Archive

Doctor doesn't want to treat Obama supporters

  • BCSbunk
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: He isn't refusing treatment. So....
    i dunno if that would hold up in court...hes basically saying he won't treat you (and the sign doesn't say come on it anyway and I will, jk hahah lol)
    No he isn't, he is saying that he doesn't want to treat you. C'mon, I think it's a stupid and petty thing to do just as much as the next person, but until someone comes in and says "I've got a giant cancerous kidney tumor, will you remove it?" and he says "no", it's a moot, rhetorical argument.
    so, is it the Obama supporters job to walk in anyway and find out if he would treat them?
    How else are you going to prove that he wouldn't?
    His sign says so!

    His sign refuses care.

    Same as Irish need not apply.

    Oh I am only joking come on in and really ask and I will give you an application.
  • LJ
    BCSbunk wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: He isn't refusing treatment. So....
    i dunno if that would hold up in court...hes basically saying he won't treat you (and the sign doesn't say come on it anyway and I will, jk hahah lol)
    No he isn't, he is saying that he doesn't want to treat you. C'mon, I think it's a stupid and petty thing to do just as much as the next person, but until someone comes in and says "I've got a giant cancerous kidney tumor, will you remove it?" and he says "no", it's a moot, rhetorical argument.
    so, is it the Obama supporters job to walk in anyway and find out if he would treat them?
    How else are you going to prove that he wouldn't?
    His sign says so!

    His sign refuses care.

    Same as Irish need not apply.

    Oh I am only joking come on in and really ask and I will give you an application.
    No it doesn't. I can send the IRS letter upon letter stating that I am not going to pay my taxes, but they can't do anything about it until April 15th comes and goes.
  • derek bomar
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: He isn't refusing treatment. So....
    i dunno if that would hold up in court...hes basically saying he won't treat you (and the sign doesn't say come on it anyway and I will, jk hahah lol)
    No he isn't, he is saying that he doesn't want to treat you. C'mon, I think it's a stupid and petty thing to do just as much as the next person, but until someone comes in and says "I've got a giant cancerous kidney tumor, will you remove it?" and he says "no", it's a moot, rhetorical argument.
    so, is it the Obama supporters job to walk in anyway and find out if he would treat them?
    How else are you going to prove that he wouldn't?
    isn't it standard for most doctors who "conscientiously object" to a treatment or service to give you another option for said service/treatment? He doesn't say go to this doctor, he basically says GFY...
  • derek bomar
    I mean, I think most people really aren't aware that he would have to treat them...and I think that's the rub
  • LJ
    derek bomar wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: He isn't refusing treatment. So....
    i dunno if that would hold up in court...hes basically saying he won't treat you (and the sign doesn't say come on it anyway and I will, jk hahah lol)
    No he isn't, he is saying that he doesn't want to treat you. C'mon, I think it's a stupid and petty thing to do just as much as the next person, but until someone comes in and says "I've got a giant cancerous kidney tumor, will you remove it?" and he says "no", it's a moot, rhetorical argument.
    so, is it the Obama supporters job to walk in anyway and find out if he would treat them?
    How else are you going to prove that he wouldn't?
    isn't it standard for most doctors who "conscientiously object" to a treatment or service to give you another option for said service/treatment? He doesn't say go to this doctor, he basically says GFY...
    He hasn't declined treatment to anyone.
  • derek bomar
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: He isn't refusing treatment. So....
    i dunno if that would hold up in court...hes basically saying he won't treat you (and the sign doesn't say come on it anyway and I will, jk hahah lol)
    No he isn't, he is saying that he doesn't want to treat you. C'mon, I think it's a stupid and petty thing to do just as much as the next person, but until someone comes in and says "I've got a giant cancerous kidney tumor, will you remove it?" and he says "no", it's a moot, rhetorical argument.
    so, is it the Obama supporters job to walk in anyway and find out if he would treat them?
    How else are you going to prove that he wouldn't?
    isn't it standard for most doctors who "conscientiously object" to a treatment or service to give you another option for said service/treatment? He doesn't say go to this doctor, he basically says GFY...
    He hasn't declined treatment to anyone.
    I get he hasn't actually done it, but he's saying he's going to do it...and for the common person, that would be enough to assume he won't treat them (if they supported the chosen one)
  • BCSbunk
    LJ wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: He isn't refusing treatment. So....
    i dunno if that would hold up in court...hes basically saying he won't treat you (and the sign doesn't say come on it anyway and I will, jk hahah lol)
    No he isn't, he is saying that he doesn't want to treat you. C'mon, I think it's a stupid and petty thing to do just as much as the next person, but until someone comes in and says "I've got a giant cancerous kidney tumor, will you remove it?" and he says "no", it's a moot, rhetorical argument.
    so, is it the Obama supporters job to walk in anyway and find out if he would treat them?
    How else are you going to prove that he wouldn't?
    His sign says so!

    His sign refuses care.

    Same as Irish need not apply.

    Oh I am only joking come on in and really ask and I will give you an application.
    No it doesn't. I can send the IRS letter upon letter stating that I am not going to pay my taxes, but they can't do anything about it until April 15th comes and goes.
    He is refusing treatment.

    If I ask you as Doctor to treat me and you say Seek treatment elsewhere. that is a refusal. True or false?

    If I come to your office and there is a sign on your door that says BCSbunk seek treatment elsewhere what am I to think of that?

    Oh he is kidding around? Oh he can't be serious? Oh I better go in and talk to him because I am stupid and do not understand plain English on his sign he wrote?

    Hopefully this POS gets his license revoked.
  • LJ
    BCSbunk wrote:
    LJ wrote:


    No it doesn't. I can send the IRS letter upon letter stating that I am not going to pay my taxes, but they can't do anything about it until April 15th comes and goes.
    He is refusing treatment.

    If I ask you as Doctor to treat me and you say Seek treatment elsewhere. that is a refusal. True or false?
    :rolleyes: Isn't that what I have been saying all along? lol

    Hopefully this POS gets his license revoked.
    Until someone tries to get treatment and he says "no", he won't.
  • BCSbunk
    LJ wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    LJ wrote:


    No it doesn't. I can send the IRS letter upon letter stating that I am not going to pay my taxes, but they can't do anything about it until April 15th comes and goes.
    He is refusing treatment.

    If I ask you as Doctor to treat me and you say Seek treatment elsewhere. that is a refusal. True or false?
    :rolleyes: Isn't that what I have been saying all along? lol

    Hopefully this POS gets his license revoked.
    Until someone tries to get treatment and he says "no", he won't.
    My point is the note is the same as the words face to face.

    If I tell you seek treatment elsewhere to your face that is a refusal.

    If I give you a note that says seek treatment elsewhere that is a refusal.

    They are one and the same.
  • LJ
    BCSbunk wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    LJ wrote:


    No it doesn't. I can send the IRS letter upon letter stating that I am not going to pay my taxes, but they can't do anything about it until April 15th comes and goes.
    He is refusing treatment.

    If I ask you as Doctor to treat me and you say Seek treatment elsewhere. that is a refusal. True or false?
    :rolleyes: Isn't that what I have been saying all along? lol

    Hopefully this POS gets his license revoked.
    Until someone tries to get treatment and he says "no", he won't.
    My point is the note is the same as the words face to face.

    If I tell you seek treatment elsewhere to your face that is a refusal.

    If I give you a note that says seek treatment elsewhere that is a refusal.

    They are one and the same.
    No they aren't, but you are welcome to think that they are.
  • Footwedge
    The guy is a dick doctor...very appropos.
  • berry
    Footwedge wrote: The guy is a dick doctor...very appropos.

    That's so confusing. Why would an Obama supporter need a dick doctor. :(
  • I Wear Pants
    This guy is a humongous douche bag. He should get a reprimand from whoever does that in the medical field but i think until he actually carries out that promise it'd be a bit harsh to take his license. But a stern talking to/warning/forced apology might be appropriate.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    He isn't breaking the law, just be a huge jerk. I hope he loses a bunch of patients.
  • 2quik4u
    An American Hero
  • LJ
    Footwedge wrote: The guy is a dick doctor...very appropos.
    urologists deal with one of the strangest forms of cancer, kidney cancer. I wouldn't just call them "dick doctors".
  • Footwedge
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote: The guy is a dick doctor...very appropos.
    urologists deal with one of the strangest forms of cancer, kidney cancer. I wouldn't just call them "dick doctors".
    I never said they were just dick doctors...but they are in fact dick doctors. They deal in urination problems and sexual problems for males. Those 2 listed are the functions of one's dick, So, my statement is true. This guy is a dick doctor.
  • LJ
    Footwedge wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote: The guy is a dick doctor...very appropos.
    urologists deal with one of the strangest forms of cancer, kidney cancer. I wouldn't just call them "dick doctors".
    I never said they were just dick doctors...but they are in fact dick doctors. They deal in urination problems and sexual problems for males. Those 2 listed are the functions of one's dick, So, my statement is true. This guy is a dick doctor.
    Maybe if a urologist saved your dad's life you wouldn't call them dick doctors
  • Classyposter58
    gibby08 wrote: Whatever he's doing...it's really stupid of him to do this and he could get in major trouble
    Lol why it is not a form of racial discrimination or sexism or ageism so technically there is no problem and also if you are dying and going to the doctors office well then u deserve to. Dying people go to a HOSPITAL!!!
  • Footwedge
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote: The guy is a dick doctor...very appropos.
    urologists deal with one of the strangest forms of cancer, kidney cancer. I wouldn't just call them "dick doctors".
    I never said they were just dick doctors...but they are in fact dick doctors. They deal in urination problems and sexual problems for males. Those 2 listed are the functions of one's dick, So, my statement is true. This guy is a dick doctor.
    Maybe if a urologist saved your dad's life you wouldn't call them dick doctors
    I would say that the dick doctor saved my dad's life. And I would have a good laugh with my dad in discussing it.

    Calling one a dick doctor is far different than calling a doctor a dick. But in the context of this thread, this dick doctor is also an obvious dick....and as such, will probably have an entry made on his behalf in dickipedia. Do you want me to explain about Peter Piper and his pickled peppers now?
  • Little Danny
    As long as the patient is not in need of emergent care, it is appropriate for a physcian to refuse to see a patient if they so wish. Physicians often decide to disengage a patient for a number of reasons (ie. reepearted uncompliant treatment, non-payment/late payment of bills, harrassing office staff, conflicts with personality, etc.).

    Just as a physcian ha a right to not treat these patients, the patients have the right to go to another doctor. In the long run, this could hurt him from an economic point of view.
  • LJ
    Footwedge wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote: The guy is a dick doctor...very appropos.
    urologists deal with one of the strangest forms of cancer, kidney cancer. I wouldn't just call them "dick doctors".
    I never said they were just dick doctors...but they are in fact dick doctors. They deal in urination problems and sexual problems for males. Those 2 listed are the functions of one's dick, So, my statement is true. This guy is a dick doctor.
    Maybe if a urologist saved your dad's life you wouldn't call them dick doctors
    I would say that the dick doctor saved my dad's life. And I would have a good laugh with my dad in discussing it.

    Calling one a dick doctor is far different than calling a doctor a dick. But in the context of this thread, this dick doctor is also an obvious dick....and as such, will probably have an entry made on his behalf in dickipedia. Do you want me to explain about Peter Piper and his pickled peppers now?
    Why would you have a good laugh about a kidney tumor twice the size of his kidney? Want me to explain how you aren't being funny and struck a personal nerve with me now?
  • queencitybuckeye
    The guy is just looking out for #1.
  • Swamp Fox
    I think that if I walk into a doctor's office and see a sign that says if I support someone politically that the "doctor" doesn't, I should seek treatment elsewhere,that that is about as clear a case of refusal to treat as I have ever seen. At the very least, I would not demand he treat me because I would not have much confidence in him as my physician. I think it would be about as unprofessional and worthy of having his license pulled as anything I could possibly imagine. There is simply no excuse for it.
  • majorspark
    Swamp Fox wrote:At the very least, I would not demand he treat me because I would not have much confidence in him as my physician.
    I agree with this. Why would anyone want to demand their physician treat them. No thank you I would go elsewhere. As much as I disagree with the federal government increasing its involvement in the health care field, the doctors office is not the place to make that stand.