Rand Paul is not a certified Doctor

[uscitizen]

There's no need to certify doctors now, it's purely voluntary.

No wonder we have so much medical malpractice.

Physicians must still get permission from the state to practice.

Which means they must be certified by the state?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No wonder we have so much medical malpractice.

Physicians must still get permission from the state to practice.

Which means they must be certified by the state?

Licensed by the state.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

National group: Paul isn't a board-certified doc - Decision 2010- msnbc.com

JimH52 is a Certified Complete ******* Retard who can't be bothered reading the articles he links to.

Nice work, Jim

I see you still haven't sought prefessional medical help yet. Too bad...

Is it possible the 'Baggers are somewhat-nervous, regarding the request (to the Randy-Boy) to SHOW US YOUR RECORDS!!!!!???

What're the 'Baggers AFRAID-of??????

​

 

[Christopher]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

Where was it that Paul said there is not a need to certify doctors?

 

[Christopher]

...nepotism is rarely an act of integrity.

I don't see how you can prove that statement.

As it stands, I don't really see anything wrong with it. Just odd. I am more than skeptical of Paul's explanation of the matter. I mean, I just have a hard time believing that an act of grandfathering would cause Paul's secession movement. I really suspect there is more to this. However, I suspect nothing will really come of it. It's not (as it stands) really that relevant to the campaign.

I think there is more to it as well. It is obvious that there are ophthalmologists who are disenfranchised with the ABO, with one openly calling it “archaic”. I think it is a bad idea to have a particular group control 95% of anything. If Paul’s actions do nothing more than wake the ABO up, then it is a good thing.

*Edit* A little more on the grandfather clause of the ABO. Apparently the ABO couldn't legally require doctors who were certified prior to 1992 to re-certify. Slembarski is the spokesperson for the ABO.

I suspect that those “old timers” in the ABO made sure re-certification would be legally barred. Do you have any history regarding why they were barred from doing so? I couldn't find anything. Was TPM the best source you could really provide? I tend be skeptical of a source that has the name “Talking Points” in it, but that is just me.

 

[Immanuel]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

I don't think that has been the argument in this thread.

The argument that I was part of and following said that certification is not the same thing as licensing and that there is no legal requirement that a doctor be certified.

In my humble opinion, certification (when it involves educational requirements (including continuing education) and testing are a good thing. But, to be honest, certification does not always include those things. We as patients or customers of the certified individuals expect that a certification means something. Maybe we need to pay better attention to what exactly those certifications mean as opposed to assuming that a doctor being certified by the ABO is actually qualified to perform certain professions.

Immie

 

[Douger]

OMG OMG
Next your going to tell us Gunny never reached the rank of E9

Now I feel suicidal.

 

[geauxtohell]

...nepotism is rarely an act of integrity.

I don't see how you can prove that statement.

As it stands, I don't really see anything wrong with it. Just odd. I am more than skeptical of Paul's explanation of the matter. I mean, I just have a hard time believing that an act of grandfathering would cause Paul's secession movement. I really suspect there is more to this. However, I suspect nothing will really come of it. It's not (as it stands) really that relevant to the campaign.

I think there is more to it as well. It is obvious that there are ophthalmologists who are disenfranchised with the ABO, with one openly calling it “archaic”. I think it is a bad idea to have a particular group control 95% of anything. If Paul’s actions do nothing more than wake the ABO up, then it is a good thing.

*Edit* A little more on the grandfather clause of the ABO. Apparently the ABO couldn't legally require doctors who were certified prior to 1992 to re-certify. Slembarski is the spokesperson for the ABO.

I suspect that those “old timers” in the ABO made sure re-certification would be legally barred. Do you have any history regarding why they were barred from doing so? I couldn't find anything. Was TPM the best source you could really provide? I tend be skeptical of a source that has the name “Talking Points” in it, but that is just me.

I am short on time, so I am just going to address a few points: The statement of the ABO being legally barred from forcing re-certification came from the ABO spokesperson. It was just on the TPM site. So, as far as I am concerned, it's from the ABO. The only other alternative is that TPM made it up, which is a stretch even though they are obviously biased.

Since the ABO wanted to try and force all Doctors to re-cert and lost a legal challenge that forced the grandfather clause, it makes Paul's act even more strange.

As for a single group controlling certification, your thinking is backwards. The larger the group, the more uniform the standards and the better the product. For instance, when medical students take their board exams, they take them from the USMLE. They don't get to pick and choose. One national standard ensures everyone is tested to the same standard.

A single ophthalmologist being disgruntled with the ABO isn't much of an indictment considering that 95% of them have chosen to stay with the ABO even though there are other options. On the issue of certification, you want to go with the most respected and largest certifying body out there.

 

[Christopher]

...nepotism is rarely an act of integrity.

I don't see how you can prove that statement.



I think there is more to it as well. It is obvious that there are ophthalmologists who are disenfranchised with the ABO, with one openly calling it “archaic”. I think it is a bad idea to have a particular group control 95% of anything. If Paul’s actions do nothing more than wake the ABO up, then it is a good thing.

*Edit* A little more on the grandfather clause of the ABO. Apparently the ABO couldn't legally require doctors who were certified prior to 1992 to re-certify. Slembarski is the spokesperson for the ABO.

I suspect that those “old timers” in the ABO made sure re-certification would be legally barred. Do you have any history regarding why they were barred from doing so? I couldn't find anything. Was TPM the best source you could really provide? I tend be skeptical of a source that has the name “Talking Points” in it, but that is just me.

I am short on time, so I am just going to address a few points: The statement of the ABO being legally barred from forcing re-certification came from the ABO spokesperson. It was just on the TPM site. So, as far as I am concerned, it's from the ABO. The only other alternative is that TPM made it up, which is a stretch even though they are obviously biased.

Since the ABO wanted to try and force all Doctors to re-cert and lost a legal challenge that forced the grandfather clause, it makes Paul's act even more strange.

As for a single group controlling certification, your thinking is backwards. The larger the group, the more uniform the standards and the better the product. For instance, when medical students take their board exams, they take them from the USMLE. They don't get to pick and choose. One national standard ensures everyone is tested to the same standard.

A single ophthalmologist being disgruntled with the ABO isn't much of an indictment considering that 95% of them have chosen to stay with the ABO even though there are other options. On the issue of certification, you want to go with the most respected and largest certifying body out there.

No problem about your available time, I don't believe we have much further to discuss on the topic anyway.

Just a few responses. Regarding a single group controlling certification, I see this as not much different than law degrees from an overall perspective. Having competing law colleges creates better law colleges. Competing certification groups would in the same sense create a better certification process. If you want to go to one of the most respected law colleges, you would go to Harvard or Stanford and get your law degree there, right?

The problem, and I'm not sure that the ABO has reached this point, is that when a group becomes too large and has a monopoly there tends to be greater inefficiencies and less ability to adopt good changes in policies. When the group knows that everyone (or almost everyone) has to go through them to become certified, I can see a problem with the development of complacency. They do not need to do much to get business. I am saying this in general from my experience in working with many agencies, not always, and it depends really on the people actually running it.

Although, I do understand your point about going to the one that is most respected. That may or may not be the largest, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd like to get right to the bottom line here: this story has ****-all to do with Rand Paul's qualifications for the office for which he's campaigning, and as such, is an utterly pathetic attempt at mudslinging by his opponents.

 

[Ravi]

I'd like to get right to the bottom line here: this story has ****-all to do with Rand Paul's qualifications for the office for which he's campaigning, and as such, is an utterly pathetic attempt at mudslinging by his opponents.

I'd say it speaks to his character.

Then again, maybe character isn't really important in a politician.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd like to get right to the bottom line here: this story has ****-all to do with Rand Paul's qualifications for the office for which he's campaigning, and as such, is an utterly pathetic attempt at mudslinging by his opponents.

I'd say it speaks to his character.

Then again, maybe character isn't really important in a politician.

Coming from people who defended Bill Clinton and are currently defending Barack Obama no matter what they did, I don't want to hear a ******* WORD about "speaks to character". Got it? That sort of hypocrisy speaks to the character of the fools who spout it, thinking I have the same five-minute memory span they do.

You do NOT want me to take it into my head to point out all the many times we were told, not only indirectly but in precise words, that character was not important, and then contrast them to the "huge, shocking scandal" of Rand Paul starting his own doctors' union and never even making the slightest effort to hide it or pretend otherwise.

Don't go there.

 

[Ravi]

I'd like to get right to the bottom line here: this story has ****-all to do with Rand Paul's qualifications for the office for which he's campaigning, and as such, is an utterly pathetic attempt at mudslinging by his opponents.

I'd say it speaks to his character.

Then again, maybe character isn't really important in a politician.

Coming from people who defended Bill Clinton and are currently defending Barack Obama no matter what they did, I don't want to hear a ******* WORD about "speaks to character". Got it? That sort of hypocrisy speaks to the character of the fools who spout it, thinking I have the same five-minute memory span they do.

You do NOT want me to take it into my head to point out all the many times we were told, not only indirectly but in precise words, that character was not important, and then contrast them to the "huge, shocking scandal" of Rand Paul starting his own doctors' union and never even making the slightest effort to hide it or pretend otherwise.

Don't go there.

I never defended Clinton's sexcapades. Nice try.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd say it speaks to his character.

Then again, maybe character isn't really important in a politician.

Coming from people who defended Bill Clinton and are currently defending Barack Obama no matter what they did, I don't want to hear a ******* WORD about "speaks to character". Got it? That sort of hypocrisy speaks to the character of the fools who spout it, thinking I have the same five-minute memory span they do.

You do NOT want me to take it into my head to point out all the many times we were told, not only indirectly but in precise words, that character was not important, and then contrast them to the "huge, shocking scandal" of Rand Paul starting his own doctors' union and never even making the slightest effort to hide it or pretend otherwise.

Don't go there.

I never defended Clinton's sexcapades. Nice try.

All righty, sweetheart. You want to go into your utter lack of moral standing to say one damned word about "speaks to character", let's do it. Please direct me to ANY post you have EVER made condemning Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other Democrat politician for their scandalous behavior because it "speaks to character. As long as you're in here, rearing up in righteous indignation because Rand Paul had the "gall" to start his own union ::gasp! The scandal!:: you had better at least ONCE have done the same for any one of the dozens of other much more scandalous actions on the part of Democrat politicians that have taken place just since you've been on this board. Under these circumstances, silence is as good as a defense.

I'll wait while you feverishly search for it.

 

[Ravi]

What scandalous behavior has Obama engaged in?

As for Clinton, I've said before and I'll say it again...he was an arrogant asshole. I have no link to give you because I haven't discussed him on this board that I recall. He hasn't been president for a while, in case you haven't noticed.

Now if Clinton had decided the ABA wasn't the certification he desired and went about starting up his own organization to certify himself as a lawyer he would have been laughed off the planet. But apparently Paul, who is running as a Republican, is free to act in a perverse manner with his own certification.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What scandalous behavior has Obama engaged in?

As for Clinton, I've said before and I'll say it again...he was an arrogant asshole. I have no link to give you because I haven't discussed him on this board that I recall. He hasn't been president for a while, in case you haven't noticed.

Now if Clinton had decided the ABA wasn't the certification he desired and went about starting up his own organization to certify himself as a lawyer he would have been laughed off the planet. But apparently Paul, who is running as a Republican, is free to act in a perverse manner with his own certification.

So you don't think competition is a good thing?

 

[geauxtohell]

I'd like to get right to the bottom line here: this story has ****-all to do with Rand Paul's qualifications for the office for which he's campaigning, and as such, is an utterly pathetic attempt at mudslinging by his opponents.

Unless there is some sort of slight of hand involved in the creation of the NBO (to include the reasons behind it): nothing

Which has been acknowledged several times on this thread.

 

[Father Time]

Shouldn't it be Cec's job to prove that Ravi defended Clinton? She's the one that made the claim in the first place.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What scandalous behavior has Obama engaged in?

As for Clinton, I've said before and I'll say it again...he was an arrogant asshole. I have no link to give you because I haven't discussed him on this board that I recall. He hasn't been president for a while, in case you haven't noticed.

Now if Clinton had decided the ABA wasn't the certification he desired and went about starting up his own organization to certify himself as a lawyer he would have been laughed off the planet. But apparently Paul, who is running as a Republican, is free to act in a perverse manner with his own certification.

Seriously? "What scandalous behavior has Obama engaged in"? Really?! So you're going to say that longtime associations and friendships with people like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and Franklin Raines don't "speak to character" at least as much as starting one's own trade union does? You don't think trying to bribe someone to drop out of a political race in favor of your chosen candidate "speaks to character"? How about attacking laws and the political officials who pass them without even reading the law first? You don't think that "speaks to character"? Oh, but hey. Go out and openly start your own trade union without making any attempt to hide it or be ashamed of it, and THAT is a career-ender. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy.

An "arrogant asshole", huh? That's supposed to impress me? I don't think so.

There are lots of other Democrat politicians, and lots of other scandals since you've been here. Feel free to link me to ANY time you've EVER pitched a hissy fit over ANY Democrat's "lack of character".

I'm still waiting, but not for long. As far as I'm concerned, you're a hypocrite with nothing to say about anyone else's character, and you've amply confirmed that you know it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Shouldn't it be Cec's job to prove that Ravi defended Clinton? She's the one that made the claim in the first place.

Shouldn't it be everybody else's job to prove that Rand is lying when he said he created the NBO to provide competition for the ABO because he disapproved of their recertification process that discriminated against younger doctors?