All we hear about is that the Republican running for Senate in district 8 is a doctor. Dr. Z or Brian Zehnder MD. The label isn’t something the voting population is giving him; it is all he says about himself! Go to a meet the candidate’s event and see that he puts his degree out for display, read his campaign material to find “doctor” is on everything, greet him at your door or in debates and watch for a stethoscope hanging over greens. Listen to a famous tagline where he suggests our legislature needs a doctor in their ranks.
For a minute let’s give him benefit of the doubt accepting a deficiency in the Senate is that we don’t have enough medical representation. Who then would we want? My argument is that it would be at a minimum an average individual. I would hope that it was someone of extraordinary caliber respected by peers and community. Unfortunately, we don’t get either with our current candidate. Let me explain.
I have nothing against a physician who elects to go into family medicine, yet we know these doctors generally aren’t those who ranked high in their class. That’s not the point, however. Within the group of family practitioners, we could still have someone who stands out as wanting to dedicate themselves through personality traits suited for this specialty. We can assume that here.
I have found online reviews to be more generous to the medical industry than other professions. When we find negative ratings in the medical field, it usually shows a higher level of frustration. Rather than letting this candidate bask in his sunlight sharing the value of his experience, let’s do some digging for ourselves. Google search “HealthGrades.” On this physician rating site, you will find that he has earned 1.8 stars (note by taking off his staffs higher rating averaged in, it would be even lower). Also, note that nearly all other doctors in the same specialty have 4-5 star ratings. Remember that we wanted at least an average person? His ratings not only fall short of that but there is also information suggesting he is only “fair” on trustworthiness and maintains a paltry sixteen percent willingness to refer business to his practice. I can’t even think of the last time I heard someone say they wouldn’t refer their doctor!
Don’t stop here; it could be that this site has been unfair in characterizing who he is. Now search “Vitals.” You will quickly see that in this doctor review site he has seven one star ratings. The one-star ratings come out of seventeen or every four of ten respondents. That’s not good! It doesn’t stop with mere ratings but contains titles such as, “Avoid this doctor if at all possible,” or “Horrible!!” Did you see, “This practice doesn’t have the best service or care, “ or Will never be seen by this man again.” Search “Intermountain.” They are the larger group along the Wasatch Front. In this site, you will see the same information portraying someone who perhaps shouldn’t be so active in using a single identifier for who they are. On Intermountain’s site, we see right off, “I don’t feel he know what to do.”
Argue these sites haven’t been fair to him. Have you seen reports from those who have worked for him.” An Endo tech wrote, “I wouldn’t trust him with my life or anyone else’s.” You don’t have to go far to find enough information to suggest we must do better. We haven’t even begun to talk about the myriad of reasons beyond his arrogant self-portrayal we should be concerned with as we seek who to support as our representative.
(Brain beat me in our election. I came to know him better than the electorate and want people to know who he is. I am likely to post more as time goes on wanting to shed greater detail on what I know. He is good at labeling having called me a “high-density developer” on his campaign material. This isn’t sour grapes! These are reasons I ran. He shouldn’t be on the hill)