Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: markomalley
No.

The 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States. It was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865.

Even if slavery were legal there is no practical way to do this. There is already a significant shortage of physicians, particularly in the primary care specialties. Wishing it away won't make it go away. There are things the libs can and should do, but they will take 20 years, and they haven't even discovered that this is a huge problem.

What can they do? Place bounties on the heads of retired physicians, and send posses to Florida to bring them back in chains, à la Dred Scott? Drag elderly demented physicians out of their nursing home beds and force them to treat patients?

17 posted on 11/03/2013 2:12:24 PM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sooth2222
I don't think the slavery comparison is applicable.

They can put a requirement that if you are going to be a doctor, you have to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's closer to the civil rights laws where you can't refuse to serve a person because of their race.

However, the doctors could contest it if there is not fair compensation. But providers are currently required to provide emergency care whether a person can pay or not and there is zero compensation. Not sure why nobody has contested that. Seems to me if one is an unconstitutional "taking", then the other should be too.

They can tell a doctor what he has to do to hold himself out as a doctor, but they can't tell a person he has to be a doctor.

31 posted on 11/03/2013 2:31:12 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Sooth2222
I don't think the slavery comparison is applicable.

They can put a requirement that if you are going to be a doctor, you have to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's closer to the civil rights laws where you can't refuse to serve a person because of their race.

However, the doctors could contest it if there is not fair compensation. But providers are currently required to provide emergency care whether a person can pay or not and there is zero compensation. Not sure why nobody has contested that. Seems to me if one is an unconstitutional "taking", then the other should be too.

They can tell a doctor what he has to do to hold himself out as a doctor, but they can't tell a person he has to be a doctor.

32 posted on 11/03/2013 2:31:12 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Sooth2222

The shortage is going to be worse than they expect. There are so many women in medicine who will not put up with b.s. because they don’t have to. They can work part time, they can retire completely. They have options that the average male physician doesn’t have. It’s going to be bad. Try to stay healthy.


81 posted on 11/03/2013 5:28:38 PM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson