Having a license is a privilege, not a right.

Post #353,604 by Another Scott 1/26/12 10:26:58 AM Reply	Having a license is a privilege, not a right. You don't have a right to be a business owner. You have to obey reasonable rules to have a business license. Among them are "public accommodation" rules. Everyone who is part of the society contributes to the system that makes business possible. They deserve to be treated equally when asking for a product or service from a licensed business (or physician, or teacher, or ...). This isn't complicated. Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,606 by boxley 1/26/12 11:04:55 AM Reply	Re: Having a license is a privilege, not a right. I did except publican businesses I hope you noted. If I am a Dr I have the right to refuse medicaid patients, why not old people as well? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,607 by Another Scott 1/26/12 11:49:49 AM Reply	Seems to me it's the same thing - accomodate everyone. There are obviously details that get lost in the statement of principles. Health care is different because insurance often doesn't cover the full cost. (That's yet another reason why universal medical coverage should be available.) Having the inability to pay the full bill isn't the same as being married to someone that the physician doesn't like. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,608 by boxley 1/26/12 12:03:56 PM Reply	Im a Doctor, I dont due male prostrate exams, you will enfor making a service appointment to an operation not open to the public like a bar and restaurant is a discretionary service. Much like the fact that women cannot be a member of the Augusta Country Club Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,609 by Another Scott 1/26/12 12:18:10 PM Reply	It's hardly the same thing. We're talking past each other...
Post #353,683 by lincoln 1/27/12 1:40:38 PM Reply	what about pharmacists who refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill because it "goes against their religion"? Heck, down here in Bubbaland we've had stories in the papers about numerous pharmacies refusing to sell the "morning after" pill to MEN! "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #353,755 by S1mon_Jester 1/28/12 5:46:05 PM Reply	Curious - we've got this happening in Florida... You can refuse medicaid patients. Can you refuse patients because they voted for Obama? http://articles.orla...e-doctor-patients Can you refuse patients because they have small children and own guns? http://www.thetrutha...to-see-gun-owner/ <- notes Republicans are all over the place on this.
Post #353,763 by Another Scott 1/28/12 8:48:34 PM Reply	I think the standard should be:Default to serve the customer There are always exceptions that can be envisioned, but I don't think the examples below qualify. Cassell was basically throwing up political arguments for his wife who was campaigning for office. He said he wasn't refusing to treat anyone - http://www.myfoxorla...ctor-Jack-Cassell In the Okonkwo case, I think he made a reasonable decision. She says that she refused to answer his questions. It's hard for a physician to treat a patient if the patient doesn't trust him. Threatening to call a lawyer isn't a good move to preserve a doctor-patient relationship, either. It doesn't seem to me to be an issue of gun ownership per-se. This NYT essay indicates that potentially embarrassing questions can be routine in medical exams - http://www.nytimes.c...olicy/09guns.html They didn't get along. She shouldn't be seeing him, and I don't have a problem with him breaking the relationship first. Of course, Rick Scott and the FL legislature throwing their weight around about what physicians can and cannot ask their patients is stupid, counter-productive, grandstanding. But that's to be expected these days... :-( My $0.02. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,766 by S1mon_Jester 1/28/12 9:57:14 PM Reply	Nod... Cassell was careful NOT to stop treating anyone...he was just making noise. The interesting aspect to me is that the same Tea Baggers who whined that Cassell had the right to treat/not treat whomever he felt like are the same ones who are now whining that refusing to treat patients for guns is and should be against the law. (Because it's an undue burden to find another Pediatrician.) Frankly I think Okonkwo was out of line...but I felt that way about Cassell as well. However, if one feels that Doctors should be able to differentiate between their patients and it's NOT an undue burden to find another doctor, then Rick Scott's law is wrong.

Welcome to IWETHEY!