Dr. Sanjay Gupta: the latest snub to progressives:

considering Dr. Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General is perplexing.

TV doctors are not well regarded by peers, and Gupta maltreated Michael Moore, when he interviewed Moore regarding "Sicko."

You can read more on this blog:

<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/>

Either by neurosurgeons, or journalists?

But other public health advocates said Dr. Gupta, while an unusual choice, might be a good one. “The surgeon general’s role has been to be the country’s doctor, and having someone who is immediately recognizable to many people can be very helpful,” said Linda C. Degutis, immediate past president of the American Public Health Association.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07gupta.html?ref=health

first of all, i think the term you meant was 'envy'

'jealousy' means being afraid of losing someone to someone else

'envy' means coveting something someone else has, and wanting it for yourself, and feeling resentful

so, which did you mean?

otherwise, many physicians at centers of excellence are perfectly content with practicing their profession; they don't seek media positions; they're both practicioners and researchers, and happy and satisfied helping patients and gaining recognition from their peers; not from the masses

so, i don't think they're envious of Gupta

rather, their negativity stems from their misgivings about Gupta's positions on a range of issues affecting the medical profession, and for the idiocy of much TV 'health' programming, etc...

To the will of Obama or the will of the people?

where did we see this kind of behavior, for the past 8 yrs?

people will only bend so far to their superiors....unless you think Obama will be a micro manager like Carter, authority gets delegated to appointees, and appointees have a fair amount of automomy

do you think O will micromanage every single decision his appointees make?

as Carter attempted to do?

help clear up the problems.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_name=gupta_vs_moore

There were three main points of contention in their debate. First, how much does Cuba spend? Moore said $251. Gupta quoted him as saying $25. Gupta got his transcription wrong, and apologized for the error. In later arguments between Gupta and Moore, everyone agreed that the number was actually $229.

Michael Moore, film maker.....Barack Obama, president of the United States....sure, those are about equal!

Don't you think it is possible that - just maybe - the President Elect has had a conversation with Dr. Gupta about these things?

We were promised change. A surgeon general that just tows a political party line is not change, even if they can keep Gupta's hands out of the Big Pharma till while he's on the job.

Surgeon Generals are supposed to promote good public health policies in the areas of public awareness and in internal policy among providers, not push the latest pill, and not justify political decisions of the White House or Congress when they are not scientifically sound. Gupta has shown time and time again that he's willing to play loose with the facts for his current employer -- the Moore flap was not the first it was just the best example where he got caught at it.

I don't care if his employer is on our side I want a Surgeon General that sticks to the facts.

I'm glad Obama won. I think he'll be a great president in the end, not just great compared to BushCo, but great in a historical sense. I will be celebrating with everyone else on the 20th but we would be remiss if we did not apply pressure on the transition team now for this mistake.

Have you got any example of Gupta pushing anything scientifically unsound?

The first and foremost would be him getting up there on CNN looking to stem a panic in the beef commodity markets by telling the entire viewing audience that they can kill mad cow disease by cooking their meat thoroughly, which is false.

But it's an error, not shilling. Because no shilling for the beef industry would blatantly make that claim.

If you do your homework, a pattern will emerge -- that of an industry shill.

Harping on trivial errors and vague conspiracy theories.

If you are not going to take on both sides of the issue voluntarily and dismiss people who don't like Gupta as tinfoil hatters, I am not going to spoon feed you. Gupta isn't always shilling so occasionally he's going to step on the toes of actual tinfoil hatters just by talking common knowledge items.

I'm sure you can have plenty of fun lumping the reasonable people who have discerned Gupta's loose play with the facts for remunerative benefit in with the crazies.

Have at it.

Meanwhile I'm sending a nastygram to change.gov. They'll probably at least open mail from donors like me.

a for profit health insurance that keeps at least 40 million Americans from being able to access healthcare. It certainly isn't in the interest of the public health.

He's a fascist. :eyes:

;-)

What don't you Reich wing Duers get about lying?

Jesus, at least get your lame insults on the same page. :rofl:

who is the spokesperson for the status quo Big Medicine system here in the USA -- a system that's burying most Americans in either debt or lack of health care (sometimes both at the same time).

oh wait, no, its because hes a liar and went on national tv countless times spouting lies about other nations health care systems to keep the balance of corporate WHORING over the medical field.

sorry, i want someone with PEOPLES best interest in mind. not corporations wallets.

All of the ones I have seen on MSNBC and ABC. Thought it was a brilliant pick.

:shrug:

that's what you said

I'll take the medical professionals opinions on this. And I'll take Krugman's opinion on ECONOMIC issues

Any doctor who doesn't hold Gupta in high regard apparently isn't making the effort to be vocal about it via TV or an equally prominent venue, so we don't know what they think.

And the link posted within the article is a broken link, too.

more stupid on top of stupid. for fuck's sake, this is the Surgeon General, hardly an important position. what a fucking moronic tempest in a teapot.

The Rude One is my hero.

Hahahahahahaha! rude one is my hero too.

You could not possibly get much more of an ignorant hypocritical post then this piece of shit you posted.

He hasn't a problem with Gupta's credentials, just taking an issue with Gupta butting his head with Moore.

This from a guy who couldn't keep his mouth shut during the primaries over Obama.

and her single payer program

will Obama supporters NEVER let go of past grievances?

I, along with many others, was a huge Hillary supporter; once she lost the primary, I supported Obama; I worked for his election and donated money to his campaign

But many of those who supported Obama all along still hate anyone who supported Hillary, it seems

:shrug:

Why doesn't he, like, perform surgery on, like, brains and stuff?

Glad to see that one of you is admitting it.

:sarcasm:

Krugman supported Hillary, mainly because she supported a single payer health plan

are you unable to let that go?

