But isn't this exactly what is happening with this law...the government is dictating procedure. A women has a lawful right in VA to have an abortion, but now must undergo an intrusive procedure to do so. How doesn't this law offend your very point above?<of course it does. my views on freedoms doesn't really change. the legal ability of a state to do such a thing doesn't change either. so either i petition my state reps to overturn this law or i move if i am a virginia resident and disagree. the bill is state sanctioned rape and disgusting but it is legal if the gov signs it unless a state court in virginia rules otherwise...very conflicted>
As to your courts/protection statement, isn't this what you rail against? When the issue of the health care madate comes up, you believe it is unnecessary government, but couldn't one argue it is exactly as you said above...i.e. a necessary protection. <a protection of personal or private property. the State is supposed to protect you, not put you in harm's way>
As to your last point, isn't this exactly what Wall says to you re: local laws? I think you you proved his point.
But isn't this exactly what is happening with this law...the government is dictating procedure. A women has a lawful right in VA to have an abortion, but now must undergo an intrusive procedure to do so. How doesn't this law offend your very point above?<of course it does. my views on freedoms doesn't really change. the legal ability of a state to do such a thing doesn't change either. so either i petition my state reps to overturn this law or i move if i am a virginia resident and disagree. the bill is state sanctioned rape and disgusting but it is legal if the gov signs it unless a state court in virginia rules otherwise...very conflicted>
As to your courts/protection statement, isn't this what you rail against? When the issue of the health care madate comes up, you believe it is unnecessary government, but couldn't one argue it is exactly as you said above...i.e. a necessary protection. <a protection of personal or private property. the State is supposed to protect you, not put you in harm's way>
As to your last point, isn't this exactly what Wall says to you re: local laws? I think you you proved his point.
Like years ago when I went into the ER complaining of very bad Heart Burn and I knew it...nothing over the counter could get rid of the pain.
I went through a whole battery of tests to rule out problems with my heart EKG etc.
After they had confirmed it was actually heartburn they gave me the 'GI cocktail' and within 45 minutes I was pain free.
Problem with you is you took me literal even though the context of what I was saying was somthing a tad bit different. You fucking knew what I was trying to say and still had to pick a fight with me.
You are an effing mod for crying out loud and that behavior should be frowned upon. Shame on you for picking stupid petty fights with me and others over trivial perspectives.
Did you know that one of the symptoms of heart problems is severe burn like feelings? Did you want your doctor to give you a rolaid and send you home without seeing if other problems existed? What if it was your parent? Your child?
When you can back up your statement about how doctors get sued if they don't perform unnecesary tests, I'll stop. You want to know why you can't?
And did you see post 91? if you can't support your arguments, don't make them. It is pretty simple.
Like years ago when I went into the ER complaining of very bad Heart Burn and I knew it...nothing over the counter could get rid of the pain.
I went through a whole battery of tests to rule out problems with my heart EKG etc.
After they had confirmed it was actually heartburn they gave me the 'GI cocktail' and within 45 minutes I was pain free.
Problem with you is you took me literal even though the context of what I was saying was somthing a tad bit different. You fucking knew what I was trying to say and still had to pick a fight with me.
You are an effing mod for crying out loud and that behavior should be frowned upon. Shame on you for picking stupid petty fights with me and others over trivial perspectives.
Did you know that one of the symptoms of heart problems is severe burn like feelings? Did you want your doctor to give you a rolaid and send you home without seeing if other problems existed? What if it was your parent? Your child?
When you can back up your statement about how doctors get sued if they don't perform unnecesary tests, I'll stop. You want to know why you can't?
And did you see post 91? if you can't support your arguments, don't make them. It is pretty simple.
In a 2008 national survey of physicians more than 60 percent agreed with the statement, “I order some tests or consultations simply to avoid the appearance of malpractice.”7 In a 2003 survey, 59 percent of Pennsylvania physicians said they often ordered more tests than medically indicated
In a 2008 national survey of physicians more than 60 percent agreed with the statement, “I order some tests or consultations simply to avoid the appearance of malpractice.”7 In a 2003 survey, 59 percent of Pennsylvania physicians said they often ordered more tests than medically indicated
In a 2008 national survey of physicians more than 60 percent agreed with the statement, “I order some tests or consultations simply to avoid the appearance of malpractice.”7 In a 2003 survey, 59 percent of Pennsylvania physicians said they often ordered more tests than medically indicated
And if you ask lawyers who practice medical malpractice, they would say (thankfully) that doctor's don't order enough tests. Does that make it true? Might doctor's have a self-interest in this?
