It's My Life ... !

ViRedd

New Member
It's My Life! A Doctor Has a Right to His Own Life
Wednesday, February 20, 2002
By: Jonathan Rosman, M.D.

A doctor has a right to work for himself, and to charge such fees as he deems his expertise to be worth.

When I came to the United States from South Africa as a young doctor 17 years ago, I was excited. I was leaving behind an oppressive, racist regime, and I was entering a country founded on the inviolable rights of an individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I did not expect to find a political system trying to enslave me.

Doctors in this country do not seem to have the same rights as other Americans. We are regarded as public servants who are expected to selflessly sacrifice our time and resources to satisfy the needs of our patients--that is, we are expected to be altruists. For example, emergency room specialists and anesthesiologists are already required to do pro bono work, and managed care and Medicare continually try to squeeze more effort out of us under increasingly oppressive bureaucratic oversight, for less and less reward.

Every doctor, like individuals in other jobs, has a right to work for himself and for his own enjoyment, and to make a ton of money at it if he can. As individuals, doctors have a right to offer their patients treatment according to their best judgment, and to charge such fees as they judge their expertise to be worth. Conversely, patients have the right to accept or reject our advice and services, and to shop around for the best deals they can get.

Having the right to your life does not guarantee health or medical treatment at the doctors' expense, but it does guarantee that every individual has the freedom to seek whatever treatment he wishes, according to his own judgment and his own means. Individual rights means the freedom to act within one's means; it does not mean an entitlement to the goods and services provided by others.

However, not only have American doctors been stripped of their professional freedom by all the various oversight agencies (which include licensing boards, the Health Care Financing Administration, managed care companies, peer review committees and more), but--more important--they have also been morally disarmed. Our intellectuals have taught doctors that need comes before ability, and that healthy and rich doctors have a duty to support sick and poor patients. They have taught doctors that the consumers of medical services (patients) are morally superior to the providers of medical services (doctors), just because the consumers are in need.

Bureaucrats have eagerly latched on to this altruistic idea, and have erected a maze of welfare laws and regulations to satisfy the needs of the poor and the sick, and to "protect" them from "greedy" doctors. Thanks to these controls, it has become very difficult for doctors to think or to act freely on their own judgment. And it is the best doctors, the most dedicated and those least ready to relinquish their independent judgment, who have been the first to leave the practice of medicine when doctors' rights were trampled on. Who will ultimately be left if this trend continues? To quote Dr. Hendricks in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, "Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."

To save American medicine, American doctors need to be saved from altruism. To accomplish this, doctors must vigorously challenge the invalid notion of a "right" to health care. Nobody has a right to an antibiotic made by someone else, just as he does not have a right to someone else's car.

Nobody has a right to have his gallbladder removed, just as he does not have a right to have his toilet fixed by a plumber. No one has a right to demand that a doctor treat him, but doctors do have rights, just as do auto workers and plumbers, to practice their profession (or trade) free from coercion.

To save themselves, doctors must proclaim openly that they refuse to regard themselves as anyone's servants. They should be left free to enjoy their careers as they see fit. It is important that as doctors we assert our moral right to be free. On the issue of their rights, doctors need to be inflexible and intransigent. They need to declare openly and loudly, "It's my life--hands off!"

Freedom is the dream that as a young doctor I was looking for 17 years ago. It is still possible to realize it today if we doctors defend our moral right to our lives.

Dr. Rosman, a psychiatrist in private practice in Pasadena, is a senior writer for theAyn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
 

medicineman

New Member
What about the patients freedom. He has the freedom to die if he can't afford the best treatment. Thats some choice. For a doctor to be able to make a great living, I have no qualms with! in a free market medical system where there was a national health care system, the great doctors could charge rich patients like "you" exorbitant prices for their services and still perform their services for the govt. mandated price for those whom could not afford it. The creme of doctors would rise to the top and only work on wealthy patients, thereby assuring the rich motherfuckers still got the best money could buy, but in the same instant, the poor motherfuckers would be assured some value of treatment. Aren't the doctors supposed to live by the hypocratic oath or something like it, instead of their accountants code! Come on Vi, look at the positive side of universal health care. Maybe they could help all the street crappers to find a better life and stop defecating on your pressious commute!
 

ViRedd

New Member
in a free market medical system where there was a national health care system, the great doctors could charge rich patients like "you" exorbitant prices for their services and still perform their services for the govt. mandated price for those whom could not afford it.

Any system whereby the government dictates prices is NOT a free market.

"Come on Vi, look at the positive side of universal health care. Maybe they could help all the street crappers to find a better life and stop defecating on your pressious commute!"

It would never happen Med. Liberal organizations like the ACLU and communists like you would complain that to round them up for medical care would be in violation of their right to shit on the sidewalk.

Vi

PS: "Pressious" is spelled Precious.
 

medicineman

New Member
in a free market medical system where there was a national health care system, the great doctors could charge rich patients like "you" exorbitant prices for their services and still perform their services for the govt. mandated price for those whom could not afford it.

Any system whereby the government dictates prices is NOT a free market.

"Come on Vi, look at the positive side of universal health care. Maybe they could help all the street crappers to find a better life and stop defecating on your pressious commute!"

It would never happen Med. Liberal organizations like the ACLU and communists like you would complain that to round them up for medical care would be in violation of their right to shit on the sidewalk.

Vi

PS: "Pressious" is spelled Precious.
You are incorrigible, wanking me on spelling. I don't spell check and anyway that was obviously a mistake. I type with 2 fingers but my fingers are so large sometimes I hit 2 keys at the same time. Look, A universal health care program is necessary and affordable if we give up some of our military budget, and stop the wars. If we left Afganistan and Iraq, the terrorists would calm down, then we could concentrate on making this country truly safer and a better place for all. We're always going to have the mentally disabled with us, my stepson is a schizophrenic, his is mostly controlled with medicine, but if he didn't have us, he would be a street rat. We sacrificed for him and made his life a lot easier. thank God we could afford to help him or he'd be on the streets, we bought him a condo and to help finance the place he has to have a couple of roommates which we picked from people we knew that were less fortunate than us, but good people, and they actually help with our son! Calling the mentally challenged crazy might be easy for you, and I can see humor in crazy, but there's no humor in having a relative that has that condition. You'd be surprised at how many schizophrenics there are. Some are just a little Bi-polar, and others like our son, are fucked up big time If he didn't have the family support as a lot of those you were referring to don't, he'd probably be dead by now. I don't understand people that act like you, you have no compassion for others, no ability feel what others must be going through. Do you ever look at someone less fortunate than you and think, "there but for the Grace of God goes me"! I'm starting to think you're a little psychopathic!
 

ViRedd

New Member
"If we left Afganistan and Iraq, the terrorists would calm down"

Oh, really Med? And were they "calmed down" when they flew the planes into the Trade Centers and the Pentagon? To my knowledge we wern't in Afganistan or Iraq prior to 9-11.

"but if he didn't have us, he would be a street rat. We sacrificed for him and made his life a lot easier. thank God we could afford to help him or he'd be on the streets, we bought him a condo and to help finance the place he has to have a couple of roommates which we picked from people we knew that were less fortunate than us, but good people, and they actually help with our son! Calling the mentally challenged crazy might be easy for you, and I can see humor in crazy, but there's no humor in having a relative that has that condition."

What? No mention of how you needed the federal government to step in? You have reacted to your son's needs in exactly the way you should have ... with personal responsibility. If you didn't have the resources, then you could have turned to family, then friends, then private charity ... and then to your church. If all of that failed, then perhaps local government could have helped. You live in Nevada ... please explain how your son's ailment should be paid for by someone who lives in Tennessee. Thanks ...

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
"If we left Afganistan and Iraq, the terrorists would calm down"

Oh, really Med? And were they "calmed down" when they flew the planes into the Trade Centers and the Pentagon? To my knowledge we wern't in Afganistan or Iraq prior to 9-11.

"but if he didn't have us, he would be a street rat. We sacrificed for him and made his life a lot easier. thank God we could afford to help him or he'd be on the streets, we bought him a condo and to help finance the place he has to have a couple of roommates which we picked from people we knew that were less fortunate than us, but good people, and they actually help with our son! Calling the mentally challenged crazy might be easy for you, and I can see humor in crazy, but there's no humor in having a relative that has that condition."

What? No mention of how you needed the federal government to step in? You have reacted to your son's needs in exactly the way you should have ... with personal responsibility. If you didn't have the resources, then you could have turned to family, then friends, then private charity ... and then to your church. If all of that failed, then perhaps local government could have helped. You live in Nevada ... please explain how your son's ailment should be paid for by someone who lives in Tennessee. Thanks ...

Vi
In this regard all I can say to you is Fuck you you sniveling reprobate, may you roast in Hell!
 

ViRedd

New Member
"In this regard all I can say to you is Fuck you you sniveling reprobate, may you roast in Hell!"

Ah yes ... the mind of a liberal/communist in full force! When backed into a corner with all of your assertions laid bare for what they are ... nothing but hate, envy, jealousy, greed and hot air, just resort to personal attacks. Med ... you are so typical of your breed ... and so very transparent. A pox on ya.

Vi
 
I guess Rossman didnt have to take the Hippocratic Oath in South Africa, but he clearly WAS educated under apartheid. Ayn Rand my ass....its all about greed...narcissism....and the perpetuation of social and economic inequality. We, as citizens, have a right not to be fed poisonous food, not to drink poisoned water or contaminated milk....to be prescribed medications that are safe and effective. We can thank government for protecting us from these dangers. All these things comprise the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that the founding fathers of the American democracy had in mind. Yes...healthcare IS right for all citizens of the US, Canda...and most European and Latin American countries. Rossman is an embarassment to the practice of medicine...and as a physician...I am disgusted by his greed and self-centeredness.
 

ViRedd

New Member
...and as a physician...I am disgusted by his greed and self-centeredness.
And as a "Physician," do you have a private practice where you have to meet a payroll, pay for the lights, heat, air conditioning, the staples, stapler, copy machine, toner, paper, the accountant's fee, the attorney's fee, your own malpractice insurance ... OR, do you work for a corporation, like one who has a chain of clinics. In other words, are you in business for yourself, or just an employee?

And please point out where in the hypocratic oath it says that you must subject yourself to submit to government bureaucrats holding a gun to your head in order to FORCE you to comply with their wishs as THEY see fit.

Who owns you?
 
No actually...I dont have a private practice...I work for the Feds...providing health care to the neediest members of society...the people you think have no rights to healthcare or any other public assistance. Its my choice. No government bureaucrat forced me into it. Its why I become a doc...instead of getting an MBA and being a banker or a worker in that outta control free market called Wall Street. U see...altruism is what makes human society work as a functional entity...unlike the "Lord of the Flies" vision promoting by Rossman, Ayn Rand and I guess you. Everyone for themselves doesnt make life better for anyone. I own me....and my own choices have changed and improved the lives of many people. Can you say that?
 
No actually...I dont have a private practice...I work for the Feds...providing health care to the neediest members of society...the people you think have no rights to healthcare or any other public assistance. Its why I become a doc...instead of getting an MBA and being a banker. U see...altruism is what makes human society work..unlike the "Lord of the Flies" vision promoting by Rossman...Ayn Rand and I guess you.
I agree they have no right to public assistance or medical care, however I hope everyone in need of help is provided it. The only difference between us is that I'm not willing to force people to help at the point of a gun like you are. The reason people have no right to these things is because in order for them to have that "right" you must infringe upon other peoples rights. BTW If the government wasn't taxing the shit out of us many more people would be helped because people would have a lot more money. I agree with you altruism does make society work, but altruism itself is usually selfish. People help other because they benefit from it. They feel good about what they are doing which is the benefit they receive, rather than a monetary benefit. Gandhi understood this that why he said " "I am here to serve myself only, to find my own self-realization through the service of others." There have been psychological studies on this subject if you want to research it further.
 
I agree they have no right to public assistance or medical care, however I hope everyone in need of help is provided it. .
....and that help will come from...whom? Tea Party assholes who throw dollar bills at patients with Parkinson's Disease and spit on the sick and frail? Or...friends and family are going to be able to put together $100,000 so that the cancer patient living next door can get chemo? Maybe it will be our friends in the insurance industry that will pay...the same ones that cancel your health policy once you get sick?

The argument of government taxation being excessive is another myth. The real problem is that the last Repug administration shifted the tax burden from the wealthiest Americans (who can afford to be taxed), to those who can least afford it. The rich in this country generally pay NO taxes...you and I...on the other hand cant afford the taxes we pay. And if you lived in Canada, England, France, Italy or Germany...you would get full health care coverage for your tax burden....but not here. Here the rich get the lowest taxation...and the best healthcare benefts. Good luck....and stay healthy!!!!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Nick ...

Do you see a difference between Altruism and voluntary charity?

