Phil Armitage wrote:I must confess I don't know. Being a hick from the sticks I'd venture to guess maybe it's an uppity elitist word learned at Yale:rolleyes:
George

George Geist wrote:
From the Latin, delimitare, as in, to fix or define the limits of a thing.

To say we will limit something suggests a minimum/maximum value. To say we delimit something defines that minimum/maximum value.

The speakers point was that the G20 has created a cooperative document that has no limits of potential application. In his view, yet another step towards nationalizing business on a global scale.

Same thing happened in 1933 when a young Austrian came to power in Europe during a time of similar, significant recession.

The news of mankind never changes; only the names, but for most under the age of 40, everything is new and history is a myth told by old men and whining women who are 'out of touch' with today's needs.

And so the shell game continues, generation to generation, typically until the 5th generation of man, wherefore...

"... all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."



Cheers,
Mark

Rick Burten wrote:
All of this may become moot. He's trying to make "nice" with people who only want our death while he scales back our defense. He's painting a big target on us. He might just get us killed before this is over.

I can attest to an unsettling experience regarding licensing and how it is enforced. In my state of Virginia, my practice is inspected every three years by a representative of the State Board of Pharmacy. This ensures that records are kept in a standard manner, medications are not out of date, controlled substances are accounted for, and my continuing education is current. I have no problem with my inspections and am friends with my inspector after only a couple of inspections as I fully comply and the visit is always pleasant and informative for us both.
I had the 'misfortune' to testify as an expert witness in a trial out of my home state where the practices are not routinely inspected. The records I reviewed were very poor ad very little actual medical information was available. Medications used were not adequately identified as to amounts given or even regular intervals of times given. Even animal identifications were difficult to ascertain at times. If my records were kept in this fashion in Virginia I would be subject to some severe fines and likely license suspension. If I persisted in this mockery of record keeping I would have my license revoked. This is what can happen if licensing is not policed in the face of educated 'professionals' who have not only graduated from accredited veterinary schools but have been in practice for many years.
When licensing and its oversight is properly done it can be quite beneficial to the general public as I have seen in my practice. After having been exposed to what can happen when it is not properly administered, I will welcome my inspector even more favorably than I have before.
The problem as has been pointed out in a couple of posts is that the general public has to be harmed by these 'professionals' sometimes more than once before they realize they have been duped and injured. With no licensing and enforcement, they must rely on the court system and pay to hire an attorney to find a solution for the situation that has been created to their detriment.

Doc,
I understand how you feel towards inspections and such. But and this is a big one, it would make far more sense for a certifying agency to perform these inspections rather than the state. It would run nearly the same way except their would be limited bureaucracy and waste, and tx payers would not have to be forced to pay for such waste. Plus their would be no threat of force. One would risk losing his certification if they were not in compliance. In so doing would risk losing his insurance and customer base. A certifying agency would be able to better educate the public and have better transparency.

Certification done properly is the answer to the stone aged machine of government bureaucratic intervention in the market place.

I certainly agree that a certifying agency would be preferable. The medical profession does get government intervention due to public safety concerns so this will likely remain this way. It can be a bit imposing as one can be fined, lose your license to practice and imprisoned if this is deemed appropriate. Fines and license suspension can be done before court intervention (much like the IRS way of doing business) so there is considerable pressure to be in compliance. Fortunately, I have not had a problem in dealing with the Board of Pharmacy and they have always been professional and friendly in my dealings with them.

mwmyersdvm wrote:
Good to hear!