Do you support or oppose Obama's nominee for surgeon general?

[CreekDog]

Vivek Murthy.

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

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I support the nomination and think the Senate should confirm the nominee
	7 (88%)
	I oppose the nomination and think the Senate should reject the nominee
	1 (13%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MADem]

1. From your link, a helluva resume--what's not to love?

Vivek Hallegere Murthy (Kannada:ವಿವೇಕ ಮೂರ್ತಿ, born 1976 or 1977) is a British-born American physician who has been nominated by U.S. President Barack Obama to serve as the 19th Surgeon General of the United States.[1] Murthy is co-founder of Doctors for America, formerly known as "Doctors For Obama."[2] If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Murthy will become the youngest Surgeon General in U.S. history.[3] He will succeed the current acting Surgeon General Boris D. Lushniak.

Murthy was born to a Kannada speaking family; his parents are originally from Karnataka, India. He was born in Huddersfield, England, but his family relocated to Miami, Florida when he was three years old.[4] Murthy completed his early education in Miami, graduating as valedictorian from Miami Palmetto Senior High School in 1994.[5] He then attended college at Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in three years with a bachelors degree in Biochemical Sciences.[5] Murthy received an MD from Yale School of Medicine and an MBA in Health Care Management from Yale School of Management in 2003, where he was a Paul & Daisy Soros Fellow.[6][7] He completed his residency in Internal Medicine in 2006 from Brigham and Women's Hospital.[8]

Murthy is a physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a Hospitalist Attending Physician and Instructor in Medicine at Harvard Medical School.[9] He is also a founder and president of Doctors for America, a group of 15,000 physicians and medical students supporting Obama.[10][11] In 2011, Murthy was appointed by U.S. President Barack Obama to serve on the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.[9] The group advises the National Prevention Council on developing strategies and partnerships to advance the nation's health.[12]
Murthy also has experience in creating information technology solutions to medical-related problems.[11] He is co-founder and chairman of TrialNetworks, a cloud-based Clinical Trial Optimization System for pharmaceutical and biotechnology trials that improves the quality and efficiency of clinical trials to bring new drugs to market faster and more safely.[13][14] He founded the company as Epernicus in 2008 to originally be a collaborative networking web platform for scientists to boost research productivity.[15] Since 1995, he has also been a leader in H.I.V. prevention and AIDS education, co-founding and serving as president and chairman of a non-profit organization, Visions Worldwide, focused on that mission in the U.S and in India.[10] He has been a prominent supporter of Obama's healthcare law.[16]

[CreekDog]

2. probably nothing not to like, which is why he has so much opposition among our gungeoners

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172139958#op

[MADem]

3. Aaaaaah....there it is, then!

Never mind he's a great doc with an impeccable resume, he is "thoughtful" when it comes to GUNZ!!!!! ....ergo, he must be viewed with suspicion!

[etherealtruth]

6. Incredible resume

... by all accounts an incredible person ... he recognizes that guns are a serious public health concern. Incredible that anyone other than knuckle dragging right wingers (and those that get money from them/ politicians) would oppose this man

[CreekDog]

13. the gungeoners are falling over each other to oppose him

well, that's the funny thing...

they are falling over each other to say that it's everything but guns.

[etherealtruth]

14. Are they being dishonest in general or dishonest with themselves?

at least there is a certain honesty about this in congress ... they are pretty clear that it IS all about guns

[CreekDog]

26. they're being dishonest with us

when we aren't watching a lot more gets said.

because why?

they don't feel part of us or united with us. separate goals really.

[Electric Monk]

33. k&r

[Electric Monk]

36. While this poll is currently 96% to 4%, the identical poll in the gungeon is at 69% to 31%

It's almost like that poll was held on a different website whose user base had vastly different values and priorities.

[Hoyt]

4. Hope he receives fairer consideration than gun fanciers gave pediatricians who counsel parents on

on gun safety. Our gungeoneer members went berserk over that.

[MADem]

5. I knew there was a reason I stayed out of that pit! nt

[etherealtruth]

7. Why in the world would anyone object to that? n/t

[Hoyt]

8. Same reason they are upset with this doctor. They don't like folks messing with their gunz,

and the belief that more gunz in more places is good for society.

[etherealtruth]

9. I thought "they" were all about education?

One would think being informed about "GUNZ" ... would be the exact thing they claim to want ...? Factual information ... not standing in the way of research or public education on what the research has identified.

If I am going to claim to pro anything I want all the information I can find ... good or bad

[Hoyt]

10. They support education by NRA, besides most docs don't know difference between a clip or magazine,

as if that matters. They sure don't want anyone who has seen a little kid killed by a gun providing information on the issue.

