Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446115

Re: OT: in favour of gradualism

Show all headers | View raw

On 2017-02-04 08:36, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 08:15:37 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-02-04 07:42, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 07:21:37 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-02-03 09:38, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cultivate your medical friends. They know who is good - though it would be
>>>>>> unethical of them to say so explicitly. The English formulation was
>>>>>> "You'll get on with him (or her)". The Australian formulation was a lot
>>>>>> more direct - but we had known that particular medical friend for a very
>>>>>> long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, all of our doctors were quite happy to recommend others.  We got a
>>>>> recommendation for a pediatrician who was decidedly "old school" from my
>>>>> wife's Ob-Gyn.  She asked who he took HIS kids to!  We were concerned when
>>>>> our earlier pediatrician said "Oh, they all get that" when we had a kid who
>>>>> had persistent ear infections.  Like the car dealer who says "Oh, they all
>>>>> make that noise."  The Dr. recommended by her doctor jumped right on it, and
>>>>> figured out **I** was a staph carrier and was infecting the whole family.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, while doctors might be careful not to bad-mouth other doctors by name,
>>>>> they will happily tell you who they think are good.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Around here they usually don't. When our dentist closed his practice for
>>>> health and age reasons nobody there would give us a clear
>>>> recommendation. We had to do the long slog through reviews and asking
>>>> people, like usual.
>>>
>>> I think there is a big difference.  Doctors will recommend doctors in
>>> other specialties but usually not in their own.  My family doctor
>>> recommended many others to me (cardiologist, orthopedist,
>>> rheumatologist, etc.) but when he changed his practice to concierge
>>> medicine, he didn't give recommendations to all of his patients to go
>>> to someone else.  This may have been seen as a conflict of interest.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, but when they clearly shut down their office in order to retire,
>> what's the point? I am now at a stage myself where I gradually begin to
>> slow down my consulting so I have more time for volunteering, cycling,
>> brewing and so on. I helped some clients find suitable other engineers,
>> either as consultants or employees (sometimes conducting interviews).
>
> Unless they sell their practice to another doctor, suggesting that
> they go to some _one_ else suggests a kick-back.


They did not sell but closed down. These guys would never do the 
kick-back thing, we know the family quite well.


>                                             ... My doctor going
> concierge is essentially the same thing.  Very few of his patients
> will follow.  We would have if we could (insurance).
>
> Medical practice is quite different than engineering consulting.
>

It shouldn't be. Let's see what the next health law will bring. I sure 
hope they follow through with health savings (we already have that) and, 
therefore, more transparency WRT to billing. Tort law reform would be 
nice now that the Dems are out but I still doubt it's going to happen.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 03:39 -0800
  Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-03 04:21 -0800
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 04:57 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-03 11:38 -0600
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:21 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 10:42 -0500
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 08:15 -0800
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 11:36 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 09:40 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 13:52 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 11:50 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:31 -0500
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-04 18:04 -0600
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:33 -0500
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 05:00 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:03 -0800
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 09:35 -0700
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:10 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 17:18 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:24 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:34 -0700
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:04 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 12:07 -0800
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 14:15 -0700
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 14:02 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:19 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:36 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:46 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-04 14:56 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:17 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:55 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:26 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:35 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:44 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:42 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:56 -0500
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-05 08:14 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:56 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 14:35 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 16:43 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 17:12 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:59 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 07:40 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 12:16 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:11 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:43 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:42 -0500
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 10:05 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 10:24 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:45 -0700
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:54 -0800
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:45 -0700

csiph-web