 |
2016-01-27 02:40:43 I was made ●●●●●●ant two ●●●●●● ago ●●●●●● codes for ●●●●●●cy ●●●●●● In order to get the bill ●●●●●●, ●●●●●●ls made many big ●●●●●●sions to ●●●●●●zed ●●●●●●ne. One was ●●●●●●g the “fee-for-●●●●●●e” ●●●●●●t ●●●●●●, which we still have today, in which ●●●●●●s bill M●●●●●●e (and ●●●●●●e ●●●●●●nce ●●●●●●ies and ●●●●●●red ●●●●●●ts) ●●●●●●ing to every ●●●●●● ●●●●●●e or ●●●●●●ure they ●●●●●●m. A●●●●●● was that M●●●●●●e ●●●●●●ed to pay ●●●●●●ians the “usual, ●●●●●●ary and ●●●●●●able” rate for each of those ●●●●●●es. One of the ●●●●●●ms that ●●●●●●y arose was that there was no ●●●●●●ark for what was “usual” or “●●●●●●able,” no ●●●●●●ally ●●●●●●ed ●●●●●●rd for “●●●●●●ary” for the price of each ●●●●●●dual ●●●●●●e or ●●●●●●ure. Prices, ●●●●●●●●●●●●ly, began to ●●●●●●ket. ●●●●●●ns good or bad That will only make Rajan's job more ●●●●●●ult ●●●●●●●●●●●●res to ●●●●●● ●●●●●●ion, such as ●●●●●●g ●●●●●●st rates,could at the same time ●●●●●●ine ●●●●●●ic ●●●●●●, ●●●●●●●●●●●●ned and ●●●●●●g at a ●●●●●● low. |