And again, please answer this:
if the test isn't performed and isn't necessary, why would the doctor be sued?
In a 2008 national survey of physicians more than 60 percent agreed with the statement, “I order some tests or consultations simply to avoid the appearance of malpractice.”7 In a 2003 survey, 59 percent of Pennsylvania physicians said they often ordered more tests than medically indicated
And if you ask lawyers who practice medical malpractice, they would say (thankfully) that doctor's don't order enough tests. Does that make it true? Might doctor's have a self-interest in this?
And again, please answer this:
if the test isn't performed and isn't necessary, why would the doctor be sued?
Did you know that one of the symptoms of heart problems is severe burn like feelings? Did you want your doctor to give you a rolaid and send you home without seeing if other problems existed? What if it was your parent? Your child?
When you can back up your statement about how doctors get sued if they don't perform unnecesary tests, I'll stop. You want to know why you can't?
And did you see post 91? if you can't support your arguments, don't make them. It is pretty simple.
See post #103 for proper backing of my statement and bite it.
Did you know that one of the symptoms of heart problems is severe burn like feelings? Did you want your doctor to give you a rolaid and send you home without seeing if other problems existed? What if it was your parent? Your child?
When you can back up your statement about how doctors get sued if they don't perform unnecesary tests, I'll stop. You want to know why you can't?
And did you see post 91? if you can't support your arguments, don't make them. It is pretty simple.
See post #103 for proper backing of my statement and bite it.
Does this suggest that all of those physicians are practicing bad medicine? To the contrary, data from an umbrella organization of liability insurers show that most liability claims are without merit. Sixty-four percent of claims that closed in 2010 were dropped, withdrawn or dismissed. Less than 10 percent of claims were decided by a trial verdict, and the vast majority of them—more than 90 percent—were won by the physician defendant in...
Page 3 of the famous link....anyone can try to sue and it costs money to defend even the frivilous lawsuits.
Does this suggest that all of those physicians are practicing bad medicine? To the contrary, data from an umbrella organization of liability insurers show that most liability claims are without merit. Sixty-four percent of claims that closed in 2010 were dropped, withdrawn or dismissed. Less than 10 percent of claims were decided by a trial verdict, and the vast majority of them—more than 90 percent—were won by the physician defendant in...
Page 3 of the famous link....anyone can try to sue and it costs money to defend even the frivilous lawsuits.
Your link doesn't prove your point. Your link only says that some doctors feel they perform tests unnecessarily.
I could provide a link that says lawyers feel that they have to overlitigate cases for fear of being sued. It doesn't make it true.
And anyone can initiate a frivious lawsuit.
I am still waiting for you to answer how someone can be sued for not performing a test if it is deemed unnecessary? Do you understand the illogic in your position? if the test wasn't necessary, there was no injury. How can a test be unnecessary if it could have prevented injury?
Your link doesn't prove your point. Your link only says that some doctors feel they perform tests unnecessarily.
I could provide a link that says lawyers feel that they have to overlitigate cases for fear of being sued. It doesn't make it true.
And anyone can initiate a frivious lawsuit.
I am still waiting for you to answer how someone can be sued for not performing a test if it is deemed unnecessary? Do you understand the illogic in your position? if the test wasn't necessary, there was no injury. How can a test be unnecessary if it could have prevented injury?
Your link doesn't prove your point. Your link only says that some doctors feel they perform tests unnecessarily.
I could provide a link that says lawyers feel that they have to overlitigate cases for fear of being sued. It doesn't make it true.
And anyone can initiate a frivious lawsuit.
I am still waiting for you to answer how someone can be sued for not performing a test if it is deemed unnecessary? Do you understand the illogic in your position? if the test wasn't necessary, there was no injury. How can a test be unnecessary if it could have prevented injury?