Krugman had nothing personal against O, it was rather O's policies that he disagreed with

Krugman's Op-Eds railing against Obama were snarky bordering on unprofessional, thus his continued snotty critiques are suspect and that's nobody's fault but his own.

For future reference, O supporters "let it go" when he won both the primary and the GE. At some point, you're going to need to "let go" of that old chestnut.

In his rebuttal of Gupta, Moore agrees with Gupta more often than not, and offers no real rebuttal.

You're getting bent out of shape over something very petty.

I saw Gupta's review of Moore's movie. He fact-checked it and really only made one accounting error which he then corrected. It was done under the umbrella of his job at CNN. Moore was pissed but as you say didn't offer a substantive rebuttal.

point for point gupta came out poorly. moore was right, it was libel.

Here's the way I look at it. I'm fine with Gupta fact-checking the movie. I used to review movies for my hometown paper a while back and it's supposed to be a service. Unfortunately when it comes to films that are considered "political," and let's face it when Michael Moore farts it's considered political, it frequently is perceived as a hit.

Moore got bogged down in the weeds answering Gupta and I think the whole thing was a difference of opinion and not anywhere in the ballpark of libel. But, again, that's the fever that politics induces that makes statements like that seem perfectly reasonable to some and hyperbole to others.

What I take away from this episode is that Moore, Krugman, and Conyers object to Gupta for the position of Surgeon General. Check. They are entitled to speak up and everybody is entitled to discuss it.

...even if it's wrong. as i recall gupta apologized and or corrected himself. there is absolutely no question that gupta misrepresented moore's position as stated in the film. if you can't concede that your either dumb or dishonest. most people i speak to want honest people in government, i.e., change.

that's "you are" or "you're" ... ;)

or (c) We have a difference of opinion.

She supported mandatory insurance. NOT the same thing at all.

.

For that?

Isolate and gang up.

You know the whole in crowd outsider thing.

Surgeon General Sanjay Gupta.

I don't care for him, but I am not bent out of shape either.

No, really!

:p

Did anybody really care who Obama was going to pick as surgeon general before Gupta was mentioned? I have a hard time getting worked up over a glorified spokesperson.

It has specific duties and responsibilities. That it has been just a glorified spokesperson is one of the things broken in Washington. Apparently the transition team doesn't really care to fix that. Pity.

The only reason he can find that Gupta is not qualified for the job is that Gupta had a spat with Michael Moore?

from family experience I thank at least one "TV" doctor for helping my uncle, mental illness, and giving advise to my aunt, cancer.

And no I am not talking about off the TV help. I mean one on one as a doctor - patient!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Tim_Johnson

I don't know, and neither does anyone else, if Dr. Gupta will do a good job as Surgeon General. I however do gete tired of each and every choice President-Elect Obama makes being flayed apart by every 1/8 baked critic around.

:shrug:

Quick, name Shrub's SG's! I can't. I am more interested in the new post Obama created today in regards to government spending.

Which is much less of a position then SG.

Why expect less of our leaders? Is it because a Democrat picked him?

I am really not liking this new goose stepping DU.

but I find the nom weird. Gupta seems to be too "celebrity" to be surgeon gen.

and people who value honesty.

Amen.

Obama is building from the center out,,,get used to it

There is no goddamn "center". It's a made up fucking DLC term used to excuse corporatism and right wing pandering.

And Dr. Sanjaya is certainly guilty of both.

No difference.

The job of Surgeon General is one that requires two hats - one of doctor, the other one of media personality, and its clear he has plenty of experience wearing both hats. In that respect, he's quite qualified.

On the other hand, yeah, I'm not forgetting his attempt to smear Michael Moore and SiCKO. Still, I think that with Obama as his boss and giving him orders, he might do the right thing. Maybe this is something of the "He's an asshole, but he's now our asshole" argument.

The way I see it, there are three people that you see in the big political circles. There are the idealists - Kucinich is an idealist, and yes, I see Obama as part idealist. The big problem is that there aren't enough idealists able to get in the big leagues to get anything done. That leaves the other two groups - the businesspeople and the sociopaths. We all know about the sociopaths - Bush, Cheney, Blago, etc. etc. etc. - who abuse their offices and the public trust for enrichment of themselves and their cronies, and run our country into the ground. In the middle of the road are the businesspeople - who can be either angel or devil. They treat government like a business - they use it to make a living for themselves, they try when they can to do the right thing and not do too many things that make them lose sleep at night, but at the same time, they can be bought. Barack Obama is part idealist, like I said, but also part businessman - he doesn't always do the right thing, but he does have a decent moral center, but he also has a keen eye for politics and knows how to play the game - I think that's what got him elected while idealists like Kucinich consistently fail and get shoved to the back bench. I'm thinking Sanjay Gupta is also a businessman - he can be bought, and clearly was bought when he did his ambush on Michael Moore. But the good guys can also buy him - he's now got Obama as his boss, and will have to work to implement Obama's policies.

Like I said, Gupta's an asshole, but he's now our asshole.

Surgeon Generals don't do policy. They educate people on stuff like obesity, AIDS and are essentially health information advocates. They don't talk about healthcare policies in terms of universal or single payer healthcare.

I have my copy of Sicko. I also don't think Gupta is a bad choice either. There's a lot more to be worried about, frankly.

didn't he also say smoking dope was worse than drinking?

isn't important. If it weren't important, then why should it exist, and why, say, would President Clinton want to fire Joycelyn Elders for her remarks about masturbation? Who cares what a Surgeon General may say, if it doesn't matter? Perhaps I should take up smoking, ignoring the warnings?

Anybody who knows anybody with cancer or ms really should be with me on this one. :grr: :mad:

edit to add: I knew he was a jerk but what an ASSHOLE.