Paul’s Stand on Board is one to be Proud of

[low preference guy]

Letter to the editor from a fellow ophthalmologist....


The Rand Paul medical board controversy is not a manifestation of evasiveness but rather an example of Dr. Paul’s principled stand against bureaucracy.

I am a board certified ophthalmologist practicing in Dr. Paul’s city and was not required to take the American Board of Ophthalmology recertification exam because I was “grandfathered” in.

Dr. Paul had the boldness to do what thousands of doctors would like to do - challenge the medical bureaucracy on the unfairness of requiring recertification for some and not for others.

There are further questions about whether recertification improves medical care or just improves the bottom line for the medical boards and the AMA. Medical professionals regularly and confidently refer patients to Dr. Paul.

Please do not be distracted by this irrelevant smokescreen.

Gerald E. Sullivan

Bowling Green

http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/06/16/opinion/letters/letter3.txt

[malkusm]

What a great letter - shows that he is respected by his peers, which is a huge plus.

[K466]

Fantastic, they will stop at nothing to throw mud at Rand, most of it won't stick.

[specsaregood]

What a great letter - shows that he is respected by his peers, which is a huge plus.

Nice, all I see from this made-up "controversy" is to delegitimize that particular board and their certification process. I certainly wouldn't trust it now, knowing that some of their "certified" doctors haven't been retested in 20 years.

[low preference guy]

a doctor certified in 1960 has more credentials than one recertified in 2000 according to the big board.

[specsaregood]

a doctor certified in 1960 has more credentials than one recertified in 2000 according to the big board.

Indeed. They meant this as a smear against Rand, but all it has done is question the relevance of this board's certification process. Bad press for them, no doubt about it.

[economics102]

Indeed. They meant this as a smear against Rand, but all it has done is question the relevance of this board's certification process. Bad press for them, no doubt about it.

It's so funny all the unintended consequences of attacking Rand. Suddenly there is public discourse about whether these medical mafia groups are in the market's best interest.

I've been saying for years that while I think having medical standards is important and fraud should of course be illegal, I think it's absurd that you need a license to practice law, or practice medicine, etc. The market should decide through competition what level of education and assurances and training paths are valuable. Think how much better society would be if attorneys were more affordable! (did I really just say that? :))

[0zzy]

http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-reports/dr-gerald-sullivan-md-3a81b0c2

he is a doctor indeed!

[sailingaway]

Here is Rand on WBKO

http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/96440769.html

[sailingaway]

It's so funny all the unintended consequences of attacking Rand. Suddenly there is public discourse about whether these medical mafia groups are in the market's best interest.


I know. They kept a 'pc' lid on many things and when they attack Rand over them they break the lid off and restart the conversation. I think it is terrific.

[low preference guy]

Rand on the radio today.

On the pulse:

YouTube - Rand Paul on The Pulse w/ Leland Conway 630 WLAP Lexington 6-16-2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zesWNW_ezRA)


On WKTC, part 1:
YouTube - Dr. Rand Paul on 93 WKCT 6-16-2010 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dl5iRzRMaI)


Part 2:
YouTube - Dr. Rand Paul on 93 WKCT 6-16-2010 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8i2KFyFoP8)

[someperson]

For obvious reasons, I believe the stand he took against the ABO's ridiculous age discrimination should be emphasized by his campaign. It demonstrates a real-world example of how such problems can be solved by private individuals without the state having to coerce the ABO to change its policies.

[sailingaway]

Thanks for those radio youtubes.

All and well, but I liked the primary approach better, respond to attacks with a succinct commercial and use your own time to push your positive agenda which will actually address issues -- then challenge Conway on HIS stance on issues. KY will HATE Conway's stance on issues. Rand is on the defensive too much and needs to remind KY why he so overwhelmingly won the primary.

[specsaregood]

then challenge Conway on HIS stance on issues. KY will HATE Conway's stance on issues.

Didn't he go on the attack in this interview? He questioned Conway taking money from utility companies, discussed how they want to avoid the issues, etc.

Ads are good and all, but interviews are paid attention to a bit deeper. I'd argue nobody is paying attention to ads right now.

