Nothing better to do?  

Nice use of tax payers money. For crying out loud, he is still a private practice... for now.

overwith - Both the article and this post said: His spokesman, Jurkowski, told FoxNews.com that at least one person followed the instructions on the sign and there could have been more.

"I think a reasonable person would deemed that being turned away," Jurkowski said.

I am curious, flashing back to our history - if there were a "WHITES ONLY" sign and I was Black and I attempted to enter that establishment, was I supposed to naturally assume that WHITES ONLY actually meant "all blacks are welcome."

Because, apparently, this sign, saying that if you voted for Obama, and to seek medical care elsewhere, as this doctor is enforcing changes now, seems to have meant, "if you voted for Obama, come on in." Somehow I missed that.

---

laglen - this is an appropriate use of tax payers money, seeing that the doctor upholds his professional obligation which means he can not refuse service based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political preference.

I'm with you, Spall, and thanks so much for providing some information from close to where the "good" doctor practices! I'd have exactly the same fears you described.

Annie

I understand that point. But I still believe that he is within his rights. He stated that he would still provide care and that this came about as he was trying to educate his patients. I understand the scare, and that is not good. However, he is not asking people who they voted for.

Legally he is within his right but, ethically, that's another story. Personally, if that old lady that I saw on the news had been my grandmother worrying about my grandfather's care because of this man's "statement", I would have given him an earful for scaring them like that.

I would say find a new doctor that wont scare them.

laglen, please don't think that I'm picking on you but I want you to take another look at your last comment.

"find a new doctor that won't scare them."

Are you suggesting that it's okay for a doctor to scare his patients for ANY reason unrelated to their personal medical care? That it's acceptable and they should just go away afterwards because he has no obligations to them? We're not talking about a barber, an auto mechanic or a plumber...we're talking about a DOCTOR...someone you put your trust and faith in.

There have been many versions of the Hippocratic Oath throughout history but they all express the same sentiments...a pledge made by physicians to care for the patient to the best of their ability. A physician does not have customers or clients, he has patients and, as such, he has a special relationship with them and an ethical obligation not to intentionally hurt any of them.

No Spall and after I read it, I saw how you took it. I did not mean that it is ok for doctors to scare their patients.
I do understand the importance of doctor trust. That is where my confusion comes in. How well do they know their doctor? I take care of my father, I handle his doctor appointments, I am in the room even through check ups. Dad is blind and hard of hearing. He lived a hard 73 years and is paying for it now. But we have a good relationship with his doctors. I keep asking myself, if the shoe was on the other foot. If his doctor was a crazy liberal (not likely) how would I feel? The doctors he has now, I would not have a problem. We trust who we see. If there ever was a time that Dad felt threatened or even that his concerns were not being addressed, we would change doctors. I dont like the idea of hopping docs because I think you get better care once they know you and your body. We talk with the older folks at church and about their doctors. If somebody at our church is having trouble, we all come together and help them find a new doctor. There are a couple of ladies from church that I give rides to. If I thought they were too nervous, or threatened, I would step in.
I dont know if that explained my stance at all.

Yes, laglen, you have and if you continue to think about the situation with Dr. Cassell, you will find that you most likely have the same feelings that I have but you're so stuck on a political stance that shouldn't even be part of the equation, that you either refuse to or are hesitant to admit it. As you know, since you take care of your father and have close relationships with other elderly members of your community, they can become scared fairly easily because they're vulnerable. You and I are in agreement about the importance of trusting your doctor, not only for your peace of mind in general but also to help you make important medical decisions. Especially when it comes to specialists. Not all elderly patients have someone advocating on their behalf like your father has. They go it alone so, if someone causes them upset in some way, they are forced to deal with that alone, too.

Politics does not belong in the doctor/patient relationship. A doctor should not discuss his political views with a patient, even if the patient brings the subject up. The same holds for religious beliefs. Irish mentioned that her doctor refused to prescribe birth control for religious reasons. That is fine because no doctor should be forced to do something they find morally objectionable, however, in that case a specific request was made by the patient and a doctor does have the ethical right to refuse and to inform the patient of the reason. A doctor telling a patient that he/she does not provide birth control services is far removed from a doctor telling all of his patients that he would prefer not to treat specific ones at all because of their political beliefs. Would you still support this if the doctor had posted a sign saying that he no longer wished to treat patients based on their religious beliefs? Or ethnic backgrounds? "If you're a Jew, seek urologic care elsewhere."..."If you're hispanic, seek urologic care elsewhere."

