General discussion

Doctor Jack Cassell Refuses To Treat Obama Supporters

Misleading headline, as befits the Huffington Post, but....

Florida urologist Jack Cassell posted a sign on his office door reading, "If you voted for Obama ... seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years."

Cassell, a registered Republican, quickly backpedaled in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, but said he's perfectly happy to lose business over the sign. "I'm not turning anybody away, that would be unethical," he told the Sentinel. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

Discussion is locked
Reply to: Doctor Jack Cassell Refuses To Treat Obama Supporters
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Doctor Jack Cassell Refuses To Treat Obama Supporters
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
re: seek urologic care elsewhere

elsewhere...Not here (NOT in HIS office?)

He'll treat them somewhere else?

Misleading? Please explain. Make a post to someone else and I'll read it and respond to them.

- Collapse -
I think Ed picked the wrong source

I read the writeup elsewhere. He's not refusing anyone and really can't based on politics alone. He's making a suggestion that those who support the health care bill should begin looking elsewhere. Since his office is full of Republican party literature as well as such against the health care bill, I'd think it not to be an inviting atmosphere for those with strong opposite opinions. Oh well, I suspect that, at least, his magazines are current. Wink

- Collapse -
I agree...

and that stuff is linked on the article. But HuffPo is making a big deal over this, so I htought I'd present their view first.

- Collapse -
Ok, just being's another
From the Orlando Sentinel

The one I saw yesterday said his office was in a predominately Republican area which leads me to believe he's largely among friends anyway. I can't show admiration for any professional or business person who would discriminate based solely on politics. Neither, in this case, would I admire a person who eliminated this doctor from their list of potential providers because of his party affiliation. That's a stupid way to live and play, IMO.
- Collapse -
(NT) totally agree
- Collapse -
I agree but

if I was seeing a doctor of opposite views, and his political views dominated his office, and he posted a sign suggesting anyone that opposed his views seek treatment elsewhere, I would seriously consider it.

If he is going to use his professional office to campaign, I'd be a bit worried that at least subconsciously he'd be less interested in seeing anyone that openly opposed him. He could easily hurry them out without really listening to anything that would indicate a different diagnoses. I honestly don't think there would be many doctors that this would be a problem, but if a doctor acted like he didn't want to see me, I'd be worried about his interest in my health.

Now being a doctor and opposing the proposed health care isn't necessarily based on party politics. As a doctor, he has a serious interest in what the government does in the health care field. If he truly believes it will hurt patients, then of course he'd have to oppose it. Hurting patients would include making doctors feel harried or overruled about who and how to help the patients.

But depending on which political literature he had in his office, I might decide he was more interested in politics than my health.

- Collapse -
Exactly. Health care is his business and life

Why do we find that certain professions tend to heavily lean in one direction or the other politically? It affects them and what they do. A physician is no different. But, you're right that it can be carried too far. I have to think that this physician isn't spending time during patient visits indoctrinating them politically. Now, if we could just get members of our educational systems to stop what appears to be subtle indoctrination of students using the same professional criteria Wink

- Collapse -
wouldn't it be enough

to hang up pictures in his waiting area of all the political figures he supports?

- Collapse -
Sounds more like he'd prefer to hang
WANTED posters of those he does not. Wink
- Collapse -
I can see an unhappy patient sueing him

for malpractice because he is a Republican, and botched his treatment on purpose because the doctor found out patient was a Democrat.

Since politics matters to the Dr. about who he "wants" to treat.

I wouldn't tell the Dr. my politics, when the Dr is a urologist.

He should never have mentioned Democrat on his sign...he doesn't like the plan, OK...state that...but the Anti-Democrat part forget it.

- Collapse -
Since he's a uroligist

Did any Democrats leave a specimen on his sign.

- Collapse -
are we sure he's not a proctologist ?

... after all, the guy seems to have his head up his ***...

I find it interesting though, that a comment is being made just as much about misleading headlines considering many of the inflammatory tag lines that a few forum members have insisted on using in the past.