Ya I get that...thats why I made the point that you took me literally rather than go with the context of what I was trying to say. And I think you are acting like a douche in the process.
Surely, I could have been more of a word ninja. But when a statement says that '59% of Physicians ordered more tests than medically indicated...' That fucking proves my point to be correct to any standard even with your petty attempt to anus wrangle me.
Your link doesn't prove your point. Your link only says that some doctors feel they perform tests unnecessarily.
I could provide a link that says lawyers feel that they have to overlitigate cases for fear of being sued. It doesn't make it true.
And anyone can initiate a frivious lawsuit.
I am still waiting for you to answer how someone can be sued for not performing a test if it is deemed unnecessary? Do you understand the illogic in your position? if the test wasn't necessary, there was no injury. How can a test be unnecessary if it could have prevented injury?
Ya I get that...thats why I made the point that you took me literally rather than go with the context of what I was trying to say. And I think you are acting like a douche in the process.
Surely, I could have been more of a word ninja. But when a statement says that '59% of Physicians ordered more tests than medically indicated...' That fucking proves my point to be correct to any standard even with your petty attempt to anus wrangle me.
It isn't a sentence, nor a complete thought or statement.
I was trying to post from the scource but it wasnt working for some reason and only posted a few words of that which was highlited. I ended up having to paste to a wordpad ducument to make it work as intended.
It isn't a sentence, nor a complete thought or statement.
I was trying to post from the scource but it wasnt working for some reason and only posted a few words of that which was highlited. I ended up having to paste to a wordpad ducument to make it work as intended.
Ya I get that...thats why I made the point that you took me literally rather than go with the context of what I was trying to say. And I think you are acting like a douche in the process.
Surely, I could have been more of a word ninja. But when a statement says that '59% of Physicians ordered more tests than medically indicated...' That fucking proves my point to be correct to any standard even with your petty attempt to anus wrangle me.
You certainly can call names better than you can support your argument.
The fact that 59% of physicians say they order more tests than necessary proves nothing. Would you want to be someone who goes to those 59% or the other 41%?
When you call a doctor's office, do they tell you to come in even if it is something minor? Why is it so hard to get a prescription refilled a year later? Do you know why they do that (hint: it isn't liability issues, it is because of ruling out other issues).
Again, you haven't shown what tests are unnecessary and how someone can be sued because of an unnecessary test. When you can do that, I look forward to the discussion.
Ya I get that...thats why I made the point that you took me literally rather than go with the context of what I was trying to say. And I think you are acting like a douche in the process.
Surely, I could have been more of a word ninja. But when a statement says that '59% of Physicians ordered more tests than medically indicated...' That fucking proves my point to be correct to any standard even with your petty attempt to anus wrangle me.
You certainly can call names better than you can support your argument.
The fact that 59% of physicians say they order more tests than necessary proves nothing. Would you want to be someone who goes to those 59% or the other 41%?
When you call a doctor's office, do they tell you to come in even if it is something minor? Why is it so hard to get a prescription refilled a year later? Do you know why they do that (hint: it isn't liability issues, it is because of ruling out other issues).
Again, you haven't shown what tests are unnecessary and how someone can be sued because of an unnecessary test. When you can do that, I look forward to the discussion.
You certainly can call names better than you can support your argument.
The fact that 59% of physicians say they order more tests than necessary proves nothing. Would you want to be someone who goes to those 59% or the other 41%?
When you call a doctor's office, do they tell you to come in even if it is something minor? Why is it so hard to get a prescription refilled a year later? Do you know why they do that (hint: it isn't liability issues, it is because of ruling out other issues).
Again, you haven't shown what tests are unnecessary and how someone can be sued because of an unnecessary test. When you can do that, I look forward to the discussion.
WTF does it matter which one I would choose to go to?
The fact that 59% of physicians say they order more tests than necessary proves nothing.
BS...it proves that my statement is correct even if only 29% ordered unecessary tests.
Which also means that I am equally as good at calling names and supporting my arguments. You comprehending that defense is debatable.
You certainly can call names better than you can support your argument.
The fact that 59% of physicians say they order more tests than necessary proves nothing. Would you want to be someone who goes to those 59% or the other 41%?
When you call a doctor's office, do they tell you to come in even if it is something minor? Why is it so hard to get a prescription refilled a year later? Do you know why they do that (hint: it isn't liability issues, it is because of ruling out other issues).
Again, you haven't shown what tests are unnecessary and how someone can be sued because of an unnecessary test. When you can do that, I look forward to the discussion.
WTF does it matter which one I would choose to go to?
The fact that 59% of physicians say they order more tests than necessary proves nothing.
BS...it proves that my statement is correct even if only 29% ordered unecessary tests.
Which also means that I am equally as good at calling names and supporting my arguments. You comprehending that defense is debatable.
You are calling unnecessary tests a basis for defensive medicine.
You have not defined unnecessary tests in 20 posts now.
Do you know why that is?
I literally hate how your overly literal brain works and how you view your surroundings in a very flawed way because of it.
I shouldnt have to define anything. My statement as crafted is/was/will be correct.
Contrary to your flawed opinion, and incorrect initial statement regarding my alleged inaccurate statement, the AMA agrees that defensive medicine needs to be addressed.
If there were no such thing as defensive medicine then you would be correct....but, there is such a thing as defensive medicine and the AMA sees it the same way as I do. (contrary again to your completly wrong assertion) I found AMA literature that backs up my statement. Just because you get hung up on symantics in no way makes my statement, or the context thereof inaccurate.
You are calling unnecessary tests a basis for defensive medicine.
You have not defined unnecessary tests in 20 posts now.
Do you know why that is?
I literally hate how your overly literal brain works and how you view your surroundings in a very flawed way because of it.
I shouldnt have to define anything. My statement as crafted is/was/will be correct.
Contrary to your flawed opinion, and incorrect initial statement regarding my alleged inaccurate statement, the AMA agrees that defensive medicine needs to be addressed.
If there were no such thing as defensive medicine then you would be correct....but, there is such a thing as defensive medicine and the AMA sees it the same way as I do. (contrary again to your completly wrong assertion) I found AMA literature that backs up my statement. Just because you get hung up on symantics in no way makes my statement, or the context thereof inaccurate.
If this survey does not say that some doctors order unecessary tests then wtf does it say?
In a 2003 survey, 59 percent of Pennsylvania physicians said they often ordered more tests than medically indicated
In a 2008 national survey of physicians more than 60 percent agreed with the statement, “I order some tests or consultations simply to avoid the appearance of malpractice
They perform the unecessary tests to avoid the lawsuits or be prepared for the frivilous ones. Which is in essence what I said in my initial CORRECT statement.
If this survey does not say that some doctors order unecessary tests then wtf does it say?
In a 2003 survey, 59 percent of Pennsylvania physicians said they often ordered more tests than medically indicated
In a 2008 national survey of physicians more than 60 percent agreed with the statement, “I order some tests or consultations simply to avoid the appearance of malpractice
They perform the unecessary tests to avoid the lawsuits or be prepared for the frivilous ones. Which is in essence what I said in my initial CORRECT statement.
How the frick did you become a mod? You lack integrity at a level I had previously thought impossible.
Your relentless efforts to try to make it look like I said somthing I didn't is quite astonishing. Any reasonable forum member would acknowledge that you took this way out of porportion.
How the frick did you become a mod? You lack integrity at a level I had previously thought impossible.
Your relentless efforts to try to make it look like I said somthing I didn't is quite astonishing. Any reasonable forum member would acknowledge that you took this way out of porportion.
didnt read the thread mainly bc dealing with the pro life crowd is like trying to deal with the anti gun crowd who wont accept the facts that places with strict gun control laws have more crime (exhibit a, the UK)
anyways, if anyone caught the daily show last night, you will see hypocrisy at its finest with the bills cosponsor and the gov.
cliffs notes version: the cosponsor, a woman no less, doesnt want the govt involved in peoples health when it came to obamacare, yet wants the govt involved with abortions
the governor thought obamacare was akin to economic rape, yet has no problem with the forced insertion of a 10" phallic device inside a vagina, something known as actual rape.