I don't think anyone likes doctor hopping and no one should be made to feel that they have to based on something that has nothing to do with their care. The elderly lady I saw on the news...as well as her sick husband...shouldn't be forced to deal with a doctor's political views. When it comes to the doctor/patient relationship a physician is supposed to be focused ONLY on the patient. You say that you would step in if one of the people you assist were made to feel nervous or threatened when it comes to their medical care. If the reason for their upset was due to similar actions by a specialist they had been seeing for years in your area, would your opinion and actions change because it's a political issue? I know from what you've shared thus far that you know how elderly people can be. The elderly members of my family love to talk and repeat themselves often. Can all of Dr. Cassell's elderly patients who voted for Obama be confident that he's not aware of that fact or do they have a legitimate reason to be nervous around him since he took this stand...a stand against a specific group of his patients?

Spall, I agree with about 90% of what you are saying. BUT like it or not, it still is legal to be an a55. I understand seniors and their fears. But even if they have no family, there is church, there are PLENTY of orgs to help, how about neighbors? We have gotten so stinkin sunk in our "government" always rescuing. Why arent we helping eachother with out being told by big brother to do it. I bet the person that did go away, would have gotten a lot more done talking to his neighbors then with a congressman. I understand your issue with the political side to this and that I agree. It should not be there. HOWEVER our mighty United States Government just did it!

pike, he never said he wouldnt treat people. He doesnt ask their political affiliation and if people want to change providers, they are welcome to.

The first part of his sign reads "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere....." Now that sounds to me like he doesn't want to treat such people.

He has not turned any body away and does not ask his patients who they voted for or what their stance is on the health care reform.

If I had a clubhouse that said "No Laglen's allowed", would you consider that reason enough to come on in and see if Laglens were allowed?

lmao hell yeah! Or I would just find a new clubhouse.

irish - wow the smartest idea I have heard yet! thank you

Just common sense.

Irish, you are an example of the free market system. Beautiful thing! And what do you know, you used it right!

Brava, Irish! You go, Gal! THAT is the correct way to do it! Why can't everyone get that?

Maggiepie
GOD IS LOVE. Love is never easy.

The doctor's professional obligation makes it so that he can not refuse service based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or political preference. That was actually stated in the video on the article that laglen posted. Are you all missing that part?

Who did he refuse to see? You have to prove he refused to see someone because of his politics.

irish - read the article. The sign did it for him. People were turned away by having the ability to read. They saw the sign which said Obama voters were to seek medical attention elsewhere.

Irish, do you believe it would be ethical for a physician to post a sign on his door that said, "If you are a Jew, seek urologic care elsewhere." because of his political views regarding the situation between Israel and the palestinians?

If I have a sign that says "I shot the Sheriff" - should I go to prison for shooting the sheriff? (sorry for some stupid reason that song just popped in my head)

laglen, if the sheriff was really shot, I want you to be framed!

Irish, I too had similar question. If your doctor says, "I can't treat your cancer because you are Jew', you may go seek another one. But it doesn't mean the doctor is doing the right thing.

And as I asked in my box, what constitutes the proof?

hora - well if I was carrying the sign then I guess you can frame me! :) I think the proof they will site, is one person read the sign and left

One person read the sign and left, and spoke with his representative. Not everyone who read the sign and left spoke with their representative.

That you know. and that you are assuming

In this case, it would suffice to say.

ya know what the problem is here? we both insist on getting the last word! LMFAO This just better make me more money here!

Seems I must refrain from pinching in, but one person comes forward, claims he was affected and the doctor is done! Why not simply change the sign?

I think the doctor wont. He stands by what he says

You want to criticize the new law. Criticize it if it's a free country. You want people to take notice. Go ahead. But why pointing at people themselves?

"Because of you so and so made this rule!"-- Seems ineffective in convincing the people about flaws of the rule...

I don't like the doctor now. He writes what he doesn't mean and says what he didn't write, acts in contrast to his own written words. The only things he does in accordance is standing and saying i.e. stands by what he says :P

God bless him

I am not quite sure what youre saying. He isnt saying that it is the patients fault. He is telling them what is coming with the new reform.

He is NOT telling them what is coming with the new reform. He is telling them what the GOP is telling them is coming with the new reform which couldn't be further than the truth.

I think what hora is trying to say (I won't speak for him) is that, if this doctor truly believes telling him about obamacare's timeline is important, great. Make a sign that says, "I will tell you about Obamacare." There was no need for such a dramatic and divisive sign.

Thanks lady :)

All my doubts got cleared, all my points established, I should better shut off now. Only this one is remaining:

From the start of this discussion to the end of it(I think in infinity) my problem remains with THE SIGN. People here say he is discriminating, and you repeat he is NOT turning away anyone. Both seem to be correct. He is not turning anyone away yet he hints he don't want them to be his patients. All this just because of that stupid message. Why is he even defending it?

laglen, as I mentioned he says something he didn't write. And people are not objecting to what he does or what he says, they are objecting to that discrimination in the sign. And that is a discrimination. If he meant to inform them about this new health care, he should propose it in appropriate manner. How can you converse with you who is 'seeking someone else'?

Whether his opinion is right or not doesn't concern me for obvious reasons. I'm not covered by this. Whether that is relevant to this discussion you decide, you are the OP. I will RIP.

The attacking part I referred is in the sign. But again he says that not. OMG

If he meant not to treat any Obama voters he would have asked who they voted for. He didn't nor did he turn anyone away. He used his first amendment rights and until you can show me the law that says doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. don't have first amendment right according to the Constitution-I stand by what I said.

He was not breaking the law. They know this, they are going with the warm fuzzy, he was "threatening" his patients, I just dont see it.

I am going to ask this ONE more time, laglen.

Can you point to me, on this sign, which part said, "If you voted for Obama, come on in?" I only saw the part about "If you voted for Obama, seek service elsewhere. Changes in your healthcare start now."

Can you point to me, on this sign, which part said, "If you voted for Obama, come on in?
I dont recall ever saying that. Please show me where I said that.
"If you voted for Obama, seek service elsewhere. Changes in your healthcare start now."
Still do not see a threat. I see a suggestion or even a direction. A threat would be, if you voted for obama, I will shove my scalpel (insert body part here).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threat
Main Entry: 1threat
Pronunciation: \'thret\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English threat coercion; akin to Middle High German droz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust
Date: before 12th century

1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

where is the expression of intention to inflict evil, injury or damage?

I am going to try this a different way, because somehow I can't penetrate your blinders.

I have tried saying that a "whites only" sign would not make a black person feel welcome enough to approach, and that was lost on you.

I have tried saying I would have a clubhouse saying "No Laglen's allowed" and that would not make you feel welcome enough to approach, and that, too, went over your head.

So, I will use a real-life example that happened to me. I go canvassing when I do my volunteer work. In one instance, it was to raise donations for Defenders of Wildlife, on a campaign to save dolphins from the tuna nets. We would go door to door. If there is a sign that says "No solicitors", I would not approach.

I would walk on by. There may have been a chance that the person would have agreed with the cause and wanted to donate, but the initial perception given to me was to "GO AWAY".

In this case with the doctor, there are two major issues that were very wrong and purely unethical. The doctor had hoped to inflict damage, by teaching his patients that healthcare would be limited in the future. That was his whole excuse as to the whole sign thing - he wanted to teach his patients that they would have no healthcare ten years from now, so they better get used to it. Trying to refute me on that tosses your entire argument away. He wanted to cause them immediate damage, so as to reinforce what the bill would allegedly do in a decade.

That was issue one. Issue two, these people pay him money. The entrust their lives and very personal information with him. That doctor's professional obligation was to see his patients and offer them proper care, without first issuing a sign that would effectively result in some not approaching, which, your post listed, at least one did. That said, they should also be given proper information from their doctor. Not propaganda, but actual, legitimate information. This doctor inferred that a timeline said they would not be able to have medical care in the near future, which is simply not true.

His patients rely on him for accurate information, much like the public relies on the media for accurate information. Not all of them will have read the bill or the timeline, but this doctor was dead wrong, because this bill makes it so people have extended and improved coverage. He may have not favoured the bill for whatever reason, but, being in his profession, his job was to be truthful with his patients, and he was not.

And Bug plays the race card.

Irish - I did no such thing. I am citing examples of how signs work, and what people do when they see those signs. Don't be foolish. I know, when it comes to you, that is hard, but, just try this time.

You played the race card. Insulting me isn't going to change that. Maybe you should eat some rare meat or something. It might help.

No soliciting means no soliciting. You were right to not go there.
Your sign analogy was not lost on me, I answered to it. If I felt unwelcome, I would not go there. That is really quite easy. And yes, I have been in that situation.


