Re: NY OPMC Vetoes
Neurolyme_at_HotMail.com
Date: 12/18/04
- Next message: Martijn: "Minocycline"
- Previous message: Martijn: "Re: Medical Advice"
- In reply to: GregGerber_at_hotmail.com: "Re: NY OPMC Vetoes"
- Next in thread: pmerv_at_direcway.com: "Re: NY OPMC Vetoes"
- Reply: pmerv_at_direcway.com: "Re: NY OPMC Vetoes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Dec 2004 09:47:19 -0800
The point is that the majority of the callers had no idea what the bill
is about. Or the other issues you mention. And further embarrassed
themselves and the Lyme community. It is the responsibility of the
advocates to properly represent the bill. You know that any dissenters
are vilified. You know that attacks were made on prominent Albany
figures. You as an individual had to do considerable research in
order to learn the issues you mention below.
GregGerber@hotmail.com wrote:
> derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com wrote:
> WHY then...was it that all the "action
> > alerts"..."PUHLEEZE call and write Guv till you drop" went out...
>
>
> Derdrittemen, I can't say that I am in agreement with your criticism.
>
> One may have problems with the bill for all kinds of reasons. These
> include the fact that it was not Lyme specific, it went against the
> grain of the broader patient rights movement, and it bound Lyme
> patients to FAIM, an alternative medicine group. One may have felt
the
> bill did not protect Lyme doctors sufficiently. One could
legitimately
> object to any law that makes it more difficult to discipline
> incompetent doctors without at least, at the same time, removing the
> cloak of secrecy around the processs. As a patient, it is possible to
> see the trial lawyer as the last bastion of your right to fight the
> powerful --and trial lawyers mightily objected here. There are all
> kinds of reasons one could argue against this legislation and all
kinds
> of arguments for it, as well. It is an interesting and useful debate.
>
> BUT if you support the bill the last minute jockying is
understandable,
> especially for those who hope to negotiate passage of a similar bill
> next session --EVEN if they knew the bill was going down now. At
least,
> this is the way I see it. It is not a time-limited effort, but a
long,
> multi-year effort for the passage of any legislation.
>
> There may be much to discuss regarding the wisdom of the bill yea or
> nay, but for those who liked the bill, calling the governor at the
zero
> hour seems an appropriate strategy to me. The show of support is
useful
> moving into next year. Why not discuss the substance of the bill
itself
> instead of accusing people who support it of nefarious motives? This
is
> starting to sound like you are proposing a conspiracy smongst the
Lyme
> patient leadership --and I would shy away from those suggestions, as
> they are without proof and unhelpful. As you know, conspiracy
theories
> of any kind will not move us forward here. From my vantage point,
this
> thinking is off the mark and without substantive backing. I'm not
> understanding why this is a useful discussion and is taking
precedence
> over discussion of the subtance of the legislation itself.
> Gregory Gerber
- Next message: Martijn: "Minocycline"
- Previous message: Martijn: "Re: Medical Advice"
- In reply to: GregGerber_at_hotmail.com: "Re: NY OPMC Vetoes"
- Next in thread: pmerv_at_direcway.com: "Re: NY OPMC Vetoes"
- Reply: pmerv_at_direcway.com: "Re: NY OPMC Vetoes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|