[CreekDog]

11. maybe you have a point...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172140458

[Hoyt]

16. Good poll. I bet most Gungeoneers aren't answering or would vote differently on a gun site.

[CreekDog]

17. also fascinating is how none of them will admit guns are the reason for their opposition

amazing. in a forum where "gun" is usually the answer to any question (like "Jesus" in Sunday School...), on that thread they will say any reason to oppose him, but not guns.

rather entertaining...

no, it's his age...too young...
no, not enough management experience...
he's not head of his department!

but guns? ah, i uh, guns, hmmmm, guns, they never crossed my mind, why would guns have any effect on my opinion?

real tough guys there, can't even admit what they think.

[Hoyt]

18. Yep. They aren't fooling anybody.

[CreekDog]

19. except for themselves

in that they don't realize how obvious they are to the rest of us.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Have you noticed your nose growing longer yet?:

The disinterested observer will note this was posted before the above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172140458#post32

Star Member friendly_iconoclast (9,927 posts)
32. Both guns AND lack of experience. Would you support Murthy if you didn't share his opinion...

...on guns? There are some major issues in the field of public health that are going to
come to the fore in major ways soon, and the Feds really need someone with experience
and political/organizational nous to navigate them:

*Climate change, and the effects on health (the current spread of infectious diseases
such as dengue fever, West Nile virus, Valley fever and Eastern Equine Encephalitis.

*the aging population, in common with other industrialized countries

*the effects of pollutants (got coal sludge?)

*Maybe this isn't quite as urgent as the above, but sleep deprivation
will only get worse in the future- and it's damn sure widespread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/114210992

Even if Murthy had said nothing at all about guns, he'd still be unqualified...

[CreekDog]

23. you posted that at 2:26, i posted at 2:28, do you think maybe i didn't see it first?

and why the hell did it take 32 posts in the gungeon to bring you to a partial admission that guns were part of your opposition?

sheesh. nose growing longer? need a mirror?

i was honest, which is more than i can say for the gungeoners posting in my thread there.

[whistler162]

31. Simple.... Obama nominated him!

must be bad then!

[MADem]

32. Ha ha ha!

Smart, highly educated, motivated, principled....what a nominee...!!!!!!!!


Thanks a LOT, Obama!!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I don't see a position on medical cannabis, however tentatively I'd say "support"

[fizzgig]

20. from the boston globe

snip

The role of surgeon general is primarily public health advocacy. Murthy was also asked about medical marijuana, an issue that has recently gained new prominence as several states have liberalized their laws. Massachusetts allows marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Murthy said he had heard anecdotal evidence from patients who had been prescribed medical marijuana by other doctors. But he had not prescribed it himself and believes there should be more research before it is used for medical or recreational purposes.

“Just like other drugs, I don’t recommend marijuana. And I don’t think it’s a good habit to use marijuana. And if I had kids, I’d tell them not to use it.”

link

i'd like to know where he falls on reclassifying marijuana, its current classification hinders research.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Agreed.

[Logical]

15. What is not to like? n-t

[ManiacJoe]

24. What are Murthy's views on guns?

(Cross posted from the duplicate poll in Guns.)

For you folks who think Murthy's views on guns are relevant to the post of Surgeon General, what ARE Murthy's views on guns?

[CreekDog]

25. only one of them in the gungeon thread will even admit considering guns

while opposing his nomination.

and it took that 32 posts for a single mention of guns to be part of the explanation for the answer.

in the gungeon, how many of them do you think were thinking "guns" when i posted the question about the surgeon general nominee?

how many of them posted anything relating to guns as their explanation?

feel played with? you should.

[ManiacJoe]

27. You said that already. How about answering the question.

No, I do not feel played with. I do feel that you were disappointed in the answers you got.

Back to the unanswered question: What are Murthy's positions on guns?

[Jgarrick]

29. He supports a "host" of gun control measures, according to Think Progress

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/27/3337931/vivek-murthy-nra-guns-public-health/

Among them universal background checks (a quite popular position) and a ban on assault weapons (not so much).

[ManiacJoe]

30. Thanks for the link!

Unfortunately, thinkprogress.org seems quite vague on the subject, too.

From what I can tell, his views are not that surprising. However, none of it seems relevant to the position of Surgeon General.

[etherealtruth]

35. Like the rest of the medical community, he believes gun violence is a public health concern

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/20/on-obamas-surgeon-general-nominee-its-medical-e/198544

....In recent weeks Murthy has come under attack from the National Rifle Association and its allies in conservative media because, like the rest of the medical community, he believes gun violence is a public health concern. Murthy has said his concern about gun violence stems from his experiences as a doctor, but has also said that he would not "use the Surgeon General's office as a bully pulpit for gun control," and instead would make his top priority "obesity prevention." ....