Altruism is the assumption that a person lives for the purpose of giving to others. The assumption that one doesn't have the rights to the fruit of one's own labors. There is NO right to health care. As pointed out above, if government bestows a right, health care for example, the only way to bestow that right, is to violate the rights of another citizen. If you were to personally force me, under threat, to provide for someone else's health care, that would be criminal and immoral, correct? Why then, do you assume when government is the "forcer," it somehow becomes righteous, noncriminal and moral?

And by the way, I'm not surprised that you are not self employed. I went to a lecture a month or so ago where there were nine doctors on stage. Eight of the doctors had private practices and were against Obama care and one was for it. The one for it was a simple employee who hadn't a clue how to run a private practice.

Each of the eight said outright that if Obama care passed, they would have to start turning Medicare patients away because the cost per patient vs compensation would be prohibitive. In other words, they would lose money on each and every Medicare patient. Would your answer be to force the doctors to work for nothing? Or would you have government force the closeure of medical practices and have all doctors work for the government as you do? Where is the charity in your position?
 
....and that help will come from...whom? Tea Party assholes who throw dollar bills at patients with Parkinson's Disease and spit on the sick and frail? Or...friends and family are going to be able to put together $100,000 so that the cancer patient living next door can get chemo? Maybe it will be our friends in the insurance industry that will pay...the same ones that cancel your health policy once you get sick?
Help will come from people willing to help, rather than being forced to help. Before WWII there were numerous private charities that helped the needy. After WWII, the number of private charities diminished as welfare started to increase. In the absence of government force I have faith in my fellow man that many peoples medical needs will be met. There are several good books on private vs public charity that are very good. A couple I would reccommend are David Beito's book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State and Henry Hazlitt's books, The Conquest of Poverty and Man vs. The Welfare State.

Also, if it wasn't for the FDAs rigorous, costly process to develop new medicine and medical technology medical treatment would be much cheaper. The AMAs monopoly on certifying doctors also drives the price of medical care up. There is a reason that medical tourism exists. Also, the ridiculously long patents the government grants to pharm companies also increase the cost of medicine much higher than it should be.

The argument of government taxation being excessive is another myth. The real problem is that the last Repug administration shifted the tax burden from the wealthiest Americans (who can afford to be taxed), to those who can least afford it. The rich in this country generally pay NO taxes...you and I...on the other hand cant afford the taxes we pay. And if you lived in Canada, England, France, Italy or Germany...you would get full health care coverage for your tax burden....but not here. Here the rich get the lowest taxation...and the best healthcare benefts. Good luck....and stay healthy!!!!
The argument that government taxation is excessive is not a myth. The real problem is that the government taxes and spends way to much money. I agree with you the last administration was horrible, but this problem started way before the war criminals Bush and Cheney took office. Your right the rich often don't pay taxes, which is bullshit, but that is a problem, but it is not the problem. The real problem is that the government is far to intrusive and spends way to much money. I do find it ironic though that you want to tax the shit out of the rich, who are the ones that typically give the most to charities.
 
"Altruism is the assumption that a person lives for the purpose of giving to others. The assumption that one doesn't have the rights to the fruit of one's own labors. "

Actually...thats not true. Altruism is an ethical doctrine that individuals have a moral obligation to help serve or benefit the lives of others. It has nothing to do with the fruits of anyones labors.



"There is NO right to health care. As pointed out above, if government bestows a right, health care for example, the only way to bestow that right, is to violate the rights of another citizen."

Yeah...kinda like civil rights...where equal rights laws were forced upon you because people with your ideology dont want those "other" people to have any rights and you prefer that they be treated in a sub-human fashion.

Let's examine the kind of right that are being taken away from you in health care reform? The right to NEVER being denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition? Damn...thats bad. The right NOT to have your insurance policy denied once you get sick? Yeah...you should be up in arms about that. The right to participate in an insurance pool if you fall into a high risk group making insurance too expensive? I say..."Pick up your pitch forks and head to Washington..its Tea Party time."


"If you were to personally force me, under threat, to provide for someone else's health care, that would be criminal and immoral, correct? Why then, do you assume when government is the "forcer," it somehow becomes righteous, noncriminal and moral?"

First, because we live in a democracy. That means if 50.9999% of our legislators vote for something...the majority rules. And the majority in both houses of Congress voted for health care reform. I might add..that the majority of Americans voted for Obama because they wanted him to be President and he ran on health care reform. If you cant handle majority rule...then you cant handle living in a democracy. Maybe you would like a King better?

"And by the way, I'm not surprised that you are not self employed. In other words, they would lose money on each and every Medicare patient.
Would your answer be to force the doctors to work for nothing?" the government as you do? Where is the charity in your position?"


This of course is complete bullshit. Medicare payments are based upon relative costs measured around the U.S. for given medical procedures and then adjusted by regional cost factors. What those doctors really meant is that they would not be as rich if they had to live on Medicare payments. Awww...too bad...I guess they can afford only one Lexus. Frankly...if they went into medicine to be rich...I have no respect for them. They are simply medical whores.


Tell me about your health insurance. What are you gonna do when you have a heart attack at 40 or get cancer? I bet you have great health insurance now...not like the 47,000 Americans who die each year for lack of insurance.
 
First, because we live in a democracy. That means if 50.9999% of our legislators vote for something...the majority rules. And the majority in both houses of Congress vote
Your wrong we don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. There is a huge difference. In a republic the government is suppose to be constrained by a constitution. The founders created a republic because democracy is just mob rule. Well i guess you are right we do live in a democracy since the constitution meant to constrain government was thrown out the window long ago. Down with individual rights, long live mob rule.
 

PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1

Well-Known Member
I think there will be less "Outbreak's if more people are treated",,,,It seem's a lot of crazy ass diseases are around in the last decade. Some one like you and me has to take control of the "Virus"!!!! Instead of spreading the disease!
 
"Help will come from people willing to help, rather than being forced to help. Before WWII there were numerous private charities that helped the needy."

Dutch....if you want pre WWII medicine...step right up. They had only one antibiotic...DNA hadnt been discovered yet...no MRI machines....no CT scans...and polio was epidemic. On the other hand, if you want 21st Century health care...its technology driven...and much too expensive for charities to cover universally...without rationing. Hope you got your H1N1 vaccine...cause under your scheme...the Red Cross wont have money for it later.

"In the absence of government force I have faith in my fellow man that many peoples medical needs will be met."

Yes...I am sure that the insurance companies will do the right thing for people in the absence of government regulations. The free market is already demonstrating how caring the corporations are.....despite record profits...they continue to deny coverage and deny payments to those with expensive health needs.

"Also, if it wasn't for the FDAs rigorous, costly process to develop new medicine and medical technology medical treatment would be much cheaper."

...and half the medications you are taking would be either toxic or ineffective. Cheap medicine that doesnt work...or makes u sicker...thats what this country needs!!

" The AMAs monopoly on certifying doctors also drives the price of medical care up. "

The AMA has nothing to do with certifying MDs. Only about 40% of docs are members of the AMA. I'm not a member..although I am licensed to practice in three states. That's a major misconception.

"Also, the ridiculously long patents the government grants to pharm companies also increase the cost of medicine much higher than it should be."


Patents for medications last 7 years, and under special circumstances renewed once. I agree that big pharma is a problem in the way they charge for medications...but 7 years isnt ridiculously long. If you patented an invention that you developed...how long a patent would you find to be reasonable? would you be happy with 7 years of patent protection?


"The real problem is that the government taxes and spends way to much money. I agree with you the last administration was horrible, but this problem started way before the war criminals Bush and Cheney took office. Your right the rich often don't pay taxes, which is bullshit, but that is a problem, but it is not the problem. The real problem is that the government is far to intrusive and spends way to much money. "

54% of our budget goes to fund the military and national defense....the two overt wars...started by the Bush administration..and the covert was in Pakistan started by the Obama administration. Instead of spending billions on education, healthcare, public infrastructure, and other things to improve the quality of life of Americans...we spend it on war. This isnt the way I want the government to spend my tax dollars...but...its not up to me. I still have to pay taxes. Its not that it is too much...but...I view it as being misallocated. Intrusive? I disagree...not intrusive enough...they let the banks get away with amazing shit...they let Wall Street go wild. Regulations were not enforced in order to benefit the corporations...they came very close to bankrupting the whole country.

By the way...you are also incorrect about the who gives most to charity. I wish it was the rich...but in truth...it is the middle and lower classes that are the mainstay of most charitable organizations. We are fooled into thinking its the rich..because they show up in the media ...dressed in tuxedos...and paying $500k a plate at charity dinners. But that isnt where most of the money comes from.
 
Top