What would be the renovation of the social security and how to operate without a system of socialized medicine?
me I have nothing against, as being a true liberal employee a false There is one thing that annoys me and that is:
To make the system even if that humanly bearable should be democratic advances of such a magnitude that is almost certain never to see the Safely.
I attending this institution for over thirty years I think it is rooted in the logic of trusteeship towards health professionals and social subjugation of the population, and is ready to share with anyone managing the system, if not formally (like popular democracy.
To Safely bearable than it would have to renounce:
1 ° his claims tutelary
2 ° In the social subjection his heirs
3 ° stop using the agent of contributors as if it were his own
4 ° To cease to see themselves as the purchaser of care for patients (it is the patients buyers Safely not care ...)
It will have to accept
1 ° be the insurer social and nothing else
2 ° be an ordinary litigant and nothing else (neither cop nor magistrate, judge or executor of his own sentences)
3 ° conclude with real people written contractual relationships that are protected from administrative decisions of circumstances regarding their treatment.
total AN END TO THE CONCEPT OF TRUST ASSURANCESOCIALE RETHINKING ON AN ACTUAL CONTRACT WITH THE PATIENT AND NOT WITH HEALTH PROFESSIONALS The insurer did not manage public health, but simply to finance I do not like some advocates that health is co-managed by the social security and other insurers INSURERS ARE JUST COLLECTING FUNDS AGENCIES TO ENSURE THE DISEASE RISK.
NOT MAKERS OF HEALTH POLICY NOT OFFICERS OR CONTROLLERS CARE.
INSURERS AND SECU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO MANAGE HEALTH.
CAN NOT BE TRIED AND ¨ REFEREE AND PART OF HIS OWN PROBLEMS.
MUST BE COMPLETELY MOUTH FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THE IMPERATIVE NEED TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH.
Only FREE practitioners under the control of their order (renovated ...) and / or committees composed of independent experts from the state and insurance funds, can provide patients with treatment decisions objective.
independence of physicians is also crucial as its judges.
This may finally go by ...
collectivized system has NEVER given to his heirs and any professional way to democratically decide how it should operate and to whose benefit.
The road to a hypothetical restoration of union and political Safely is blocked by those who think the current system and benefit those who eat them.
Safely To make a new will require that the old die
JFH
me I have nothing against, as being a true liberal employee a false There is one thing that annoys me and that is:
To make the system even if that humanly bearable should be democratic advances of such a magnitude that is almost certain never to see the Safely.
I attending this institution for over thirty years I think it is rooted in the logic of trusteeship towards health professionals and social subjugation of the population, and is ready to share with anyone managing the system, if not formally (like popular democracy.
To Safely bearable than it would have to renounce:
1 ° his claims tutelary
2 ° In the social subjection his heirs
3 ° stop using the agent of contributors as if it were his own
4 ° To cease to see themselves as the purchaser of care for patients (it is the patients buyers Safely not care ...)
It will have to accept
1 ° be the insurer social and nothing else
2 ° be an ordinary litigant and nothing else (neither cop nor magistrate, judge or executor of his own sentences)
3 ° conclude with real people written contractual relationships that are protected from administrative decisions of circumstances regarding their treatment.
total AN END TO THE CONCEPT OF TRUST ASSURANCESOCIALE RETHINKING ON AN ACTUAL CONTRACT WITH THE PATIENT AND NOT WITH HEALTH PROFESSIONALS The insurer did not manage public health, but simply to finance I do not like some advocates that health is co-managed by the social security and other insurers INSURERS ARE JUST COLLECTING FUNDS AGENCIES TO ENSURE THE DISEASE RISK.
NOT MAKERS OF HEALTH POLICY NOT OFFICERS OR CONTROLLERS CARE.
INSURERS AND SECU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO MANAGE HEALTH.
CAN NOT BE TRIED AND ¨ REFEREE AND PART OF HIS OWN PROBLEMS.
MUST BE COMPLETELY MOUTH FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THE IMPERATIVE NEED TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH.
Only FREE practitioners under the control of their order (renovated ...) and / or committees composed of independent experts from the state and insurance funds, can provide patients with treatment decisions objective.
independence of physicians is also crucial as its judges.
This may finally go by ...
collectivized system has NEVER given to his heirs and any professional way to democratically decide how it should operate and to whose benefit.
The road to a hypothetical restoration of union and political Safely is blocked by those who think the current system and benefit those who eat them.
Safely To make a new will require that the old die
JFH
0 comments:
Post a Comment