J
Joel M . Eichen
Guest
Jan Drew take note!
On 5 Mar 2004 10:27:56 -0800, [email protected] (Bill Combs) wrote:
>[email protected] (Alexander Vasserman DDS., BS.) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> They have changed the exam completely since 1992. If your cousin has been practicing for more
>> than 5 years he/she can apply for licensure by credentials if there is reciprocity between
>> California and New York. You will need to check on this. If not your cousin is out of luck for
>> now and will have to take the boards again. And if that is the case you can thank ADA and state
>> components for not doing anything about this. They just like to take your dues and party.
>
>
>OH, hogwash.
>
>First, the state laws in California are not made by the dental association. They are made by
>inexperienced, uneducated legislators who would make every dentist in the state a public servant at
>LESS than minimum wage if they had their way.
>
>If you really doubt that they want you to work for LESS than minimum wage, just check out the
>current Denti-Cal fees. And after you're done laughing, consider the fact that the state is SERIOUS
>about this. They even have a proposal to CUT these inadequate rates by another 10%.
>
>Want to know why you are NOT required to print up and give every patient a copy of the "New,
>improved" version of the Dental Materials Fact Sheet? (Better known in its proposed Dec. 2003
>incarnation as the "Looney Tunes Dental Material Propaganda Sheet.)
>
>Well, if you haven't read the news, it's because the California Dental Association organized
>thousands of dentists in the state to write to the Board and insist that the new "DMFS" be based
>upon science, not upon the politics of a couple of political Board appointees.
>
>In addition, dental researchers were contacted by the CDA regarding the proposed DMFS in
>California. These researchers were amazed that a legislative body would seriously consider
>publishing the nonsense on the proposed sheet, let alone forcing every California dentist to push
>unscientific political propaganda upon every patient in the state. These scientists sent the Board
>their objections in writing.
>
>Inundated with these letters, the Board wisely decided to table the proposed DMFS.
>
>ALSO: Did you have to pay the California Prop. 65 fines, calculated at something like
>$2500 per DAY?
>
>What, you didn't have to pay them?
>
>Thank the CDA again.
>
>- dentaldoc
--
Joel M. Eichen, . Philadelphia PA
DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:
*********
Dental health-related material is provided for information purposes only and does not necessarily
represent endorsement by or an official position of the SciMedDentistry gang or any other official
agency either actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.
Advice on the treatment or care of an individual patient should be obtained through consultation
with a dentist who has examined that patient or is familiar with that patient's dental history.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER
On 5 Mar 2004 10:27:56 -0800, [email protected] (Bill Combs) wrote:
>[email protected] (Alexander Vasserman DDS., BS.) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> They have changed the exam completely since 1992. If your cousin has been practicing for more
>> than 5 years he/she can apply for licensure by credentials if there is reciprocity between
>> California and New York. You will need to check on this. If not your cousin is out of luck for
>> now and will have to take the boards again. And if that is the case you can thank ADA and state
>> components for not doing anything about this. They just like to take your dues and party.
>
>
>OH, hogwash.
>
>First, the state laws in California are not made by the dental association. They are made by
>inexperienced, uneducated legislators who would make every dentist in the state a public servant at
>LESS than minimum wage if they had their way.
>
>If you really doubt that they want you to work for LESS than minimum wage, just check out the
>current Denti-Cal fees. And after you're done laughing, consider the fact that the state is SERIOUS
>about this. They even have a proposal to CUT these inadequate rates by another 10%.
>
>Want to know why you are NOT required to print up and give every patient a copy of the "New,
>improved" version of the Dental Materials Fact Sheet? (Better known in its proposed Dec. 2003
>incarnation as the "Looney Tunes Dental Material Propaganda Sheet.)
>
>Well, if you haven't read the news, it's because the California Dental Association organized
>thousands of dentists in the state to write to the Board and insist that the new "DMFS" be based
>upon science, not upon the politics of a couple of political Board appointees.
>
>In addition, dental researchers were contacted by the CDA regarding the proposed DMFS in
>California. These researchers were amazed that a legislative body would seriously consider
>publishing the nonsense on the proposed sheet, let alone forcing every California dentist to push
>unscientific political propaganda upon every patient in the state. These scientists sent the Board
>their objections in writing.
>
>Inundated with these letters, the Board wisely decided to table the proposed DMFS.
>
>ALSO: Did you have to pay the California Prop. 65 fines, calculated at something like
>$2500 per DAY?
>
>What, you didn't have to pay them?
>
>Thank the CDA again.
>
>- dentaldoc
--
Joel M. Eichen, . Philadelphia PA
DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:
*********
Dental health-related material is provided for information purposes only and does not necessarily
represent endorsement by or an official position of the SciMedDentistry gang or any other official
agency either actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.
Advice on the treatment or care of an individual patient should be obtained through consultation
with a dentist who has examined that patient or is familiar with that patient's dental history.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER