Kentucky candidate for the Senate Rand Paul has had some problems recently. First he was in trouble for stating that businesses should be able to discriminate based on race. Recently he has advocated an underground electronic fence on the border. He has pretty much ignored requests to define just what the electronic underground border fence will do or how it will function. Now there is some controversy over his occupation.
Rand Paul claims to be a Board-certified ophthalmologist. The idea of being certified by a Board is meant to provide comfort to patients because their physicians have proved to a group of their peers that they are qualified to practice. What’s strange about Paul’s claim is that he is not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology. He is, however certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology. If you’re wondering if the difference between the two, it is quite vast. The American Board of Ophthalmology, which has not certified him, is the actual board. The National Board of Ophthalmology, which has certified Paul, is created by Rand Paul. He is the president and director. I believe his wife and father-in-law hold other positions. The office is a PO Box. It is a shell so Rand can call himself “Board-certified.”
This is obviously intentionally misleading patients and the American public. I think it is especially troubling from the perspective of the patient. I hear Board-certified and I feel confident that I am going to get solid care. Misusing that phrase to mislead people seems like it should almost have legal ramifications. If I had been cared for by this guy under the assumption that he was ABO certified, I would be irate.
Perhaps I will declare myself a Board-certified ophthalmologist. Stephen Colbert did just that:
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| USA Board of Ophthalmological Freedom | ||||
|
||||
Enjoy the excuse for this one.
Adam Feser
11 Comments
login
Polls
Loading ...Recent Comments
- internal hemorrhoids treatments on Egypt Reactions
- like this on John Thune and Sotomayor
- jquery mobile tutorial on College Football/Nebraska-KSU Challenge
- discount learn css3 pdf on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now aka ACORN
- site link on Rep. Weiner on Justice Thomas and the Appearance of Bias
- rate us online on House Officially Disapproves of Wilson’s Outburst
- rate us on Will Rogers Said It Best
- t1 circuit info on Good God Glenn
- reality show casting on Teacher takes Student the wood shed…
- insurnace companies on Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage
Most Commented Posts
- Miss me yet (130)
- Arizona's Racist Law (119)
- Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty (83)
- Smoking Ban Thoughts and Poll (80)
- Tom Tancredo Wants Literacy Tests (76)
- The Apparent Trap/Hawaiian Health Care (62)
- Sarah Palin: Persecuted Jew? (57)
- Healthcare (53)
- Cash for Clunkers: What a joke! (50)
- Tom Coburn Has Pelosi's Back and a Point (49)
Blogroll
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
You gotta love all the conservatives in Kentucky who voted for Rand Paul and brought him to national exposure, priceless. Lets face it they will try to vote this liar in but we can only wait and see if there is other skeltons in hs closet, oh yeah he is not a racist, I repeat, he is not a racist. Great thing is we are talking about Kentucky, so being a racist may be a positive, we will see.
You may have a point. A perception of racism may not be the end all in Kentucky.
I’m sure the Republican establishment is pulling out their hair with the nominations of Paul and Angle. The Tea Party could turn what should have been an easy Republican November into something far less positive. Angle’s nomination actually gives Reid a chance.
Is the “National Board of Ophthalmology” totally bogus? You didn’t really establish anything on it except that Paul is the president and director. Surely the “American Board of Ophthalmology” also has a president and director, would you call whoever holds that position less of a doctor? Lots of peope have PO boxes,that doesn’t make somebody or something bogus. I’m not saying that I know for sure, I don’t. I’m just saying that what you used to make it sound shady isn’t really bad at all. If you pay a medical bill to a PO Box does that make the clinic/hospital/doctor less legit?
He’s the only member of an organization claiming to be a board. How is that not bogus?
Update: It looks like 7 doctors claim to be certified by Paul’s board.
And no, the board is not certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties, which is the group that would certify the his little racket.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20106140307
Paul was certified by the real board but he let it lapse and just kept saying he was board-certified.
John G. Clarkson, M.D., President of the Board of Directors for the American Board of Ophthalmology, is one of the many diplomates of that organization who is exempt from the recertification and continuing education requirements they adopted in the early 90s. As in, he and the other members of their board exempted themselves from those requirements. It was his frustration over that particular hypocrisy that led Rand Paul to break from that organization to start a competing one. Now, I think Rand Paul needs to make public the details of his National Board of Ophthalmology. He himself participates in regular continuing education through the only actual LEGAL guarantee to the public that a doctor knows what he’s doing – his state licensure board. He claims that his NBO’s testing is almost identical to that of the ABO, and that his board requires regular recertification, without regard to age, etc. If these things are true, then I don’t see how this indicates a character flaw on his part, however, we have no way of confirming that these things are true. This is going to be a big problem for him, unless he actually releases verifiable information to the public to clear these accusations of impropriety.
P.S. Whether or not the attacks on Rand Paul’s character hold any water, one thing is clear: Stephen Colbert, who used to be a brilliant satirist, is now a better-disguised Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olberman – a political tool, drumming up fervor in service of his corporate bosses’ political interests.
One more thing: Can we finally put to rest this anti-Southern state stereotyping? Please? How anyone feels that blanket statements about entire states’ populations are any less despicable than blanket statements about entire ethnic groups is beyond me.
It’s incredibly dishonest to just say you are board-certified without saying you’re the president and founder of the board while letting people assume it is the ABO. Colbert is the same he’s always been. He hardly drums up fervor for Viacom’s political interests. That doesn’t even make sense. If you remember the writers’ strike, Colbert and Stewart actively argued against Viacom’s interests.
[...] have been plenty of questions about Rand Paul, so it would make sense that once he got into the Senate he would keep a low [...]
Hello There. I found your weblog using msn. This is a very smartly written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read extra of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I will certainly comeback.