Re: Dr. Goldberg in it for the money???

[Guest guest]

What money? You can't make money at the rates that he charges divided by the

length of time that he sees patients. He's got 4 employees to pay, an office

to support and malpractice. You do the math folks. Kathy -NNY

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2001 9:29:34 AM Central Standard Time,

JOSKAT95@... writes:

> What money? You can't make money at the rates that he charges divided by the

> length of time that he sees patients. He's got 4 employees to pay, an

> office

>

I do not believe that Dr. Goldberg is working for free. Nor would I expect

him to. Good golly! Everyone works for money. The trick is to make a

living at something you believe in. I do believe that Dr. G does this. That

is wonderful.

My sincere hope in is that NO ONE hopes to make big PROFITS off of

caring physicians and desperate parents. This seems to happen quite a bit in

the autism world. I have higher expectations for .

[Guest guest]

,

I think that we can assure you that big profits are not now and have never

been an issue! Kathy -NNY

[Guest guest]

>After being involved with the DAN >protocol and DAN doctors for several >years

prior to seeing Dr. Goldberg, I >can tell you that his rates are quite

>reasonable, even modes

I am sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear when I asked

this question. I didn't mean Goldberg's personal

care fees. They seem to be about the same range

as some DAN doctors and after all, he is

providing a service.

When I asked if it was about money, I asked

it in reference to a statement that a list

member made that the protocol would not be

made available to lay people (which means

patients) and would only be made available

to other doctors after they " receive training " .

(i.e., pay money)

It is my understanding that doctors DO share

protocols all the time- even to those who do

not have specific training - without requiring

more than " at cost " fees (i.e. photocopying and mailing)

[Guest guest]

I will comment on this also. I find it hard to

believe that Dr. G charges $145 for a 10 minute phone

call. How can he not make money?

He is booked out months in advance, we would not do

this if it was not profitable.

--- whcmccain@... wrote:

> In a message dated 12/13/2001 9:29:34 AM Central

> Standard Time,

> JOSKAT95@... writes:

>

>

> > What money? You can't make money at the rates that

> he charges divided by the

> > length of time that he sees patients. He's got 4

> employees to pay, an

> > office

> >

>

> I do not believe that Dr. Goldberg is working for

> free. Nor would I expect

> him to. Good golly! Everyone works for money. The

> trick is to make a

> living at something you believe in. I do believe

> that Dr. G does this. That

> is wonderful.

>

> My sincere hope in is that NO ONE hopes to make

> big PROFITS off of

> caring physicians and desperate parents. This seems

> to happen quite a bit in

> the autism world. I have higher expectations for

> .

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

=====

Bell

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

,

Where did you get the information that we were setting fees for training?

That is not a decision that has been worked out yet. It really is not

responsible to be starting rumors. Kathy -NNY

[Guest guest]

Sorry, . I did misunderstand your point. I, too, would welcome a

written protocol. Of course I couldn't do anything with it as I could not

order lab tests or write prescriptions, but it would be nice to have a

better understanding of his approach. It would also allow me to talk more

intelligently to Dr. Goldberg about my son's treatment and to talk more

knowledgeably with my son's pediatrician when I need her involvement.

My guess is that there is no malevolent reason for not publishing this other

than limited resources of the very dedicated people involved.

Re: Dr. Goldberg in it for the money???

>After being involved with the DAN >protocol and DAN doctors for several

>years prior to seeing Dr. Goldberg, I >can tell you that his rates are

quite

>reasonable, even modes

I am sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear when I asked

this question. I didn't mean Goldberg's personal

care fees. They seem to be about the same range

as some DAN doctors and after all, he is

providing a service.

When I asked if it was about money, I asked

it in reference to a statement that a list

member made that the protocol would not be

made available to lay people (which means

patients) and would only be made available

to other doctors after they " receive training " .

(i.e., pay money)

It is my understanding that doctors DO share

protocols all the time- even to those who do

not have specific training - without requiring

more than " at cost " fees (i.e. photocopying and mailing)

[Guest guest]

> Where did you get the information that >we were setting fees for training?

>That is not a decision that has been >worked out yet. It really is not

>responsible to be starting rumors. Kathy

Lordy. First, I don't appreciate the implication that I am

spreading rumours. If you feel I am doing so, please

state why. If I am simply misinformed, then all you

have to do is set me straight- especially since it was

*YOU* that lead me to believe that. Spreading rumours

is not the same thing as being misinformed especially

since there is no malicious intent on my part.

No need to attack me personally.

Secondly, *what* is not a decision that has been

worked out yet?

The decision to impose a fee or how much a fee to impose

, both? or neither and I am completely clueless?

Since one poster specifically asked how much training and

time will be involved to which she got a response to the list

of " those details are being worked out " , I can see how

I concluded that yes, fees are currently being set but the

specifics on how much is not yet set.

I realise that information sharing does frequently cost money

to the person sharing the information (in processing , etc)

It would be unfair to expect a total *free* transfer of information

because the cost of transfering that information does have to

come from somewhere. It is the amount of fee that I was

concerned about.

[Guest guest]

I completely agree.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:16:21 -0500 " Connie " <craji@...> writes:

> Sorry, . I did misunderstand your point. I, too, would welcome

> a

> written protocol. Of course I couldn't do anything with it as I

> could not

> order lab tests or write prescriptions, but it would be nice to have

> a

> better understanding of his approach. It would also allow me to

> talk more

> intelligently to Dr. Goldberg about my son's treatment and to talk

> more

> knowledgeably with my son's pediatrician when I need her

> involvement.

>

> My guess is that there is no malevolent reason for not publishing

> this other

> than limited resources of the very dedicated people involved.

>

>

>

> Re: Dr. Goldberg in it for the money???

>

>

>

> >After being involved with the DAN >protocol and DAN doctors for

> several

> >years prior to seeing Dr. Goldberg, I >can tell you that his rates

> are

> quite

> >reasonable, even modes

>

> I am sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear when I asked

> this question. I didn't mean Goldberg's personal

> care fees. They seem to be about the same range

> as some DAN doctors and after all, he is

> providing a service.

>

> When I asked if it was about money, I asked

> it in reference to a statement that a list

> member made that the protocol would not be

> made available to lay people (which means

> patients) and would only be made available

> to other doctors after they " receive training " .

> (i.e., pay money)

>

> It is my understanding that doctors DO share

> protocols all the time- even to those who do

> not have specific training - without requiring

> more than " at cost " fees (i.e. photocopying and mailing)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2001 9:11:21 PM Central Standard Time,

JOSKAT95@... writes:

> Where did you get the information that we were setting fees for training?

> That is not a decision that has been worked out yet. It really is not

>

Kathy,

I believe we got this impression from one of your posts. When you talk about

" only giving the protocol packets to doctors after they have received

training " there is an implication that a fee will be involved. None of us

are naive enough to think that you can train a bunch of doctors for free.

[Guest guest]

,

Actually you can. There are a number of relationships that are possible and

we have not settled on any one yet. Kathy -NNY

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/2001 1:12:16 PM Central Standard Time,

JOSKAT95@... writes:

> Actually you can. There are a number of relationships that are possible and

>

Sorry, Kathy. I have forgotten what we were talking about. Can you refresh

my memory? Thanks.

[Guest guest]

,

The question was regarding if training would have a fee attached to it and that

decision

has not yet been made. There are other relationships and structures that we

are considering. Kathy -NNY