Indeed.
And as I have already said, no-one has explained to me how anything other
than level one can be imposed on the profession against our united will.
Fund-holding has shown just how easy it is to screw up the system by not
being meticulous about paperwork. If we just bin demands for activity,
business plans, quarterly reviews etc., it is hard to see how the HA's are
going to do anything about it.
As Ahmad says, if we merely acquiesce, (sorry Drag, I mean be pro-active
and lead rather than be led), we are playing into their hands. They could
try to force us by refusing re-imbursements etc..what would the profession
do then?...would they make a stand or not? And if not, will anyone explain
to me how that will *not* be acquiescence?
Graham Balin (dangerous)
"A little learning is a dangerous thing"
----------
> From: Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Of Luddites and Martyrs
> Date: 20 March 1998 14:37
>
> On 03/20/98 08:17:36, Drag Crnomarkovic <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >I see where you are coming from,but I'm more of the school of thought
that
> >says we should be leading rather than being led.In other words,accept
that
> >change is taking place and play a proactive part in shaping future
> >developments.
>
> That's a funny way to start 'leading' by 'accepting' what we don't know
> yet whether it is acceptable!!
>
> Ahmad
> (now, where is that spine that used to run down my back?)
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Dr Ahmad Risk
> http://www.cybermedic.org
> Chairman British Healthcare Internet Association <http://www.bhia.org>
> Director Internet Healthcare Coalition - USA <http://www.ihc.net>
>
> Home: +44 1273 724866/748198
> Work: +44(1737)240022 Fax: +44 1737 244660
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|