Best multi tool for touring

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:rcousine-69A840.20435730122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net],
> Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> >>> I did a trial for a woman who was drugged and sexually molested by
> >>> her dentist while in his treatment chair. In the course of
> >>> discovery, I met with the head of the disciplinary committee. He
> >>> said,

Boys will be boys. [UNQUOTE], and explained that the
> >>> dentist was suspended six weeks - to be served each January of two
> >>> consecutive years. The period this dentist usually went on
> >>> vacation.

> > Sandy practices and posts from a different legal jurisdiction than the
> > United States. I do not know if the same automatic penalties would
> > apply.
>
> The matter I referred to was tried in Connecticut, USA.

?!?!?! Now I just have to wonder what is going on in Connecticut.

> > I have to wonder about the idea that sexual molestation is a minor
> > disciplinary issue. On this continent, anything that met that
> > definition would involve (to make a suitable holiday reference)
> > "Scandal! And jail!"

My wife being a certified teacher in our province, she gets the
quarterly teacher's society magazine, which always has a fun section
describing recent disciplinary actions. I don't have the latest issue,
but my impression is that the local teacher's society is pretty damned
serious about dealing with incidents, though of course the involvement
of a minor always exacerbates the situation.

And for a teacher, such a blemish on the record doesn't mean just a
suspension for weeks or months, it generally means that the teacher
simply can't ever get another teaching job.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:12:44 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>?!?!?! Now I just have to wonder what is going on in Connecticut.
>
>> > I have to wonder about the idea that sexual molestation is a minor
>> > disciplinary issue. On this continent, anything that met that
>> > definition would involve (to make a suitable holiday reference)
>> > "Scandal! And jail!"
>
>My wife being a certified teacher in our province, she gets the
>quarterly teacher's society magazine, which always has a fun section
>describing recent disciplinary actions. I don't have the latest issue,
>but my impression is that the local teacher's society is pretty damned
>serious about dealing with incidents, though of course the involvement
>of a minor always exacerbates the situation.
>
>And for a teacher, such a blemish on the record doesn't mean just a
>suspension for weeks or months, it generally means that the teacher
>simply can't ever get another teaching job.

Dear Ryan,

Welcome to how "unprofessional conduct" is handled in the dental and
medical world.

Their licenses are decided on a state by state basis by boards of
medical examiners, who can do pretty much as they please, though laws
and bad publicity are gradually changing things.

The two usual arguments are that:

A) The doctor or dentist took so long to train that it would a
terrible waste of scarce resources to revoke his license just because
he's a drunk, dope fiend, or sexual predator

B) How would the poor fellow make a living without his license?

Another of my clients (as always, quite a pleasant fellow, married, a
pillar of the community, noted for his charitable work) grew
exasperated with his 22-year-old daughter recently, due to what he
considered her naive politics and choice of boyfriends.

His wife (also a doctor) was somewhat dismayed to see her husband
shouting and waving a 9mm pistol under their daughter's nose. She felt
it best to flee the house (with their daughter in tow) and to chat
with the 911 operator from a neighbor's home.

Eventually a plea bargain was worked out. (Oddly enough, the wife did
not wish to send her husband to prison.)

During sentencing, the judge was unkind enough to interrupt and deny
the defendant's noble request that his confiscated handgun be donated
to the police, but the judge had absolutely no power concerning the
defendant's license to practice medicine.

***

To be fair, the Board of Medical Examiners sometimes suspends licenses
fairly quickly. Dr. Halpin was never (whew!) one of my clients:

http://www.ago.state.co.us/press_detail.cfm?pressID=331

Halprin was convicted and sentenced to a year in jail and eight years
probation after a nurse noticed him fondling unconscious patients. The
jury did not believe Halprin's repeated claims that he was conducting
routine breast examinations of his gastroenterological patients.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Sandy]

still just me a écrit :
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:57:15 -0600, A Muzi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> The exception is the doctors, who have greatly increased their
>>> compensation by subverting the free market through a legislated
>>> monopoly. What the "medical crisis" in the US needs is some free market
>>> discipline, with medical coverage providers obtaining services on a
>>> low-bid basis, the artificial restrictions on medical school enrollment
>>> lifted and the barriers to foreign doctors obtaining US licensing removed.
>>>
>> Wow. I'm amazed we fully agree on that.
>>
>
> Those points may be valid in terms of costs, although I think there
> should be a certain "draw" of above average compensation for people
> who go into the medical field. I think it's a good thing that smart,
> talented people decide to become doctors. I don't think most people
> would be willing to put the amount of time in that doctors do in terms
> of college, med school, and required OTJ training. Ridiculous pay is
> not good, but there should be an incentive there.
>
Only in the USA and in England (so far as I know) is a medical license a
guarantee of exceptional wealth generation.
> At the same time, I think doctors costs are a small part of the cost
> problem.
The physician's fees are an index or accelerator of rises in other
medical costs. The cost of an average office visit in the USA is 5 times
the cost in France, yet people live longer in France. Go figure.
> Another major issue is the whole concept of medical
> "insurance". Insurance is supposed to be for "unexpected and
> catastrophic" loses.
No, it's not. Health insurance is an industry where the frequency and
specific costs are predicted over a broad population. Virtually nothing
is "unexpected and catastrophic" in the broader population - those are
factored into premium rates.
> Yet "medical insurance" is more of a "service
> policy". People *expect* to use medical "insurance". They point with
> glee to "insurance" policies that bring the cost of a doctors visit to
> $15, or reduce the cost common tests to $10, etc. Just where is the
> rest of the money to pay for that expense supposed to come from? It
> has to come in the form of higher rates for the service policy, er...
> medical insurance... and people wonder why it costs $10K/year for
> medical insurance.
>
>
Back to the top - the costs of physicians' services.
> If these are, in fact, just service policies, then the insurance
> company is no longer a speculator taking a risk for a potential return
> and in other types of insurance (e.g. auto, home, life, business).
>
You don't yet understand insurance. Insurance premiums are set from both
experience and anticipated loss levels, and always for a profit to the
insurer. In price wars, or after a strange and new legal interpretation,
companies fail, to the detriment of shareholders and policyholders alike.
> They become merely a processing middleman, sucking up a large
> administrative and profit cut, simply to hand back reduced dollars
> from what that people hand in. In fact, since higher dollar volumes
> dramatically increase insurance profits, spiraling medical costs are
> not an issue for them - the more dollars through the system, the more
> they profit. They do try to contain their costs to increase profits,
> but "justifiable" high cost policies based on high medical retail
> prices are of little concern to them.
>
As insurance is based on costs, so long as the cost rates are known, it
would take a really dumb actuary or underwriter to lose money. You are
right, that there is no incentive to really reduce costs, so long as
people put up with premium levels.
> Lastly, hospitals are still a big profit business, despite their
> constant pleas about costs. Check out the compensation packages of
> most Hospital CEO's (doctors) or partners (doctors) in a hospital.
> They live well.
>
Was it just you who was writing that physician income is not a major
contributor to this same effect?
> But, politically speaking, you'll find no room for any laws that
> restrict this insurance profiteering (profiteering at our expense) in
> any way.
An insurance company has a simple way of avoiding loss - they won't
write a policy.
> You won't find the political move to curtail drug companies
> over pricing to US customers. You won't find the gov't willing to use
> the leverage of Medicare to reduce pricing. You won't find any
> politicians willing to take on the AMA. You won't find them talking
> about hospital profits, only hospital "costs".
>
> Bottom line: the citizens get screwed over multi-dimensionally on this
> one.
>
>
But none of what I wrote is an apology for insurers - just helping you
get the field of play fully in view.

--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
?Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts
from reliable figures.?
Essar, E.