Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446138
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: OT: in favour of gradualism |
| Date | 2017-02-04 11:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <efmpjiFdvneU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <6atb9chqdcs9u4h2eo3qtgtsccdl4v0ihd@4ax.com> <efmd0sFbcgaU1@mid.individual.net> <rg0c9cdm3nksaigi9et5hj76a3f2offi0i@4ax.com> <efmhvoFcdkhU1@mid.individual.net> <al8c9ch8mq4r7ec2nfguvg5kkjrv1tcg7e@4ax.com> |
On 2017-02-04 10:52, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:40:20 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> What they would do and what they did are irrelevant. What's relevant
> is what others (including lawyers) will conjure up.
You'd have to prove kick-back to make a case out of it. To me this is
not irrelevant anyhow, I prefer to deal with professionals who have good
ethics.
... 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.
>
> Of course it should be. I have no interest in paying 100% of my
> salary in malpractice insurance.
>
Exactamente. In engineering it's the same, except it's worse. I cannot
even obtain PL insurance because of exposure to med-tech and aerospace.
Got turned down by just about any underwriter despite never having had
any claims. If I was a leaky oil tanker I guess they'd gladly insure me.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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