when i first heard about the law, i just thought it was a normal ultrasound done on the stomach and thought it wasnt that big of a deal. i figured the religious right probably just wanted the woman to see a picture of the baby to help engender sympathy for the baby and dissuade the abortion. but knowing the ultrasound is done with a 10" pole inside the vagina, AND THE WOMAN DOESNT EVEN HAVE TO VIEW THE IMAGE, you have to be one sick person to support this.
didnt read the thread mainly bc dealing with the pro life crowd is like trying to deal with the anti gun crowd who wont accept the facts that places with strict gun control laws have more crime (exhibit a, the UK)
anyways, if anyone caught the daily show last night, you will see hypocrisy at its finest with the bills cosponsor and the gov.
cliffs notes version: the cosponsor, a woman no less, doesnt want the govt involved in peoples health when it came to obamacare, yet wants the govt involved with abortions
the governor thought obamacare was akin to economic rape, yet has no problem with the forced insertion of a 10" phallic device inside a vagina, something known as actual rape.
when i first heard about the law, i just thought it was a normal ultrasound done on the stomach and thought it wasnt that big of a deal. i figured the religious right probably just wanted the woman to see a picture of the baby to help engender sympathy for the baby and dissuade the abortion. but knowing the ultrasound is done with a 10" pole inside the vagina, AND THE WOMAN DOESNT EVEN HAVE TO VIEW THE IMAGE, you have to be one sick person to support this.
How the frick did you become a mod? You lack integrity at a level I had previously thought impossible.
Your relentless efforts to try to make it look like I said somthing I didn't is quite astonishing. Any reasonable forum member would acknowledge that you took this way out of porportion.
you are talking to a djbrow, a guy who will make a claim with no evidence. when someone says the claim is wrong, and proves, at least partially, that the claim is wrong, djbrow will clamor for evidence from those refuting the claim but will not supply any evidence to support his initial claim.
How the frick did you become a mod? You lack integrity at a level I had previously thought impossible.
Your relentless efforts to try to make it look like I said somthing I didn't is quite astonishing. Any reasonable forum member would acknowledge that you took this way out of porportion.
you are talking to a djbrow, a guy who will make a claim with no evidence. when someone says the claim is wrong, and proves, at least partially, that the claim is wrong, djbrow will clamor for evidence from those refuting the claim but will not supply any evidence to support his initial claim.
you are talking to a djbrow, a guy who will make a claim with no evidence. when someone says the claim is wrong, and proves, at least partially, that the claim is wrong, djbrow will clamor for evidence from those refuting the claim but will not supply any evidence to support his initial claim.
rationale and reasoning dont work with him.
If he wasnt a member of the local mod union he would have been fired for this for sure.
you are talking to a djbrow, a guy who will make a claim with no evidence. when someone says the claim is wrong, and proves, at least partially, that the claim is wrong, djbrow will clamor for evidence from those refuting the claim but will not supply any evidence to support his initial claim.
rationale and reasoning dont work with him.
If he wasnt a member of the local mod union he would have been fired for this for sure.
But isn't this exactly what is happening with this law...the government is dictating procedure. A women has a lawful right in VA to have an abortion, but now must undergo an intrusive procedure to do so.
----------------------------
Um, no.
See an ultrasound is not "intrusive" at all.
Further, it is standard practice: : “That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”
----------
I did enjoy reading your planned parenthood talking points though.
But isn't this exactly what is happening with this law...the government is dictating procedure. A women has a lawful right in VA to have an abortion, but now must undergo an intrusive procedure to do so.
----------------------------
Um, no.
See an ultrasound is not "intrusive" at all.
Further, it is standard practice: : “That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”
----------
I did enjoy reading your planned parenthood talking points though.
A women has a lawful right in VA to have an abortion, but now must undergo an intrusive procedure to do so.
----------------
Er,
if she’s uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she’s not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure,” Schreiber told me.
A women has a lawful right in VA to have an abortion, but now must undergo an intrusive procedure to do so.
----------------
Er,
if she’s uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she’s not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure,” Schreiber told me.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.