April 20, 2009
What professionals do you trust the most, Politicians, Physicians or Lawyers?
Posted by: admin : Category: Elections
BOBO asked:
I would think that most people would pick Politicians as the most trusted professionals. This would be followed by Lawyers as a close second & Physicians would be trailing in peoples trust at a DISTANT last place. Politicians seem to inhabit our governmental offices much MORE than representatives do. Politicians seem to prefer “politicking for their special INTRESTS while representatives “represent” their CONSTITUENCY. I think we’re all in agreement here or most of us so lets move on! Lawyers, every one loves em & their oath of honour makes them beyond reproach. Ever met a Lawyer ya did’nt trust or like? Of course not, thats why MOST politicians are Lawyers! But Physcians, those FAT cats, who could trust one? Both wealthy & arrogant, who would ever vote for one? They’d just corrupt our politicians/Lawyers in office who barely manage to scrape by on their meager salaries! Who would ever trust a doctor as president, over of a lawyer/politician? Think about it folks, think about it!!!
I would think that most people would pick Politicians as the most trusted professionals. This would be followed by Lawyers as a close second & Physicians would be trailing in peoples trust at a DISTANT last place. Politicians seem to inhabit our governmental offices much MORE than representatives do. Politicians seem to prefer “politicking for their special INTRESTS while representatives “represent” their CONSTITUENCY. I think we’re all in agreement here or most of us so lets move on! Lawyers, every one loves em & their oath of honour makes them beyond reproach. Ever met a Lawyer ya did’nt trust or like? Of course not, thats why MOST politicians are Lawyers! But Physcians, those FAT cats, who could trust one? Both wealthy & arrogant, who would ever vote for one? They’d just corrupt our politicians/Lawyers in office who barely manage to scrape by on their meager salaries! Who would ever trust a doctor as president, over of a lawyer/politician? Think about it folks, think about it!!!
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 am
Are you kidding? All three are struggling for power, financial gain and gratification for little much to do with anything other than what makes them look good in their small circles.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Before independence.
We trust all of them.
After independence.
It’s “Money, money, money”
Just “: All for the money”
No longer for the good of mankind.
While we live in misery.
In not knowing where to turn to.
But to “Sing”
And “Sing the song of Freedom”
Hoping for the Third wave sorry not the second wave of Liberation of Freedom in solving the mess with blunders and slip-ups with human errors created back in the past being expose with time in own backyards.
Luke 24.47-49
April 26th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Doctors
April 26th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Your sarcasm aside, the doctor in this presidential contest advocates abolition of lawsuits against doctors—no matter whether they cause injuries and deaths; abolition of medical malpractice insurance; and creation of a new brand of insurance paid for by patients he calls “negative outcome” insurance. This is how he plans to deal with what he terms “the medical malpractice crisis.”
The American Academy of Science published a study of American medicine and concluded that between 90,000 and 150,000 patients are killed every year in America’s hospitals alone! Both Harvard and Johns Hopkins medical schools have conducted joint studies whose findings included the following: 1) You have a 1 in 5 chance of being seriously injured each time you go to see a doctor. 2) You have a 1 in 5 chance of being misdiagnosed with cancer. 3) For every day you spend in a hospital your chance of being injured or killed increases two-fold and, statistically, you will suffer a grievious bodily injury with long-term effects if you manage to survive the first week.
The cause of the “malpractice crisis” is nothing else but malpractice—plain and simple. And it is the rate of incidence of malpractice that is by far the greatest cause of rising insurance costs–both health insurance and medical malpractice insurance. Yet, Dr Paul wants the rest of us to turn a blind eye to the facts.
Here are a few more facts he won’t like:
The biggest contributor (47%) to political campaigns in the United States is the American Medical Association, the medical community at large, pharmaceutical companies, and the humongous insurance companies that defend all of them. The public is perceived as an enemy to beaten away from the courthouse door.
Nationwide, 22 cents of every dollar of medical malpractice insurance premiums ends up–not going toward injured victims and the families of those killed by neglience and callous indifference to human life–in the pockets of malpractice defense lawyers. In California, the statistic is 38 cents per dollar.