The doctor had hoped to inflict damage, by teaching his patients that healthcare would be limited in the future.
lmao!!! That is a very cute statement - Oh no! ouch. You clearly have never been threatened! Or I am in a very rough neighborhood.
and their health care being limited is not his doing!
You will have to do better than that. Actually lady, I think for the sake of memory space on the internet, we should agree to disagree on this issue.

Irish - I did not play the race card. You are very sadly confused. Not trying to insult you, but I think you may be inebriated based on the comment you made to me in the other thread.

You are on a thin line suggesting I played the race card.

Laglen - I am not ready to stalemate, and I am not done responding to your questions.

You said, "If I felt unwelcome, I would not go there. That is really quite easy."

If a doctor had a sign that said, "If you voted for Obama, seek medical care elsewhere. Changes to healthcare start now," that would make a lot of patients who voted for Obama feel unwelcome, and they would not go there. That is really quite easy.

Which proved my point, so, thank you for that.

You defined "threat" (even though I never used that word) as "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage". I clearly showed that the doctor's so called intention was to teach his patients that they would lose their medical care because of the bill that passed. (That is his justification for such a crude sign). So, we have to go with that.

And, I will have to do this step by step because somehow this is bouncing right off you.

1. The doctor put a sign saying "If you voted for Obama, seek medical care elsewhere. Changes to healthcare start now."
2. At least one person felt unwelcome and did not go there. It was really quite easy.
3. The doctor got in trouble for this, and a lot of negative publicity.
4. He quickly comes up with the argument that he wanted to show them what they can expect in ten years, given all the changes that this bill will impose, suggesting that they will lose medical care and this sign telling them they were not welcome, actually meant they were welcome and to come in and discuss the long-term timeline of obamacare.
5. His intention was for them to feel the impact of losing medical care (which would inflict damage) now, instead of ten years from now when Obamacare is fully enacted.

Some commenters on this thread have even given him kudos, suggesting they better get used to it now.

Saying that he never intended to inflict damage in terms of loss of medical care with that sign, throws out his miserable excuse for making such a sign.

Mylot still hasn't put the ability to edit in the post. I know I worded it wrong. You aren't worth correcting it for. The minute you mentioned blacks you played the race card.

No, Irish. I did not.

And, this, my friends, is why we have people saying members of the tea party and conservatives are not playing with a full deck.

Whatever, bug. You're definitely not worth using the whole deck for.

I rest my case.

Actually in your case only a card or two is necessary.

Laglen, you certainly are an odd fish. I almost had ya and now here you are flipping in a completely different direction.

"He was not breaking the law. They know this, they are going with the warm fuzzy, he was "threatening" his patients, I just dont see it."

I really wish I could post a video link to the interview our local news did with that nice old lady who was scared for her husband now because they're not sure if he EVER MENTIONED who he voted for to the "good" doctor. It would really make you and Irish see the fear this man instilled....but it's not available online...I looked. The old man doesn't want to go to a new urologist....Lord knows what's wrong with him. I don't know why it's so hard for folks to admit that this doctor's actions were hurtful to some innocent people. It's not a simple matter of what is legal and what his rights are. Legally, I can go out on my deck and fire off a few rounds (it's after midnight here) but that would scare my grandchildren who are sleeping nextdoor so, while I am within my rights to do it...it's morally wrong for me to unnecessarily scare little children. I don't expect you guys to get it but some of us see this issue in an entirely different light.

Some people panic over nothing, Spall. It doesn't take much to push them over the edge at all.

I agree, Irish...especially when they're old and sick. Does that make it okay?

Wait! Don't answer that! Reread my last line above and let's leave it at that. If you had seen her you might think differently...or not...but it's not a requirement that everyone agree on everything at all times here. That would definitely be boring!

That doctor is such a liar.

Part of the hipocratic oath says, "I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm."

While that doesn't mention politics, the AMA Code of Ethics does:

"Under no circumstances should physicians allow their differences with patients or their families about political matters to interfere with the deliver of high-quality professional care."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDia2d8GTXM

And, then, in the link below, you will see what lies the doctor is telling those is is trying to "educate". And, scarily, a slightly whacky representative has more compassion in this matter than people who claim to be patriots concerned about their citizens, and some of the people who have posted in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En-um_ygAsc

So you agree with the Hippocratic oath as long as it suits your purpose and doesn't include the part about not helping a woman with an abortion. Compassion? But you think it's all right to murder a baby at the whim of the mother. You're the last person who should be complaining about people not be compassionate.
When did he refuse to treat anyone? When did he turn anyone away? If he had a sign that said "Free abortions, come on in" you'd be applauding him.

lmao Irish, this is exactly what I have been trying to hammer in! Good luck.

Irish –

Throughout our discourse together over mylot, you have painted me to be some baby killer who eats her own young. You should actually read my post about abortion – I am actually on the moderate side about it, favouring prevention to abortion, and I support adoption, but ultimately I leave the difficult decision to the woman or girl carrying the fetus.

If a gynecologist had a sign that said, “If you are prochoice, seek a pap smear elsewhere”, that, too, would be highly unethical.

On the flipside, if a gynecologist had a sign that said, “If you are anti-choice, seek a pap smear elsewhere”, that, too, would be highly unethical.

If you have children, I really feel sorry for them. When did I say you were a baby killer? When did I accuse you of eating your young? You really need to see someone about your problem or eat a rare steak. I think being a vegan has made you deficient in many areas. Take some B12 or something. Eat some protein. Your mental health will thank you.
Your head just keeps spinning doesn't, bug and you just don't get any wiser. There is no hope for you and I'm frankly tired of your idiocy.

Thanks for the best response, that ought to piss off a certain bug. I really hope it does.

lmao I just wanted it to stop!

Irish - At least laglen admitted she only gave you the best response because she just wanted it to stop, not that you really earned one. Oddly, I don't really pay much mind to the best responses. Everyone interprets each response differently.

I eat half my body weight in vegetable protein, and, strangely, I happened to do some research on what supplements I should take since I was going to change my lifestyle. You seem to act as if how I eat is a vulnerability for me.

Am I supposed to sink to your level and act as junior high as you and honestly tell you I think you are a few sandwiches shy of a picnic? If I don't act as immature as you, you assume that it is a victory for you.

Unfortunately, the posts where you called me a cannibalistic cockroach have been deleted. It seems some people on mylot were offended by you constantly being that rude to me. I do have the link to the discussion where you acknowledge having called me a cannibalistic cockroach. But, I don't have that exact post, because it was deleted due to abuse guidelines.

http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/2280154.aspx

Irish - I am beginning to think psychoses may run in your family.

And, Irish - I do want to remind you. You are pro-choice yourself.

And, in case you require proof of that:


http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/2287406.aspx

Amidst your saying how ungodly it is to scrape a baby from the womb, you also said,

“No, I'm not opposed to the morning after pill for those who wish to use it. I'm not even against the idea of an abortion if that's what a person wants. The pro-life stance I take is my personal choice, not one I force upon others.”

Actually, I gave Irish the BR because I thought hers was. I was admitting I was closing the discussion early because I just wanted it to stop. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I see your point, but I really do not know what he is supposed to do about it. That doctor has rights too. It is a private practice.

Even private practices are required to adhere to laws regarding public accommodation and professional ethics. The things he can do about it are:

1) Ask the appropriate authorities to determine whether the Doctor has stepped over legal or ethical lines.
2) Put the Doctor on notice that it is incumbent on him to keep within the bounds of law and ethics.
3) Provide his constituents with contact information regarding the Doctor's competitors to whom they can take their business if the signage is merely distasteful instead of illegal or unethical.

Oh, yes:

4) Express the disapproval of his constituents regarding the Doctor's behavior.

so, he should call up the good doctor and say "I do not approve"? hhmm that IS useful

And some folks think there's nothing funny in politics. Hee!

Maggiepie
GOD IS LOVE. Love is never easy.

oh Maggie, I would NEVER say that! I laugh EVERY DAY! what people call justice or equality or even better - civil servant~!

LOL! Yeah, me too. I love to laugh more than nearly anything, & virtually every day I get to guffaw in MyLot--but especially in political discussions!

Maggiepie
GOD IS LOVE. Love is never easy.

But I wonder what exactly Grayson is supposed to do about it

Grayson is going too see to it that the doctor upholds his professional obligations, otherwise, I assume proper consequences will follow.

Considering what Grayson has been up to, he might just want to worry about his own professional obligations.

sorry, that was snarky, I understand he is trying to help his constituents.

Thank you for responding and it seems you are not alone.

ok, but this discussion was about a doctor and a sign he has in his office.

