anyone’s business than their own?
4. “when a rich kid gets in trouble with the law, the wealth of his or her parents should not shield that offender from the fair exercise of justice.”
Sure. I agree. Rich parents may be able to afford more expensive attorneys, however. Do you now suggest that we socialize the legal system, because surely it is inequitable for this to happen? If it is somehow terrible that being rich buys you better health care, then isn’t it just as terrible that being rich would buy you better legal care? Doesn’t it follow that all the attorneys in the US should be socialized, and we should have a “single payor” system for legal representation? And when you can get that past the Trial Attorney’s Associations, then you can come back to us with the health care proposals.
5. “Such a disreputable wastrel could even become President”.
Yes, the America that I celebrate is a place of second chances. Anyone with a bad past can work hard enough to overcome it, if they wish to. Isn’t it interesting that, in this instance, we have the conservative saying, “show compassion to a person with a bad past, who wants to redeem himself and become something significant”, and we have a leftist saying, “if you were once a disreputable wastrel, that’s all you should be allowed to be, and if you attain something, it can only be because this terrible America worships money and power.” Your desire to group people into monolithic groups from which they cannot move is certainly not a very compassionate viewpoint.
I don’t know whether it’s your personal character or your professional training (I suspect it’s both) that allows you to maintain such an accomodating, shall we say ... bedside manner ... with people as severely afflicted as “Meliorist”. Kudos, sir.
I’m afraid my approach would be more like Dr. Gregory House’s:
Do you care to offer any insights why the AMA appears to be signing off on socialized medical care? I don’t understand why the AMA would get behind this, unless it’s a ploy to try to have a seat at the table when the legislation is crafted. It seems like a terribly misguided strategy to me on the part of the AMA--once the precedent is set, it will be much easier to expand the role of government in setting prices. Do have a sense of how doctors are reacting to this issue? How contentious is this issue among members of the medical community? Or does this issue break down along the typical left-right divide among doctors, regardless of the perceived personal stake?
This is demonstrably false. If you have a serious pre-existing condition, you will never find affordable insurance. Most of you fools are just one bad diagnosis away from bankruptcy. Of course, you would enjoy becoming destitute because, as a loser, you would be upholding the right of the winners to profit from their hard work.
Just curious Mel, are you a Have or a Have not. The reason I ask is because from where *I* am sitting, if you are a Have, you HAVE not the right to speak for me or my cause. If you are a Have not, then unlike myself, you are looking to be taken care of and still have NO right speaking for me.
I dont enjoy being destitute, and Im not a loser, but I proudly uphold the right of the winners to profit from their hard work. I happen to have become disabled recently. I am no longer able to do the work I have spent over twenty-five years perfecting. The system set up to protect me was just enough to keep my head above water for a time, while I depleted ALL my savings and investments that were to be my retirement, and I WAS looking at semi-retirement early enough in life to go enjoy doing the things I love to do… hunt and fish.
It all fell apart because of an injury. But, I made the choices in life I made. I chose to work most of my life for myself. I chose to party away my early years instead of get an education. I chose to work hard all these years rather than work smart. My choices werent sufficient to get me through this type of situation.
But, I dont want the help of you or the government. I dont want the government taking money from those who have made better choices than I did and who havent experienced a catastophy in their lives, so that I have it easy. That isnt right. I still have choices. If I had none, then I would hope that there were some sort of safety net, first from the churches or from organizations that are funded by those who CHOOSE to give of their hard earned money to help others, and then, as a last resort from a governement program design to provide the barest of necessities for those who fall through the cracks. But, in that case, I would have to consider crawling up the nearest mountain and allowing the bears to end my suffering and not allow my choices and misfortunes to negatively effect others. But, there are alot of people out there that are worse off than I am. This country still provides opportunities and I can start over at 48 and it wont be easy, but if it was, it wouldnt hardly be worth it. I’d rather be sitting right here in my shoes than be one of the educated idiots out there who sit on easy street decrying the system that allowed them to get there.
I had every opportunity to make choices that could have prevented my current situation. Bad things happen to good people. That’s life. The only thing that trying to level the playing field or protect all the poor souls out there will do, is remove the very freedoms and liberties that allow the mark that I missed to be reached. For me to think any other way would be selfish and self-serving. I want my kids to have the opportunity to reap, as directly as possible, the full reward for the effort they put forth. I resent ANYONE who would speak within ear-shot of my boys, that regardless if they succeed or fail...work hard or be lazy, the government will take care of them. You and your ilk would tell our kids that they have little incentive to strive for the very best they can give and the very best they can get.
