Anderson Cooper interviews Dr. Jack Cassell

Run time: 05:12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDia2d8GTXM   Posted on YouTube: April 03, 2010 By YouTube Member: CNN Views on YouTube: 83   Posted on DU: April 03, 2010 By DU Member: eleny Views on DU: 4153

 
At the 0:53 mark Cooper points out how the doc's sign may go against the AMA Code.

as if he has any kind of point. Thanks for legitimizing him! How about interviewing someone worthwhile?

I still don't understand what is in the bill that makes him mad?! Is it possible that he's projecting today's economic circumstances into the future and calculating future costs caused by the new law using today's drug prices and insurance costs?! Did he figure that because of some restrictions in this bill he will not be able to pay for that new yacht on that lucrative deal with some pharmaceutical company so the only way he's going to get that yacht is to jack up his prices?! I don't know what's the beef here?! It's so telling when the pampered overclass starts to justify it's natural prickly behavior in terms of protecting the little people, just "stirring some controversy" so all of us stupid little people start to think and see the world from his spoiled selfish perspective.

he's an asshole.

And probably stirred up some more business for himself. Lots of Teabaggers are older people who naturally have health problems in his area of expertise.

The guy will have a wife in a place of influence and a beefed up medical practice.

The guy is one shrewd mf'er.

And btw, I hope this gimmick backfires on him big and pronto.

he probably thinks he's one badass shrewd mf'er, we'll see, I hope he loses his license.

I thought that fad was out 20 years ago. At least my husband would never be caught dead like that ever in his life. Whew!

guys can't wear any jewelry?

a simple chain with a cross or crystal is what?

A guy can wear 2 huge earrings but if he has a chain around his neck?

Just fill me in:freak:

Must be watching a different video.

At what minute point do you see these huge chains?

The chains are in answer to that.

And if you don't get that, I'm moving on. Hubby and I have an irrigation ditch to rake out today.

But if you need to take a last word, have at it. Maybe someone else will read and reply.

And all they got is this lousy T-shirt.

Can't stand this stuffed shirt.

He and mcAncient have both sold their souls to the devil, as far as I'm concerned. "anything to keep the evil repukkkes happy with me" Their slogan in life.

And that was another priceless Grayson interview. No doubt you've seen it posted here in this forum.

This guy needs to go back to the med school that gave him his doctorate and ask for his money back.

Advice to people: Don't go to this doctor!

He's a urologist, Teabaggers are old and often have problems with their wee-wees.

He's going to be inundated with new patients of a certain political slant. Ubetcha.

(I feel cheap for writing that...but it's TOTALLY worth it.)

now I have to go wash my brain out:puke: (must not think about disgusting image, must not think...):silly:

http://www.blturology.com/

I would guess that he was not smart enough to get into an American medical school. Just my guess, but why else would he have gone to medical school in some unknown institution in the West Indies?

I was suspicious because he seems to be a person who has little ability to analyze or think logically. Just for myself, I would pick a different doctor if I possibly could. To correctly diagnose patients, a doctor needs to be able to do a differential diagnosis -- a process that requires logical thinking. That's just my personal opinion. I have never personally met this guy. I feel sorry for his patients.

"The term differential derives from the word difference: careful differential diagnosis involves first making a list of possible diagnoses, then attempting to remove diagnoses from the list until at most one diagnosis remains. In some cases, there will remain no diagnosis; this suggests the physician has made an error, or that the true diagnosis is unknown to medicine. Removing diagnoses from the list is done by making observations and using tests that should have different results, depending on which diagnosis is correct."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis

A doctor probably doesn't need as much aptitude for logic as does a lawyer or a scientist, but he still needs to be able to assess, prioritize and analyze data and, based on the data, on the facts, reach a logical conclusion. I didn't hear much logic, just irrational anger, in Dr. Cassell's statements. But then the interview was very short.

n/t.

this misinformed hate monger?

remember how many protested in NYC a few years back... the media ignored it, and it was a record turn-out. The media picks and chooses...

Doctors and talking heads-they're all millionaires now.

That's why no newspaper has had a "labor" desk for years now.

Go fuck yourself!

If it's a slow news day find a positive story and report on it.

... I think I've had my fill of Anderson's methodology. This report aside, have you noticed that he seems to think that he *is* the news - instead of being the news *reporter*?

..and what I have always known that just because you have alot of book learning sense doesn't mean you have common sense. Remembering that Pierre Currie died by stepping in front of a horse and Buggy and was trampled to death.This guy must have his brain in his ureters.

It's because health care by its nature doesn't fit into a free market system where competition and choice keep things fair. They might like to go away, but they are sick and need to keep your f---ing appointment. Most likely some have taken off work to be there and don't have time to f--- around with your little political games. How about doing your job and keeping your politics out of it, doctor asshole.
:mad:

Horatio Caine would DEFINITELY whip off "The Shades" on his ass.

...I was saying that it's good that the guy has let us know in advance about his prejudices. I mean I'd hate like hell for him to find out that I'm a Liberal Democrat - and, by the way, probably would hate his guts too if I knew - just when he had me 'by the balls', so to speak.

Then I thought that clearly that same, stated prejudice, would appear to be obvious grounds for any potential mal-practice suit that one may wish, or need, to bring. I mean that prejudice could be prima-facia evidence that he possesses 'malice of forethought', so the judgment would automatically be trebled. Whatever it takes to take this bastard down.