SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (25462)3/11/2013 3:18:21 PM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 42652
 
I understand the possibility of misunderstanding. Given the newness, the licensing regs could include some language that requires NP's to be up front about the distinction, particularly as pertains to using the title, Doctor, so that patients are informed. And there could be some provision for follow-up for the first few years to monitor whether patients are informed, perhaps surveys or TV ads, or test visits to practitioners. As for supervision, that would not seem to be the best way to avoid misunderstanding. If there's a doctor hanging around, a patient might well think that both the NP and the MD are doctors. Nothing inherent to that arrangement obviates misunderstanding.



To: i-node who wrote (25462)3/11/2013 5:05:35 PM
From: skinowski  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652
 
I good paralegal could probably take care of most routine issues almost as well as a lawyer. The problem is that if we allow them to go out and freely compete, soon there would be no such thing as a general legal practice. And even I don't think it would be wise to push things THAT far..... :)

Just kidding. But, on a more serious note, if you don't know how to train good general docs, you will not have good specialists either. Why would we want to dismantle what is probably the best training system in the world? Only to accommodate a dumb government-induced dislocation? Other nations will be laughing at a us.