Why dont your kind ever advocate for people taking care of people instead of governement doing it. Why do you fall for the bait of the politicians who CLAIM they are working in the best interest of the people, but who are obviously just a bunch of pandering fools. The Liberals in government are just as rich and self-serving as the capitalist conservative bastards you hate so much. Drink some more Kool-aid, bitch! I’m uneducated, broke, and conservative and have fried more brain cells than you seem to be able to rally together for logic.
You make me sick. You obviously have zero idea of what the average every day working class American feels about his country, it’s opportunities, his rights and responsibilities, and the pride he takes in himself, his country and the freedom and liberty it provides. As I say to all like you, if you lust after socialism, then go someplace that will dish it up for you. Dont ruin MY country!!!! I dont need your kind of help!
Ill end my rant by just saying that I cling to my guns and my religion, because God provides the only help that makes a real difference, and I will need my guns to protect myself and my family when liberals fools and cowards hand my country over to invaders.
Do you care to offer any insights why the AMA appears to be signing off on socialized medical care? I don’t understand why the AMA would get behind this, unless it’s a ploy to try to have a seat at the table when the legislation is crafted. It seems like a terribly misguided strategy to me on the part of the AMA--once the precedent is set, it will be much easier to expand the role of government in setting prices. Do have a sense of how doctors are reacting to this issue? How contentious is this issue among members of the medical community? Or does this issue break down along the typical left-right divide among doctors, regardless of the perceived personal stake?
A couple of things to know about the AMA:
1. The AMA no longer represents what we have classically considered “specialists” (although all now have their “specialty” board today - “Family Medicine” is a specialty). It is primarily made up of “primary care” physicians. Only a smattering of surgical or medical specialists are in there. The reason for this has been their poor support for issues that impacted specialists.
2. The concern for the primary care physicians, who generally make their money by seeing patients in their offices, is different from the specialists, who generally make their money by doing procedures and seeing patients in the hospital. Office-care reimbursement has historically been low, and procedure reimbursement has historically been high.
3. The advertisement of “managed care” has generally been to the primary care physicians, in saying, “we will increase your reimbursement, by decreasing the reimbursement of the specialists”, which attempted to set one group of physicians against another. Thus, the AMA has gradually grown into a somewhat adversarial relationship with the specialty physician organizations.
For example, there was a push for “capitation”, in which primary care physicians were given a pot of money per “life” for all their care for a year. The less they did for a patient, the more of that money they got to keep. An inherently dangerous proposition, since you were introducing a financial reason for a physician to choose NOT to do a test or order a procedure on a patient.
4. There are very many hard-working, conscientious primary care physicians in the AMA who do not want the government to have MORE say in their practices, but there are also a rather large number that have been encouraged to see this as a “zero-sum” game. Those members support the concept of a “single-payor” system, because they believe that the government will ensure that they get a larger cut of the pie. There are more entrepeneurial folks distributed in the specialties than in the primary care group, and thus, the primary care group is inherently more to the left.
5. Almost NO physicians see government interference in quality to be a good thing. It is pretty easy to see that the effect has been negative. Primary care physicians who accept the idea that more government interference is good for attaining universal coverage, generally seem to think that we can work out the quality kinks. Specialists generally believe that government interference will make it nearly impossible for us to be able to give the highest quality care.
In summary, yes, there is disagreement over this whole “universal government-funded healthcare” debate among physicians. The left/right divide is mostly oriented around the primary care/specialist divide. And there are more primary care physicians than there are specialists.
What is your view on actions and consequences? Do you think they should be related, or disconnected? And how does that impact human behavior?
I believe that actions should have consequences. For example, if the child of a rich person abuses drugs and requires medical attention, that child should not enjoy privileged, high-quality health care for making bad lifestyle choices. The wealth of his or her parent should not insulate that person from the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Similarly, when a rich kid gets in trouble with the law, the wealth of his or her parents should not shield that offender from the fair exercise of justice. The hard work of the parent does not logically entitle the child to a free ride in life.
If America allowed preferential treatment for the children of the rich, an irresponsible mediocrity with a rich and powerful father could behave badly for much of his life, then use the privileges of his family connections to enrich himself and win high political office. Such a disreputable wastrel could even become President - if he had enough money and connections. But that could only happen in a decadent America in which people worship money and power.
It seems your entire vapid diatribe is a simple-minded effort to belittle the President. But your method reveals your perspective, mealy-mouth.
You say,
I believe that actions should have consequences. For example, if the child of a rich person abuses drugs and requires medical attention, that child should not enjoy privileged, high-quality health care for making bad lifestyle choices. The wealth of his or her parent should not insulate that person from the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Similarly, when a rich kid gets in trouble with the law, the wealth of his or her parents should not shield that offender from the fair exercise of justice. The hard work of the parent does not logically entitle the child to a free ride in life.
Fine. A valid position that promotes misguided social justice, IF, your motivation is pure, which you have displayed it is not. But assuming it is, what do you say regarding the person who has sacrificed for years, working their ass off, doing what it takes to claw their way to prosperity, and who lives a clean life, making wise personal lifestyle choices?
Should that person be able to enjoy high-quality medical care as a fruit of their labor? Should the money they earn as a result of their commitment to personal excellence be able to purchase them the best medical care they can afford? Or should that person just suck it up and live with the fact that no matter how hard they work, no matter how committed they are to being a productive member of society, there is an arbitrary ceiling, set by beaurocrats, that limits the care he receives to the same care purchased with taxpayer dollars according to government mandate.
Based on your MO, I will assume that you believe the latter - that all people are subject to the level of care provided by a taxpayer funded system, and that this person committed to personal drive, ambition, and excellence is not entitled to purchase anything for himself that exceeds what is available to the least fortunate Americans.
Then, I will ask, if a person of drive who is committed to personal excellence cannot reap rewards commensurate with their contribution to productive society; if he cannot purchase for himself the highest quality of whatever product or service he can afford; what will drive him to continue to pursue excellence in his field of occupation? If he works and toils and propels himself forward in life, and he can only gain for himself what a homeless drug addict gets from the government, AND the government confiscates his earnings to pay for that homeless drug addict, why should he continue to work his ass off? What happens to productiveness in society?
I would appreciate specific, direct answers. If you fail to provide them, I will place you on ignore from this point forward, and refuse to entertain you as anything more than a stoned brat in your mother’s basement.
Then, I will ask, if a person of drive who is committed to personal excellence cannot reap rewards commensurate with their contribution to productive society; if he cannot purchase for himself the highest quality of whatever product or service he can afford; what will drive him to continue to pursue excellence in his field of occupation? If he works and toils and propels himself forward in life, and he can only gain for himself what a homeless drug addict gets from the government, AND the government confiscates his earnings to pay for that homeless drug addict, why should he continue to work his ass off? What happens to productiveness in society?
And that’s one of the huge holes in the entire marxist approach. The redistributionists essentially define the norms downward. If hard work gets me nothing, why do it?
Do you care to offer any insights why the AMA appears to be signing off on socialized medical care? I don’t understand why the AMA would get behind this, unless it’s a ploy to try to have a seat at the table when the legislation is crafted. It seems like a terribly misguided strategy to me on the part of the AMA--once the precedent is set, it will be much easier to expand the role of government in setting prices. Do have a sense of how doctors are reacting to this issue? How contentious is this issue among members of the medical community? Or does this issue break down along the typical left-right divide among doctors, regardless of the perceived personal stake?
A couple of things to know about the AMA:
1. The AMA no longer represents what we have classically considered “specialists” (although all now have their “specialty” board today - “Family Medicine” is a specialty). It is primarily made up of “primary care” physicians. Only a smattering of surgical or medical specialists are in there. The reason for this has been their poor support for issues that impacted specialists.
2. The concern for the primary care physicians, who generally make their money by seeing patients in their offices, is different from the specialists, who generally make their money by doing procedures and seeing patients in the hospital. Office-care reimbursement has historically been low, and procedure reimbursement has historically been high.
3. The advertisement of “managed care” has generally been to the primary care physicians, in saying, “we will increase your reimbursement, by decreasing the reimbursement of the specialists”, which attempted to set one group of physicians against another. Thus, the AMA has gradually grown into a somewhat adversarial relationship with the specialty physician organizations.
For example, there was a push for “capitation”, in which primary care physicians were given a pot of money per “life” for all their care for a year. The less they did for a patient, the more of that money they got to keep. An inherently dangerous proposition, since you were introducing a financial reason for a physician to choose NOT to do a test or order a procedure on a patient.
4. There are very many hard-working, conscientious primary care physicians in the AMA who do not want the government to have MORE say in their practices, but there are also a rather large number that have been encouraged to see this as a “zero-sum” game. Those members support the concept of a “single-payor” system, because they believe that the government will ensure that they get a larger cut of the pie. There are more entrepeneurial folks distributed in the specialties than in the primary care group, and thus, the primary care group is inherently more to the left.