Ninety-eight percent of all medical malpractice lawsuits are meritorious. The costs associated with bringing a medical malpractice suit (hiring experts–who are also doctors and charge outrageous fees for their testimony) are typically in excess of $100,000. This is designed to discourage people with good cases based on sound law to never file suit. For that reason, only 2% of all meritorious cases ever find a lawyer willing and able to sustain both the costs and years and years of work.
Here’s where your money goes (as you paying attention Dr Paul?): You file your case and even before you can begin the discovery process (meaning no depositions have been taken yet) you are hit by motions for summary judgment asserting you have no legal grounds backed by platoons of medical experts testifying on behalf of the defendants. This is called an attack on the complaint. If successful, the case is dismissed by the judge. These attacks continue throughout the pendancy of litigation and the money spent by these defense lawyers is obscene. They literally have “carte blanche” to try to defeat an injured plaintiff or grieving family at all costs–ALL costs! Millions and millions are spent on just one case in an attempt, though legal maneuvers, to keep it from ever reaching a jury.
And Dr Ron Paul wants to end medical malpractice insurance and shift the entire burden to the public at large. This man is a hypocrit of monumental proportions. He is also a bald-faced liar.
Dr Ron Paul says that the cost of the “negative outcomes” insurance can be offset by a TAX CREDIT! The problem with that little gem of an idea is, if we take him at his word, he would also abolish the IRS and the federal income tax! Huh? What good is a tax credit when there’s no tax?
And, here’s where he shows his “ivory tower” (elitist) mentality: The bottom 40% of incomes in this country cannot even benefit from a tax credit because their income is already too low under the present system. These are the same people who cannot afford to pay for health insurance now! Dr Paul’s proposals will lock them out of the “negative outcomes” scheme completely, with the result that they won’t have any kind of protections nor will they have health coverage. Why not health coverage? Because if you don’t have the “negative outcome” insurance no doctor or hospital will treat you!
Fancy scheme, don’t you think?
April 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Whoa nilly, what a loaded question. What a scathing review by Steve C….albeit, a little lopsided in his presentation.
Lets first look at what Ron Paul says and does. His first priority is to get people OFF their damn dependecy upon the government. If we cna get this one little thing done we can shrink the size of government by 100 fold. His ideas that Steve C is talking about is consistent with this philosophy.
The “negative outcome insurance” that Steve is refering to is an insurance policy that people can by before having surgery. That way if the surgery doesnt go the way they want they can claim a negative outcome. This does NOT relieve the doctor of malpractice insurance an dRon never said it would. As a matter of fact when he talked about it he specifically mentioned that ANY doctor who truly cause a malpractice case to arise needs to handle it…the “negative outcome” insurance company can still go after the doctor for relief…thius is fine because as a doctor youshould compensate your patient for something you did wrong.
What woudl go down by using this type of insurance is the frivolous malpractice lawsuits. The ones where the patient is simply unhappy about the results. A very simple case would be someone with stomach pains say, and they go see the doctor so the doc prescribes some meds, the pain remains, they go see a second doctor who stops the first meds and gives a second med – thsi makes the pain go away in a week….had the patient kept taking the first med the pain would go away in the same amout of time. Since the new docs meds “worked” the patient sues the first doctor for malpractice….this is the type of stuff that will stop.
I am pretty sure Ron agrees with the doctors having to pay malpractice. He is just trying to decrease the number of garbage suits that end up impacting a business needlessly.
Steve blantly states that Ron wants to get rid of malpractice insurance and shift the burden to the public at large. That is an outright lis but I am not sure everyone knows it. If I remember correctly Ron’s statement was something like “Of course some malpractice suits are legitimate, and truly negligent doctors should pay economic damages. But far too many suits are filed simply because a patient is unhappy…and far too [many] meritless suits are settled simply to avoid litigation costs.” ….so we probably shouldnt take it out of context. An insurance company can create insurance for anything someone wants to buy. This is no different then say flight insurance. You buy flight insurance in case something happens for the period you are on the plane..here…you buy insurance for the time of period you are seeing the doctor…same concept…..lets not make it into something its not.
Steve also goes after Ron about his “tax credit” statement for this type of insurance. Here again, Steve took this out of context. I am pretty sure it was in 2006, when the tax law is still unchanged, that Ron introduced legislation to make payments for this insurance tax creditable. This is a good idea if someone actually paid this insurance. Any idea that gets the people back their money from the federal government is a good idea.
