Why do we think he sounds like a moron? See Anon 7:03.

Why do we think his message was wrong? Because he speaks his opinions as though they are truths. In fact, he didn’t even fess up to lacking any studies or data regarding his claim that “juries are rather frugal with their non-economic payouts” until the interviewer pushed him to back that up.

No one is disputing the factual basis of his claims that there are more ob/gyns (nominally anyway) or that they are disporportionately distributed geographically. If you would bother to read back, you’d see that Anon 10:54 and Anon 9:39 have addressed that specifically.

No one has even tried to argue that lifestyle considerations don’t play a part in where doctors choose to practice. But this guy makes the leap to saying that malpractice premiums have nothing to do with one’s decision not to perform high-risk procedures, rural or urban (a laughable stance-why else would they choose not to do them?).

How do you argue against someone’e opinion or anecdotal experience? I can’t PROVE that his opinions are wrong (even if I think they are ill-informed), and I can’t PROVE what he has or hasn’t seen in his personal experiences.

Do you have any FACTS showing otherwise?

Most interviews don’t come with footnotes. A simple Google search turned it up. When physicians make claims about the law, do you automatically believe them, or do you require footnotes?

“Its the rest of the article (which he even admits are his opinions and based on nothing more than his own anecdotal experiences) that people disagree with.”

On what basis? Do you disagree that healthcare is better in urban areas generally? Or that more people, including physicians, want to live in cities or nice suburbs? What is there to dispute about that?

“This guy isn’t just some lawyer on the street, he is the freakin’ president of the ATLA, and his arguments come across as downright idiotic.”

In what way? Everything he says is true. Is the truth idiotic simply because you don’t like the speaker? So far, you have been unable to disprove a thing he said, so who is the idiot?

Anyhow, it appears that the report referenced is related to physician distributions and was most likely the basis for his claim that there are 25% more ob/gyns now that in 1990 (which no one here has denied) or that there are proportionately fewer ob/gyn’s in rural areas (which, again, no one here has denied).

Its the rest of the article (which he even admits are his opinions and based on nothing more than his own anecdotal experiences) that people disagree with.

As for shooting the messenger… yeah, that’s the whole point. See the very first post. This guy isn’t just some lawyer on the street, he is the freakin’ president of the ATLA, and his arguments come across as downright idiotic. He is making himself and his entire profession look like morons who can’t form basic logical axioms, which does indeed weaken the message.

“[14] “Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the U.S.,” American Medical Association, 2006 edition, p.133;”

That’s gotta hurt, considering it comes from your own lobbying organization.

Your turn to back it up. Or pipe down until you can.

Ahh hello…this messenger didn’t back up his arguement.

Are you actually disagreeing with the premise that rural areas have always struggled with retaining physicians or that for the most part one can find better care in urban areas? Regardless of malpractice premiums? It’s not like a lack of rural physicians is a new phenomenon.

So, can anyone prove him wrong?

*crickets chirping*