5 ms·

The doctors lost the argument decades ago when they agreed that people had a right to medical services. It was self-imposed slavery (because they agreed) and no

by dmfdmf 12y ago

The doctors lost the argument decades ago when they agreed that people had a right to medical services. It was self-imposed slavery (because they agreed) and now we are just discussing the details (e.g. Obamacare, medicare, etc.) and the govt programs that steal from people to pay for medical services are just windows dressing to make it look civilized and moral. The good news is that your rights are inalienable, you can reclaim them at any time. The doctors should go on strike and reject the assumption that anyone has the right to their work. As a patient I would support the doctors 100%. Let's see how long medical services last without doctors or how laughable it will be when the govt tries to force doctors back to work. LOL. Health Care is Not a Right. http://www.afcm.org/hcinar.html http://www.afcm.org/hcinar.html NB: I recently dropped all my medical customers at significant drop in revenue because of HIPPA. You think things are bad now wait until that monstrosity becomes strictly enforced.

bagels 12y ago
"they agreed that people had a right to medical services" What does this refer to?
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  From the AMA; > (6) The patient has a basic right to have available adequate health care. Physicians, along with the rest of society, should continue to work toward this goal. Fulfillment of this right is dependent on society providing resources so that no patient is deprived of necessary care because of an inability to pay for the care. Physicians should continue their traditional assumption of a part of the responsibility for the medical care of those who cannot afford essential health care.
e40 12y ago
The doctors lost the argument decades ago when they agreed that people had a right to medical services. A bold claim without any backup.
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  From the AMA; (6) The patient has a basic right to have available adequate health care. Physicians, along with the rest of society, should continue to work toward this goal. Fulfillment of this right is dependent on society providing resources so that no patient is deprived of necessary care because of an inability to pay for the care. Physicians should continue their traditional assumption of a part of the responsibility for the medical care of those who cannot afford essential health care.
  - e40 12y ago
    I'm sorry, but that doesn't make it any clearer.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cmdrfred 12y ago
I manage IT for ten dental offices, Hippa isn't that hard (full disk encryption isn't even mandatory). You must not be very good at what you do, and its probably why you are so angry.
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  You seem to like to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions about my skills and emotional state. Who said I was angry? I made a decision and moved on. I don't waste time on idiocy I can't change. There is plenty of non-medical IT work as I am sure you know, I just didn't want to take on the risks. FYI, you might want to look into the laws which are just now starting to be enforced. If you are in IT then you are now a covered entity and can be fined directly for HIPPA failures. You also have a legal obligation to document any contact with PHI and you have a legal obligation to report your doctor if you even observe any HIPPA violation, IT related or not. I could not work under these terms so stick to non-medical IT work.
  - gamblor956 12y ago
    Rather than looking into the laws yourself, you should have consulted a lawyer. You would have learned how the rules actually apply to service providers of health institutions instead of developing a serious misunderstanding of how HIPPA works.
    - dmfdmf 12y ago
      As other others have pointed out HIPPA is an old law. But what most people do not realize is that it has not been enforced (for 10 years?) because no bureaucracy had responsibility for enforcement. This has led to a high level of complacency regarding the seriousness of the HIPPA law. HIPPA now has an "owner" (i.e. enforcer) at the HHS in the Dept. of Civil Rights and they are spooling up to start cracking down and auditing and fining healthcare providers and their business associates. This process has already begun so things are about to change. For years, under advice of my lawyer, I operated under a signed contract with all my healthcare customers that included a disclaimer that HIPPA was not my responsibility and I had no HIPPA responsibilities. Recent decisions by the DCR have ruled such disclaimers invalid and defined Business Associates as providers to healthcare providers that have access to PHI and thus to which the HIPPA regulations apply directly. My lawyer said he can no longer limit my liability or responsibility for HIPPA with a disclaimer and advised me to implement full HIPPA compliant policies, procedures and documentation or drop my healthcare customers. Please feel free to ignore reality if you want to get blind-sided by this.
tim333 12y ago
