Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Would you trust a doctor who gave the same prescription no matter what your symptoms?

Asked by ETpro (34550points) April 13th, 2011

Say you visit the doctor with a sore wrist. He writes you a prescription for some funny sounding medicine. You take it, and the wrist gets worse. But you stop worrying about the wrist when you start having sharp pains in your side. The same doctor prescribes the same medicine, just twice the dosage. You think it strange, but perhaps this stuff is a mystery cure, so you fill the script and take it.

Within days you develop splitting, debilitating headaches. Your wrist still hurts. The pain is still there in your side. But you can’t even think about those minor things, because your headache is so severe you cannot even function to think. So back to the doctor. You guessed it. You need to take four times as much of his one-pill-cures-all potion.

How long would you do this before you finally realized you are dealing with a complete quack who is probably making a fortune with a financial interest in the one pill he pushes to all his patients regardless of their symptoms?

But isn’t that just what the prophets of everlasting tax cuts are doing for the economy? Sure, if taxes are too high they choke the supply side and a tax cut, especially one directed to the rich and corporations, stimulates supply and thus the economy. But we have cut taxes now from an all-time high of 94% on income after the first $400,000 down to 35% and we have added so many loopholes that the very rich now pay a real rate of around 20%.

Now our problem isn’t supply side and budget surplusses. It is demand side (the consumers can’t spend, they are tapped out) and massive budget deficits. But the quacks want to prescribe the same cure no matter what the symptoms. The latest Republican proposal from Paul Ryan proposes another nearly 30% cut in taxes for the top bracket, coupled with tax increases and benefit cuts for the poor, elderly and infirm. Transfer even more of the nation’s wealth to the wealthy. Fix the supply side even though there is no demand. How long will we keep swallowing larger and larger doses of medicine that is making the economy progressively worse?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

FluffyChicken's avatar

How do you suggest we change this?

I once had a psychiatrist that thought Prozac was the problem to all of life’s problems. I remedied this by going to a betters psychiatrist. I don’t think the same strategy will work here.

marinelife's avatar

I don’t think such a doctor would be practicing medicine very long.

Cruiser's avatar

I think it’s time to shelve the “same old song and dance” excuse and finally admit this current budget proposal was a highly debated and negotiated deal by both sides. This one rests squarely on Obama’s shoulders as he approved this deal. The sad part is you left out the real victims of this budget deal and that the most affected by it are non-voters. Nothing “BIG” got cut….medicare and Social Security are intact….what got chopped were programs in education, HUD, Transportation, HHS, WIC is a program that uses federal money to subsidize the food and nutrition needs of children from low-income families.

Plus anywhere from 200,000–700,000 jobs will be lost as a result of this “prescription”
Yes, the Doctor is prescribing the same preventative Corporate medicine but his name is Dr. Obama.

Facade's avatar

I don’t trust most doctors period, but that would just add to my distrust.

Rarebear's avatar

So is the question about doctors or Ryan’s budget proposal? I’m confused.

mazingerz88's avatar

I’ll choose Dr. Obama over Dr. Ryan.

Rarebear's avatar

Oh wait, I get it now. The doctor is a metaphor, sorry for being dense.

deni's avatar

Nevermind

ETpro's avatar

@FluffyChicken Wake up to the fact that we keep taking more and more of this supply-side medicine while the problem is demand-side. You can’t cure athlete’s foot by gargling, even with the best mouthwash.

@Cruiser I was furious with Obama for caving on that negotiation. I think if he’d had the stones of the opposition, he would have said, :Hey, if you guys are so in love with your tax breaks for the rich that you are willing to raise taxes on everyone if you can’t get them, then go for it. You will be blamed.” They agreed to $38 billion in cuts and gave away another $83 billion over the nest two years with the millionaire tax cut. That’s not going to reduce the deficit. It’s going to increase it. Just more smoke and mirrors.

@Rarebear I’m glad I didn’t have to explain it. I thought it would be more obvious than it apparently was.

@deni I never do all the time.

Rarebear's avatar

@ETpro It was just my little myopic view on life. Sorry about that.

ETpro's avatar

@Rarebear It’s I who should beg forgiveness. You are so brilliant I rarely get a chance to tease youy for failure to follow a line of discourse.

Rarebear's avatar

lol thanks. What happened was I read the question with my doctor hat on, and then when I read the body I got confused—I was thinking “okay, sore wrist. Needs splinting and occupational therapy…” Then I saw the bit on Paul Ryan and I thought, uh, what?

Good editorial by David Brooks that takes a different point of view.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

ETpro's avatar

@Rarebear Oops. Sorry, doc. Take a look at this question where I suggest a way to ask voters to pay for the government thay appear to actually want—and like doing it.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther