No More Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General?

That's the word on the street. The poor guy would have had to take a massive pay cut.

Hmm...do folks think this is a good or a bad thing?

More like this

Can we please stop claiming that prices and wages are determined by the invisible hand? This supposed inscrutable force is often quite scrutable and goes by the name power. Consider this hate email liberal activist David Sirota received after a TV appearance (boldface original): I made a simple…
This chart shows that the economy is almost back to normal.  Just a little farther to go, then the mission will have been accomplished. What is odd about this, is that it excludes income from capital gains.  I suspect that the income disparity would be even greater, if capital gains were…
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had…
The largest political battle, barring something really stupid coming along, in the next few months will be over the attempt to raise the federal debt limit. While it sounds boring, it's critical to every budget item, including science funding. Without increasing the federal debt limit, the U.S.…

As much as I am not a fan of Michael Moore, Sanjay's intellectually dishonest take-down of him was beyond the pale. So I say, good thing.

I'm betting on irony.

One of the more ironic things I can think of is Gupta turning down Surgeon General because it would be a pay cut, followed by CNN laying him off as part of budget cutting.

I'm quoting here - "Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General is like Judge Judy for the Supreme Court." And I agree. He didn't have the chops for the job.

There is something about this that just does not make sense.

Surely Gupta knew that he would have to take a pay cut when he was first offered the job.

So why didn't he decline then?

I don't believe this was Gupta's choice.

This sounds too much like the "I stepped down to spend more time with my family" excuse that people give when they are fired.

There are some senators who are opposed to Gupta as surgeon general.

finally, I'm not sure if Gupta appreciates it or not, but he just reinforced the stereotype of a doctor who is more concerned with his pay than his patients.

Any way you look at it, Gupta does not have what it takes to be Surgeon General.

By Dark Tent (not verified) on 05 Mar 2009 #permalink

I am fairly neutral. But they need to look for a candidate who has Gupta's PR credentials and has good communications skills.

Given the ongoing demonstration of stupidity exhibited by Dr. Guptas' fellow neurosurgeon, Dr. Egnor, maybe the choice of someone from that particular specialty was a bit unfortunate.

Almost everyone who accepts a cabinet position, senate seat, or some other public service leadership appointment takes an enormous pay cut. Note that the one spreading the rumor about his being concerned about the pay cut also has a horse in the race ("Farrell said he would prefer the eventual nominee come from within the ranks of the Commissioned Corps"). Maybe it had nothing to do with money. Maybe Dr. Gupta just realized that the Surgeon General position is a powerless position where the holder of the job resides in some back woods where nobody pays attention to them. Perhaps he concluded that he could have more influence if he continued as a media personality.

On the other hand, his name recognition and general popularity might have given him the chance to be the Carl Sagan of medicine, a good communicator who gets ink and respect.

By Hedley Lamarr (not verified) on 06 Mar 2009 #permalink