>when they agreed that people had a right to medical services ... It was self-imposed slavery... We've had rights to medical services in most of the developed world outside the US for decades. Doctors have high salaries and reasonable conditions for the most part. Funny version of slavery.
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  Window dressing, as I said. And how long will this system last when the doctors are extremely unhappy now and things will get worse as the govt takes more control away from the doctors? It should give you some concern that 2mur's sentiment is common today among doctors; "There is no chance I would do it again". Do you think doctors can be replaced by govt bureaucrats following the Code of Federal Regulations? Good luck with that but its where we are headed. Let me ask you a question: If the doctors went on strike and refused to work, what do you recommend that we do? Do you support the doctors and their right to trade their services on their terms or do you support the demand of the public's "right" to their services?
  - jasonisalive 12y ago
    All socialist interventions weaken the marketplace and require further such intervention. They all require progressive restrictions of liberty and the logical end result in each and every case, no matter how benign the beginnings, must (as you have suggested) be outright slavery.
    - kazinator 12y ago
      Your comment could be the perfect solution to a homework problem in a critical thinking class: Give an example of a slippery slope argument in economics, social science or politics.
- jasonisalive 12y ago
  The use of the term "slavery" here is pretty standard rhetoric used for emphasis by the American libertarian movement; its use descends from the vocabulary developed by the body of anti-Socialist thinkers in the early to mid-20th century. A more sophisticated rhetorician would argue that the various bodies of your society (those who pay for the universal medical services via taxation, those who partake of the medical services offered, those who actually provide the services (i.e. the doctors), and those who administer and regulate the provision of service) have all internalised and unconsciously accept a worldview which debases and discredits the right to free action of individuals in society. You may not be slaves in the classical sense of being enslaved by a third party, but from the perspective of someone with a "strong" view of personal liberty, you are in a sense enslaved to your own lowered expectations and faith in liberty. So while you might all claim that you are perfectly content with your current system, your critic would view your opinions as hopelessly biased, and point to what they would classify as numerous instances of the poor results of socialised healthcare (incessant arguments about over-spending and budget problems, claims of corruption in service administrators, complaints of high wait time and low quality of service, low morale and satisfaction among service providers) as evidence to strengthen their claim.
phren0logy 12y ago
I am also an MD, and I find you embarrassing. The core of medicine is service to others. Granted, we could do a better job of advocating for ourselves, but you are doing it wrong.
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  Its not clear how anyone can make someone else embarrassed for views they don't share. I'd have more respect for you if you called me an idiot for my views but your embarrassment at my claims makes me think that you actually know the truth, but lack the courage to rethink it. > we [doctors] could do a better job advocating for ourselves... Its all just negotiating the terms of your slavery if you agree that people have the "right" to health care.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Would you say that policemen and soldiers are slaves, too? In a sense, their job is to maintain and enforce civil rights for the rest of us.
    - ConceptJunkie 12y ago
      They are slaves if it is considered that people have a "right" to their services... in other words, policemen and soldiers are legally and morally required to do their jobs even if there isn't money to pay them, which would be the case if there was such a right. The same is true for health care. If you actually had an inalienable right to health care, then you could require a doctor to provide you service whether he wanted to or not. That's slavery, and why it is absolutely illogical that there can be a "right" to something that is material and finite. This isn't politics, it's simple logic.
      - dmfdmf 12y ago
        At last... an intelligent comment. Thank you.
  - phren0logy 12y ago
angersock 12y ago
I'm rather sure that the turning point in medicine would've been the introduction of health insurance at scale and the consolidation of healthcare institutions over the past twenty years. In a modern civilization, in a first-world nation, healthcare is a right--if it isn't, then I would like to have back the rights to monopoly of force I've granted to the government. Also, HIPAA is not that hard.
rpgmaker 12y ago
Heh, one of those funny and stupid (fringe) libertarian ideas one comes across from time to time. HIPAA is actually relatively old so I think you're probably recycling an old comment you made on some web "portal" a while back.
DrFunke 12y ago
Put the book down, John Galt.

by dmfdmf 12y ago

bagels 12y ago

"they agreed that people had a right to medical services" What does this refer to?

dmfdmf 12y ago
From the AMA; > (6) The patient has a basic right to have available adequate health care. Physicians, along with the rest of society, should continue to work toward this goal. Fulfillment of this right is dependent on society providing resources so that no patient is deprived of necessary care because of an inability to pay for the care. Physicians should continue their traditional assumption of a part of the responsibility for the medical care of those who cannot afford essential health care.

e40 12y ago

The doctors lost the argument decades ago when they agreed that people had a right to medical services. A bold claim without any backup.

dmfdmf 12y ago
From the AMA; (6) The patient has a basic right to have available adequate health care. Physicians, along with the rest of society, should continue to work toward this goal. Fulfillment of this right is dependent on society providing resources so that no patient is deprived of necessary care because of an inability to pay for the care. Physicians should continue their traditional assumption of a part of the responsibility for the medical care of those who cannot afford essential health care.
- e40 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but that doesn't make it any clearer.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cmdrfred 12y ago

I manage IT for ten dental offices, Hippa isn't that hard (full disk encryption isn't even mandatory). You must not be very good at what you do, and its probably why you are so angry.

dmfdmf 12y ago
You seem to like to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions about my skills and emotional state. Who said I was angry? I made a decision and moved on. I don't waste time on idiocy I can't change. There is plenty of non-medical IT work as I am sure you know, I just didn't want to take on the risks. FYI, you might want to look into the laws which are just now starting to be enforced. If you are in IT then you are now a covered entity and can be fined directly for HIPPA failures. You also have a legal obligation to document any contact with PHI and you have a legal obligation to report your doctor if you even observe any HIPPA violation, IT related or not. I could not work under these terms so stick to non-medical IT work.
- gamblor956 12y ago
  Rather than looking into the laws yourself, you should have consulted a lawyer. You would have learned how the rules actually apply to service providers of health institutions instead of developing a serious misunderstanding of how HIPPA works.
  - dmfdmf 12y ago
    As other others have pointed out HIPPA is an old law. But what most people do not realize is that it has not been enforced (for 10 years?) because no bureaucracy had responsibility for enforcement. This has led to a high level of complacency regarding the seriousness of the HIPPA law. HIPPA now has an "owner" (i.e. enforcer) at the HHS in the Dept. of Civil Rights and they are spooling up to start cracking down and auditing and fining healthcare providers and their business associates. This process has already begun so things are about to change. For years, under advice of my lawyer, I operated under a signed contract with all my healthcare customers that included a disclaimer that HIPPA was not my responsibility and I had no HIPPA responsibilities. Recent decisions by the DCR have ruled such disclaimers invalid and defined Business Associates as providers to healthcare providers that have access to PHI and thus to which the HIPPA regulations apply directly. My lawyer said he can no longer limit my liability or responsibility for HIPPA with a disclaimer and advised me to implement full HIPPA compliant policies, procedures and documentation or drop my healthcare customers. Please feel free to ignore reality if you want to get blind-sided by this.

tim333 12y ago

>when they agreed that people had a right to medical services ... It was self-imposed slavery... We've had rights to medical services in most of the developed world outside the US for decades. Doctors have high salaries and reasonable conditions for the most part. Funny version of slavery.

dmfdmf 12y ago
Window dressing, as I said. And how long will this system last when the doctors are extremely unhappy now and things will get worse as the govt takes more control away from the doctors? It should give you some concern that 2mur's sentiment is common today among doctors; "There is no chance I would do it again". Do you think doctors can be replaced by govt bureaucrats following the Code of Federal Regulations? Good luck with that but its where we are headed. Let me ask you a question: If the doctors went on strike and refused to work, what do you recommend that we do? Do you support the doctors and their right to trade their services on their terms or do you support the demand of the public's "right" to their services?
- jasonisalive 12y ago
  All socialist interventions weaken the marketplace and require further such intervention. They all require progressive restrictions of liberty and the logical end result in each and every case, no matter how benign the beginnings, must (as you have suggested) be outright slavery.
  - kazinator 12y ago
    Your comment could be the perfect solution to a homework problem in a critical thinking class: Give an example of a slippery slope argument in economics, social science or politics.
jasonisalive 12y ago
The use of the term "slavery" here is pretty standard rhetoric used for emphasis by the American libertarian movement; its use descends from the vocabulary developed by the body of anti-Socialist thinkers in the early to mid-20th century. A more sophisticated rhetorician would argue that the various bodies of your society (those who pay for the universal medical services via taxation, those who partake of the medical services offered, those who actually provide the services (i.e. the doctors), and those who administer and regulate the provision of service) have all internalised and unconsciously accept a worldview which debases and discredits the right to free action of individuals in society. You may not be slaves in the classical sense of being enslaved by a third party, but from the perspective of someone with a "strong" view of personal liberty, you are in a sense enslaved to your own lowered expectations and faith in liberty. So while you might all claim that you are perfectly content with your current system, your critic would view your opinions as hopelessly biased, and point to what they would classify as numerous instances of the poor results of socialised healthcare (incessant arguments about over-spending and budget problems, claims of corruption in service administrators, complaints of high wait time and low quality of service, low morale and satisfaction among service providers) as evidence to strengthen their claim.

phren0logy 12y ago

I am also an MD, and I find you embarrassing. The core of medicine is service to others. Granted, we could do a better job of advocating for ourselves, but you are doing it wrong.

dmfdmf 12y ago
Its not clear how anyone can make someone else embarrassed for views they don't share. I'd have more respect for you if you called me an idiot for my views but your embarrassment at my claims makes me think that you actually know the truth, but lack the courage to rethink it. > we [doctors] could do a better job advocating for ourselves... Its all just negotiating the terms of your slavery if you agree that people have the "right" to health care.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Would you say that policemen and soldiers are slaves, too? In a sense, their job is to maintain and enforce civil rights for the rest of us.
  - ConceptJunkie 12y ago
    They are slaves if it is considered that people have a "right" to their services... in other words, policemen and soldiers are legally and morally required to do their jobs even if there isn't money to pay them, which would be the case if there was such a right. The same is true for health care. If you actually had an inalienable right to health care, then you could require a doctor to provide you service whether he wanted to or not. That's slavery, and why it is absolutely illogical that there can be a "right" to something that is material and finite. This isn't politics, it's simple logic.
    - dmfdmf 12y ago
      At last... an intelligent comment. Thank you.
- phren0logy 12y ago

angersock 12y ago

I'm rather sure that the turning point in medicine would've been the introduction of health insurance at scale and the consolidation of healthcare institutions over the past twenty years. In a modern civilization, in a first-world nation, healthcare is a right--if it isn't, then I would like to have back the rights to monopoly of force I've granted to the government. Also, HIPAA is not that hard.

rpgmaker 12y ago

Heh, one of those funny and stupid (fringe) libertarian ideas one comes across from time to time. HIPAA is actually relatively old so I think you're probably recycling an old comment you made on some web "portal" a while back.

DrFunke 12y ago

Put the book down, John Galt.