Physicians should not be a privileged communityby admin on 04/03/2018 5:25 AM
Senator Mitch: Doesn’t it seem to you that there is wide-spread animosity towards physicians?
Senator Chuck: No more than what they deserve. They are making a fortune off our poor and unfortunate. So why should we feel sorry for them?
Senator Mitch: I would agree that they are a privileged community. But when you choose a physician, don’t you want to look up to him as being successful?
Senator Chuck: I don’t see it that way. I think they should grovel for survival just like the rest of us.
Senator Mitch: They shouldn’t have to work overtime to make ends meet? Shouldn’t they have a life style much as bankers and financial people? If they have to struggle to make ends meet, and you are scheduled to see one the next day, don’t you want him to be at his best? Don’t they make life and death decisions on a daily basis? When you see them, do you want them to make less that a best-informed decision about you?
Senator Chuck: They should be well trained and their decisions should be well informed and in the patient’s best interest.
Senator Mitch: Don’t you think there is a large amount of medical information that exceeds most physicians’ ability to have available for immediate recall?
Senator Chuck: Not if they are well trained.
Senator Mitch: When a proposal is presented to us, don’t we have a long discovery process, review by different experts and then our own review before we are ready to vote on it? Isn’t that what we were elected to do? To vet all laws that are presented to us?
Senator Chuck: That is just a formality. I think I could vote on most proposed laws on just my reading of the proposal.
Senator Mitch: But the public doesn’t think it’s that unimportant. I think many of the public think we vet these proposals thoroughly. I think Nancy Pelosi did us great harm when she said, “Let’s pass the Accountable Care Act so afterwards we can read it? Many of the people that believe we should follow the constitution have told me she should be impeached for malfeasance in office. She was elected to do due-diligence on anything she voted for. Her statement is prima-facie evidence that she did not do what she was elected to do.
Senator Chuck: The constitution is an ancient document and needs to be updated.
Senator Mitch: I think the constitution is one of the finest legal documents ever written and it has stood the test of time for two and a half centuries. No other country has such a stable document or stable existence as we have had.
Senator Chuck: Well, I think we are slowly revising it and updating it with the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Senator Mitch: The supreme court justices are appointed to interpret the existing law constitutionally—not make new laws.
Senator Chuck: Well, I think we are evolving into a more modern legal documents. I’m sure the leader in the House would agree.
Senator Mitch: Even if I agreed with you, how could it be upgraded in this hate filled political climate we’re in? Even if one side won after a heated debate, how could that represent the finest that could be rendered?
Senator Chuck: If it came to push versus shove, I think our side would win.
Senator Mitch: The fact that you’re referring to your side, which is epitomizing the liberal party could in no way represent the consensus.
Senator Chuck: It doesn’t have to represent the consensus. It just has to represent the modern, progressive, liberal opinion.
What is Congress Really Saying? Or do they even know what they are doing?