[boat6868]

Thanks for the radio youtubes. Rand really is an excellent speaker when he is given time to make his point. I think he did great on these radio shows. I thought he did a good job getting in the jabs against Conway. People will be drawn to Rand when they hear him. I hope he will be working the ground as hard as he did during the primary.

[low preference guy]

I also like how Rand doesn't mince words and calls the CJ for their garbage articles, actually using the word "garbage".

[johnrocks]

Dr. Gerald E. Sullivan (gesullivan PSC/Physician/freeman), (Zip code: 42101) $500 to RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE on 08/13/07

Dr. Gerald E. Sullivan (gesullivan PSC/Physician/freeman), (Zip code: 42101) $300 to RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE on 09/21/07

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/elec2/08/elec-BOWLING-GREEN-KY-08.html#ixzz0r3lNGaQ9


About 3/4 way down.:cool:

[thasre]

I know. They kept a 'pc' lid on many things and when they attack Rand over them they break the lid off and restart the conversation. I think it is terrific.

This is not altogether unlike the Civil Rights Act stuff. It was supposed to make Rand look bad, but what it led to is the most comprehensive, widespread debate I've ever heard over the constitutionality of forcing private owners to cater to clients they wouldn't voluntarily choose to serve. It was the first time I've heard major media personalities questioning the appropriateness of denying people the right to choose whom they serve (or don't serve) on their property. Now we're seeing a (admittedly smaller-scale) discussion of these certification board cartels and excessive, but selective, regulation of medical providers.

It's kind of exciting, in a way.

[low preference guy]

Another letter of support:


I am certified with both the American Board of Ophthalmology and the National Board of Ophthalmology. Regarding the NBO, Dr. Rand Paul should be commended for taking a stand against what he and many of us saw as a discriminatory practice regarding re-certification requirements with the ABO.

The older ophthalmologists, those who were running the ABO, were exempting themselves from re-testing, while serving up the younger doctors to the forces who were clamoring for the ABO to institute a formal re-testing procedure.

Dr. Paul was the only one willing to take on the ABO. By forming the NBO, the hope was that enough young doctors would leave the ABO, thereby putting pressure on the ABO to re-consider its stance.

This is why Dr. Paul let his certification expire.

Second, as a surgeon and fellow physician, I can attest to the fact that Dr. Paul is an extremely knowledgeable doctor and a skilled surgeon. In fact, he is probably one of the better read of all my colleagues nationally and I do not hesitate to ask him for advice in a given medical situation, and have done so several times.

I have incorporated several recommendations made by Dr. Paul into my practice and I am a better surgeon because of it.

I applaud Dr. Paul for taking a stand and not wilting from it. I have no doubt Dr. Paul will stand up to the entrenched power in D.C. just has he did against against the entrenched power of the ABO.

The fact that he formed the NBO, when the easy thing would have been to just go along like everyone else, proves that he is a man of principle, and principle is sorely missing in our nation’s capital.

James Rynerson

Alvaton

http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/06/17/opinion/letters/letter1.txt

[sailingaway]

Another letter of support:



http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/06/17/opinion/letters/letter1.txt

I like that one.

[specsaregood]

and I take it the newspaper that first ran the attack isn't printing anything of the like, correct?

[low preference guy]

and I take it the newspaper that first ran the attack isn't printing anything of the like, correct?

ding ding ding!

[yatez112]

Great letters to the editor...CJ still hasn't ran anything about Paul's rebuttal.

I could've sworn Congress did NOT exempt themselves...Rand has been saying they did. Seems he might be incorrect?

:)

[low preference guy]

As a board certified ophthalmologist, like Dr. Rand Paul, I faced a decision when our board broke its promise concerning certification status.

Upon initial certification, applicants were told it was a one-time process. Against the protests of practicing ophthalmologists, the rules were changed requiring recertification every 10 years. The academicians who implemented this rule conveniently exempted themselves via a grandfathering clause. I qualified. Dr. Paul, 10 years my junior, did not.

Rather than allow a stodgy group of academicians to exempt themselves from the rules, Dr. Paul took a stand.

He consulted other ophthalmologists, many of whom decided to join his lead in forming an alternate certifying agency of equally high standards. He succeeded and 200 other ophthalmologists joined him in an effort I strongly supported. This was an act of leadership by a principled man, not someone avoiding the rules.

