The medical industry is in need of disruption. Has anyone played with the idea of "seeing" a doctor located in a different country using a video app? I imagine the experience would be better than what most people deal with in the states. US doctors have too much power and they take advantage of it. A remote doctor would be under more competition and be willing to provide better service.
My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
91–100 of 245 posts
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#92What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve the problem. That's why it's a wicked problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem ) * The doctors cannot be blamed because they want to protect themselves (e.g. see the insane amounts of insurance required to practice medicine in the US to guard agains…
One solution might be to create a small number of standard documents. Then trusted experts could certify a few (like the UL seal of approval on electronics), and people could just ask the receptionist if their document has such an endorsement.
Another would be to create a consumer protection law that prohibits doctors' offices from doing certain things even if patients explicitly signed those rights away.
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
The writing on the paper do. If they didn't check it was unmodified and went ahead, it seems the problem is theirs.
I'm not an expert on contract law, but I'm fairly sure that one party modifying a contract without the other person's notice or consent does not make the modifications legally binding, which is why you do need to get the other party to initial changes you've made. A contract is a physical expression legal agreement which both parties are supposed to know about, it's not a magical piece of paper which enforces whateve…
So if I don't know what's on the paper because no one has made sure that I do then I still can be upheld on what I signed but if the guy who gave me paper to sign doesn't know what's on the paper because he didn't notice my changes then he can't be liable?
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#94It's not exactly an isolated case. When I turned 18 I was presented with the same document. To my mother's dismay, I pointed out the flaws and then marked in the necessary negatives in pen to render the document useless before signing it. Since the other party (a member with legal power at the clinic) did not sign after me, I'm not sure the form is actually binding on either of us. Could somebody clarify what precede…
You can agree to something through your actions regardless of whether you've signed something. If you are presented with a contract, don't raise any objections but don't sign it but then both parties act as if they'd accepted it (for instance you pay some money, they give you a thing), then it's likely that you'll both be deemed to be bound by the contract. In this instance by presenting you with the form they likely…
Wha?
My old employer had a "non-compete" contract they wanted new hires to sign along with the rest of the employment contracts. The stipulations were basically that you couldn't work for any competitor within a year of leaving employment with them.
I disagreed with it on principle and signed the rest of the paperwork, but not that one, and no one ever mentioned it.
Now you're saying that I am bound by a contract I did not accept? How's that make sense? What about Kevin Smith at Paisley Park?
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#95What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve the problem. That's why it's a wicked problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem ) * The doctors cannot be blamed because they want to protect themselves (e.g. see the insane amounts of insurance required to practice medicine in the US to guard agains…
Mostly agree. Except, the politicians ARE to blame! We need spined, "sensical" statesmen leading our government to workable solutions, not self-fish, egotistical wimps working towards "getting the meanest/loudest 'animal(s)' off our backs and getting re-elected".
Tort reform is where I would start if I was working towards a solution. Tort reform is often not done because 90% (pulled from the air based on recollections of other vague memories of articles and statistics) of politicians are lawyers! This is also why I laws are so horrifically written with legalese making it next to impossible for a layman to understand. Returning to Common Law (over statutory laws) and trials with citizen juries would do wonders for dispensing "justice" the way "the people" see right and fit.
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#96What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve the problem. That's why it's a wicked problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem ) * The doctors cannot be blamed because they want to protect themselves (e.g. see the insane amounts of insurance required to practice medicine in the US to guard agains…
One solution might be to create a small number of standard documents. Then trusted experts could certify a few (like the UL seal of approval on electronics), and people could just ask the receptionist if their document has such an endorsement. Another would be to create a consumer protection law that prohibits doctors' offices from doing certain things even if patients explicitly signed those rights away.
I believe there are already standard documents, e.g. the huge binder the receptionist was referring to in the OP certified by a few "trusted experts", i.e. lawyers. The question is by whom are these experts trusted, which in practice means who employs them. How would people get a list of these experts (government intervention?)
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I the first time I closed on a house, realizing ten minutes in that either I was going to be signing contracts without reading them, or everyone was going to be sitting around watching me read for three hours. There's a lot of pressure in a situation like that, even though I try never to sign anything without reading it.
In germany for certain contracts (such as buying a house or creating a LLC) it's required that a notary reads them aloud for you. That's quite a bit of fun if the contract contains annotations that make it fill a binder. There are some loopholes though: The contract may refer to another document that the notary may read to his assistant, so not everybody has to go through the whole ordeal.
Seems like that could leave a nice side effect of shortening contracts.
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
It must have gotten to the point by now that the mere length of a privacy policy, or EULA, is enough to convince the court that there effectively is no policy or no agreement, signed, seal broken or not.
Either way because it's a License and not a Contract, by default you have no rights to use the software.
I'm not aware of the current state of the law regarding software, but the interpretation of copyright that requires a license before the work can even be used for its intended purpose strikes me as unproductive and counterintuitive. What is the point of all the law surrounding authorized distribution if distribution doesn't implicitly grant the legitimate recipient the right to use the work (e.g. book, movie, or application) as it was designed to be used?
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#99If anyone is ever wondering why nerds never rule the world, this is a perfect example of why. Pedantry is the brakes that the universe puts on the very smart to stop them acquiring too much power.
nerds do rule the world
Not that I really disagree with you, but to wax platonic, maybe that the people who both rule the world and are nerds aren't really acting as perfect nerds as they rule the world?
Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can agree to something through your actions regardless of whether you've signed something. If you are presented with a contract, don't raise any objections but don't sign it but then both parties act as if they'd accepted it (for instance you pay some money, they give you a thing), then it's likely that you'll both be deemed to be bound by the contract. In this instance by presenting you with the form they likely…
Wha? My old employer had a "non-compete" contract they wanted new hires to sign along with the rest of the employment contracts. The stipulations were basically that you couldn't work for any competitor within a year of leaving employment with them. I disagreed with it on principle and signed the rest of the paperwork, but not that one, and no one ever mentioned it. Now you're saying that I am bound by a contract I d…
Standard, IANAL and TINLA, plus things will depend on where you are.
But my guess is that probably no - you signed everything else but not that - that's not acting as if you agreed to something, that's acting in a way that differentiates that document.
Had you signed nothing (that is treated everything the same) but carried out your duties, accepted pay and so on then you're more likely to have been bound by it along with everything else.
Ideally of course you would have stated clearly that you weren't signing it - it's still a bit ambiguous - though the overriding thing is that it's normally too expensive and too much effort for companies to enforce them anyway, especially if there is ambiguity.
Worth noting that in a lot of countries (for instance the UK and I believe the EU generally), non-compete clauses, certainly the generic sweeping ones, usually aren't binding as they're a restraint of trade and therefore violate competition law.