Saturday, March 17, 2007

Father to Daughter on the GOP ; The Lazy Law Student vs. the Doctor; Malpractice vs. Malfeasance

Conversation Borrowed from

"A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth & she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, & lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican Party."
posted by Right Wing Toledo at 9:43 AM on Mar 9, 2007

kurt said...
Be it known RWT, that as an undergraduate student, and even as a law student, I have never worked my ass off to establish my grades. I find your example moot and irrelevant, for I find that anyone that truly has to work for As and Bs is an idiot. I've never had to work for my As and Bs. Maybe you did, but I find anything less than a B a failure, with very little work. I work for what I want to work for. And when I do, I'm unstoppable. I can get a B sleeping, in anything.

March 10, 2007 1:35 AM

Right Wing Toledo said...

Perhaps you should look up analogy in the dictionary. I think you’ve missed the point of this post.

As to working for good grades, perhaps you were a beneficiary of grade inflation. As a graduate TA, I was told never to fail a student. When I was teaching, I was witness to it every day. You’re right, it isn’t too hard to get good grades today, in the primary/secondary or college settings – and it’s had an effect on how smart the students we’re putting out today. But, that’s another post for another day.

March 12, 2007 4:57 AM

-Sepp said...
Well Kurt, my friend's kid is in college and isn't quite as astute as you are nor, does he make it there every day. Why don't YOU go in and do his work for him in the areas he's lacking in and, go on the days he cuts classes for him. Hell, since you can sleep thru classes it shouldn't put any real damper on you life!
I consider anything less than carrying your own weight as failure! Liberals always seem to forget that "fairness and equality" also means that everyone contributes something more than a burden for someone else to carry.

March 12, 2007 8:30 AM

Barb said...
Loved this post about the daughter.

Public school teachers have seen this attitude of students that follows many of them into the well-paid union ranks and into the low- wage jobs. (Not to indict everyone of these with a broad brush, however.)

It's annoying --this sense of entitlement by people who did not delay gratification in the pursuit of possessions or pleasures --who would not study --who now complain about such things as low wages and the high cost of health care, etc.

Med students are among those who have to work THEIR tails off --almost all of them, Kurt.

And then the lawyers like yourself, an acknowledged playboy, sue the pants off of the hard-working docs as John Edwards did --too often on cases that weren't settled fairly but out of jealousy of the haves by the have- nots on the juries.

the lawyer, in effect, and the patient --are making money on the doctor's altruistic work and lifetime of hard study to get into and out of med school. Would-be- Pres. Edwards, e.g., blamed certain birth defects on docs --which birth defects are now PROVEN to occur in the first trimester, not during delivery --not the doctor's fault. He caused a shortage of insurers and thus, docs, in his state.

A certain ambulance-chasing, highly advertised law firm got 80,000 (settled out of court after suing for a million) for a young guy that was like Audrey in RW's blog--who would not take care of his diabetes --who drank and ate profusely- and never complied with doctors --who had been dismissed by at least 2 doctors for non-compliance --he tried to sue 3 docs and since 2 had dismissed the patient for non-compliance, the first dr. was blamed for not remembering at the fellow's visits for colds, etc. that the fellow had tested positive for diabetes --because the guy never got his glucometer and never came in for diabetic follow up -and wasn't on the doctor's radar as a diabetic -- the patient had been dismissed by the 2 other doctors later for non-compliance.

The first of the 3 sued doctors was in error for not reviewing the guy's first visit from long ago when he came in later for other things -- which old chart page would have told him the fellow was diabetic AND non compliant. but in his high volume practice, often behind schedule, the dr. didn't notice and document the non-compliance of this patient at every visit. Most diabetics are responsible and come in for the condition. The pt. didn't come in often enough, such that the doctor KNEW the patient. The pt. was young and not one who would be routinely screened for diabetes and his complaints were unrelated--and he never brought it up because he didn't want to change his habits, knew he had never gotten the glucometer and returned a week later as directed after the first visit. He started to sue doctors when his condition became irreversible.

The dr should've won in a fair court but wasn't sure he could out-slick the verbage of a john edwards-type from ambulance-chasing law firm, so the lawyers settled. The doctor's lawyer wanted him to fudge and say he told the guy verbally at every visit to get in for the diabetic care --but the honest doc admitted that he didn't realize, seeing the young man so seldom for other things, that he was once diagnosed diabetic --

Each year, the doctors spend more and more time and money practicing defensive medicine because of lawyers --documenting the non-compliance of patients and pursuing them by computer generated mail and phone to remind them to take care of themselves --and documenting the pursuit of the non-compliant patient who wants to blame someone else for his non-compliance.

I believe in being our brothers' keeper to a point--but gee! there oughtta be a law! tort reform!

March 15, 2007 12:22 PM

No comments: