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

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446201

Re: OT: in favour of gradualism

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 11:50:22 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>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.

How tall are you?  3'4"?

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