Laglen - The doctor was using his sign, evidently, as a talking piece. An interest creating device so that he may educate his patients about Obamacare.

In the same respect, jmowreader was using this discussion about a sign which is actually meant to spark conversation and education, to also educate, on both Obamacare and GOPcare. It works for the doctor, so, I think a mylotter can also let it work for them.

then he can start his own stinkin discussion. I am not the only person with that button.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

ok, well flinstone vitamins are related too, but that is a different discussion. I am trying to keep MY discussion on topic.

Though I would not have said in similar words, still what laglen said is true. The post here is related to the original one at 90 degrees if not already irrelevant. A discussion must have a direction. It's not an explosion of all kind of ideas.

What jmowreader posted here is quite valid but it must be in some other discussion. The doctor used HIS sign to project his idea.

Let me redraw the analogy, step by step.

1. A doctor puts up a sign saying "If you voted for Obama, seek medical care elsewhere. Your changes in healthcare start now."

2. His argument for putting up that sign was that he actually somehow intended for people who voted for Obama to know they were supposed to ignore the sign and actually go in and request medical care from someone who had a sign telling them to go away.

3. His intention by placing a sign "If you voted for Obama, seek medical care elsewhere" was to engage those who did vote for Obama in a conversation about Obamacare and its future effects on healthcare, which would only have taken place if they chose to ignore the sign and go in, despite the sign telling them to go away.

Point established.

Here, a fellow mylotter, has chosen to discuss what the doctor was going to discuss with the patients who were supposed to know that the sign telling them to go away was actually an invite to discuss healthcare.

He was going to bathe them in republican propaganda about obamacare as only an ethical doctor would do, and he was going to leave out what would have happened if we had gopcare.

This mylotter is on topic - it is about what the doctor claims his intent for the sign was. Unless, you can see through this false intention of the doctor, and you are somehow using that to discount the relevance of this post, but you can't do that without admitting the doctor was wrong.

So far I have read about mylot being free for all in discussion. That you can participate in any discussion even if you are not OP. This time I'm going to apply all this. My apologies to OP if it seems objectionable.

Now; ladybugmagic, I really appreciate your proficiency! I still believe the poster here was way off topic but you have provided the missing link. So credit goes to you only, never to the poster.

I don't know what the doctor's intentions were. On the face of it, he is clearly wrong. And I emphasize here I accept that. If his intentions were as stated in the sign, no arguments about that. And even if he meant something else, still it's more than an error to put that message. So, now?

I think you agree he was wrong, I agree he was wrong, even laglen doesn't support that sign; so lets move to next step. Assuming that doctor didn't mean it, is it worth crying so much? And if he did mean so, do you expect your representative to sue you because you threatened your neighbor? There are some issues people should resolve among themselves, at smaller level than to rope in a congressman.

I want to guess (can't say for sure) that the congressman was probably called by a person who was turned away and left because of the sign. They might have been asking what these immediate changes were and scared, because they were being refused service, at face value.

Someone has to teach the doctor (even if his claim was that he was trying to educate his patients) that he can not take the newly established law into his own hands. And in such a manipulative and untrue fashion at that.

Someone has to teach the doctor
you hit the nail on the head - and just who pray tell should be doing this? Alan Grayson??
LMFAO NOBODY need to "teach" him something. If you do not like his stance (right or wrong) do not seek care there. It is, still at this time, a private practice. Dont worry my dear, soon Big Brother will be able to "teach" all of the doctors.

Laglen - you profess to be a christian. Don't christians oppose segregation or divisive or tyrannical tactics?

People entrust their lives in the hands of doctors, and doctors takes oaths to honour that trust.

What part of "free speech can not cross over into professional obligations" are you not understanding?

#1 this discussion has nothing to do with religion
#2 "doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law." said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine.

Okay, withdrawing religion from this thread, because it is inflammatory enough on its own, as a good semaritan, laglen, do you think that sign telling Obama voters to seek medical care elsewhere was an appropriate thing to do?

At face value. Not at his pathetic excuse for this actually meaning Obama voters should come on in and discuss Obamacare.

I understand what your saying, but the doctor is not turning people away nor is he asking their political affiliation.

Laglen - let's just throw that "he is not turning people away" bit out, because it is not working for you.

funny you should say that. really

I agree action speaks louder than words, but still words speak too. He is not turning them away, he is making them turn away, even if unintentionally. For one doctor, it may be a case of misrepresentation; but if many more do this then it's a serious issue.