Sermo Doc 1, That's TOTALLY crazy, like 99% of both house's bills. However, that only applies to "qualified" plans that meet the government's criteria for the tax-financed or employer-mandated plans. Other plans will still be "legal," but to avoid double-paying, you'll have to take the religious exemption(!). I don't know about you, but pretty much everything in these tributes to demogogy is against my religion. - Dan
status change deadline extended to March 17, 2010. You can still opt out but it will be effective 01/01/10 so if you see any pt now, and opt out, you will not be paid.
Sermo Doc 3 (and everyone else), YES, I intended it for the public domain. Please feel free to use it as needed. And thanks for the positive comments. - Dan
Sermo Doc 9 & Revolutionmd, I agree it's on the long side -- feel free to prune it as needed. On the other hand, one of the fundamental maxims of marketing is "The more your tell, the more you sell"... - Dan
Far too long and weirdly reminiscent of Peter Finch in "Network."
I definitely agree with the central sentiment, but I'd adopt a much more neutral tone and make it two paragraphs: one to define the problem and one to tell patients what to do next.
If you define your problem right, your readers will get mad on your behalf. You don't need to tell them to get mad.
I agree with pruning the letter as Sermo Doc 12 suggests. If there are enough physicians dropping Medicare at this time, and willing to participate, consider a joint letter as a full page ad in the NYtimes. Liberal bias of the publication aside, the letter would make a splash if a large number of MDs signed. Unfortunately, I am in an academic practice (and not the Mayo) and have no decision making authority in regard to my accepted plans/insurances/fees ect.
Outstanding letter. I would make it a bit shorter. I would sign a letter like this if sent to several major newspapers--i.e. NY Times, Boston Globe, SF papers etc...
encourage everyone to cut and paste under your own letter head (is that ok Dan Jones?)
I definitely agree with the central sentiment, but I'd adopt a much more neutral tone and make it two paragraphs: one to define the problem and one to tell patients what to do next.
If you define your problem right, your readers will get mad on your behalf. You don't need to tell them to get mad.