As an ophthalmologist, I know Dr. Paul as a skilled practitioner. As a Senate candidate, I have seen him run on issues without basing his campaign on the destruction of his opponent. His ideas resonantly speak for themselves.

This issue is being raised by Jack Conway, who knows he can’t run on issues. If so, he loses. He supports the entire Obama agenda, and Kentuckians do not. The good name of a practicing physician is far more valuable than a meaningless stamp of approval by a certifying board.

So to deflect from his political beliefs, Conway attacks Dr. Paul’s character using a manufactured non-issue. The real issue here is the character of a candidate who would levy such an attack.

I can’t wait till November arrives. It’s time to support principled people like Rand Paul. As for board recertification, had I been forced to take the test, I would have refused.

John A. McCubbin

Russellville

http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/06/17/opinion/letters/letter4.txt

[rprprs]

Those letters just keep getting better. :)

[Cowlesy]

Epic thread is epic.

[low preference guy]

meanwhile, the Courier Journal is still publishing pages about the Civil Rights Act.

[TheDriver]

Blog about the blowback (the letters).

http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/06/17/reaping-the-blowback-for-attacking-rand-paul/

[low preference guy]

I brought Dr. Rand Paul to Bowling Green about 15 years ago, and we practiced together about five years.

He is an excellent eye physician and surgeon. He took and passed the American Board of Ophthalmology exam on his first try, and was officially board certified for the next 10 years. During that time, the board changed its rules.

Before that, board certification once passed was permanent. Kentucky has requirements for maintenance of medical licensure that must be met each year, but specialty certification was permanent.

In 1995, the American Board of Ophthalmology let older ophthalmologists retain their certification permanently, but made younger ones re-certify every 10 years. This caught Dr. Paul in the younger group.

He protested, along with many others, to no avail. He thought if any had to recertify, all should. I agree with him, but that wasn’t done.

In 1997, Dr. Paul founded an alternate board, called the National Board of Ophthalmology, and about 200 ophthalmologists joined that, but it was not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, the organization that certifies medical specialty boards. That board requires recertification for all its members in all specialties.

To protest the change in rules, Dr. Paul did not choose to recertify with the American Board of Ophthalmology. I am very familiar with his competence and assure you he would have no problem passing a recertification exam.

I am one of the older ophthalmologists who did not have to recertify, and I am an associate examiner for the ABO oral board examinations, but I think Dr. Paul’s stance is really the correct one. It would be better if we all were periodically recertified.

I am planning to do that soon, voluntarily.

John E. Downing

Bowling Green

http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/06/18/opinion/letters/letter1.txt

[low preference guy]

Board certification initially could include actual observation of physicians treating patients.


That is impractical, today, and is done by written and oral examination. Periodic recertification was then considered as a way to measure continued competence. Some specialty boards adopted this on a voluntary basis. Others, e.g., the American Board of Ophthalmology, made it mandatory after an arbitrary date of initial certification.

State licensing does not require specialty board certification; however, many physicians follow a path similar to Dr. Rand Paul, and seek board certification as another badge of competence. Dr. Paul is not the first doctor to feel that periodic recertification after passing the initial exam is unfair unless it includes all physicians currently practicing a specialty, regardless of their initial certification date.

In other words, if recertification promotes better medical practice, then all practicing physicians should take the exam. He did not claim that the rules did not apply to him, he said that, if the examination is important, no one should be exempt. He felt strongly enough about it that he declined to be associated with an organization that felt that unequal treatment should be the norm. I do not feel that Dr. Paul is less competent than his initial board validation suggests. He performed surgery recently on my mother without my feeling that he was less competent because of his tiff with the ABO. To make this an issue in the campaign is ludicrous. It is meant to draw attention away from Jack Conway’s liberal politics. There is no such examination for competency in politics. Maybe there should be! But let’s examine all that aspire to and hold office with an examination on history, the Constitution and Economics 101. I have no doubt Dr. Rand Paul could pass that test.

He should be our next senator.

Tim Hulsey


http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/06/20/opinion/letters/lett1.txt