- Collapse -
Yea, sure

Kind of like "REPUBLICANS were for health care before they were against it"
Just slightly spurious.

- Collapse -
You are wrong Mike
The article I posted - from Yahoo news and not some pandering, agenda driven blog - discussed exactly what my tag line stated. The fact that over the past 40 years, many republican administrations have fully supported many of the components that were incorporated into the recently passed health care laws.

Can you refute this ? No, you can not.

Your comment highlights exactly, the failure of many dogma driven partisans to take the time and comprehend just exactly what they are objecting to. You fail to address the fact that my tag line is 100% accurate. You just wanted to point a finger.
- Collapse -
You're right...

no matter how hard he may insist, it was a distortion (as I pointted out).

- Collapse -
(NT) to p-ss or not to p-ss, that is the question
- Collapse -
(NT) lol
- Collapse -
(NT) That'll piss'em off!
- Collapse -
Yep, some changes do not kick in until 2014, but

...... for a lot of Americans, waiting just 4 more years isn't so bad after waiting a few decades for reform.

As for the doctor, it is apparent he cannot separate his political- and they are political- life from his professional life. He is an example of the hysteria being whipped up in this country.

I agree that he was not actually "turning away" patients, but if I had been faced with such a sign, I would opt to find another practitioner. It would be entirely possible that there were other issues he would find objectionable, like my religion or race, that could impact on the care he rendered.


- Collapse -

I won't vote for anybody who supported a bill that will put an excise tax on wheelchairs. I don't think that is hysteria. Angeline, why did they target people in wheelchairs? It would seem that they have enough trouble already.

- Collapse -
To be blunt.

I look at the bigger picture, not just how it impacts on me.

Medicare of government employee insurance pays a designated for durable equipment. Those funds come from what patients pay each month for coverage either standard Medicare with a supplement or what, if any is paid by government employees. So those who do not need durable equipment are collectively contributing to those that do.

As costs rise, I see 2 options. Either raise everybody's contributions or only on those who need that equipment.

I think what you pay is subsidized by taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I do not resent doing so. However, it is similar to private insurance now allowing for people to choose coverage only for what they need, say, a bachelor would not choose maternity benefits. So he is not paying for those that do.

Those that scream "socialism" should think for a minute that this has been the elder care approach, We jointly pay for your wheelchair. I am sorry that you will be faced with a tax on yours, If I need one, so will I.


- Collapse -
Clearly, the intent became...

to ram something through at any cost, no matter how lame it was, to provide a "victory" for the Administration. They as much as admitted it. Completely political and irrational.

Works well because they'll all be long gone before the true costs sunk in to most citizens.

- Collapse -
pin the tail on the donkey

Leave it to someone else to move it into the right spot. "if the blind lead the blind..."

- Collapse -
So, bad reform ius better than no reform?

Or something like that?

Some would say bad reform IS no reform.

- Collapse -
So it would be a favor to you?

I'd appreciate knowing that information, so I could choose which businesses to support that I knew would be more for the candidate of my choice. I'd prefer to support some business that has my political viewpoints than one that may support positions or organizations I might object to. I'd consider it a favor. I'd certainly prefer a doctor who was Pro Life, Christian, Conservative, etc, than one who supported Planned Parenthood, Pro Abortion, Atheist, Agnostic, Marxist, Socialist, etc.

- Collapse -
In the Body of Christ, all members are

...... important and necessary, none more than the other.

Keeping that in mind, especially on this Holy Day, I would be guilty of the sin of pride if I considered myself to be so much more important in order to dictate to fellow Believers.


- Collapse -
I Corinthians 12

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. 25 That there should be no schism in the body

- Collapse -
I'm sure he won't treat anyone covered under the

new system. Just like the politicians refused the stimulus money they voted against.


- Collapse -
He may not have a choice...

This Admin is all about limiting people's choices.

- Collapse -
Then he'll be dragged

kicking in screaming into the next century, and his patients will get tired of hearing him whinging and they will go to another doctor.

CNET Forums