....Seizing on a 2013 letter that Murthy's organization Doctors for America authored after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Lott expressed concern that Murthy's group "has advocated that physicians question parents about their gun ownership and counsel them not to own guns or always to store them locked up." This type of doctor-patient counseling is non-controversial and aims to prevent gun accidents involving children. The practice is also protected by the First Amendment and attempts to regulate doctors' speech have been struck down as unconstitutional.

[elleng]

28. SIGN THE PETITION SUPPORTING DR. MURTHY,

don't let NRA make this decision!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024710672

[CreekDog]

34. Thank you!

[KamaAina]

37. Protip: For the two of you who voted Oppose,

there is a handy Show Usernames link the rest of us can click to unmask you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Better inform the Inquisition. They'll know just what to do with those heretics!

Really, though- thanks for posting that. You learn something new every day-
I was unaware that the principle of 'ex cathedra' applied to Presidential nominations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra

[CreekDog]

39. So you've been here 8 years, you're a host, you freely post throughout DU...

and you're always complaining that you're treated like the victims of Senator McCarthy, now the Spanish Inquisition, etc.

apparently you think the worst that happened to the victims of the Spanish Inquisition was that they were subject to harsh criticism in just one small aspect of their lives.

because look at you and others, you take repulsive positions and yet how has it harmed you? not at all. you're a full member, you get to host, you have as much freedom to post here as the rest of us.

and yet you cry that you're a victim.

it's bad enough you post the way you do about guns, but that you feel like the victim of severe repression must mean that you want the freedom to post without getting criticized. yet you criticize the rest of us --for posting the Democratic position on MOST issues!

grow up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Firstly, self-appointed political officers do not deserve, (and will not get) any respect...

Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

...from me. That description includes both you and the poster I replied to.

Secondly, support for gun control is hardly a marker for progressivism- see William Bennett,
Richard Nixon, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giulani.

Thirdly, your second-to-last paragraph is factually inaccurate:

it's bad enough you post the way you do about guns, but that you feel like the victim of severe repression must mean that you want the freedom to post without getting criticized. yet you criticize the rest of us --for posting the Democratic position on MOST issues!

Criticize away, it neither steals my purse nor breaks my leg. And if you'd bothered to
examine my posts over the last eight years, you would have noticed that I support
*marriage equality, *the ACLU, *the Electronic Frontier Foundation, *ADAPT:

http://www.adapt.org/

*Unions (I'm an SEIU member), and *Senator Elizabeth Warren (MY Senator, I'm proud to
say) and her fight against banksters.

But due to my positions on gun ownership, I am deemed 'right wing'. Feh!

I only criticize those who demand automatic approval of a lightweight apparently
because the NRA dislikes him, along with those who are upset that some
have the temerity to question Murthy's appontment.

Look at the Gungeon version of this poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=140458

Note the number of posters unable (or unwilling) to cogently state their reasons for
their approval of Murthy...

[CreekDog]

41. why are you changing the subject away from your own statement?

you made criticism of your positions and posts on guns tantamount to the Spanish Inquisition.

you made criticism of your positions and posts tantamount to being victimized and brutalized, yes, for words that basically said that you were wrong.

not words that physically harmed you, not words that prevented you from getting a job, not words that downgraded your position in society, but words that just said, you're wrong, we disagree.

the victimhood you've written about suffering is complete nonsense. you're asking to not have people criticize your statements here. sorry, no special treatment just because you take positions to the right of most here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Do you prefer baling wire or twine to build your strawmen with?

you made criticism of your positions and posts on guns tantamount to the Spanish Inquisition.

Go back and read again, I was responding to a poster implying those opposed to Murthy
had done something wrong and were going to be found out, oooh!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4720046

KamaAina (50,125 posts)
37. Protip: For the two of you who voted Oppose,

there is a handy Show Usernames link the rest of us can click to unmask you.

I don't DO lockstep, and replied accordingly- apparently sarcasm doesn't work unless explicitly
labeled as such...

you made criticism of your positions and posts tantamount to being victimized and brutalized,

Hardly, I criticized groupthink- and will always criticize it

you're asking to not have people criticize your statements here.

That, after I posted the following? Gimme a break...

Criticize away, it neither steals my purse nor breaks my leg

I said it, and meant it. Keep at it. Criticize me. Do your worst. Just don't expect me to defer to you
or any other self-appointed zampolit/politruk/witchfinder/threadcop

[beevul]

43. You're confused.

If someone tells, hints, implies, or otherwise communicates the sentiment to you, creekdog, that you are behaving like Joe McCarthy, they're referring to YOUR behavior, not how your behavior makes them feel.


Incidentally, I suppose one way to avoid being told that one is behaving like Joe McCarthy, is to refrain from behaving like Joe McCarthy, no matter how hard that might be.

Don't worry, I'm sure there are other ways too.

[Electric Monk]

44. You're projecting again.

Prove you aren't

[beevul]

45. My behavior is proof enough. N/T