5. Almost NO physicians see government interference in quality to be a good thing. It is pretty easy to see that the effect has been negative. Primary care physicians who accept the idea that more government interference is good for attaining universal coverage, generally seem to think that we can work out the quality kinks. Specialists generally believe that government interference will make it nearly impossible for us to be able to give the highest quality care.
In summary, yes, there is disagreement over this whole “universal government-funded healthcare” debate among physicians. The left/right divide is mostly oriented around the primary care/specialist divide. And there are more primary care physicians than there are specialists.
Your remarks are fascinating--I had no idea that the AMA had become bifurcated along the primary care/specialist divide. This explains a lot, and it has rather troubling implications for the future of specialized medical care. Have the specialists formed an independent association, apart from the AMA, to represent their interests more effectively?
I’m uneducated, broke, and conservative and have fried more brain cells than you seem to be able to rally together for logic.
You make me sick. You obviously have zero idea of what the average every day working class American feels about his country, it’s opportunities, his rights and responsibilities, and the pride he takes in himself, his country and the freedom and liberty it provides. As I say to all like you, if you lust after socialism, then go someplace that will dish it up for you. Dont ruin MY country!!!! I dont need your kind of help!
Ill end my rant by just saying that I cling to my guns and my religion, because God provides the only help that makes a real difference, and I will need my guns to protect myself and my family when liberals fools and cowards hand my country over to invaders.
My first reaction to your post was sympathy, but then I realized that you and millions of others are preventing enlightened social policies from being enacted in America. You are a perfect example of people so blinded by the quack medicine of right-wing propaganda that you vote against your own interests. There is no evidence whatsoever that national health care programs make people lazy and unproductive. Some of the most efficient and competitive countries in the world have excellent national health care systems, including Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. This is just your ignorance talking.
What you advocate is really a casino system, in which those lucky enough not to have both a low income and a catastrophic illness are the winners, and those unlucky enough to be poor and sick are the losers. Although dozens of nations have shown that this system of needless suffering can be avoided, you seem to believe that it is mandated by a law of nature.
For you to say that you would rather crawl away to a hillside and die than receive government aid that would save your life indicates that mental illness is part of your debility. Needless suffering is not a badge of courage or honor; it is a sign of stupidity. When next you have the opportunity, vote to defend your own interests, not those of the people who view you as debris to be swept out of their path.
All the arguments you make could be used to justify child labor or human slavery. Every time a reformer has proposed social change to ameliorate needless suffering, someone profiting from that suffering has declared that economic ruin would result from the reforms. If you want to see a country with zero social services for the poor, go to Somalia. If you want to see a country with extensive social services for the poor, go to Switzerland. Where would you rather live?
You have been victimized in the cruelest way possible. You have been taught to inflict suffering on yourself for the convenience of those who manipulate you. Moreover, you have been taught to spread that suffering to others.
“My first reaction was sympathy...”, but then my Marxist indoctrination kicked in. What an insufferable, self-important, and insensitive boob you are are, Meliorist! Didn’t you hear what he said??? What gave you the impression that he needs or wants your sympathy??? Now, I’ve seen it all: Marxist tough love!
You probably even have the goatee and the little wire-rim glasses, Don’tcha, Trotsky?
And Mellie says, “Rise, workers of the world! Unite! Throw off the pigs who oppress you! Enter the glorious dictatorship of the proletariat!”
Needless suffering is not a badge of courage or honor; it is a sign of stupidity. When next you have the opportunity, vote to defend your own interests, not those of the people who view you as debris to be swept out of their path.
No, Mellie. Randoo is faced with the concept of stealing from others or being honest. And, unlike you, he prefers to maintain integrity rather than be a legalized thief. You, on the other hand, consider theft in this situation to be the right choice, and integrity, “stupid”.
It says more about you than it does about Randoo, who seems to me to be a person of integrity.
Your remarks are fascinating--I had no idea that the AMA had become bifurcated along the primary care/specialist divide. This explains a lot, and it has rather troubling implications for the future of specialized medical care. Have the specialists formed an independent association, apart from the AMA, to represent their interests more effectively?
Thank you, sir. It is troubling. The specialists are fragmented into multiple small associations, and that isn’t so good, either. My dad used to say that the AMA was the “doctor’s union” (good unionist that my dad was), and nothing I could say would talk him out of it. He would even ask me when I was going to “join the union”, and he thought it was “the most powerful union in the world”. Which is a joke. The AMA is basically a mouthpiece for the Democrats, today.
