I got into one of my more animated debates yesterday with a fellow on LinkedIn over the issue of physician dispensing. This particular person appears to be a PR rep hired by a dispensing physician in an attempt to scrub the indelible stain on the soul that prescribing for fun and profit undoubtedly brings.

As we went back and forth with our points, this guy actually said at one juncture that I was missing "key opportunities and issues" as I was only "focusing on being right when this a very multilevel issue."

Well, yeah. I do kind of focus on being right. Not many of us spend a great deal of time trying to hone the skill of inaccuracy. Well, those of us who are not PR guns hired by dispensing physicians, anyway.

This morning I got an email from a LinkedIn friend who had seen this exchange, and it said, "Don't waste your time arguing with this guy. He is an idiot."

But.... Tilting at windmills and arguing with idiots is what I do. I can't help myself. It says right in my bio (below) that, while I am not always right, I am never in doubt. Therefore people of such unquestioned confidence must indeed argue with idiots. We're like moths drawn to the flame.

A very dim, ignorant, vacillating flame.

To be fair, this person probably isn't an idiot. He is a guy hired to defend a position that is impossible to defend. In our exchange he posted links to articles he said supported the noble, altruistic cause of physician dispensing. I pointed out those articles were on very biased trade organization websites - organizations that lobby for physician causes and profitability. To me that is kind of like going to a Chinese government website to read that they lead the world in human rights practices. He was unable to cite any credible, unbiased data to support his positions.

And in the interest of full disclosure, he only posted those links as a defense because Joe Paduda had already devoured him prior to my arrival on the scene. I was just picking table scraps from the remnants of Joe's lunch. Paduda, who long ago set the standards for arguing with idiots (at least that is what he tells me when we are engaged in our politically opposing discourse. Not a compliment, now that I think about it), had already challenged this man's assertions, calling them "absolute nonsense".

And he was right. The defenders of physician dispensing will tell you that it is an efficient, affordable method for delivering critical medications to those who desperately need it. They are doing all of us a favor. Their intent is purely to provide outstanding medical care, and they only dispense in the best interests of their patients.

Their patients, that is, whose bills are being paid for by workers comp or liability insurance policies. All others it seems need to make that nearly fatal trek to the pharmacy. It seems altruism isn't cheap.

I am reminded in all of this of Mark Twain's assertion that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". As the debate over physician dispensing rages on, people will use all manner of fact and interpretation to make the case that supports their cause. In the end, however, the overwhelming statistics regarding this matter will rule the day, and it will not be in favor of those filling their coffers by fulfilling prescriptions.

And knowing that makes arguing with idiots all the more fun.

Comments

There have been 5 comments made!