If Steve wanted to bring the tax credit arguement to light it would probably have been better to say what would happen to the credit after the IRS is gone? Of course…by then…no one will care. Because Steve took it out of context doesnt mean that Ron’s idea was wrong..just simply misunderstood at the time. He tried to spin it in one direction. So once again we probably shoudlnt take it out of context.
Steve does bring some legitimate arguements to the table regarding the funding of the political machine. I seriously doubt that anyone would argue his facts about the pharmaceutical companies or the medical industry feeding all the monies into the party coffers. While they might possibly be a few perecnetage point here or ther edepending on which report you read, he is correct that the largets amount come from the medical industry.
Steve also talks about how not all the money awarded by malpractice cases doesnt get to the victims. This of course has nothing to do with Ron. It simply points out that lawyers are a bunch a thieves – so I guess that sort of kills the idea that people trust lawyers.
I wont argue the ridiculous presentation about the poor or low income people. This is just their own laziness that makes them this way. I f they choose to remain poor then they need to be responsible for that choice. I dont want to subsidize them for anything.
So, enough about Steve’s message – lets get to the real question. You are asking this using the word “you” so that makes it personal. Personaly I dont trust any of them for anything. For doctors, it doesnt say PROFESSIONAL doctor….it says doctors practice…well you know what…go PRACTICE on someone else…see me when you are a professional.
Its my body, I dont want people probing me and prodding me to see whats wrong…if anything. If I hurt, I hurt..do something about the pain and move on. Frequently I get these massive headaches that last for weeks at a time. I use togo to the doctors and they had me on all sorts of garbage. I hated it, this didnt work, that didnt work, try something else…guess what…I take 6 asprins every four hours…the headaches become small enough I can work…so I keep going…no more doctors.
Lawyers….LOL….you have to be joking….they are people just like us….so are the doctors and politicians for that matter….look…the only reason you go to see any of these people is because you dont understand what it is you are doing when it comes to their field. I have a suggetsion that might turn your readers on end…..LEARN
Education is a wonderful a thing. It will remove ignorance and allow you to trust yourself. The more you know the less reliant you will be on others…yes this includes lawyers, doctors and politicians. All of them want control over your choices so that they can get more from you with less. I DONT TRUST ANY OF THEM – politicians the most.
Now, I presume by the additional info that you are asking your question in the context of whom woudl I vote for to go nito office….OK…lets look at that for a second and see.
First there are supoposed to be three branches of government with check and balances between them. Since the lawyers have to take the bar, and the bar is part of the judicial branch – we arent suppposed to vote lawyers into office – so that lets them out.
Next, we have politicians – the system was set up so that people would be in office for a short time, return toi their communities and live wihtin the laws they made. So I think tow terms is fair. After that they need to be out of office so any politician inoffice greater then two terms is out of the question and shoudl not be voted back in.
That leaves the physicians – actually – any other “profession” besides lawyer would fit this billet just fine provided they were not in the same office for more then two terms. I can only presume that you asked physician because of Ron.
So yes, I would vote for the physician unless someone better suited came along. AT this point it looks like Ron. I havent heard anything from the libertarian party or the other parties yet so I dont know what all the choices are….to this point in time my vote lies with Ron.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I trust none of them! All are crooked and want only money and/or power. They are not concerned with any particular person and they do not have ethics in regard to their behaviors. Of the three mentioned, I believe physicians are the most wicked. Why, because like it or not, every one of us have to go to a doctor at one time or another. Those doctors screw the patient, their insurance company and the patient’s family. They also are extremely mean and unprofessional to the nurses that care for their patients in a hospital. In fact, they also force a nurse to lie to a patient and their families by saying “Did you speak with your doctor”. Believe me the nurse knows what that patient has before they even get to the hospital for care!
The other two, a human doesn’t have to directly deal with them in any form – unless the consider running the government as part of the need to have to deal with them.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Politicians are professional liars. They are the best at it. Lawyers are next. Physicians I think are mostly honest although many of them have ties to the drug industry. Today you sometimes have to be your own best lawyer and doctor. And sometimes you have to run for office. Ron Paul is an excellent candidate for President. He would make a big difference for politicians, doctors and lawyers.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:36 am
I don’t trust any of them. Of the 3, I suppose I could honestly say that I had a docotr once that I trusted.